ÿWPC» …ER ÑëÂdnnÌv›i*P˜ÓÑw2¡iwõ fFínõUÁR Ñë0ôuÈÆ‚ïç6”‚jþ¥CSà ’—BTÑDÞr”{–sɳ ?ñ´¢“*Æç…¡#·Ä\ð•DvÈ­aD•àcçº(©ÔBN~ÏhTqÓˆ’‘«_¥DTw"<úLiñ—çíÑý~Ùâ] ÛÙÛÌ  Ì)Äå5Zɬ¹• Uþ0aûñ}Yu¸4z»îůG3÷4vdBþª×‰ýlŸÈILئ(i‹Vq›S Mß ª•ëx J&Á3W«e˜ dÅ$]ûƒŽ¸1Ø\²¥zlKýžFdym¡Ìüqtw|Ì(± <û—V&XÜ‚lk5v}x‰µƒ¢ƒùJž;@¦ ”HítÆgfWW™Øà/©Tˆ¤»ïlÙ &ùêãû µ–èá-¢1R©>JíÖdØk€Au(¨}ÈG¶ˆ31÷Æž§èk­(4ˆIhüѾA‹ i6Ž…ydâ÷Fdxwµ$.ÿ½!ª.nǬþ‚bl“_‘\úíIHœßÑî¶x™+ Æ4Fýe/%ÿ”߳ƸÆ` ;-|QË{”ÛïNý #!šUN» %  0(w@74w‹š mœ³˜APOLLO P2200 Series0À,,,,0À0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ stEuvEwxEyz{E|ô¥S*p}.bk13|x|ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓÓÔ_ÔETECÔ_Ô€695à@üüìàNeil€Postmanððs€Responseˆà0 È àà0 È(#È(#àTerry€S.€Ô_ÔToneyÔ_Ôà @Ü àа (# (# ÐÌÌà  àNeil€Postmanððs€book,€òòTechnopolyóó€was€an€eye€opening€read.€€It€was€at€once€both€amusingÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€somewhat€infuriating.€€It€was€both€mired€in€facts€and€in€misinterpretations.€€There€are€severalÏpoints,€(actually€more€than€several€points)€that€I€found€to€comment€on,€but€have€decided€for€spaceÏconsiderations€to€focus€in€on€only€two€of€them„his€use€of€a€Socratic€parable€to€make€his€Ô_ÔstaementsÔ_ÔÏagainst€technology€and€his€idea€that€ð ðTechnopoliesðð€invariably€mean€that€we€are€losing€ourÏcultural€ð ðhumanityðð€to€computers.€€Ìà  à€Neil€Postmanððs€use€of€a€parable€from€Platoððs€Phaedrus€to€emphasize€what€pitfallsÏtechnology€may€produce€in€our€society€was€somewhat€off„putting€for€me.€€It€was€made€moreÏdifficult€by€the€fact€that€I€found€a€objection€to€his€book€on€page€one.€€Reading€the€rest€of€the€bookÏwas€somewhat€difficult.€€Ìà  àSurely€anyone€will€agree€that€no€new€technology€is€completely€good,€nor€is€it€completelyÏbad.€€The€difference€between€Marshall€McLuhan€(our€last€author)€and€Postman€is€the€way€theyÏfeel€that€they€must€or€must€not€interact€with€the€discussion€at€hand.€€McLuhan€played€the€part€ofÏthe€quiet,€intuitive,€but€non€interactive€observer.€€€He€studied,€he€examined,€he€recorded,€but€madeÏno€value€judgements.€€Postman€is€incapable€of€examining€something€without€then€makingÏmoralistic€comments€on€his€findings.€Postman€feels€it€is€his€job€not€only€to€observe€and€record,€butÏto€then€judge€the€effect€technology€plays€in€our€society.€€This€was€in€such€stark€contrast€toÏMarshall€McLuhan€that€it€was€a€little€stunning.ÌÌÐ @-(, Ðà  àThe€first€thing€I€noticed€about€Neil€Postman€upon€reading€his€book,€òòTechnopolyóó,€was€thatÐ ° Ðthis€man€had€a€òòdefiniteóó€aversion€to€any€type€of€paradigmatic€shift.€€He€simply€does€not€seem€toÐ ˆØ Ðappreciate€change.€€Look€at€his€book€ñ"ñòòñ"ññ!ññ ñòòñ ññ!ñtitles„Aññññnññññññmññusing€Ourselves€to€Death,€Teaching€as€SubversiveÐ `° ÐActivity€ñ!ññ ñóóñ ññ!ññ"ñóóñ"ñ(ok,€Iððd€like€to€read€this€one!),€ñ#ñòòñ#ñThe€Disappearance€of€Childhoodñ#ñóóñ#ñ...he€doesnððt€seem€to€takeÐ 8 ˆ Ðchange€well.€€It€becomes€evident€that,€unlike€Marshall€McLuhan,€who€sought€to€catalog€andÏidentify€traits€and€trends€that€affected€the€American€public€without€making€value€judgements€onÏthese€observations,€Postman€feels€it€is€necessary€to€engage€in€long,€moral€laden€discoursesÏconcerning€his€observations.€€Anything€new€to€Postman€is€perceived€as€a€possible€threat€to€societyÏas€a€whole.