Postman Synthesis

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

by Neil Postman, ©1992

                In his book, Technopoly, Neil Postman paints a picture of a world that is consumed with the consumption of technology and efficiency at all costs. He coins the phrase to describe this disregard for the historical context of our culture and world “Technopoly,” and throughout his writing warns readers of the detriments that technology will bring to America, as well as a total loss of our historical roots and the future of our society and values. The creation of practically everything is questioned by Postman, and the benefits and costs of the technologies we now enjoy. The theme of morality and religion versus science and technology is recurrent throughout his writing, as Postman feels that these driving principles are mutually exclusive. As one reads “Technopoly,” the credibility of Postman and his critique of our present culture and country are progressively lost as a dismal theme develops that cultivates the idea that technology has overtaken the human race and controls us as mindless followers of the evils that technology has brought upon us.

                The first chapter of the book retells the story written by Plato of King Thamus who exhibits a level of caution and sobriety that is a characterization of many great leaders as he is looking upon the many inventions of Theuth, and is often mistaken for pessimism and narrow-mindedness in the face of new technologies and concepts that Theuth presents to the King for his approval. However, in the mind of Thamus, he truly felt that is judgment was a rational decision at the time, and focused primarily on the cost of technology in this instance. Postman bases the first part of his book on this ancient tale and makes the case that we should be more like King Thamus and examine the many costs of technology. As rational-thinking humans, we know that although technology has downfalls, it is ultimately a way to improve the quality of our lives’ in almost every way. Postman, however, presents the argument that all of us who reside in a Technopoly do not have the capacity or ability to make sound decisions regarding the adoption and utilization of technology.

The historical context of cultural progression through time is classified by Postman into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies (Postman, 1992), therefore we can say that technocracies arise from tool-using cultures. In his book, Postman gives a brief history of the evolution of the United States from the tool-using culture that we once were in Europe, to our migration across the Atlantic to become a technocracy, obviously before our current state of technopoly. The reading implicates that great thinkers and inventors such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton knew that their inventions would bring about a change in the culture of man, and did so while keeping their faith in God, and belief that their inventions or technologies were inherently good and would contribute to the success of man. Postman writes that in tool-using cultures a faith in God was central to everything that was invented, created, and utilized, which gave purpose to the lives of man, and still does which guided those living in those cultures to be moral and virtuous peoples. The theme of morality and its’ disintegration as a result of technology is discussed at length throughout the rest of Postman’s book.  

Following the recurrent theme of morality and religion, Postman brings forth the classic struggle between science and religion, and how technology has impacted these followings. In a conflicting recount of how this debate came about, and in a Technopoly those who are religious are considered mindless followers, Postman tends to side with the view of science in this case, which would go against his disdain for technology. Postman is correct that technocracy does divorce faith and intellect, but it is a fallacy and has only occurred because culture has allowed it to, when in truth most people do believe in a higher power, but are too fearful of the idiom that accompanies someone of faith. Even those men mentioned earlier, as well as Francis Bacon, referred to as the first man of the technocratic age, were devoutly religious men who I feel asked for respect for technology, and did not necessarily mean for religion to be cast to the wayside in its wake.

As the technocracy evolved and more technologies were developed, Postman writes that a Technopoly was first formed as humans tossed away the tradition and ways that we once came from to subscribe completely to a loyal following of technology and all it encompasses. From the reading, Postman describes a technopoly as a crude sort of capitalism in which all humanity is tossed aside for the promotion of machines, technology, and science. It evolves from technocracies when the tool-using culture that was hanging on by a thread in the technocracy culture completely fades away and the technocracy gives way to a world of unending greed and disregard for those who pay the price of that greed. Postman says that the beginning of the technopoly in America began in the early twentieth century when the age of inventions was at its peak, and the culture of the United States shifted to an appreciation and envy for wealth and all that it could obtain. Postman succinctly describes Technopoly as totalitarian technocracy (Postman, 1992).

Postman writes that a technopoly is inevitable if culture is not carefully “controlled” by leaders and followers. However, as history has proven no group of humans can and will be controlled forever, and will eventually break free from whatever hold that may be impressed upon them. Since the United States is the only Technopoly thus far, with fair arguments made that Japan and some Western European countries following closely behind, it is hard to know if this evolution is inevitable, as it seems that it has never been discouraged by anyone other than those such as Postman. As a result of the thoughtless human, Postman feels that technology can subjugate culture in every way, and given the opportunity, can control and fester inside a population until no other currency is valued unless it encompasses technology and science. Once again, Postman assumes that in America, we have devalued all of our history and cultural paths because we are under the control of a Technopoly where technology is our god and efficiency our life’s purpose.

