Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rarely do we find people who are proficient in multiple realms of skill and Performance.
Neil Postman was one of these gifted people. Known primarily as an educator, Postman also
was a superb athlete, an interesting author, an innovative media ecologist, a scandalous cultural
critic, and a profound communication theorist. Today it is not uncommon to hear various terms
or phrases such as Technopoly, the medium is the message, stupid-crazy-talk, information-action
ratio, subversive teaching, and conserved teaching. All of these terms, if they were not coined by
Postman himself, arose out of the broad-scoped thinking of the educator and can be found in
either his 21 published books, or in one of over 200 articles he wrote. Clearly Postman was no
joke. In his mind he knew the world could be better, and he undertook a massive effort to shape
thinking in multiple fields. It is said that educators carry the world on their shoulders and
Postman, who taught for thirty-eight years, seemed to comply. He had his fingers in everything.
Postmans ingenuity and far-reaching influence did not come without recognition. On the
contrary, despite being the son of a simple truck driver Postmans expertise and influence
rewarded him with international acclaim. In 1986, Postman won the George Orwell Award for
Clarity in Language and shortly thereafter in 1988, he was given the Distinguished Teacher
Award--one of many awards received in his 38 years of teaching at New York University.
The reputation Postman built up did not just come from sheer luck, or a charming
personality. No, like any established icon in history there had to be something different about his
thoughts, something unique. Postman definitely was unique in the scholarship of his time. He
was not afraid to blast the prominent beliefs of the day, and when someone does that, they almost
instantly become news. Postmans book, The End of Education, first of all, sheds light on issues
many knew to be a problem, but no one dared bring up. In the book Postman redefines the value
of school by first identifying the school problem and then suggesting strategies to overcome
them (Postman, 1995, x). A second work by Postman titled Technopoly strikes at the heart of the
information age he lived in. Following in the footsteps of authors Lewis Mumford, Jacques
Ellul, and Herbert Read, Postman argues that society no longer just uses technology, but is
shaped by it. Finally, Postmans Amusing Ourselves to Death really put him in the spotlight.
Nobody wants to hear that their favourite toys are killing them, but Postman does not care. He
put things in perspective and forced people to think. More of this will be touched upon later, but
the point of the relevance of Postmans thought must be noticed. Much more evidence of
Postmans undeniable prowess exists, but suffice it to say that the courage and timeliness
displayed by Postman made him a far-reaching influence in both North America and abroad.
Neatly woven through the discourse of Postman was his underlying beliefs and
worldview. Every book, article and interview he wrote, or participated in revealed something
more of his views on things relating to the Big Questions. Starting with his view on life and
living and what is real, then, it seems to become more and more obvious that Postman supports
the Judeo-Christian worldview. Geraldine Forsberg Professor of media ethics at Trinity Western,
suggests that Postmans worldview is revealed in many waysfirst, by the themes of his
research and writing; second, by the major sources he drew upon; and, third, by his underlying
moral foundation for media and cultural critics (Forsberg, 2005, pg. 253). Of course, one
scholars arguments are not sufficient to prove an unclear truth, but it is enough to stir up some
thoughts. Thus, as we delve into what was real and true for Postman, we will use Forsbergs
argument as the back-drop to our thinking, and with it in the back of our minds, we will pick
apart Postmans life and works for any hint of his worldview leanings.
Given that postman wrote and discussed much of the popular culture of his day, it
becomes clear that his philosophy is hidden somewhere in the mix as well. To understand what
made Neil Postman tick, if you will, we need to first find out why Postman was not only so
involved in the language, education, culture, and technology of his day, but why he was not
afraid to criticize it. Criticizing the thoughts of the day is no easy task, especially when those
thoughts are worshiped as gods, or even as the Saviour. Two reasons only can explain such
devotion, and only one or the other can be true; either Postman felt that criticizing the gods of
the day would render him famous, or he felt that there was some other God that made all of
reality possible. Jesus once said, You cannot serve two mastersYou cannot serve God and
moneythe root of seeking-wealth is selfishness. (Matthew 6: 24, ESV).