€€Ìà  àPostman€enjoys€quoting€Platoððs€ñ$ñòòñ$ñPhaedrusñ$ñóóñ$ñ,€a€story€narrated€by€Socrates.€€Socrates€isÐ H˜ Ðforever€known€as€the€both€the€bane€and€the€beloved€to€any€junior€law€student€in€the€United€States,Ïand€having€had€a€misspent,€but€definitely€enjoyable€youth,€which€included€among€other€things€aÏbrief€turn€in€law€school,€I€found€Postmanððs€constant€references€to€one€of€Socrates€writingsÏamusing.€€Well€intentioned€as€Postman€undoubtably€was€when€he€read€this€parable,€his€lack€of€aÏformal€introduction€to€the€Socratic€method€of€teaching€made€Postman€misinterpret€this€parableÏcompletely.€€What€an€interesting€read€this€was€when€I€realized€that€Postman€had€already€made€aÏfatal€error€on€the€first€page€of€his€book!Ìà  àPostman€uses€a€Socratic€parable€about€two€men€called€Thamus€and€Theuth,€ñ%ñconstantlyÏñ%ñportraying€himself€as€the€ever€more€wise€and€noble€Thamus,€to€the€eager€but€naive€Theuth.€€ThisÏis€where€he€begins€his€book€and€he€constantly€relates€many€salient€points€back€to€this€ñ&ñone€ñ&ñparable.€ÏI€counted€no€less€than€eight€separate€references€to€this€parable€in€the€first€two€chapters€ofÏPostmanððs€book.€€The€amusing€thing€is€that€Postman,€in€my€estimation,€misinterpreted€the€ñ'ñòòñ'ñentireñ'ñóóñ'ñÐ h+¸&* Ðfocus€of€the€parable!Ð @-(, Їà  àTheuth€was€an€inventor€of€great€things,€portrayed€by€Postman€as€a€naive,€eager,€butÏthoughtless€young€man.€€Theuth€supposedly€invented€writing€and€showed€it,€among€other€worthyÏinventions€such€as€geometry€and€astronomy,€to€his€King.€€Theuth€proclaimed€in€the€parable€thatÏð ðwriting€will€improve€the€wisdom€and€memory€of€the€Egyptians.€...and€will€be€a€sure€receipt€forÏmemory€and€wisdomðð.€€Thamus€then€gently€rebuked€the€inventor,€stating€that€the€inventor€ofÏsomething€was€not€necessarily€the€person€to€determine€its€inherent€worth€to€society.€€WhatÏTheuth€thought€as€a€way€to€improve€memory€and€wisdom€Thamus€perceived€entirely€different.€ÏTo€Thamus,€writing€would€decrease€the€ability€to€memorize€things,€making€the€EgyptiansÏforgetful€and€that€wisdom€would€suffer,€based€upon€the€student€receiving€much€information,€butÏlittle€instruction€in€its€use.Ìà  àPostman€used€this€little€parable€as€a€stick€to€beat€over€the€readers€heads,€warning€thatÏð ðtechnophilesðð€like€little€zealous€Ô_ÔTheuthsÔ_Ô,€are€running€amok€in€the€world,€replicating€and€inventingÏnew€technologies€that€without€regard€to€the€inherent€virtue€(or€lack€thereof)€that€the€technologyÏeventually€will€have.€€Indeed,€the€technophiles,€in€Postmanððs€eyes€are€as€virulent€and€destructiveÏas€any€computer€virus€ever€has€been.€€€Ìà  àUpon€the€first€reading€of€this€parable,€I€could€see€where€a€layman,€one€who€is€not€formallyÏtrained€in€the€Socratic€method€of€logic€and€thought€processes,€would€see€King€Thamus€as€a€wiseÏand€noble€man,€concerned€with€the€health€and€well€being€of€his€Egyptian€people.€€Furthermore,€itÏis€easy€to€see€how€Theuth€could€be€seen€as€a€unconcerned€zealot,€caught€up€in€the€magic€of€a€newÏtechnology,€without€thought€of€the€consequences€his€new€technology€may€bring€to€anÏunsuspecting€or€unprepared€society.€€Postman,€however,€made€the€mistake€of€assuming€that€thisÏparable€could€be€taken€at€face€value.