Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

I heard Neil Postman on a radio interview for this book, several years before I read "Amusing Ourselves to Death," which I consider a better book. I went back and read Technopoly, because it is (for better or for worse) in many respects a classic in the field. After reading "Disappearance" and "Objections," I've found that Postman does a good job maintaining a basic premise or thesis throughout all of his books.
In technopoly, Postman offers an interesting perspective on those who would "gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved," known as technophiles, and those who are on the other end of the spectrum, I'll call them technocritics. This is a book that clearly defines the potential problems that we may incur if we blindly allow technology to answer society's most pressing questions.
As a quantitative researcher, who recognizes that a qualitative approach is sometimes necessary to tease out the richness of data (perhaps later to be empirically tested), I really enjoyed Postman's perspectives in the chapter titled "Scientism." In this chapter, and throughout the whole book, Postman included wonderful little vignettes: "Freud once sent a copy of one of his books to Einstein, asking for his evaluation of it. Einstein replied that he thought the book was exemplary but was not qualified to judge its scientific merit."
I see there are several other reviews, and so as not to make mine too long, let me end with this summation: Postman is a good writer and he's got lots of interesting threads of reasoning in this book. Not all of his arguments have a tremendous amount of backing, but you will gain valuable persepectives that you may not have thought of/about previously. From that standpoint, and the fact that his paperbacks aren't extremely expensive, I recommend adding it to your shopping basket.

The book is an uncompelling mixture of techno-skepticism, banality, conservatism, and remediation. In short, an eclectic stew with a catchy title. Postman's main thesis is that America has become a technopoly, which means that culture has lost its moral authority to technology. Technology has become the solution to whatever questions are asked, ushering in the reign of experts. Whatever else, there's a lot to agree with here.
But to understand where we are, we have to understand where we've been. Postman presents a three-stage view of history whose main thrust is that traditional religious and metaphysical beliefs have been steadily replaced by scientific methods and utilitarian values, while tradition is viewed as a source of error and a shackle on knowledge. This historical march culminates in the present stage of technopoly, which is defined as a totalitarian technocracy that has swept tradition with its non-technological values and meta-narratives into history's ash can. In short, culture, the last hold-out, has finally surrendered to the conquering armies of technology, making the sweep portentiously complete. (In Postman's taxonomy, computers extend the frontiers of technopoly but do not define it.)
All in all, his outline of history's main stages is interesting in detail if not exactly original. However, like others of a Weberian bent, Postman portrays technology as something of an independent force, creating its own logic and standards, taking on a life of its own. Nevertheless, such high-flying abstractions fail to link up with people, and fail to ask the crucial societal question of who owns and directs the technology of our age or any age; that is, in whose interest does nuclear energy, computerization, or surveillance equipment now operate. A taxonomy like Postman's works to obscure this key question and others like it. The problem with the reign of experts may lie not with technology itself, but with those who have the power to direct and set the goals of the research and development. We should be mindful that behind the technology of any age, there are always people and people with definite interests. This is an important sociological approach the book leaves critically unadressed.
Postman correctly sees the problem that lies in a computerized information glut versus a lack of meaningful ordering principles, a disconnect that leaves us with mounting piles of meaningless information. His solution however is anemic. He recommends an eclectic return to the meta-narratives of the past, an apparent attempt to re-establish a core of non-technological values within the utilitarian regime of technopoly. Yet how meta-narratives like the Bible or Communist Manifesto can re-establish credibility in a skeptical age that attacks even the authority of science is unclear to say the least. There is a problem of value-grounding in postmodern culture, but one that is not answered by a literary return to the past, no matter how great the appeal. In this key regard the book clearly flounders, and given Postman's prior accomplishments, the book adds up to a trendy disappointment.

I first picked this book up in high school more than 10 years ago. More recently, as a Ph.D. candidate in engineering, I gave it another read. From both perspectives, a teenager with some grade-school science courses and a tech-saavy graduate student, I have thoroughly enjoyed this book.
This is a book about how technology affects the way a society interprets and thinks about all aspects of life and culture. Postman starts by looking at the past and very low tech (writing, for instance) and ends up examining the tech of the present. This book was first published in the 80s with a reprint in 1993, so some of Post's observations about computers and TV are very dated. I would love to see a 2nd edition to this book to address the technology of today and it's accessibility.
Despite the dated comments on present tech (which in the present age is understandibly difficult to keep up with) the overall thesis is highly relevant and this book should be read by all, science and tech enthusiast or no. It will definitely make you think about things you have previously taken for granted. The next time you use any technology, from a pen to a pda to a dvd player, you will ask yourself how this skews your world view.
Highly reccomended.