If anyone understood this sort of dialectic theory it would be Postman. Particularly in
speaking on language Postman continually brings up the idea that life is a narrative and each one
of us live according to a different one. In his article Science and the Story that We Need he
calls the important narratives gods: A god, in the sense I am using the word, is the name of a
great narrative , one that has sufficient credibility, complexity, and symbolic power so that it is
possible to organize ones life around it (Postman, 1997, pg. 3). Though he does not dumb his
discussion all the way down to the battle between God and man in the article, Postman brings us
close by describing conflicts between the narrative of inductive science/technology and the
Gospel. He speaks of the great propagators of science; men like Francis Bacon, Descartes,
Newton, and Galileo, and how science progressed away from God, the very introduction to its
story. It is here where Postmans story suddenly becomes clearer. After speaking of the
progression of science and Nietzsches pre-insanity statement that God is dead, Postman stops
short: But in the end science does not provide the answers most of us require. Its story of our
origins and of our end is, to say the least, unsatisfactory (Postman, 1997, pg. 7). So what is the
satisfactory narrative for Postman? Well at first glance and as Geraldine Forsberg tries to argue,
it seems from all appearance to be the Christian, or Judeo-Christian narrative (Forsberg, 2005).
Sadly, however, Postmans view is more anti-religious than it first appeared. So much so
that it seems to have fooled Geraldine Forsberg and countless others into thinking Postman was a
Christian. Perhaps he was, but his next statement slowly reveals its unlikelihood. He says,
Science and religion will be hopeful, useful, and life-giving only if we learn to read them
with new humility as tales, as limited human rendering of the Truth. If we continue to
read them, either science or Scripture, as giving us Truth direct and final, then all their
hope and promise turns to dust (Postman, 1997, pg.10).
Any discerning Christian, upon reading this, would realize the total put-down of the Christian
faith. Essentialy Postman is saying that the Biblical narrative, which is believed to be Godbreathed in the eyes of the Christian, is just a fabrication of the human mind. By saying this he
sounds exactly like the atheist/materialist philosopher Feuerbach in his work The Essence of
Christianity. In light of this, then, there is no way the claims Forsberg makes can at all be true.
Rather, they can be seen to be wrong-focused.
What Forsberg does in trying to argue that Postman supports a Judeo-Christian
Worldview is, she takes the main topics Postman discusses and looks for elements that are
Christian about them, resultantly concluding that, because they line up, Postman must hold a
Christian view of the world. For example in the first section of her article she discusses The use
and Abuse of Language by first explaining how a Christian would view this issue in light of the
Bible, and then secondly giving argument that because many Christians read his book Crazy
Talk, Stupid Talk his worldview somehow lines up with the Christian one (Forsberg, 2005, pg.
254). Forsberg does the same in the rest of the article and fails to show direct evidence that
Postman himself lived a Christian life. She never reveals anything that Postman says that is
overtly God-honouring, or Bible-worshiping for that matterthis is excusable of course, because
4
there is very little evidence, if any at all, of Postman selling his Christian belief. She simply
assumes that because Postman acknowledged some moral standards, some Christian tradition,
and some transcendent narrative, that he had to be a Christian. Such an argument is fallacious at
the very least.
Now that we have established that Postman was likely not a Christian, his influence
makes it necessary to discover what he really was. Given his unclear stance, we could argue that
Postman was his time period, distrustful of anything and everything with grand notions, a Postmodern-humanist. Lance Strate, a communications Professor, seems to agree. He playfully calls
Postman a Post(modern)Man in the title of one of his works (Strate, 1994, pg. 159).
Conventionally postmodernism can be identified as the period following modernism, or to put it
in years, the period after 1940. However, any term that can be followed by the suffix ism can
be more than simply a time period, it can be an idea. Postman lived in the time period, but he
also lived in the idea. This does not mean he upheld Postmodernist ideals, but rather it means
that, one, he displayed s hallmark of postmodernist thinking by distrusting grand theories and
ideologies; and two, he happened to live in the post-modern time period. Strate would add to
this: I find it worthwhile to note that postmodernists do not necessarily celebrate the
postmodern (Strate, 1994, pg. 162). In light of what Postman believed, this is of great interest,
because Postman advocated for all things modern despite him living in the post-modern period.