€€It€could€be€read,€digested€and€then€regurgitated€in€itsÏentirety€as€a€historical€vignette€that€supported€his€idea€that€technology€cannot€be€ñ=ññ<ñð ðñ<ññ=ñpart€of€theÐ @-(, Ðnatural€order€of€things€in€any€society,€that€it€carries€ð ða€program,€an€agenda,€and€a€philosophy€thatÏmay€or€may€not€be€life€enhancing€and€that€therefore€require€scrutiny,€criticism€and€controlððÏ(p.185).Ìà  àThe€Socratic€method€of€thought€is€òòneveróó€this€simple€or€straightforward.€€Indeed,€the€entireÐ 8 ˆ Ðparable€is€just€that„€a€òòparableóó,€that€must€be€interpreted€based€upon€the€way€Socrates,€the€narrator,Ð  ` Ðwould€have€used€this€with€his€students.€€In€point,€Socrates€placed€great€emphasis€on€being€able€toÏsee€a€problem€from€different€angles.€€In€law€schools€around€the€country,€the€Socratic€method€isÏapplied€religiously,€until€the€student€can€argue€a€problem€with€himself€and€change€sides€every€fewÏminutes€without€even€stopping€to€catch€his€breath.€€Socrates€was€using€this€parable,€not€as€aÏdefense€against€writing€(a€new€technology),€or€even€against€new€inventions,€but€rather€as€a€way€toÏencourage€others€to€look€at€ideas€from€other€points€of€view.€€Socrates€felt€that€individualÏperceptions€caused€people€to€ignore€salient€aspects€of€an€argument,€and€he€sought€to€encourageÏhis€students€to€divorce€themselves€from€their€feelings€and€perceptions€and€look€at€the€problemÏrationally€and€dispassionately.€€What€looked€to€Postman€as€a€wiser,€more€learned€King€rebuking€aÏnaive€little€inventor€was€in€actuality€Socrates€making€a€statement€about€perceptions€and€theirÏextrñCñeme€ñCñinfluence€on€arguments.€€In€reality,€Socrates€could€have€had€Thamus€and€TheuthÏdiscussing€what€color€to€paint€a€bedroom,ñDñ€rather€than€the€societal€effects€of€writing.ñDñ€ñEñtñEññFñTñFñhe€idea€wasÏthat€Socrates€was€trying€to€impart€the€importance€of€always€seeking€to€discern€facts,€whileÏignoring€personal€perceptions€when€making€an€argument.€€ñGñòòñGñPostman€missed€this€one€by€a€mileñGñóóñGñ.€€InÐ à%0!$ Ðreality,€this€pithy€little€parable€that€ñHñpñHññIñPñIñostman€was€so€taken€with€was€just€an€exercise€SocratesÏdreamed€up€to€probably€test€his€freshmen€with€on€a€Friday€before€a€football€game...or€whateverÏsport€they€played€back€then.Ìà  àI€found€Postmanððs€discourse€on€the€types€of€culturesñJñ,ñJññKñ„ð ðñKñ€tool€usingñLñððñLñ,€whose€integration€ofÐ @-(, Ðtools€did€not€change€their€belief€system€or€ideology,ñMñððñMñ€technocraciesñNñððñNñ,€whose€in€Postmanððs€view,Ïchanged€society€to€mimic€machines„€the€advent€of€the€Industrial€revolution€and€the€beginning€ofÏfactories€and€interchangeable€parts€being€aligned€with€this€portion€of€history€and€more€lately,ÏñOñð ðñOñtechnopoliesñPñððñPñ„of€which€he€states€only€€the€USA€is€oneñQñ,€of€great€interestñQññRñ€interestingñRñ,€as€was€his€references€toÏthe€Luddite€movement,€the€failure€of€the€ð ðUtopian€Culturesðð€and€even€the€Scopes€monkey€trials€asÏhistorical€references€to€these€types€of€cultural€derivations.€€His€divisions€of€these€cultures€wereÏbased€upon€the€cultureððs€relationship€with€God€or€their€own€deity€and€where€God€stood€asÏopposed€to€the€technology.€€Postman€was€clear€that€Technopoly€was€achieved€when€there€was€aÏdeification€of€the€technology„€where€a€culture€seeks€personal€affirmation€by€the€technology€(p.71).€ÏPostman€feels€that€the€deification€of€technology€then€causes€huge€societal€implications.