"Back when men were bolder, and women were prettier, etc." Every generation has probably heard various versions of this kind of "it's getting worse" story. Postman names all through this book the alternatives modern life gives us when a new technology comes along. Of course this happens. The automobile took away the chance to let neighbors chat when buggying down the dirt roads, their horses lazily nibbling the grass as the time passed. But the horse buggy took away an earlier "pleasure" at the expense of the improved technology of the buggy. All this seems very obvious, and the author uses an urbane, Time-Magazine style of prose to dance around these technology-finally-creates-Technoply talks. One wonders if the creator of fire caused the first humans to not enjoy the pleasure of shivering any more.

There is truth in what the author is saying, of course, and the reader will certainly be a little more sensitized to a deflavoring of culture because of progress. Admittedly, this "urbane writing style" makes an easily-readable work, and it is a plus not having to wade through a long, strident sermon. Also, Postman gives the Left a deserved kick in the shin regarding their forgiving memory of Joseph Stalin, and their often-observed intolerance for other views.

Maybe there were just too many topics to talk about in this book. An earlier work, Amusing Ourselves to Death, is much more focused, making the author's argument easier to see. Both books can be read quickly, though, and most readers will enjoy the many facts about the origins of things which Postman sprinkles through the book.

"Back when men were bolder, and women were prettier, etc." Every generation has probably heard various versions of this kind of "it's getting worse" story. Postman names all through this book the alternatives modern life gives us when a new technology comes along. Of course this happens. The automobile took away the chance to let neighbors chat when buggying down the dirt roads, their horses lazily nibbling the grass as the time passed. But the horse buggy took away an earlier "pleasure" at the expense of the improved technology of the buggy. All this seems very obvious, and the author uses an urbane, Time-Magazine style of prose to dance around these technology-finally-creates-Technoply talks. One wonders if the creator of fire caused the first humans to not enjoy the pleasure of shivering any more.

There is truth in what the author is saying, of course, and the reader will certainly be a little more sensitized to a deflavoring of culture because of progress. Admittedly, this "urbane writing style" makes an easily-readable work, and it is a plus not having to wade through a long, strident sermon. Also, Postman gives the Left a deserved kick in the shin regarding their forgiving memory of Joseph Stalin, and their often-observed intolerance for other views.

Maybe there were just too many topics to talk about in this book. An earlier work, Amusing Ourselves to Death, is much more focused, making the author's argument easier to see. Both books can be read quickly, though, and most readers will enjoy the many facts about the origins of things which Postman sprinkles through the book.

Marshall McLuhan observed the medium is the message. Postman's argument is along similar lines as suggested in the subtitle of this book, "the surrender of culture to technology." He begins with a legend and goes into a question about how we learn in our culture. The introductory section is followed in the next chapter by a look at the tools that paved the way for industrialization and later the information age. In the third chapter, Postman makes a poignant observation, in discussing the assumptions made by Frederick W. Taylor in his classic book on scientific management i.e., "human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unneccesary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking..." (p. 51).
His lucid examination of ideas, inventions, and public adaption continues. In the fourth chapter the quote that stood out most for me was one from H. L. Mencken who said "there is no idea so stupid that you can't find a professor who will believe it" (p. 57). I've been in academe long enough to verify that that observation remains the same now as when it was first written.
Anyone who has ever been the victim of the fill-in-the-blank mentality of bureaucratic thinking can appreciate Postman's comment that "the invention of the standaradized form--a staple of bureaucracy--allows for the 'destruction' of every nuance and detail of a situation" (p. 84). To make his point even stronger, he goes on to define a bureaucrat as "little else than a glorified counter" (p. 86).
Postman never fails to leave his readers with a perspective they didn't have before picking up one of his books. Read this one and learn a little more about how technology is shaping your perceptions often without your awareness.

This book is unoriginal, shallow, poorly organized, and overly wordy (he sounds like he is just rambling on, trying to sound "learned", but saying nothing of substance most of the time). I had to force myself to finish this one.

