ETEC540: Text, Technologies – Community Weblog

In the introduction to his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman (1992) argues, “New technologies alter the structure of our interest: the things we think about.   They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with.  And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop” (p. 28).  I believe Postman gives too much power to technology, and in handing over this power he creates a semblance of control over man; however, it is people who choose to let technology control their lives or not.

Postman (1992) claims new technologies redefine the old and we do not even notice (p. 8), but I do not agree.  It is more likely the new technology becomes the norm.  This does not mean we forget previous generations, but rather acknowledge the old and accept the new.  An example of new technology is texting.  Ten years ago it was foreign and now it is the norm.  This doesn’t mean we have stopped using the telephone with its original intended purpose or that we have forgotten that the telegraph existed.  Postman says, “the telegraph and penny press changed what we once meant by ‘information’…[and] The computer changes ‘information’ once again. Although I have never used a telegraph I understand its purpose and role in our history; the definition of information is not different other than how it is received.

The introduction of something new will have an effect, but it is not always completely transformative. Postman (1992) maintains, “Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive.  It is ecological…One significant change generates total change” (p. 18).  The troublesome word in that statement is ‘total’. We look back through history based on major technological advancements such as the printing press, the telephone, and the television and because this is how our culture perceives progress I understand Postman’s opinion.  David Chandler (1995) refers to this as a “techno-evolution” perception; the perception that social change has evolved through technological stages (par. 1).  Individuals with this perception gauge progress in terms of change, or improvement (par. 2).  What is often ignored is that progress is culturally defined (par. 6).  In our North American culture we equate success to technological advances, so Postman’s fears may appear grounded; however, he gives little attention to the power of man to make his/her own choice in relation to technology.   Even the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines ecological as “the interrelationships between living organisms and their environment,” not the control of one thing over another.

Technologies are not as dangerous as Postman (1992) has us believe.  He warns it is better to “err on the side of Thamusian skepticism” (p. 5) and that computer technology has not been an advantage to the masses.  He maintains we have accepted the gain of the computer in return for the loss of privacy, unclear communication behind the technology, less personal connections, easier security breaches and focus on the technology rather than learning in schools.  While I cannot completely disagree with all of these items I would make two arguments: (1) it is a loss worth having for the gain and (2) the fault is in our own hands not technology.

In support of my first argument I will reference Li, Moorman and Dyjur (2010).  Video Conferencing made it possible to implement an inquiry-based model to rural Canadian students who were typically provided less course choice and support than urban students.  Results indicated an increase in student engagement and confidence.  There was also an improvement in learning; however, it was unclear if this was attributed to the classroom environment or the difference in exam type from the pre and post test.  What is significant about this example is that it was made possible through technology.  An inquiry-based model could be implemented without video-conferencing, but it was unlikely in this rural settings.  Technology has improved the learning environment for these students.  While it is not without issues, such as inequality in Internet access throughout rural Canada, it does illustrate the gains that can be achieved when barriers are removed.  This is just one of many examples where the gain of a technology outweighs the loss.

Secondly, I maintain that technology is not at fault.  Postman (1992) argues “embedded in every tool is an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the world as one thing rather than another, to value one thing over another, to amplify on sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another” (p. 13).  There is an ideological basis, but it’s inherent in the user not the tool.  David Nartonis (1993) claims:

“Technologies do not act; men and women do.  Television does not orient us to instant gratification; we gratify ourselves by watching television. Experts don’t mislead us unless we abdicate our decision-making roles.  Most of us who live in a technological culture have had moments of feeling diminished before a complex machine.  But it is the choices we make and the values we employ that determine what role technology will have in society and in our individual lives” (p. 68).

As mentioned above, North American culture values technological advances.  If society chooses a technology that robs them of their basic rights and/or culture they have no one to blame but themselves, least of all technology.  Postman (1992) is correct in his statement that with each new technology comes gain and loss.  However, while these losses may be manifested into our day-to-day lives he incorrectly blames technology rather than our acceptance of these losses.

References:

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online]. Retrieved, 28 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html

Ecological (2008). In Oxford English Dictionary online.  Retrieved from the University of British Columbia library database http://resources.library.ubc.ca/274/ 

Li, Q., Moorman, L., Dyjur, P. (2010). Inquiry-based learning and e-mentoring via videoconference: A study of mathematics and science learning of Canadian rural students. Educational Technology Research and Development; 58 (6), p729-753.