ñSñ€€ñSñÌÌà  àPostmanððs€emphasis€on€the€effect€technology€has€on€society€was€his€most€impressiveÏargument€in€the€entire€book.€€He€felt€that€technology€lead€to€ð ðinformation€overloadðð€and€thisÏsubsequent€ð ðoverloadingðð€could€have€dire€effects€on€society.€€He€states€that€ð ðinsufficientÏinformationðð€rarely€leads€to€social,€political€or€personal€problems€(p.€60),€rather€it€is€the€reverseÏthat€causes€these€problems€to€overflow€into€society.€€He€feels€that€the€information€has€achieved€anÏundeserved€metaphysical€status€in€our€culture.€€We€must€constantly€ð ðaccessðð€information,Ïsometimes€without€clearly€knowing€what€drives€us€to€learn€more.€€I€can€say€I€€recently€saw€a€TVÏcommercial€that€must€send€premonition€shivers€down€Postmanððs€spine!€€The€commercial€shows€aÏman€in€front€of€a€computer,€surfing€on€the€Internet„€his€wife€asks€him€what€was€wrong€and€heÏstates€in€a€semi„daze,€ð ð€The€computer€just€said€I€made€it€to€the€end€of€the€informationÏsuperhighway„€I€saw€and€learned€everything€there€is€to€knowðð.€€Societal€institutions,€long€used€toÏcontrol€and€structure€society,€under€bombardment€from€this€overwhelming€ñTñnew€ñTñinformationÐ @-(, Ðoverload€seek€to€provide€social€structure€and€filtering,€causing€chaos€and€fragmentation€to€occurÏin€Postmanððs€estimation.€ñUñÌà  àñUñ€Itððs€an€interesting€argument,€but€one€that€seems€to€be€placing€the€blame€for€theÏdestruction€of€the€nuclear€family€ñVñsquarely€ñVñon€technology.€€There€are€many€reasons€why€theÏnuclear€family€and€society€as€a€whole€are€not€functioning€perfectly€today,€but€I€doubt€the€adventÏof€home€computers€and€modems€are€at€the€ñWñvery€ñWñroot€of€our€societal€difficulties.€€I€believe€it€is€anÏover€simplification€to€simply€state€that€ð ðinformation€overloadðð€causes€societal,€political€and€otherÏstresses€that€seeks€to€destroy€the€foundation€of€our€culture.€€I€also€do€not€feel€just€because€I€amÏsitting€in€front€of€a€computer€monitor€typing€this€report€that€I€am€worshiping€a€Ô_ÔdemiÔ_Ô„God€of€someÏtype.€€I€can€see€myself€worshiping€my€coffee€pot€every€morning€at€six€am,€but€not€my€computer.€ÏAnd€the€coffee€pot€is€an€old€drip€pot€that€you€heat€on€the€stove,€so€it€doesnððt€qualify€as€a€newÏtechnology„€tool€using€cultures€useñXñdñXñ€the€same€type€of€coffee€pot€I€do.Ìà  àThat€is€not€to€say€that€I€do€not€agree€with€Mr.€Postman€ñYñin€certain€instances.€€I€feel€ñYññZññYñthñYññZñthat€weÏare€not€taking€responsibility,€nor€are€we€entirely€cognizant€of€the€fact€that€computers€do€haveÏpower€over€their€audiences.€€Marshall€McLuhan€taught€me€that€the€ð ðmedium€is€the€messageðð€andÏthat€the€medium€cannot€be€separated€from€the€message,€it€is€one€and€the€same€and€exertsÏtremendous€unforseen€and€unacknowledged€power€over€the€user.€€Ìà  àIndeed,€I€will€be€the€first€to€say€that€we€as€Educational€Technologists€must€be€at€theÏforefront€of€this€developing€technology.€€We€must€be€armed€with€the€knowledge€that€there€ñ[ñreallyÏñ[ñare€Theuth„like€zealots€out€there,€running€amok,€with€little€regard€to€what€technology€can€andÏcannot€doñ\ñ,€what€it€should€and€should€not€doñ\ñ.€€Microsoft€has€definitely€not€taken€a€leadership€roleÏin€determining€what€the€òòproper€roleóó€technology€should€have€in€a€society„€they€simply€want€toÐ h+¸&* Ðmake€money.