He was wary of simulation, he viewed technology as dangerous, he distrusted media, and yet he
trusted men to fix it. In Science and the Story that we Need Postman, calls for a return to the
human past: we recquire a larger reading of the human past, he contends, of our relations
with each other and the universe and God, a retelling of our older tales to encompass may truths
and to let us grow and change (Postman, 1997, pg. 10). Remember that Postman believes
scripture to be a human fabrication, and therefore realize that he is not saying we need to return
to God, rather he is saying we need to return to our previous understanding of God and the
universe. Post(modern)man is placing his faith in the way men thought years ago, not in God.
Along with his desire to learn from the past, Postman has more traditional theories
regarding the advance of technology and education. In fact, Postman writes numerous books on
both topics which soon become hits all around North America.
As far as technology is concerned, Postman is no hater, who simply disregards all things
advanced. Rather, Postman sees technological as a Faustian Bargaina story with two
counter-acting sides (Inbar, 2001, pg. 237). Postman calls societys heavy reliance on technology,
Technopoly in his book on the subject (Postman, 1992). He defines Technopoly in this way:
Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of
technology (Postman, 1992, pg. 71). In Technopoly Postman describes how the progression of
technology is so quick and captivating that it sucks people into a sort of dull state, where they
lose their ability to think. Technology becomes elevated to such a status that it substitutes for
human thought. The effects are so deep that society becomes institutionalized and people
metaphorically become their machines. Of course, this is the negative aspect of the story, not
everyone is sucked in by technology. Yet Postman knows that technological advancement will
continue and he wants people to be prepared.
In warning against the drastic consequences of Technopoly, Postman is doing an
admirable job. As he grew up he saw the effects technology was having, and he felt the
responsibility to warn society against them. Postman knew he had to do something to combat
what we could call carefree tech worship.
What Postman felt responsible for in technology, he felt even more responsible for in
education. He wrote many works regarding how to educate in his time. He identified the flaws of
previous and current educational theories and in response provided solutions of his own. His
book The End of Education did this particularly well. Its purpose, as Dan Inbar noted about the
book, is written with the hope of altering schooling by reintroducing to [educations] inherent
purposes its ends, but with the warning that without a serious dialogue about purposes
schooling will reach its finish since without meaning learning has no purpose (Inbar, 2001, pg.
235). After giving a bit of a philosophical pretext at the beginning of the book Postman
brainstorms how we can teach with meaning and purpose. He points out that children in his day
are at the mercy of societal whimsthings like economic utility, consumerism, separatism and
technopolyand education needs to put them on the right path (Postman, 1996, pgs. 60-62).
Postman viewed a proper education as one that taught children how to decipher what is good and
what is evil about the aforementioned whims of the day; he wanted them to learn values. To do
that, Postman believed, both the teachers and what they taught (curriculum) had filled with a
sort of cultured learning process; they needed to keep on top of the goings-on in their country
and locality. Through inquiry and experiment of relevant culture and history Postman believed
students could make a better future. It was precisely this that kept him motivated:
We experiment to make things better And when we experiment, we make mistakes
But we go on because we have faith in the futurethat we can make better experiments
and better arguments. This, it seems to me, is a fine and noble story, and I should not be
surprised if students are touched by it and find in it a reason for learning (Postman, 1996,
pg. 142).
Postman deems experiential education as the potential saviour and he sees that, with the family
degrading, it must be the teachers and their curriculum that change childrens lives, children who
are the future.
Neil Postman the Post(modern)man would forever change peoples outlook on life; not
just he identified the problems of the world around him, but mostly because he provided possible
solutions to them. Postman saw the value of past tradition such a print, educational, and religious
culture and therefore was critical of advancement. He saw that consumer culture and technology
were making robots out of humans, and he felt responsible to address the problem. Thus, he not
only wrote much against the issues of the day, but he worked to re-establish the importance of
childhood education, all to ensure a better future. Men with a vision like that should never be
forgotten.
Reference List:
8