There are several better books on the topics that are covered in "Technopoly" -- I would especially recommend "Autonomous Technology" (Winner) and "Technological Society" (Ellul), "Cult of Information" (Roszak), and "The Arrogance of Humanism" (Ehrenfield). These are much more in-depth, better written, and interesting.

Neil Postman's Technopoly stands as a prophetic look at the impact of technology on a society. From the outset it is clear that Postman is not concerned with being unbiased, but rather balancing his own biases with careful self-criticing and historical presidents for his observations. This book comes as a bit of a wake up call for a society ungulfed in technology, an ironic observation given the method of this review. Postman acknowledges that it will be difficult for many readers to accept his ideology, but that it was important that they do not simply dismiss it. Technology, for Postman, is never a simple thing, and we are never able to comprehend the far reaching impact of the technologies we introduce into society. Postman gives the example of the printing press and the decline of the written tradition. While it was not an intentional effect, the value of writing has become secondary within society to technological innovation. These innovations are seen in every facet of life, for Postman, and carry many dire consequences.

While it is difficult to deny the line of reasoning used by Postman, one can see that Postman may be a bit to pessimistic in man's ability to maintain his own identity in a world of technological innovations. Postman does not seem to take into account many of the things that make us human, i.e. emotion and reason. This leaves the reader with a bleek view of the technological future, in which mankind is stripped of its very essence in favor of a machine driven society.

Overall, Postman makes important contributions to both philosophical circles, as well as social dialogue, in Technopoly, but seems to fall short in recognizing the human element at work in a technological society. I would highly recommend this book to those that do not fully understand the impact technology has on our lives, but would caution them against fully investing their minds in Postman's theories.

Cultural critic Neil Postman goes after what he calls technolopy which is essentially a "self-justifying, self-perpetuating system wherein technology of every kind is cheerfully granted
sovereingty over social institutions and national life."
Postman is not by any means an luddite but he wants us to be aware of how technology has shaped our society,and epistemology. Often not for the better in many respects.
We live in a society that does not use machines but is more and more used by them. It shapes our world view. Postman attempts to trace it's effect on us from the beginning. Overall he does a fine a job. Although a easy read many of the topics require closer scrutiny and thinking. Which is good, he wants you to think about whats happening not just accept what he has to say.
In one chapter he roasts the medical industry's infatuation with new technology while the doctors neglect their patients. Patients invariably are reduced to slabs of meat on a assembly line. He makes the salient point that information is not understanding, which is usually ignored by most promoters of technopoly.
Another chapter deals with 'scientism' which is science distorted into a intolerant fundamentalist belief system and its effects on our society. This chapter is his most humorous as he disects some the masters of the obvious(Dilbert like scientists who think they have discovered something profound but what most people on the street already know)Like people are afraid of death and that open minded people tend to be open minded. That's right Ph.d's have done studies to prove these notions! Perhaps a better title for this chapter would have been "the marching morons of science."
The last chapter deals on how to resist technology in our daily lives. Which he sums ups in several points(not all of them are listed in this review). Though it's not enough in my opinion, considering technolopy's corrosive influence on people and cultures throughout the world. Things need to be addressed at the nation policy level if anything is to be really changed.
* who do not regard the aged as irrelevant
* who admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest form of human achievement.
* who are at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who do not confuse information with understanding.
* who have freed themselves from the belief in the magical power of numbers, do not regard calculations as an adequate substitute for judgement or as synonym for truth.
The book is a good starting point to informing oneself on the minuses of technology. Though dated much of his observations are still relevant and a good antidote to high tech mavens like Kelly, Moravec and their ilk. Another good book is David Ehrenfeld's "Beginning Again" written from a profession biologist POV. Or better yet, get Wendell Berry's tract "Life is a miracle" which a rather thorough disection of technolopy's epistemology and what lies beneath it's pretty public facade.

Postman discusses things that he finds wrong with the world, but there is very little connection between these ideas and technology. However, if you're interested in these things, then parts of this book might be a good read: * why opinion polls are not useful (Chapters 5, 8); * why efficiency and progress are not worthy goals (Ch. 3); * why human qualities cannot be ranked or measured (Ch. 1, 8); * why statistics do not often reflect reality (Ch. 8); * whether or not social science is really a science (Ch. 9); * why you should distrust medical doctors (Ch. 6); * why traditions and religious narratives should not be thrown away (Ch. 3, 9, 10); and * how education could improve society (Ch. 11).