Response: Chapter Four of Technopoly

Within Chapter 4, Postman continues on his quest of exposing the reader towards the control technology has played upon the cultural changes throughout history. In fact, he refers this shift towards an analogy using a deck of cards. The order of a new deck of cards is predictable and known right out of the package, but if one was to shuffle the deck, you would not know what to expect next. Therefore, the true meaning of life, if not unraveled or untouched, is predictable, whereas a shuffled deck of cards is what technology has done to our lives- caused chaos, confusion, and insecurity in regards of who is in control.
Postman continued with the development of communication throughout history, beginning with the printing press. The printing press allowed for a new environment to be formed, allowing all people from all classes to equally access information, thus increasing the importance of individuality. From the printing press came to telegraph, which removed the length of time communication was passed from person to person, thus increasing the value of “barrier-free” information- “…the telegraph made information into a commodity, a ‘thing,’ that could be bought and sold irrespective of its uses or meaning.” (67/68) Following the telegraph came the introduction of photography, which created a new definition of what information was- could be print but also in picture form. The fourth stage of the information revolution included broadcasting, which led to the most current revolution, computers. Thus, Postman concludes that we are on an information overload, causing our culture be sorely confused with no direction or truth to hold the excess information against.
My question in regards to this chapter lies within the idea of what to do next- with all this information at our fingertips, bombarding us each day with updates, blogs, newscasts, etc. what is the real solution? What are we to do here? Are our hands just tied or do we stand up and say “enough!” But, then we would have to broadcast that somehow through the use of technology in order to appeal to the masses- is there ever going to be an end to this vicious cycle?

Response: Chapter Three of Technopoly

Within Chapter Three, Postman describes the cultural shift from technocracy to technopoly. Postman describes technopoly as “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology…” (52). Thus, the reader is presented with an outline of the growth of technology in American history and its effects upon the culture. Although difficult to pinpoint, Postman argues the transition period from when technology served as an assistant towards technology serving as a master occurred close to the Henry Ford era and beyond. The author also offers four interrelated response for the dominance of Technolopy within America: 1) the newness of America provided many opportunities with no limits, 2) the genius thinking of American inventors and their desire for the future, not past traditions, 3) the convenience, comfort, speed, hygiene, and abundance technological advances provide for every social class is unremarkable and too good to pass up, and 4) old beliefs fell victim to new hope in technology. (53-55).
Clearly not all of the past traditions were removed from society, especially within the religious realm. Yet, Postman presents his writings in a way that I feel undermines the role God had in calling many inventors to use their minds and create- to me he does not seem in favor for how the technological shift occurred within the historical context. How else would it have happened though? Therefore, I am wondering where Neil Postman, the author, stands in relation to his worldview and religious ties. Is it preposterous to presume what his faith (if any) is?

Response: Chapter Two of Technopoly

Within Chapter Two, Postman describes what he calls three stages of how society has dealt with technological advances: 1)tool-using, 2)technocracy, and 3)technopoly. Within a tool-using culture such as the Medieval Times, tools had two simple roles- “to solve specific and urgent problems of physical life… or to serve the symbolic world of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion…” Therefore, they were not a disruption towards the culture, just assistants. However, as cultures started to become more dependant upon these tools, there was a cultural shift towards a technocracy. Postman described technocracy as tools/technology “playing a central role in thought –world of culture” (28). Thus, inventors such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler, who although not intentionally, caused a major shift towards a heavy reliance upon these objects versus reliance upon God. In other words, one could say it was the first time a separation of moral and intellectual values occurred within society.
In defense of technological advances and their positive affect upon society, why does it seem as though Postman is against the furtherance of one’s mind for the better of the world? If one does not use the gifts given to us by God, we are not following His will. Yet, Postman mentions the separation of moral and intellectual values within the technocracy era- if it wasn’t for this, would we be where we are today?

Response: Chapter One of Technopoly

Within the first chapter of Technopoly, Postman reveals to the reader the Greek legends Theuth and King Thamus discussing the idea of new inventions. We learn from Thamus that new technologies don’t always come with benefits- there can be areas for concern as well. In fact, Thamus went as far to say that “new technologies change what me mean by ‘knowing’ and ‘truth’ (12). With this theory in place, Postman introduces his writing as a way to expose society towards the way technology can alter the way we think, the things we think with, and place where our thoughts develop (20).
The question I had developing during the first chapter is the relevance of this theory, especially within a culture that is highly dominated by further advances in technology each day. Does this theory of knowing that technology alters the way we think, what we think with, and where our thoughts develop have any grip within our culture today? Would exposing society towards these ideas really have an impact upon us, or are we so far removed that we cannot and/or do not want to relate?