The Loving Resistance Fighter

I must say, Postman almost redeemed himeslf in this final chapter, and after all his pessimism, I appreciated that he gave a semblance of solution to all the problems he had outlined previously.  I enjoyed the term "loving resistance fighter" and although I don't think Postman would agree, his solution is what makes Christian education exciting.  As Christian educators we do have the responsibility to our youth "to give them a sense of coherence in their studies, a sense of purpose, meaning, and interconnectedness in what they learn," (186) and although Postman would not agree, this is not possible without showing students that God, the creator, is the one who is responsible for that meaning and interconnectedness.  It was almost humorous to me that Postman had to admit that "the Biblical version of creation, to the astonishment of everyone except possibly the fundamentalists, has turned out to be a near-perfect blend of artistic imagination and scientific intuition" (187).  I have never considered myself a fundamentalist, but for just this one time I think I am happy to join that circle. 
I appreciated Postman's closing remarks on the last two pages of his book, and I agree with his statement, "we need students who will understand the relationships between our technics and our social and psychic worlds, so that they may begin informed conversations about where technology is taking us and how."  It is our responsibility as Christian educators to continually bring Christ into that conversation so that students have a firm foundation on which to base their thinking.
I am wondering if our schools have the courage to really ask the tough questions and to get our students thinking -- when to do so is often very counter cultural and requires taking a firm, but loving stand (kind of like that "loving, resistance fighter")?

Social "Scientists" more Prevalent Than We'd Like to Admit!

Although I don't usually find myself agreeing with Postman, I think he made some good points in the chapter on scientism.  I found myself grinning when he was mentioning the almost ridiculous research that some "scientists" are involved in.  I know that sometimes when I watch the news, I will often be astounded by the massive amounts of money that went into huge studies that have the most basic of results.  If they had only asked me before they did all that expensive research, I could have saved them a lot of time and money!!!  And I couldn't help but agree with his statement, "That is why social "scientists" are so often to be found on our television screens, and on our best-seller lists, and in the 'self-help' sections of some airport bookstands:  not because they can tell us how some humans sometimes behave but because they can purport to tell us how we should; not because they speak to us as fellow humans who have lived longer, or experienced more of human suffering, or thought more deeply and reasoned more carefully about some set of problems, but because they consent to maintain the illusion that it is their data, their procedures, their science, and not themselves that speak."  The very sad state that this points to is that people are searching in all the wrong places for the wisdom and the moral judgement they so desperately seek.  If people knew the true source of wisdom and the ultimate authority (GOD), they wouldn't need the social scientists to aid them in their journey. 
But I wonder if technology is to blame for this?  And don't I see Christian bookstores lined with self-help books?  Why is that?  Is the state of technopoloy so strong, that it has infilitrated our Christian circles without us realizing it?  I think that is my burning question for the day!

Metaphor Making and Small Talk in the Staff Room

It was interesting to read A Whole New Mind and Technopoly in the same day and even more interesting that both authors  referred to metaphors.  Metaphor -- understanding one thing in terms of something else-- is an important part of creating symphony according to Pink.   And yet Postman almost seems to imply that the metaphor of the machine as human is a negative thing, or at least one he resents.  It was amazing me to realize how many metaphors we use when comparing computers to people or something alive:

• people programming or deprogramming themselves
• our brains as a piece of "hard wiring" capable of "retrieving data"
• a "virus" that makes computers sick, which can be "virulent" and "contagious"
• "worms" which attack computers
• computers which become "infected" and may need to be "quarantined" or "sterilized"
• programmers who needed to develop "vaccines" so that computers could be "inoculated

If I didn't know better, I would think computers had become things of life and could think and have meaning for themselves. In fact, I think we are sometimes guilty of that.  We do stop thinking and give the computer way too much credit.  We have all heard the statement, "the computer shows" or "the computer has determined, although I am not prepared to give those statements the same credibility as "It is God's will."  One of my questions this week this is this:  Are we still guilty of creating the computer as human, or worse yet, as God, or have we moved past that and realized its fallibility and its shortcomings? 

My other questions is this:  I wondered if Postman was correct when he stated, "There are, for example, no 'great computerers,' as there are great writers, painters, or musicians.  There are 'great programs' and great programmers,' but their greatness lies in their ingenuity either in simulating a human function or in creating new possibilities of calculation, speed, and volume."  Would Postman and Pink also argue about this?  Is Postman lessening the importance of right brain thinking? 

Well enough questions for one post!  Actually I have one more question, which is actually probably just a pet peeve of mine.  On page 137 Postman writes, "There seems to be a market for useless information. . . . It is surprising how frequently such blather will serve as the backbone of conversations which are essentially meaningless."  As I read that I couldn't help think of most of the conversations that happen during coffee time or lunch time in our staff room.  I must admit, small talk is not my forte, but it seems that as educators we should be able to get past the "blather" that often makes up the bulk of our conversations.  Does this irritate anyone else, or is there something wrong with me?

