technology and culture final exam

1

The Judgment of Thamus

Y ou will find in Plato's Plu!edrns a story about Thamus, the kmg of a great city of Upper Egypt. For people such as ourselves, who are mclined (in Thoreau's

phra e) to be tools of our tools, few legends are more instructive than his The story, as Socrates tells 1t to h1s fnend Phaedrus,

unfolds in the followmg way . Thamus once entertamed the god Theuth, who was the inventor of many things, including num- ber, calculation, geometry, astronomy, and writing. Theuth ex- hibited his inventions to King Thamus, claiming that they hould be made widely known and available to Egyptians.

Socrates continues·

Thamus mqu1red mto the use of each of them, and as Theuth went through them expressed approval or disap- proval, according as he Judged Theuth's claims to be well or ill founded. It would take too long to go through all that Thamus is reported to have said for and against each of Theuth's inventions. But when it came to writing, Theuth declared, "Here 1s an accomplishment, my lord the King,

4 Technopoly

wh1ch w1ll improve both the wisdom and the memory of the Egyptians. I have discovered a sure rece1pt for memory and wisdom." To th1s, Thamus replied, "Theuth, my para-

gon of mventors, the d1scoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm wh1ch will accrue to those who

practice it. So 1t 1s m th1s; you, who are the father of

wntmg, have out of fondness for your off-spring at- tributed to 1t quite the opposite of its real funchon . Those who acqwre it will cease to exercise the1r memory and become forgetful; they w1ll rely on writing to bnng thmgs

to the1r remembrance by external 1gn mstead of by their own internal resources. What you have discovered 1s a

rece1pt for recollechon. not for memory And as for WIS-

dom. your pup1ls will have the reputahon for it w1thout the reality· they will rece1ve a quanhty of information

w1thout proper mstruction, and in consequence be thought

very knowledgeable when they are for the most part qUJte

ignorant. And because they are filled wuh the conceit of wisdom mstead of real wisdom the.Y will be a burden to soaety." 1

I begm my book with thi legend because in Tharnus' re- spo~se there are several sound pnnciples from which we may begm to learn how to think w1th wise mcumspedion about a

technological soc1ety. In fact, there 1s even one error in the

judgment of Thamus, from wruch we may also learn something of importance. The error 1s not m his daim that writing will

damage memory and create false wisdom. It 1s demonstrable tha.t writing ha had such an effect. Thamus' error 1s in his

f behevmg that wnting will be a burden to society and nothing but a burdtn For all his wisdom, he fails to imagine what writing's benefits m1ght be wh· h kn

· 1c . as we ow, have been considerable. We may learn from this that It IS a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect. Every techno!-

The Judgment of Thamus 5

ogy i both a burden and a ble ing; not e1ther-or, but this-and-

that. Nothing could be more obv10u . of cour e, espec1ally to

tho e who have given more than two mmute of thought to the

matter. Nonethele , we are currently urrounded by throngs of

zealou Theuth . one-eyed prophet who ee only what new

technologie can do and are mcapable of 1magimng what they

wi11 1 mdo. We m1ght call such people T chnophiles. They gaze

on technology a a lover doe on h1 beloved, eeing it a

without blemi h and entertammg no apprehen ion for the fu-

ture. They are therefore dangerou and are to be approached cautiou ly. On the other hand, orne one-eyed prophets. such as

I (or 0 I am accu ed). are mchned to peak only of burdens (m

the manner of Thamu ) and are 1lent about the opportumties

that new technolog1e make po 1ble The T echnophiles must

speak for them elve , and do o all over the place. My defense

is that a di enting vo1ce 1 omehme needed to moderate. the dm made by the enthusia he multitudes. If one IS to err, 1t IS

oetter to err on t e i e of Thamu ian kephCi m. But Jt IS an

error nonethele . And I might note that. w1th the exception of hi judgment on writing. Tharnu do not repeat thi error.