Nartonis, D.K. (1993). An answer to neil postman’s technopoly. The Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society; 67-70.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Neil Postman, renowned American media critic and New York University professor, uses his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology to caution readers, especially the ‘enthusiastic multitudes’ about the impact technology has on an unsuspecting mind (Postman, 1992, p. 5). Postman passed away in 2003, but leaves behind in The Judgment of Thamus, an insidious warning that perhaps he himself did not fully understand, one that might be further and further distanced from the increasingly technologically minded human race. In a television interview on Book TV in which Postman is, ironically, using the very technology he critiques to promote Technopoly, he warns that sovereignty of social institutions is surrendered to technology and he cautions that Americans have ‘developed a new religion’, or belief system that progress is synonymous with technological innovation. Underpinning this is the quiet anxiety that human cognition is being irrevocably changed by a technologically dependent context (Postman, 2009).
Postman begins this chapter from Technopoly with a clever allusion to Plato’s Phaedrus in which Egyptian King Thamus speaks with Theuth, an ‘inventor of many things’, who endeavours to convince King Thamus that writing is useful and should be celebrated. Thamus remains unconvinced and cautions Theuth that writing will ultimately impoverish memory; moreover, in a depressing state of technological determinism, humans will only be able to remember items based on external stimuli extracting memory as opposed to humans being in the driver’s seat of recall. Dizzyingly, it is Plato, through Socrates’ dialogue with Phaedrus about this conversation between Thamus and Theuth that one core issue from Technopoly begins to emerge: the more humans rely on external technologies to function, the less mindful and objective they become about the extent to which the technology is needed and its impacts on the human condition.
Although not always successful, Postman attempts not to present himself as, what he terms, a ‘technophobe’. He states clearly that he is simply upholding a ‘dissenting voice…to moderate the din made by the enthusiastic multitudes’ (Postman, 1992, p. 5). He articulates that technology has its uses but interestingly does list any alongside the voices of Plato and Freud. Instead, he allows them to speak for him, thereby ironically using human technology in an attempt to elucidate his argument. He uses psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud’s voice to catalogue how technology helps humans keep in touch, but points out quickly if it was not for railways that enabled distance, the telephone would not be needed. As poet Robert Frost reminds, way leads on to way. This is where humans stand – at a forked road with the option to travel backwards or forwards with technology, and as Freud knew, the former is not an option.
Postman raises important issues in this chapter, one being that in an ecological sense, humans must be cognizant and expectant that change is imminent. He does not elaborate on what it is that needs to be ‘seen’ (1992, p. 5), but how can he? Postman is not an oracle, nor is anyone else. Research certainly points to changes in student attention spans, for example, but current research is contradicted by that which shows that cognitive processes such as perception, attention and executive control are increasing due to increased gaming time (Boot et al, 2008, p. 394-395). This is just one example but it points to how emergent the understanding of technological impact is. Postman raises another poignant worry that relates to the tragic championing of technologies that ultimately ‘intrude’, ‘track’, ‘control’ and ‘inundate’ upon individual freedoms (1992, p. 10). Postman’s argument weakens with this rhetorical question: ‘But to what extent has computer technology been an advantage to the masses of people?’ (1992, p. 10). Disappointingly, with this now hackneyed question, he does precisely what he suggested earlier that he does not do and focuses only on the biased, negative outcomes listed above. His main concern, however, is that people will ignorantly champion the very technology that may render them redundant, and this is a bitter pill of realism for many. Technology writer Antonio Regalado (2012) notes a decline in U.S. employment since 2009 even in the face of economic recovery, citing the term ‘technological unemployment’ as a root cause. Further, John Bohannon reports on current research that investigates the extent to which search engines like Google alter human memory systems. Results show that humans are more likely to recall location of information on a computer rather than the information itself (Bohannon, 2011, p. 277).These realities point to an interesting but worrying idea raised by Technopoly’s argument.
Neil Postman clearly cares about protecting the state of what it is to be human. He cautions a society of readers about the dichotomy of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. The successful ‘worker’ will win a job, and the ‘winner’ will be that which can out-muscle an opponent, human or non-human. This competition matters to an ecologically minded argument because what we are left with, Postman asserts, is ‘a culture conspiring against itself’ (1992, p. 12), and this, if true, is truly distressing. Readers are left with vague warnings such as this that Postman has flagged, but are offered no hint of pro-activity, nor are they presented alternate paths, only with a depressing sense of Darwinian techno-survival of the fittest, and the disturbing image of the human race under a powerful hammer wielded perhaps by ourselves, or by our own construct (1992, p. 14). Daniel Chandler, in his essay Technological or Media Determinism, fully understands the complicated nature of this discussion, and reminds readers that ‘the use of complex and interacting technologies may have implications which are not always entirely intended or predicted’ (Chandler, 1995, Mechanistic Models). Postman voiced just this concern, a concern of ambiguity that media analysts, sociologists, psychologists, and educationalists still contend with. What must be respected from Postman’s writing is not his artful regurgitation of others’ worries, but his eerie foresight into how technological creations can alter a human ecosystem.