Technology: Are our Defenses Really Broken

Although I am starting to tire of Postman's negativity towards technology, I found that he made some valid points towards the defenses we have in place (or don't have in place) in reference to technology and "the information glut."  I agree with him that the school and the family serve as part of a culture's information immune system, but I took offense to his statement "that the family can no longer do this is obvious to everyone."  I hope this is not true.  I have devoted most of my life to trying, as best as I can,  to be the "immune system" for my family, and just tonight my teenage son said that I had sheltered them from the world.  Thankfully, my college-aged daughter said she hadn't felt sheltered, but irregardless, I tried to raise children who would becoming discerning adults in the world in which they live. 

I was also intrigued with Postman's whole discussion of bureaucracy, especially in reference to our educational systems.  Postman says, "If however, we are made to believe that a test can reveal precisely the quantity of intelligence a person has, then for all institutional purposes, a score on a test becomes his or her intelligence.  The test transforms an abstract and multifaceted meaning into a technical and exact term that leaves out everything of importance" (89)  How interesting if we look at that statement in reference to the grades we give on tests, assignments and report cards.  Do our grades signify nothing?    Are we guilty of believing that "technology can plainly reveal the true nature of some human condition or belief because the score, statistic, or taxonomy has given it technical form" (90)?

And finally, another point of interest was Postman's review of the medical system and the influence of technology.  He could have  had a great discussion with Pink, who recognized the power of story as a diagnostic tool in today's world of medicine.  Postman would be happy to note that listening to patients and giving their "story" value is once again becoming a well-recognized tool to diagnose medical problems.  Possibly this is one area where we are learning to combine the best of both worlds.

So my burning question for all you wise people is this:  Has our practice of giving grades and administering standardized tests made us guilty of bowing to the information glut and bureaucracy?  Are these tests and grades actually "a tale told by an expert, signifying nothing" (89)?

Information Glut: Can it be Lethal to our Health

Postman summed up my most of my thoughts while reading these two chapters in his final statement of chapter 4:  "It is only now beginning to be understood that cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without control mechanisms" (70).  I found myself nodding in agreement with his statement "information without regulation can be lethal" (63) and finally that "the genie that came out of the bottle proclaiming that information was the new god of culture was a deceiver. . . . It gave no warning about the dangers of information glut, the disadvantages of which were not seen so clearly" (60).

Once again, although I want to be a somewhat up-to-date user of technology. I also want to use it wisely and with my eyes open.  As an educator in the 21st century I think it is my responsibility to teach my students to see technology as a very useful tool and one that will absolutely shape their lives.  And yet I don't want them to suffer grievously.  How do I help them to find meaning in this technological world?  How do I help them access information and find control mechanisms to contain and evaluate that information?  Is that even possible?  My students (and my family) "are driven to fill our lives with the quest to 'access' information."  But I think we have to ask, "For what purpose or with what limitations" (61).  And although "we are not accustomed to asking, since the problem is unprecedented.  The world has never before been confronted with information glut and has hardly had time to reflect on its consequences" (61), we need to reflect on the consequences and encourage our students to ask the questions:  Do they use technology with discernment?  Do they believe everything they read?  How can they separate truth from fiction?  Am I giving them the skills to do that?  Can I burst their bubbles that technology is not everything?

And lastly, I had to grin with Postman's description of a "peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that event, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again" (70).  I see this mostly with my own children who are often calling me to view the latest youtube clip or the latest facebook posting.  It is a quick peek-a-boo into a usually irrelevant world, which does not usually enhance or detract from life -- or does it?  And do I take the time to even seriously answer that question or discern the believability of the clip?  I find myself guilty of finding the time to reflect on the consequences of the information that I am bombarded with.  If I don't know how to successfully navigate this information glut, how will I best teach my students who are on this journey with me?

Technopoly? A Burden or a Blessing

The subtitle of Postman's book Technopoly, "The Surrender of Culture to Technology" really caught my eye before I even started to read.  I can't say I felt like I was surrendering to technology.  In fact, on some days, I probably felt more like running from technology.  But he made a very clear argument outlining the strong influence that technology has on society, whether that influence was intended or not.  I loved his statement, "A bargain is struck in which technology giveth and technology taketh away" (5).   He clarifies this statement even more when he writes, "it is not always clear, at least in the early stages of a technology's intrusion into a culture, who will gain most by it and who will lose most.  This is because the changes wrought by technology are subtle if not downright mysterious, one might even say wildly unpredictable" (12). 
As an educator, and as a student taking a course called "Enhancing Education with Technology," this leaves me with some serious responsibility and some serious questions.  Am I wanting to learn more about technology just to be more modern and to look like I am on the "cutting edge" of education?  Will the use of technology really enhance the education I am providing?   Will my students be "losers" or "winners" or both as I introduce new technology into their educational world and their lives?  Am I being irresponsible if I don't show them as much as I can about technology and use it to its full extent, because that's the world they live in (and it's actually the world I live in too)?  And I guess a culminating question -- do all my previous questions really get to the true meaning of reforming all of life under God?

My first blog ever!

This blog will be a work in progress and may change as I become familiar with all the things I can do.  Hopefully it will serve its purpose for the time being.