Quite possibly in one of his most bizarre and discrediting ideas, Postman attacks the field of modern medicine and medical technology even though it is blatantly obvious the advantages that technology has provided in the healthcare industry. The invention of the stethoscope, one of the most basic medical tools is not even spared an attack by Postman who feels that because of the advances in medical technology that doctors are not as qualified to treat patients because they rely too heavily on tests and treatments rather than a subjective interview and assessment of the patient. Postman contradicts himself where he states that medicine has fallen victim to the Technopoly where everything is black and white and is categorized, however, medicine must be applied subjectively to patients, and the Technopoly has no room for such practices. It is this argument where Postman begins the descent of credibility that continues throughout the remainder of the text.

The information glut, as Postman calls it brings about a discussion of the credibility of information and data as a result of technology and the increased amount of communication and the ability to share and collaborate. This is yet another example of how Postman is looking to blame yet another of society’s ills on this Technopoly that he sweepingly defines our entire culture with. It is true that we are experiencing an overwhelming amount of information exposure, and I can confidently predict that this will become an even bigger problem as time goes on, but the assumptions that Postman makes regarding the ability of humans to make responsible judgments about reliable data is quite offensive and an unfounded claim.

Postman states that “Information without regulation can be lethal,” which only presses the issue he seems to have with control over every aspect of life, and that without control, the human spirit cannot function. Again, Postman brings forth the disbelief that humans are more than mindless drones that simply bow to any higher power that evangelizes its awesomeness and simply lures us away from all that should be held sacred. Any mature human being has the ability to discriminate among the boundless information that is made available, and has the power to disconnect from the massive amount of media that bombards us on a daily basis. Technopoly has provided a vast expanse of knowledge that is available for any of us to grasp, but Postman feels that this can only cause a devastating effect on the human race and our culture as we cannot discern which knowledge is worth knowing.

Postman says that “Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down,” in which he almost declares war on the discovery and sharing of new information among society. He feels that without a control on the flow of information, we are in peril because we are defenseless against the overwhelming pressure of Technopoly to conform to the love of science, technology, and information. When in fact, information is like air….it surrounds us, and it is impossible to control. For example, my brain sees what I am typing, and is interpreting my thoughts as information, and when my son tells me he is hungry, this is also information. Now, whether I choose to post this and every other moment of my life on Facebook is entirely up to me, and others that choose to “friend” me will take in this information about my brain and my son’s stomach. The truth is, everything waking moment, we are processing information and that is impossible to stop. Does this constant flow of information cause us to have nervous breakdowns and lose sleep because our brain is constantly firing in a million directions every millisecond? Not usually, and most of us do not lose sleep at night because we found out the best way to fight belly fat is to eat fewer carbs. (Of course, there are those that choose to watch the news all day and freak themselves out to the point that they fear the end of the world every moment, and perhaps those are the people that Postman is referring to?)

Of course, Postman does take time to attack the computer in chapter 7 which is another chapter that reminds me of the previous chapter in that Postman completely disproves himself several times in exploiting the computer for its’ inherent evil. One of the most ridiculous ways that Postman supports his arguments against computers is that he refers to computers as having human characteristics. On page 119, he states that, “The computer argues, to put it baldly,…. ,” which, I was not aware that a computer can argue. He then says on page 114, “If a computer calculates, then it may decide to miscalculate, or not calculate at all.” Decide? The last time I checked a computer can only perform the tasks that we ask it to do. Postman then contradicts himself on page 118 when he says, “The computer is almost all process.” The reader is tossed about by Postman when at one moment the computer is evil and a cold calculating machine that we are slaves to, and the next moment a computer takes on human characteristics, such as the capacity to argue and think which takes the reader on yet another downturn in credibility.

Among the evils of computers, Postman says on page 118 that we have experienced a loss in human judgment and subjectivity because we as a Technopoly have decided that we can trust computers to act as our surrogates and have lost the capacity to value anything that is not based purely on science and technology, which simply is not true. We are once again fenced in by Postman’s notion that everyone living in America is a raving technophile and cannot think or act without consulting technology in some way. Of course as we read through the book and pay attention to Postman’s claims and arguments, there is such an unevenness and broken pattern of thought, that it makes it difficult for the reader to give more thought to Postman’s claims, and Chapter 7 is the most ridiculous of his writing thus far.

