I like Pink Floyd. Their lead songwriter, Roger Waters, did several solo albums after leaving the band, one of which was titled “Amused to Death”. It’s very Floyd-like and typical of Water’s work. Anyhow, this album was loosely based on the premises put forward by Neil Postman in his 1985 book “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, which I read several years ago after being intrigued by Water’s music. The main thrust of the book is that “the medium is the metaphor” (a twist on Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message”) and as such, it shapes our view of the truth. Postman says that the printed word is an assertion of opinion. One can agree or disagree or not decide at the moment, but the argument has been put forth. Postman says that the print medium inspires one to think about the argument and allows for a well informed public. Essentially that public discourse in a print medium culture is more meaningful and on target than public discourse in the age of show business (the subtitle of his book). Television, being the primary means of communication for the generation he wrote the book for, treats all topics as entertainment and thus public discourse on important issues no longer exists.
Television, regardless of how hard it tries to be otherwise, is just entertainment. His fear is similar to that of Huxley’s “Brave New World” in that we’ve voluntarily given up truth for entertainment. We have surrendered our rights in exchange for entertainment.
I’m currently reading another of Postman’s books, “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” and find his views on technology and the information age eerily accurate in many ways. From his book, pages 71-72:
“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deificaiton of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity's superhuman achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things -- but quite the opposite -- seems to change few opinions, for unwavering beliefs are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down.”
With the rapid expansion of newer technologies and our increased dependence on technology, I think Postman has some valid arguments in “Technopoly”. Postman died in 2003, so I feel that he didn’t get to experience much of the web’s communication and collaboration side, but some of what I’ve gleaned from the book so far (and from combining/intermingling the web into television and applying his “treat all topics as entertainment” theory) I feel he would have predicted something like You Tube, and would not have viewed it as a good thing.
As I read more, I’ll continue to have something to blog about.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting post. I eagerly await further thoughts along these lines. My first encounter with Postman was in his book "The Soft Revolution," which had a profound impact on me in high school. I have had "Amusing Ourselves to Death" on my need-to-get-around-to-reading-it list for years. My initial perception is that he became quite a Luddite, and was kind of trapped in certain ways of thinking about technology and media, regardless of how they were used. For example, saying television is by definition entertainment rather than education; what if television is the medium to deliver a straight lecture, as in Al Gore's recent movie? If you watch it live, it's education, but if you watch it on a screen it automatically becomes less? That doesn't make sense to me. The answer to that question would reveal a lot about whether his view of television (and other technologies) is inflexible or adaptive.
From the quote above, I really wonder what he meant here: "They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things -- but quite the opposite -- seems to change few opinions, for unwavering beliefs are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down." Is he saying information is enslaving, mind-numbing, and worrying? Again, I don't get it.
My thoughts go somewhere in the direction of critical thinking... For my money I "believe" that no matter the medium there might be a similar phenomena occur (with any new form). I am guessing that Postman might be advocating "for" print as a medium that "is an assertion of opinium" that provides a well informed public. However I suspect that the era when "in print" was the new technology, because it was in printed form it was the truth (something like gospel truth).
So since we really don't know what the future holds (in the lifetime of our learners) critical thinking seems to be one of the skills that will continue to be important. What are the techniques / facilitation processes that work best for developing critical thinking?
I too look forward to hearing more from you Jim as you continue through this book - good stuff to think about!
Post a Comment