The Judgement of Thamus is a text used to ask and explain the questions that arise as technology begins to imbed itself in cultures across the world. Postman uses King Thamus’ opinion about the invention of writing as a stark contrast between those he calls “technophiles” and “technophopes.”
It is in the first paragraph where the reader learns of King Thamus’ apprehensions to the written word. Thamus’ concerns are wrapped around the belief that writing will replace memory with recollection and create a sense of false wisdom among Theuth’s pupils. Thamus claims, “Those who acquire it 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. What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory,” (Postman, 31).
It is in these claims Postman sees an unsightly error both in logic and wisdom, for Thamus assumes writing will have this effect and that it will be both troubling and an encumbrance to society. “Thamus’ error is in believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden. For all his wisdom, he fails to imagine what writing’s benefits might be, which, as we know, have been considerable,” (Postman, 31).
However, Thamus has taught us that “once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do,” (Postman, 33). In other words, when a new technology is introduced, it is well advised to seek out its potential benefits and consequences on society. Asking questions like, how will society change? What will be its significance to the majority of the population? Allows for a more even handed and logical approach. “When we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open,” (Postman, 33).
Further down the text Postman claims 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, 34).
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. I would argue 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.
In other words, I would argue technology doesn’t create winners and losers, but readjusts our culture and occupations. There is an argument that technology doesn’t change the culture, for the culture created these inventions; it is the culture that changes technology. Therefore, saying a car is counterproductive to a blacksmith or television is a threat to schoolteachers, is like saying natural fertilizer is bad for grass. Or maturity is a detriment to the young child.
Although I agree with much of what Postman writes and do not consider myself a “technophile” I think it is important to realize the advent of new technology cannot be seen as a detriment to society. After all it is society who invented these things and if it were not for some type of need, they would not have been invented.
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.
As Postman puts it “New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with. And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop,” (Postman, 39). Just like a child grows into an adult, technology grows as societies mature and become more developed. The concept of reality changes as a person grows older. I believe technology is just part of that process.
No comments:
Post a Comment