You might notice on rereadmg the legend that he g•ves argu- ments for and a amsf each of Theuth' mventions. For 1t is me capable that every culture mu t negotiate with technology,

whether it doe o mtelligently or not A bargain IS truck 10

wh1ch technology g1veth and technology taketh away. T~e wi e know th1 well. and are rarely 1mpre ed by dramahc

technolog1cal change . and never overJoyed Here, for example,

is Freud on the matter. from h1 doleful CtVJllzatwn and Its

Dtscontmt .

One would hke to ask. 1 there. then. no posihve gain in

pleasure, no unequivocal mcrea e m my feeling of hap~i­ ness, if I can, as often a I plea e, hear the voice of a child

6 Technopoly

of mine who is ltving hundred of mile away or if I can learn m the shorte t possrble hme after a fnend ha reached hrs de tinahon that he has come through the long and drfficult voyage unharmed? Doe it mean nothrng that medrcme has succeeded m enormou ly reducrng rnfant mortality and the danger of rnfedron for women rn child- birth, and, rndeed, m con iderably lengthenrng the average life of a crvilized man?

Freud knew full well that technrcal and crenhfic advance are not to be taken lrghtly, whrch r why he begrn thr pa age by acknowledgmg them. But he end rt by remrnding u of what they have undone·

If there had been no railway to conquer dr tance , my chrld would never have left hrs nahve town and I hould need no telephone to hear hi vorce, rf travellrng aero the ocean by shrp had not been rntroduced, my fnend would not have embarked on hrs sea-voyage and I hould not need a cable to relieve my anxrety about hrm What r the use of reducmg rnfanhle mortality when rt r precr ely that reduchon whrch imposes the greatest restrarnt on us rn the begethng of chrldren, so that, taken all round, we never- theless rear no more children than in the days before the reign of hygiene, whrle at the arne hme we have created difficult condrhons for our sexual life m mamage And, finaJiy, what good to us r a long ltfe if rt r difficult and barren of JOys, and if rt is so full of mrsery that we can only welcome death as a delrverer7 2

In tabulatmg the cost of technologrcal progress, Freud take a rather depressrng line, that of a man who agrees with Tho- reau's remark that our inventions are but rmproved means to an unrmproved end. The T echnop i e would surely answer Freud

The Judgment of Thamus 7

. that life ha alway been barren of joy and full of by ayrng II h mi ery but that the telephone. ocean liner . and e pecra y .t e

. f h 'ene have not only lengthened life but made rt a rergn o ygr 1 more a reeable propo ition. That i certainly an argument would make (thu provin I am no one- yed Technophobe), but · t ary at thi pornt to pur u it. I have brought 1t 1 no nee . F d into th conver ation only to h w that a wr e man- reu b · h

even one of uch a woeful countenance-mu t e rn r cn- hque of technolo b acknowled in it ucc e . Had Krn Thamu be n a wi a reputed, h would not have forgotten to include in hi JUd ment a prophecy about th power that wribng would enlarge. There i a calculu of technologrcal change that require a mea ure of even-handedne

So much for Thamu ' error of omr ron There 1 another omr ron worthy of note, but rt 1 no error. Thamu 1mply take ~ for granted-and therefore do not feel it nece ary to ay- ~ that writin i not a neutral te hnolo who good or harm depend on the u e made of it. He know that the u e made of any technolo yare largely deterrnrned by the tru ture of the technolo y it If-that i , that it tunctron follow from rt form. Thi i why Thamu i concerned not with what people wrtl wnte; he i once~d Hmt people will wnte It r ab urd to imagine Thamu advi ing. rn the manner of today' tandard- brand Technophile , that, rf only writing would be u ed for the production of certain kind of text and not other (let u ay, for dramatic literature but not for hr tory or ph1lo ophy), rt di ruption could be mrnrmrzed He v.ould re ard uch coun el a extreme na1vete He would allow, I 1magrne, that a technol- ogy may be barred entry to a culture But we may learn from Thamu the followrng once a technology r admrtted, rt play out it hand, it doe what rt r de rgned to do ur ta k r to understand what that de rgn r -that r to ay, when we admrt a new technolo y to the culture, we mu t do o wrth our eye wide open.

