A warning about Technopoly

“Technopoly … is totalitarian technocracy” (Postman, 1992, 48).

Technology: friend or foe … or both?

It may seem indisputable that technological innovation is, on the whole, a great thing. And yet, if innovation gets pushed to an extreme—if we’re just innovating for innovation’s sake, as opposed to using innovations to help people solve social problems—then technology can become a destructive force to our culture and society. At least, that’s what author and educator Neil Postman argued in his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology.

Postman begins his book by describing technology as both a friend and a foe:

“In fact, most people believe that technology is a staunch friend. There are two reasons for this. First, technology is a friend. It makes life easier, cleaner, and longer. Can anyone ask more of a friend? Second, because of its lengthy, intimate, and inevitable relationship with culture, technology does not invite a close examination of its own consequences. It is the kind of friend that asks for trust and obedience, which most people are inclined to give because its gifts are truly bountiful. But, of course, there is a dark side to this friend. Its gifts are not without a heavy cost. Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. Technology, in sum, is both friend and enemy” (xii).

The media ecology of technology (and Technopoly)

To better understand why Postman calls technology both a friend and an enemy, we need to understand a discipline he founded, known as media ecology. Simply put, media ecology studies how technologies can affect the way we live and think.

Here’s the underlying idea. When we add a new technology to society, we don’t simply have society plus the new technology. Rather, we have a whole new society. That’s because adding new technology to culture affects our entire way of life. In Technopoly, Postman explains why he uses the word “ecology” to describe the effects of technology and media this way:

“I mean ‘ecological’ in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment … This is how ecology of media works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (18).

If technology does, in fact, change everything, then we really shouldn’t think about innovation apart from broader social considerations. In other words, we probably shouldn’t mindlessly innovate, just for the sake of innovating. For that would lead us to what Postman calls “Technopoly.”

What’s Technopoly?

Technopoly, according to Postman, is what happens when a culture exalts the latest technological innovation for its own sake. Hence, there’s little to no thought about how new technology will benefit (or perhaps not benefit) our fellow human beings.

In effect, Technopoly is isolating technological innovation from social innovation, ignoring the question: For what problem is this new technology a solution? As a result, Technopoly is oblivious to any unintended consequences that we should consider before releasing new technology into the world. Arguably, we’ve seen Technopoly at work with innovations like social media and crytocurrencies—technologies with little societal benefit but clear moral hazard.

What’s the alternative to Technopoly?

Well then, what’s the alternative? Postman argues for an educational curriculum with “strong emphasis on classical forms of artistic expression” (199). Like philosopher Martin Heidegger, he believes that art can help us rethink our understanding of technology. For example, instead of seeing technology as a thing we use or consume, we ought to see technology as a kind of art.

With this more artistic understanding of technology, we just might be better equipped to rethink (and maybe even redesign) our innovations in a more humane way. Whether or not you agree with that conclusion, Technopoly nevertheless remains essential reading for anyone interested in the ethics of technological innovation. For more on the book’s argument, check out Postman’s 1997 lecture on “The Surrender of Culture to Technology”:

---

References

Postman, Neil. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.