Works Cited

Bohannon, J. (2011). Searching for the Google Effect on People’s Memory. Science, 333, p. 277.

Boot, W., Kramer, A., Simons, D., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 129, 387-398.
Retrieved from: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/27654579/968610894/name/The%20effects%20of%20video%20game%20playing%20on%20attention,%20memory,%20and%20executive%20control.pdf

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online].
Retrieved, 25 September, 2012 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, The Judgement of Thamus. New York: Vintage Books.

Postman, N. (2009, October 19). Book TV: Neil Postman, ‘Technology’
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAPtGYiRvg

Regalado, A. (2012). When Machines Do Your Job. Retrieved from: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428429/when-machines-do-your-job/

Chandler (1994) brings forth a quintessential spark that lies between orality and literature, or as otherwise indicated the ear and the eye. Theorists who believe that there are substantial differences between a society that is non-literate and one that is literate, fall into the “great divide” theory (Chandler, 1994). The “great divide” theory “suggest[s] radical, deep and basic differences between modes of thinking in non-literate and literate societies” (Chandler, 2000, par. 4). Furthermore, the article stipulates the biases formed in regards to speech and writing, known as phonocentric, graphocentric, and logocentric biases.

Phonocentrism views orality, or speech, as natural, and writing as unnatural (Chandler, 1994). Therefore, it favors speech over writing. Graphocentrism, contrary to phonocentism, is when writing is favored over speech (Chandler, 1994). When “linguistic communication [is favored] over the revealingly named ‘non-verbal’ forms of communication and expression, and over universalized feelings,” this is called logocentrism (Chandler, 1994, par. 40).

Phonocentrism, glorifies speech, in comparison to writing (Chandler, 1994). It also tends to consider writing a technology (Chandler, 1994). It is considered a technology in the sense that it calls “for the use of tools and other equipment: styli or brushes or pens, [and] carefully prepared surfaces such as paper” (Ong, 2002, p. 80-81). The fact that speech takes precedent over writing for phonocentric’s, I believe, is because they view it as innate. There is this natural connotation that they have with speech, that they cannot find in writing. Speech being something that is picked up at birth, through being exposed to those around us using speech. Whereas, writing is contrived and must be learned in a setting, such as, school. Plato, a well known philosopher, viewed writing as a threat, as students would get an abundance of information, all written, however, the instruction would then be lacking, he argued (Chandler, 1994). He also mentioned that writing is “inhuman…a thing, a manufactured product” (Ong, 2002, p. 78). Plato may have held this particular view, however, he “ironically…put his words in writing,” and is now well known (Chandler, 1994, par. 23).

How could we have come this far, in society, and developed what we have without writing? Plato’s words, or that of any other philosopher, may have been long forgotten in this day and age, without the words they once spoke, written down, having kept them immortalized. That is not to say that I believe writing holds more power, or is more valuable than speech. It is more the notion that what was once spoken, or is spoken today can be kept, remembered, and retrieved, which is one of the strengths of writing. One strength of speech is that when listening to someone’s speech or story, the tone of voice they use, the verbal expression exasperated by the person speaking creates an emotional feeling within the listener. When these speeches and stories are put on paper they can lose their impact, which was provided by the tone when spoken. Yes, words can describe, but there is something in hearing them spoken, hearing the words resonate within us, that moves us.

As Chandler (1994) explains in his article it is “important to be aware of the similarities as well as the differences between non-literate cultures and our own,” (par. 11). What unfortunately happens is that we get caught up in labeling and envisioning one society as better than the other, making one seem inferior to the other, when that really isn’t the case (Chandler, 1994). To be able to fully understand and appreciate something, in all walks of life, it is important to have been able to deconstruct it, see it for its strengths and weaknesses, as well as what differentiates it.

I believe it has been the process of speech and writing conjoined that has brought our society to a level of understanding, knowledge and comprehension above what it could have been if only each stood alone. We must value speech, and writing equally. Granted, one came before the other, however, do you love your first child more because they came first? I would hope not. Writing may be contrived, it may be unnatural, it may make us think in another way, perhaps in a more sophisticated manner, one would argue. However, that does not mean it is bad. Writing is “utterly invaluable and indeed essential for the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials…writing heightens consciousness” (Ong, 2002, p. 81).