8 Technopoly

All of tht we ma y mfer from Thamu ' ilence But we may learn even more from what he doe ay than from what he doe n't He pomt out, for example that wnbng wtll change what 1 meant by the word "memory" and "wt dom." He fear that memory wtll be confu ed with what he dt damfully call ~and he warne that wt dotn wtll become tndt tin- gut hable from mere knowled e Tht judgment we mu t take to eart, or 1 i a certamty that radical technologte create new defimhon of old term and that tht proce take place wtth- out our bemg fully con ctou of tt Thu , tt 1 m 1d10u and dangerou qutte dtfferent from the proce whereby new tech- nologte mtroduce new term to the language In our own time, we have con ctou ly added to our language thou and of new word and phra e havmg to do with new technologte - "VCR," bmary dtgtt," " oftware," "front -wheel dnve," "wm- dow of opportumty,' 'Walkman " etc. We are not taken by urpn e at tht ew thmg requtre new word . But new thmg

also modify old word , word that have deep-rooted meanmg The telegraph an t e pennypre changed what weonce meant by 'mformabon. Televt ion change what we on e meant by the term polttical debate ' new ," and ' ublic opm10n ." The computer change "mformahon" once agam. Wrihng changed what we once meant by "truth" and "law~ prinbng changed them again, and now televt ton and the com- puter change them once more Such chan e occur qutckly, surely, and, in a sen e, ilently Lextcographer hold no plebt - ates on the matter o manual are wntten to explam what 1 happenmg, and the chools are obltvtou to tt. The old word still look the arne, are bll u ed m the arne kind of entence . But they do not have the same meanmg m orne ca e , they have oppo ite meanmg . And tht 1 what Thamu wt he to teach u -that technology tmpenou ly commandeer our mo t tmportant terminology. It redefine "freedom," "truth," "intellt- gence," "fact ," 'wisdom," "memory," "ht tory"-all the word

Tht Judgment of Thamus 9

not pau e to tell u . And we do not we live by. And it doe

pau e to a k. e elabora- . fad about technological chan e requtr om

. Tht d I wtll return to the matter in a lat r chapter Here, there hon. an . . I to be mined from th Judgment of are everal more pnnop e. . r a e all I will Thamu that require menttonm becau they p g f

·t bout For in tanc , Thamu warn that the pupt! o wn e a · · f d He Theuth will develop an und rved reputation or wt om mean to ay that tho e who cultivate comp t nee m the u e of a new technolo y become an elite roup that ar grantea unde erved autnonty and pre tige oy tho e who have .no uch competence. There are differ nt way of expr m the mtere t- ing implication of thi fa t. Harold lnni , the fathe~ of modem communication tudie , rep ate<lly pol<e of the knowled e monopolie " creat d by imp rtant te hnolo te He meant pre- ci ely what Thamu had in mind : tho who have control over the wor 'ng of a particular technolo y accumulate power and inevitably form a kind of con piracy a ain t th who have no acce s to the pecialized know) d e mad available by the technology. In hi book The Bws of Co nmnmication Inm pro- vide many hi torical exampl of how a new technology "busted up" a traditional knowledge monopoly and created a new one pre ided over by a dtfferent roup Another way of saymg tht i that the ben fit and deficit of a new technology are not di tributed equally There ar , a tt were, wmner and lo er It ts both puzzling and poignant that on many occa ton the lo er , out of tgnorance, have actually che red the wmner , and orne hll do

let u take a an example the ca of televt ton In the Umted State , where televi ion ha taken hold more de ply than any- where el e, many people find 1t a ble m , n t lea t tho e who have achteved htgh-paym , grahfym car er m televt ton a execuhve , techniaan , new ca ter and entertainer . It hould surpri e no one that uch people, forrmng a they do a new

