Neil Postman, Technopoly, and Technological Theology
thefrailestthing.com
thefrailestthing.com
Ouch.
I feel that a more useful definition for the word "technopoly" is to just to refer to the (real and specific) monopolistic technology companies that we interact with on a daily basis. Such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, etc. Maybe on a deeper level part of the reason they have become so large is the "technopoly" that Postman is talking about. But in my opinion the more practical use of the word is to point out these specific companies.
And I guess my surface reading of the premise is that technology is not the only or the best framework for viewing the world. I will admit that I have a technology-centric worldview. Well, technology just means applying our knowledge to solving problems. In my opinion this is mostly sensible and rejecting it does not create progress. My view is that what needs to improve is our integration of technology into our social systems.
Now that I'm olde, I find myself occasionally agreeing with Postman. but reading past the first paragraph here, I'm right back to "He's a cretin". Sigh.
On the plus side, he makes an excellent bonfire out of the strawman he built.
“the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency”
“technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment”
“human judgment cannot be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity”
“subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking”
“what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value”
“the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.”
Now, I'll join Postman in criticizing Fredrick Taylor and scientific management all day, but Postman is utterly reductionist in his argument, turning a valuable and important point into a mere strawman.
For a much more subtle and cogent critique, read Matthew Crawford's "Shop Class as Soulcraft".
I just suffered through a brutal, dehumanizing call where I spent ten minutes trying to convince a voice recognition bot to connect me to a human being. That's part of Postman's negative world, for sure. But tonight? I'm going to play music with a friend. We're recording some of his bass parts for an album. That's cultural life, too.
And tomorrow? I'm going to an amazing concert, African singer Angelique Kidjo's reworking of the Talking Heads' "Remain in Light" album. That album exists because of technology. I found out about the concert because of technology. I get to hear her because of technology. Technology (and by "technology", I mean "stuff that wasn't invented yet when Postman was a kid"), in this case enriches the cultural experience.
I remember seeing Postman bragging about how he uses a pencil rather than a computer to write, because Technology Is Bad. That's not sophisticated. That's a cretin. Pencils are technology, too. Paper is technology. The books he got printed are technology. But he doesn't get it, because he's a cretin. For Postman and his ilk, "technology" is "stuff that wasn't around when I was a kid". And it's bad why? Because it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable.
Postman is just saying "Get off my lawn" in fancy academic language.
This is a very popular belief which I reject wholeheartedly. Certainly there are often trade-offs in some way related to use of a technology, but it is not a rule, and there is no correspondence. Despite the last sentence, framing things dualistically like this provides quite a false sense of equivalence and ambiguity. In the end its an over-simplification and on some level a rejection of technology.
Rejecting technology means rejecting the application of knowledge. I have no problem with criticizing the selection of technology or how it interfaces with society, but rejecting technology outright leaves you with the same old problems. And then you must rationalize about how your old problems were better than your new ones. I would like those people to go back and live in that state -- without ubiquitous running water, without flush toilets and good sewage systems, with horse shit in the street, or live as a _biological_ computer where you spend 10 hours a day doing arithmetic.
The idea that all technology is 100% beneficial for all people with zero downsides is just as ridiculous.
There is a third path, which has some nuance; if you're wearing tunnel-vision blinders you might not see it.