Analysis Of The Judgement Of Technopoly By Neil Postman

Jacquie Cummings
Stefani Okonyan
English 103
March 3, 2016
Rough Draft: Postman Essay
In today’s society technology is everywhere, whether it be in a car, on a billboard, a laptop, or even on one’s phone. However, is all this technology a bad thing or is it truly a worldwide phenomenon. Even back during 1992, author Neil Postman wrote about how technology is both a blessing and a burden. Many people believe Postman’s views are arrogant or far-fetched, but there are also those who agree with him about the dangers of technology.
In the first chapter,The Judgement of Thamus, of Technopoly, author Neil Postman who was an American author, educator, media theorist, and cultural critic (Sowin), explains what Thamus sees in writing and how he tells

Theuth, the father of writing, that "those who acquire [writing] will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful, they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources." (Postman). Postman claims that "every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that." (Postman). The warning derived from this theme is that all to often we fail to consider how new technologies alter our perceptions, interests, and communities. For Postman, the nature of technological change is neither additive nor subtractive, but rather it’s ecological. Therefore stating that the introduction of a new technology into a society will introduce change to the workings of that society. Postman argues that it’s therefore crucial to understand what any new technology is designed to do.
To some people Postman may seem enlightened or philosophical, to many others he is extremely arrogant. Although Postman makes some valid points in his argument against technology, he also contradicts himself. For example, while he criticizes Thamus for only seeing the downside, and not imagining the potential benefits to writing, he tends to focus on the downside of technology. He speaks of erring on the side of Thamusian skepticism and yet he underestimates how pessimistic he comes across. For example, he speaks of how a technology must be admitted to a culture with "eyes wide open". However, the bulk of his ideas seem focused on the negative aspects of different technologies rather than ways in which they can be used to benefit. Throughout Postman's work he states that he is no one-eyed prophet, yet he doesn’t often praise the virtues of technology.
Another claim in Postman's argument is that new technologies subvert old knowledge, often by changing who has access to it. He gives an example of how Gutenberg's invention of the printing press made it possible for families to own their own Bible (as opposed to hearing it at church), and that this made "each Christian his own theologian", meaning they could interpret the Bible in their own way, in ways that could be in opposition to the official interpretation given by the Church. He states that "new technologies compete with old ones—for time, for attention, for money, for prestige, but mostly for dominance of their world-view" (Postman). Following what Postman has said about technology being a blessing and a burden, we can say that new interpretations of the Bible would introduce critical analysis of it, which is a fundamental human skill.
Postman also claims that in every technological advance lies what he calls “winners” and “losers.” He finds it strange, that, while the winners are expected to cheer themselves along, the losers do too. For example, those who have found lucrative careers in media find television a blessing because of their increased wealth, social status and membership in what Harold Innis calls, a knowledge monopoly. It is only natural these people are pleased with the invention. Yet, teachers, whom Postman believes are most threatened by this new invention, tend to applaud television as if it doesn’t change the way people think about the words knowledge and information. Postman claims, “Television may bring a gradual end to the careers of schoolteachers, since school was an invention of the printing press and must stand or fall on the issue of how much importance the printed word has,” (Postman).
Although, Postman is right that with the advent of new technology the meaning of some of our most deeply rooted words might change in meaning, he neglects to think about the term schoolteacher itself.

It could be argued that the term schoolteacher really has nothing to do with the printing press, television or now the internet. One could say the act of teaching someone how to milk a cow, cook, or sew is a form of schooling. When Aristotle spoke, not wrote, to his students, was this not teaching? Was this not a form of school? Therefore to come to the conclusion that because technology may alter the meaning of some words, occupations that rely on those definitions will become obsolete seems to be a very bold statement. One cannot jump to the conclusion that once something changes its complement disappears. It usually just adapts. There is an argument that technology doesn’t change the culture, for the culture created these inventions; it is the culture that changes technology. It should be recognized that technology is a manufactured form of evolution. Not manufactured in the sense that it is not natural, but created from an ever evolving human race. We are not wired, so to speak, to not wonder, to not create, to not try and better ourselves. Technology is a product of these inherent human needs. Whether or not these new technologies are better for society as a whole can be argued. But the fact that technology can be considered as a “destroyer” of old “worthy” ideas and definitions can also be

argued.
There is one factor that readers should be aware of when reading Postman’s writing, it was written in 1992, when technology was just beginning to expand into the 21st century. Many view from then have changed along with all the technological advances that have been made over the last 20 something years. Though some of what Postman has said can still be somewhat relevant in today’s society, most of what he’s said is completely unrelatable to people today and therefore shouldn’t be taken into consideration during an argument about technology.

Works Cited
Postman, Neil. "The Judgement Of Thamus." Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf, 1992. N. pag. Print.
Sowin, Joshua. "The Neil Postman Information Page." :: Books, Online Articles, Audio, Bibliography. Joshua Sowin, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2016. .