10 Technopoly

knowledge monopoly, should cheer themselves and defend and

promote television technology On the other hand and in the long run, television may bnng a gradual end to the career of choolteacher , mce school was an mvention of the ~in

pre s and must tand or fall on the 1 ue of how much impor- tance the printed word ha . For four hundred years, school- teacher have been part of the knowledge monopoly created by printing, and they are now w1tne mg the breakup of that

monopoly It appear a 1f they can do little to prevent that breakup, but surely there IS omething perverse about chool-

teacher ' bemg enthu 1ashc about what IS happenmg Such en- thusiasm alway calls to my mmd an image of orne

tum-of-the-century blacksm1th who not only smg the pra1 es

of the automobile but also believes that his busmess will be enhanced by it. We know now that h1s bu mes was not en- hanced by 1t; 1t was rendered ob olete by 1t, as perhaps the clearheaded blacksmith knew. What could they have done? Weep, 1f nothmg else

We have a S1m1lar s1tuahon m the development and spread of computer technology, for here too there are Winner and lo ers.

There can be no d1spuhng that the computer ha mcrea ed the power of large-scale organizahons like th ~ed forces, or curline compantes or banks or tax-collectmg agencies. And it is equally clear that the computer i now indispensable to hi h- level researchers in physics and other natural sciences. But to what extent has computer technology been an advantage to the

masse of people? To steelworkers, vegetable-store owners, teachers, garage mechan1cs, musiCians, bricklayers, dentists, and

most of the rest mto whose lives the computer now intrudes? The1r pnvate matters have been made more accessible to pow- erful inshtuhons. They are more eas1ly tracked and controlled;

are subjected to more examinations; are mcreasingly mystified by the decisions made about them; are often reduced to mere numencal objects. They are inundated by junk mail. They are

111, Judgment of Tha us 11

L t for adverti ing a encie and p libcal or anizah n easy ,arge . d The school teach their children to operate comput nze Y -

• L d of teachmg thing that ar more aluable to hil-tems ms,ea dren. In a word, almo t nothing that the ne d happen to th

losers. Which is why they are lo er .

It i to be expected that the \ mner will encoura e the I er to be enthu ia tic about com uter t chn lo That 1 the way of winners, and o they ometime tell the lo er that w1th

personal computer the average p r on can balance a checkbook

more neatly, keep better track of reCipe , and make more log1cal

shopping li t . They al o tell them that the1r live will be conducted more efficiently. But di creetly they neglect to ay

from who e point of view the effiCiency i warranted or what

might be it co t Should the lo er grow kephcal the wmner

dazzle them wtth the wondrou feat of computer almo t all

of which have only marginal rele ance to the quality of the

lo er ' live but wh1ch are nonethele impre 1 e Eventually,

the lo er succumb, m part becau e they believe a Thamu

prophesied. that the pecialized knowledge of the rna ter of a

new technology i a form of WI dom The rna ter come to

believe thi as well, a Thamu at o prophe 1ed The re ult 1 that certain que tion do not an e. For example, to whom will

the technology g1ve greater power and freedom? And who e power and freeaom will be reduced by 1 t7

I have perhap made all of th1 oun like a well-planned conspiracy, a if the winners know all too well what 1 bemg

won and what lost . But thi i not quite how it happen For one

thing, in cui t have a democratic etho 'ivefy w ak traditions, and a high receptivity to new te hnolo 1e everyone

iS1il ined to be entfiu 1as 1c about technological change, behev- ing that 1ts benefit will eventually pread evenly among the

entire populahon Especially in the United States, where the lu t

for what is new has no bounds do we find thi childlike convic-

hon most widely held . Indeed, m Amenca, oc1al change of any

12 Technopoly

land is rarely seen as resulting in wmner and losers, a cond1hon

that terns m part from Amencan much-documented opti-

mism. As for change brought on by technology, th1s nahve

ophmi m is exploited by entrepreneur , who work hard to

infuse the populahon WtHot · o tmprobable hope, for they know that it ts economically unwt e to reveal the pnce to be

pa1d for technologtcal change One might say, then, that, if

there ts a con p1racy of any kind 1t ts that of a culture conspiring against itself