References:

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 22 September, 2012 from: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Ong, Walter. (2002) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Not surprising, writing has been named as one of the greatest inventions of all time solidified by the realization that since its origin many inventions have been mere extensions of text (ie computers) (Ong, 2002). In Walter Ong’s book Orality and Literacy he attempts to demonstrate the resistance against introducing writing into the oral cultures. While he does establish some compelling points using actual facts, his book was first published in 1982 (with a revision in 2002) and therefore does not take into account recent developments in the ability to share texts, especially with the enhancement of web 2.0. Through recent advancements to the internet people all over the world are able to connect via text in real-time. This benefit to our current society unfortunately renders many of Ong’s statements obsolete and/or too simplistic to remain valid.

Ong’s focus on how writing has transformed human consciousness can be compared to the movement in education towards personalized learning with a technology integration component (B.C. Education Plan, 2012). By understanding how learning and thought process evolved out of the invention of writing we can begin to appreciate this new need to personalize learning, especially in Canada, where multiculturalism is the norm rather than the exception. According to Ong, many oral cultures developed strategies to increase their ability to remember information delivered orally, and could later apply them during recall (2002, p. 97). This same idea is present in literature concerning how to support many Aboriginal students whose cultures still rely heavily on oral tradition (Tanaka, 2007). As an educator, Ong’s statements about the change in how we formulate thoughts, even in the oral form as a result of writing, further authenticates my belief that in order to provide the best education possible for each individual we need to take into account their entire background (Ong, 2002, p. 77). There is undoubtedly not a ‘one size fits all’ solution to education in Canada.

However, in addition to different cultural backgrounds, students may also demonstrate their own learning styles. Ong fails to investigate or refute whether learning styles may have played a role in oral cultures at the time when writing was first being introduced. It may have been the case that some individuals would have been able to increase their academic success because of writing and therefore writing may not have been the burden he portrayed for those who were used to solely learning through oral methods.

Furthermore, Ong uses Plato’s objections to further his beliefs on writing. Plato once believed that writing would destroy memory (Ong, 2002, p. 78). This statement is clearly not scientifically sound. Writing can’t actually destroy the cells and synapses that are components of our memory. Just like reading, writing it is not an inherited trait but one that our society has put importance on developing (Wolf, 2007, p. 11). Therefore, reading and writing may in fact change the way that we turn information into something that can be recalled when needed, but cannot actually destroy our components of memory.

While research on the plasticity of the brain and the use of the internet is still in its infancy, neuroscientists Stanley and Matthew Kutcher’s study suggest that young people spending time with digital technologies may in fact “be changing the physical structure and functioning of their developing brains” (Tapscott, 2009, pp. 29-30). This change does not mean we are able to remember less information; rather, the type of information and how we access and read it has changed.

There are some that may argue that this is a dangerous power, supporting the same objections that were apparent with the invention of writing according to Ong. We, however, must accept that our society thrives on inventions and we will continue to constantly question further discoveries. Alan Kay was once quoted as saying “Technology is anything that was invented after you were born” (n.d.). While we are being encouraged to be adaptable and embrace new discoveries, with every new invention there may be a burden on the society changing to incorporate it, in order that the lives of future generations are improved. Ong’s view that writing was detrimental to the purely oral cultures does not take into consideration how writing has enhanced and furthered current ways of life.

Finally, Ong suggests that writing is context-free because it is detached from the author and cannot be directly questioned. However, with the invention of web 2.0 tools and ‘online chatting’, many texts can be directly questioned with a real-time response just as the case in oral cultures. With the invention of email and other sources, it is very easy to get in touch with authors to directly question their writing. Furthermore, the internet has made it much easier to question facts and plagiarism, as information is accessible to the general public. This demands a greater increase in accountability, when using text and publishing it for the review of others, than when writing was first introduced.

Ong provides a thorough history of how writing influenced purely oral cultures. However, he does not appear to take into consideration how writing has developed our current generations. Furthermore, many of his arguments regarding an inability to directly question writing compared to orality can be erased with the use of the internet, email, and web 2.0. tools. Ong may benefit from revising his statements to incorporate issues and ideas that have arisen out of recent inventions and enhanced technology.

Alan, K. (n.d.)

B.C. Ministry of Education (2011). Retrieved Septmeber, 24, 2012 from http://www.bcedplan.ca/

Ong, W. (2002) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Routledge.

Tanaka, M., Williams, L., Benoit, Y.J., Duggan, R.K., Moir, L., & Scarrow, J.C. (2007). Transforming pedagogies: Pre-service reflections on learning and teaching in an Indigenous world, Teacher Development, 11 (1) 99-109.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing the world.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: HarperCollins.