Michael Freedman
SEYS 753 – Professor Murfin
December 8, 2010

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology,
by Neil Postman

    Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, published in 1992, posits that the United States is now a technopoly, where all forms of cultural life submit to the sovereignty of technique and technology (p. 52).   He makes a complex and powerful argument that technology is now the end itself, no longer the means to an end; that technology is our new God.  To illuminate this point, he first takes us on a journey through historical culture, beginning with Plato’s Phaedrus, the story of Thamus, a King in Upper Egypt. 

    Thamus comes from a theocratic culture, which was the norm for many centuries.  Thamus sees technology as a two-edged sword, both beneficial and problematic.   For Thamus, the question was whether to introduce writing to the masses.   He ponders whether this new technology, writing, might detrimentally affect one’s memory by supplanting the oral traditions of storytelling?   The fact that he analyzes these repercussions at all, Postman says is based on the stronger cultural binds and beliefs of his day.

    The crux of Postman’s book is that we no longer contemplate whether a new technology is useful, just that if it is technology it must be good and useful.   He argues that we fail to recognize what we are losing by adopting technology subserviently, without thought.  For instance, while the telescope and the printing press opened up the world to new ideas, they also shattered the cultural hold theocracy had on humans.   Now that we knew Earth was no longer the center of the universe, so too God would have to take a second seat.

    Postman makes a nuanced point by stating that although 16th century scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others used the technology of the day, they were still all part of a larger cultural milieu, namely religion, and thought of technology as a tool without any use to society other than “speculative satisfaction” (p. 35).  Despite the new technologies, these thinkers all in some way tried to reconcile their new ideas with the old cultural religious authority.  That has all changed now. 

    Postman mentions an intermediary step between theocracy and technopoly, namely the rise of machines in the 18th century.   He describes Francis Bacon, who believed that technology would bring progress and ultimately happiness to all men.  Following Bacon, technology had a purpose other than to be good in God’s eyes.  Postman coins the word technocracy to describe this time frame, the 18th and 19th centuries, when technology and theocracy fought it out, with technology the winner.  

    Finally, Postman describes how technocracy morphed into technopoly, where technology is absolutely good for mankind, with little or no consequences.  In techocracies, the rise of bureaucrats and administrative back offices begin a steady drumroll leading to the commoditization of humans.  For Postman, a bureaucrat is subservient only to the institution, not to any individual human being.  Thus, technology is about efficiency over messy human inefficiency.  In this postulation, truth is lost amidst the deluge of information for information sake.  Also, the rating and numbering of any and all things human, including intelligence and school grades, has hastened this commoditization.  If you have a high IQ, you are intelligent, despite the fact that IQ tests cannot measure intelligence.   Intelligence is an abstract concept and by codifying it, we lose what it means to be intelligent (p. 130) and become a number.

    I may belong to the “one-eyed prophet” camp Postman describes (p. 5).  I believe that technology does occasionally pose intractable problems as to whether it is advisable to use such technology, but I think Mr. Postman’s analysis misses the point.   I am paraphrasing the eminent scientist Carl Sagen, that the reason science and technology have supplanted religion as a cultural foundation is that science and technology have delivered the goods, where religion has not.  Religion has failed to provide the necessary Truths for man to evolve further, while science has.

    Yes, there are certain questions science cannot answer, but the scientific method remains man’s best hope of answering those questions.  The scientific method is a way to seek the Truth despite our innate abilities to deceive ourselves.  Of course, the information available to everyone is enormous and largely superfluous or irrelevant.   Yet, we are still evolving to deal with these new technological onslaughts.   Also, Mr. Postman fails to point out that the United States, despite its technopoly status, remains one of the most pious countries in the world.

    I would posit that we have maintained certain human characteristics like morality, loyalty, and friendship that Postman fears we are losing, because we cannot lose these attributes; they are a part of the human condition.   As human animals, we crave morality and structure as a means to protect our offspring and ourselves.  We have evolved to use tools and there is no way back, but there are always losses and gains from any decision we make.  The benefits of technology may lead us by the nose occasionally, but sooner or later, the institutions catch up and demand that humanity stays centered (we haven’t dropped any atomic bombs lately).  For instance, look at the rise of social networking.   Postman might argue that we no longer interact in a human way by using email, facebook and other means of communicating.  But, I would argue, that we are in better touch with our society through this technology.  We are certainly losing something, but we are gaining too, and the route is inexorable.   The genies out of the bottle, now we need to recognize its problems (thank you Neil) and use better technology to maintain our humanness.  I believe we will find a way to deal with these issues.

    As for education and science education, Postman believes it currently lacks any “moral, social or intellectual center” (p. 186).  He would emphasize historical continuity, semantics, and comparative religion.  I believe these subjects are important and are usually offered at college level, but I believe the moral, social and intellectual center has merely moved a bit and is still very strong.  In my own teaching, I will use Mr. Postman’s suggestions about historical continuity to provide necessary context.  It is certainly important to know the context of scientific discovery and where we all came from before proceeding blindly down the technological alley.
All in all, I found Mr. Postman’s book both informative and enlightening.

Bibliography:

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