In addition to this, and more important, tt ts not always clear,

at lea t m the early tage of a technology's mtru ton mto a

culture, who will ammo t by it and who will lo e most. Tht

1s becau e the change wrought by technology are subtle tf not

downnght mystenou , one might even ay wildly unpredtd-

able. Among the most unpr chctable are tho that m1 ht be labeled 1deolog1cal.'Tht i the ort of change Thamus had m

mmd when he warned that wnter wtll come to rely on external

signs in tead of their own internal re ources, and that they will

receive quantities of mformation without proper mstruchon. He

meant that new technologie change what we mean b "know-

ing' and "truth"; they alter tho e deeply embedded habits of

though which give to a culture its ense of what the world is

like--a en e of what IS the natural order of thmgs, of what ts

reasonable, of what ts neces ary, of what ts mevitable, of what

1s real Since such changes are expre sed m changed meanings

of old words, I wtll hold off unhl later d1scussmg the mas ive

ideologtcal tran formahon now occumng in the United States.

Here I should hke to gtve only one example of how technology

create new conceptions of what i real and, m the process,

undermines older conceptions. I refer to the seemingly harmless

practice of ass1gnmg marks or grades to the answers students

give on exammations. This procedure seems so natural to most

~f us that we are hardly aware of it s1gmficance. We may even find tt dtfficult to tmagine that the number or letter is a tool or,

The Judgment of Thamus 13

if you will, a technology; till le that, when we u e uch a

technology to judge omeone behaviOr, we have done orne-

thing peculiar. In point of fa t the fir t m tance of gradmg

student ' paper occurred at Cambndge Umver tty in 1792 at

the ugge tion of a tutor named Wtlham Fari h . 3 No one know

much about William Fari h; not more than a handful have ever

heard of him And yet h1 tdea that a quanbtahve value should

be a i n d to human thought wa a maJOr tep toward con-

tructini'? a math matical ncept of reality If a number can be

g1ven to the qualtty of a thought, th n a number can be g1ven

to the qualitie of mer y, love hate beauty, creabv1ty mtelli-

gence, even anity 1t If. When Galtleo atd that the language

of nature 1 wntt n in mathemabc , he dtd not mean to mclude

human feeling or accomplt hment or m 1ght But mo t of u are

now mdined to make the e in lu Jon Our p ycholog1 t , ocJ-

ologi t , and educator find tt qUJte tmpo 1ble to do the1r work

without numb r . Th y b lteve that w1thout number they can - not acquire or xpr auth nti knowledge

I hall not ar ue here that th1 i a tup1d or dangerou idea. only that it i p culiar. What 1 ev n more pecultar 1 that o

many of u do not find th id a p uliar To a y that omeone

hould b doin better work b au e h ha an I of 134. or

that omeone i a 7.2 on a en itivity ale or that th1 man '

e ay on the n e of capitalt m 1 an A - and that man ' 1 a C + would have ounded like gibb n h to Galtleo or Shake peare or

Thoma Jeffer on If 1t make en e to u that 1 becau e our mmd have been condtboned by the technology of number o

that we ee the world d1fferently than the y dtd . ur under tand- ing of what i real i different. Wh1ch i another way of a y ing

t~mbedded in eve tool i an JdeolQgteal b1a , a pr d1 po J- hon to con truct the world a on thin rather Ehan another, to-

value one thtng over another to amp!tfy one en e or ktll or attitude more loudly than another