Postman’s next chapter on Invisible Technologies in which he describes language as a technology with a hidden agenda that can be utilized to deliver whichever message the sender intends for it to portray, even if the listener is unaware. This chapter would probably be the one where I can find the most agreement with Postman, as an education professional. As I tend to prescribe to the constructivist theory of education and focus on relevant lessons, the idea of standardized testing and IQ stores holds little weight with me or my judgments. Questions cannot be unbiased, and by scoring students with very individual learning mechanisms and experiences alongside every other student, we are unfairly judging the capacity of the student to achieve. Students should be measured according to their ability to apply knowledge to relevant situations that affect them, and the efficiency in which they are able to complete said tasks, which may be different depending on the student. Granted, this means a LOT more work for the instructor, but if they are interested in truly meeting the needs of the student, this is not such a stretch.

Toward the end of the book, Postman discusses Scientism, where he probably illustrates the weakest thus far in content and argument. The chapter basically is a history lesson in scientific discoveries and inventions, so it was not an easy read. Postman discredits the social sciences, blaming statistics in which there is definitely something to be said in the validity of statistics, and it’s true that numbers can be manipulated in many ways to prove or disprove almost anything. One cannot dispute, though, the strong trends and data that have been gathered regarding cultural trends and inclinations that assist in predicting changes and patterns in specific data about a culture or group of people, in this case, even a Technopoly.

Postman spends a great deal of time in Chapter 9 stating the obvious that social science cannot provide guidance and definite answers to many of our driving questions and life’s answers to our much debated questions like creativity, religion, morality, etc.. Postman also spends several pages speaking to the “pure” sciences that are in his own words a characteristic of a Technopoly and the only thing that those residing in the Technopoly put any faith into. With his purely pessimistic views, Postman attacks scientists as well in that those who study are not entirely aware of what they are researching and the implications of the information that they find out. Of course, the technology used to study scientific theories and hypotheses is regarded by Postman as an evil, which has provided part of the information glut that we currently experience living in this Technopoly.

Throughout his writing, Postman declares that Technopoly diminishes our culture, and he addresses part of this issue with his chapter written about the draining of symbols. In a Technopoly, Postman says that those living are only concerned with their own wealth and progression as they climb the ladder of society, and symbols both great and small are considered irrelevant because they do not contribute to the wealth or gain of efficiency for technophiles. Part of this Postman blames on the amount of information and data that we are bombarded with and the desensitizing of our culture as we are no longer impressed by anything less than spectacular. Symbols, Postman says, have become so commonplace through media, communication, and advertising that no stock is placed in the meaning, which has been lost as a result of a lack of focus on anything other than progress in a Technopoly.

Finally, in his concluding chapter, Postman defines himself as a critic who takes the position of a “loving resistance fighter,” who offers up a solution to the horrors that Technopoly has wreaked upon our culture. To combat Technopoly, Postman suggest a cure which he states is not possible, but nonetheless offers it up for those who are interested. This cure is education, which is yet another contradiction since schools are part of the technology that Postman seems to loathe and blame for the many problems in society. The idea of a humanities-focused curriculum is suggested to be taught at even the earliest grades where children are taught not the “how,” but the “when,” which is to suggest that the entire education of our children would be based around the history and theory rather than the practice or application of information. One would almost consider Postman as a fundamentalist who if allowed would wish himself back to the era of the caveman, where he could live in peace without the bother of technology or information.

As the reader delves into the theory of Technopoly and the makings of this cultural phenomenon, Postman offers up some validity, however this diminishes as the book continues to make sweeping assumptions about humanity, and our lack of decision-making capabilities, and willingness to mindlessly follow the masses where we are unable to disconnect from technology at any time. The themes of morality and religion are addressed throughout the book, and Postman makes the case that in a Technopoly the idea of a god other than technology and science does not make sense because it does not fit the idea of a cold, calculated culture that is produced by technology. This idea of morality without purpose or a driving force, however, does not take root as Postman’s argument is weak and almost laughable as he continues his warnings against a total technology takeover.

Postman wrote several books that addressed the fall of our culture to technology and the rise of efficiency and that appreciation by our culture. With a narrow minded view of our culture, Postman insults the intelligence of the reader and attempts to convince readers that our world as we know it is ending, and that is thanks to technology. He also warns and predicts unconvincingly that computers will eventually “take over” and use us instead of the opposite. If Postman gave any credit to social science and the study of the human mind and behavior, he may have divulged his reasons for his beliefs to a qualified professional. It would seem that as confident that Postman is in his own intelligence and reliability, that he would have more reason to prove himself and submit to an analysis of his beliefs to help himself, and his readers understand what exactly what drives his radical ideas and scare tactics. Perhaps in time, the future of technology will reveal some of Postman’s claims or hopefully disprove the devastating effects that he predicts our culture will succumb to.