€€As€a€technologist€in€charge€of€children,€I€should€and€must€be€aware€that€theÐ @-(, Ðmedium€is€inseparable€from€the€content€and€that€both€exert€influence€on€the€user.€€It€is€up€to€me€toÏbecome€aware€of€this€influence€and€to€catalog€itððs€effects.€€Ìà  àPostman€addresses€this€power€by€mentioning€David€Ô_ÔBolterÔ_Ôððs€book,€Ô_ÔTuringÔ_Ôððs€Men,€whichÏargues€that€computers€are€the€dominant€metaphor€of€our€age...by€suggesting€a€new€relationship€toÏinformation,€to€work€and€to€nature€itself€(p.111).€€He€goes€further€to€state€that€humans€haveÏbecome€ð ðinformation€processorsðð,€with€nature€the€information€to€be€processed.€€Postman€feelsÏthat€this€is€a€reference€to€the€fact€that€we€are€losing€our€identities€to€machines,€that€we€areÏbecoming€machines,€rather€than€individual€sentient€creatures.€€ñ]ñÌà  àñ]ñTo€which€I€answer,€when,ñ^ñòòñ^ñ€in€the€entire€history€of€manñ^ñóóñ^ñ,€have€we€not€been€ð ðinformationÐ pÀ Ðprocessors?ðð€€In€what€instance€in€history,€has€mankind€not€had€to€take€factual€references,€mixedÏperceptions€and€intuitive€knowledge€and€spent€time€processing€this€into€recognizable€data€to€beÏacted€upon?€€Where€Postman€finds€despair,€I€find€joy.€€We€are€historically€walking,€talkingÏsurviving€information€processors,€we€are€simply€living€in€an€era€where€information€is€growingÏexponentially,€rather€than€linearly,€yet€we€continue€to€keep€up€and€even€outdistance€thisÏinformation€glut.€€Where€Postman€finds€deification€of€technology,€to€the€point€where€the€human€isÏsubjugated,€I€see€a€working€partnership€of€man€and€machine.€€Ìà  àPostman€likens€himself€to€the€all„knowing€and€benevolent€King€Thamus,€shoutingÏwarnings€to€his€beloved€masses.€€In€reality,€I€feel€Postman€more€closely€resembles€Theuth,€theÏnaive€and€eager€inventor.€€Theuth€did€not€step€back€and€look€at€all€sides€of€his€newest€inventionÏrationally€and€dispassionately,€He€did€not€diligently€search€his€newest€toy€in€an€effort€to€catalogÏthe€advantages€and€drawbacks€of€his€new€invention,€in€truth,€inherent€in€all€new€inventions.€ÏPostman€is€like€Theuth,€in€that€he€chooses€to€see€only€one€side€of€the€use€of€technology.€€HeÏrefuses€to€lay€aside€personal€perceptions€and€view€technology€as€it€really€is,€a€potent€tool€thatÐ @-(, Ðdoes€have€the€ability€to€influence€its€audience€in€both€positive€and€negative€ways.€€It€is€up€to€us,€asÏfuture€educational€technologists,€to€understand€technologyððs€unseen€and€yet€definitive€influence,Ïbut€it€is€not€necessarily€our€job€to€pass€€judgement€on€that€influence.Ìà  àOverall,€I€can€say€that€Postman€was€an€interesting€read.€€He€was€not,€however,€MarshallÏMcLuhan€by€any€stretch€of€the€imagination.€€ñ{ñHowever,€ñ{ññ|ñHñ|ññ{ñhñ{ñis€discussion€of€the€moralistic€viñsñews€of€technologyÏuse€in€society€has€helped€prepare€me€for€the€intelligent€discourse€with€people€who€feel€as€NñsññtññsñieñsññtññuñeilÏPostman€does,€that€technology€while€maybe€not€inherently€evil,€is€at€least€in€theñuññvññuñrñuññvññwñir€estimation,Ïoverrated€and€overused€as€a€cure„all.€€Certainly€anyone€who€teaches€in€a€school€could€recognizeÏat€least€one€Postman€groupie€on€their€staff.€€For€this€reason€alone,€I€waded€through€ñwññxññwñpñwññxññyñPñyññwñostmanñwññzñ€andÏfeel€I€am€the€better€for€it.€€ñzñ