Thi i what Mar hall McLuhan meant by h1 famou apho-

14 Techno poly

ri m "The med1um 1 the me sage " Th1 1 what M~eant when he a1d, 'Technology d1 do e man' mode of dealmg w1th nature" and create the "cond1hon of mtercour e" by wh1ch we relate to each other It 1 what W1ttgen tem meant when, m refernng to our mo t fundamental technology, he a1d that language 1s not merely a veh1cle of thought but al o

the dnver And 1t 1 what Thamu WI hed the inventor Theuth to ee Th1 1 , in hort, an anc1ent and per 1 tent p1ece of WI dom. perhap mo t 1mply expre ed m the old adage that, to a man w1th a hammer everythmg look hke a nail W1thout bemg too hteral we may extend the trUI m T a- man w1th a penCIL everything look like a h t To a man w1th a camera. everythmg look like an 1mage To a man w1th a computer everythmg looks like data And to a man w1th a grade heet everythmg look like a number

But uch preJUdice are not alway apparent at the tart of a technology' JOurney, wh1ch 1 why no one can afely con p1re to be a winner m technological change Who would have lmag- med. for example, who e mtere ts and what world-v1ew would be ultimately advanced by the mvenbon of the mechamcal clock7 The clock had 1t ongm m the Benedt tme mona tene of the twelfth and th1rteenth centune The 1mpetu behmd the m enhon wa to prov1de a more or le preCI e regularity to the rouhne of the monastene , wh1ch reqUired, among other thmg . e en penod of devohon dunng the cour e of the day The bell of the monastery were to be rung to s1gnal the canomcaJ hour the mechamcal dock wa the technology that could prov1de preCI 1on to these ntual of devohon . And mdeed 1t d1d . But what the monk d1d not fore ee wa that the clock i a mean not merely of keepmg track of the hour but al o of ynchromzmg and controllmg the achon of men. And thu . by

the m1ddle of the fourteenth century, the clock had moved outs1de the wall of the mona tery, and brought a new and preCI e regulanty to the life of the workman and the merchant

The Jud ment of Thamus 15

h I Cl ock , a Lewi Mumford wr te. "mad P 1-. The mec amca · . d ble the ,dea of regular f'roduction. regular working hour . an a

d. d d t " In hort without the cl k cap1talt m tandar Jze pro u . would hav b n qUite lmpos !ble. • Th paradox, the urpn • and the wonder are that the do k wa inv nt d by m_ n who wanted to de ote them elve mor n or u ly t G d; 1t end d a the technology of gr at t u t m n wh wi h d to d t them elve to the accumulation ot mon y. In th t mal tru - gle beh\ en God and Mamm n. th I k quit unpred1ctably favored the latt r

Unfor en con qu nee tand m th way f all tho thmk they clear! th dire h n m wht h a n w t hn w1ll take u ot v n th who inv nt a t hnol "'Y an b as umed to b r liable proph t . a Thamu warned . Gut nb rg, for example, wa by all ac unt a d v ut atholic \1\ h w uld ha\e been hornfi d to h ar that a cur d h r ti Luth r d nb

limHah n f 1cal- that i . 1d

16 Technopoly

among behevers; it will damage the authenticity of your be- loved Church and de troy it monopoly "

We can tmagme that Thamu would al o have pomted out to Gutenberg, a he dtd to Theuth, that the new mvenbon would

create a vast populahon of reader who ' will recetve a quanhty of information without proper tn truchon . [who will be] filled wtth the concett of WI dom in tead of real wt dom", that read - ing, ill other words, wtll compete wtth older forms of learning This i yet another princtple of technologtcaT change we may infer from the judgment of Thamu : new technologte compete

wtth old one -for hme, for aHenhon. fo_r money, or pre hge, but mostly for dominance of thetr world-vtew Tht ~pehbon is Implicit once we acknowledge t at a me ium contam an tdeologtcal bta . And 1t 1 a fierce compebbon, a only ideologt-

ca1 compebhon can be. H IS not merely a maHer of tool ~ain t tool-the alphabet aHackmg tdeographtc wnhng, the prinhng

press attacking the Illummated manu cnpt the photograph at- tacking the art of pamtmg, televt ton aHackmg the pnnted word When media make war agam t each other, 1t 1 a ca e of world-vtews tn colh ton .

In the Umted State , we can ee uch colh ton every- where--m polihcs, in rehgion, tn commerce--but we ee them

~ most clearly m the schools, where two great technologte con- front each other m uncompromt mg a ped for the control of students' mmds. On the one hand, there 1 the world of the printed word wtth tt empha 1 on logic, sequence~. exposthon, ob}edtvtty, detachment and dt ctpline On the

~ther, there is the world of televt ton with tt empha i on Imagery, narrahve, pre entne , simultaneity, mhmacy, immedi- ate grahficahon, and qutck emotional re pon e. Children come to school having been deeply conditioned by the b

1 ase of

television. There, they encounter the world of the printed word

~ sort of psychic battle takes place, and there are many ca ual- hes--1:htldren who can' t learn to read or won' t, children who

The Judgment of Thamus 17

cannot organize their thought mto logtcal structure even m a

simple paragraph. children who cannot attend to lectures or oral

explanations for more than a few mmute at a hme. They are

failure , but not because they are stuptd They are failures

becau e there i a media war going on, and they are on the

wrong side-at lea t for the moment Who know what chools

will be like twenty-five year from now7 Or fifty? In time, the

type of student who is currently a fatlure may be considered a

succes . The type who i now ucce ful may be regarded as a handicapped learner--slow to re pond, far too detached, lack-

ing in emotion, inadequate m creating mental ptcture of realtty

Constder· what Thamu called the ' concett of wt dom"-the

unreal knowledge acquired through the wntten word--eventu-

ally became the pre-eminent form of knowledge valued by the

school . There i no reason to uppose that such a form of

knowledge must alway remam o highly valued

To take another example: In introducmg the personal com-

puter to the clas room, we hall be breakmg a four-hundred-

year-old truce between the gregariou ness and openne s

fo tered by orality and the intro pechon and 1 olahon fo tered

by the pnnted word Oraltty tre e group leammg, coopera- tion. and a en e of soctal re pon ibtltty, whtch 1 the context within which Thamu beheved proper m truchon and real

knowledge must be commumcated Pnnt tre e mdtviduahzed

learning, competition, and per onal autonomy Over four centu-

ries, teacher , whtle emphastzing print have allowed oraltty tts

place in the cia sroom, and have therefore achteved a kmd of

pedagogical peace between the e two form of leammg, o that

what is valuable m each can be maxtmt zed Now comes the

~o~~uter, carrying anew the banner of privat leammg and mdivtdual problem-solving Will the wtdespread u e of comput-

ers m the classroom defeat once and for all the clatm of commu-

nal speech? Wtll the computer rat e egocentn m to the statu of a Vtrtue7

18 Technopoly

These are the lands of questions that technological change brings to mind when one grasps, as Thamus did, that te hnolog- ical compehtion 1~ites total war, which means it IS not possible to contain t e effects of a new technology to a limited sphere

of human activity. If th1s metaphor puts the maHer too brutally,

we may try a gentler, kinder one: Technological chan_g_e is ne1ther additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean "ecolog- Ical" in ffie 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 mmus caterpillars. you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of

survival, the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environ- ment that has had none. Th1s is how the ecol~ of med1a -works as well. A new technology does not add or subtract somethmg. It changes everything . In the year 1500, fifty years after the prinhng press was invented, we did not have old

Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe. After television, the Umted States was not America plus television; television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school. to every church, to every mdus-

try. And that is why the competihon among media 1s so fierce. Surrounding every technology are mshtuhons whose organiza- tion--not to mention their reason for being-reflects the world-view promoted by the technology. Therefore, when an

old technology is assaulted by a new one, institutions are threatened. When institutions are threatened, a culture finds itself m crisis. This is serious business, wh1ch is why we learn

nothmg when educators aslC, Will s u ents learn mathematics better by computers than by textbooks? Or when businessmen ask, Through which medium can we sell more products? Or

when preachers ask, Can we reach more people through televi- sion than through radio? Or when politicians ask. How effective are messages sent through different media? Such questions have

The Judgmenl of Thamus 19

an 1mmed1ate~ practical value to those who ask them, but they are diversionary They direct our attenhon away from the sen- ous soc1al, mtellectual, an mshtutional cnses that new media foster.

Perhaps an analogy here will help to underlme the point. In

speaking of the meanmg of a poem, T. S. Eliot remarked that the ch1ef use of the overt content of poetry 1 "to atisfy one habit

of the reader, to keep h1s mmd diverted and qUiet, while the

poem doe 1t work upon h1m. much as the Imaginary burglar

IS alway provided with a b1t of mce meat for the house-dog."

In other words, m a kmg the1r practical que bons, educators,

entrepreneur , preachers, and polihc1an are like the house-dog

munchmg peacefully on the meat wh1le the house is looted .

Perhap orne of them know thi and do not especially care.

After all, a mce p1ece of meat, offered graciously, does take care

of the problem of where the next meal will come from . But for

the re t of u , 1t cannot be acceptable to have the house invaded without prote t or at least awareness .

What we need to consider about the computer ha nothmg

to do w1th it effiaency a t achmg_ tool. We need to know tn what way it 1 alterin our conception of learrung, and how, }r

m conJunction with televiSion, 1t undermme the old 1dea of

school Who cares how many boxe of cereal can be sold v 1 a

felev1 Jon? We need to know if televiSion changes our concep-

tion of reality, the relationship of the nch to the poor, the idea

of happme s 1t elf A preacher who confine h1m elf to consider-

mg how a medium can mcrea e hi audience will mi s the Sigmficant que hon. In what ense do new med1a alter what

1 s

meant by religion, by church, even by God? And 1f the pohtic1an

cannot thmk beyond the next elechon, then we must wonder about what new med1a do to the 1dea of pohbcal organization and to the conception of c1hzensh1p

. To help us do this, we have the Judgment of Tharnus who

m the way of legends, teaches us what Harold Innis, in hi~ way:

20 Technopoly

tried to. New technologies alter the structure of our ·n~t~: the thin_gs we.. think about. They alter the character of our symbols: lhe thmgs we think w1th. And they alter the natur of community: the arena m which thoughts develop. As Thamus spoke to Innis across the centuries, it is essenbal that we listen to their conversation, join in it, revitalize it. For something has happened m America that is strange and dangerous, and there is only a dull and even stupid awareness of what it is-in part because it has no name. I call it Technopoly.

2

From Tools to Technocracy

A mong the famous aphorisms from the troublesome pen of Karl Marx is his remark in The Poverty of Philosophy that the "hand-loom gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitahst " As far as I know, Marx did not say which technology gives us the technocrat, and I am certam his vision did not include the emergence of the Technopolist. Nonetheless, the remark IS useful Marx understood well that, apart from their economic implications, technologies create the ways in which people perceive reality, and that sue ways are e ey to understanding diverse forms of social and mental life. In The German Ideology, he says, "As mdividuals express their life, so they are," which sounds as much like Marshall Mcluhan or, for that matter, Thamus as it is possible to sound. Indeed, toward the end of that book, Marx includes a remarkable paragraph that would be entirely at home in Mcluhan' s Undersfandmg Med1a . "Is Achilles possible," he asks, "when powder and shot have been invented? And is the Iliad possible at all when the printing press and even printing machines exist? Is it not inevitable