TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

1of9

TechnologyvsCulture
AndrewTrusty

Inasocietywheretheconstantprogressionoftechnologyisheraldedwithfevered consumptionbythemasses,fewifanypeopleconsiderthosewhovoluntarilyabstainfromthe advantagesofthesetechnologies.Iamnotspeakingofthedigitaldivide,thosethatare unabletoparticipateforreasonsofage,educationoreconomicsituation,ratherIspeakof technicallyliterateandskilledpersonswhohaverationalandlogicalreasonsfornot embracingeverywaveofadvances.Anyconsiderationgiventothesepeopledubbedneo ludditesbythetechnologyconsumersusuallyendswiththeirclassificationasnuttyor backwardstechnophobeswhojustdon'tgetit.Theittowhichthesetechnologyconsumers referisthevariousabilitiesandexperiencesgrantedtothembytheirbelovedtechgadgets.I willattempttopresentthetheorythatthemassesinfactdonotperceivethefullmagnitudeof itwhereastheneoludditeshaveauniqueperspectiveonthenatureoftechnologyfrom whichwecouldalllearnathingortwo. TheneoludditesofwhomIspeakareonlydescendantsintermsofideologyofthe originalLuddites.Thosedisgruntledcraftsmenwhorevoltedanddestroyedtextilemachinesat thebeginningoftheIndustrialRevolution.Neoludditeshavemoralandethicalarguments againsttheexcessesofmoderntechnology[1]butdonoteschewalltechnologyandforthe mostpartrestraintheirresistancetotheintellectualandpoliticalarenas. Themassesthatareconsumingtechnologyencompassesalargemajorityofthepeople inthedevelopedworldandagrowingmajorityinthedevelopingworld.FormypurposesIwill concentrateonthosewithadependencyoncomputerizeddevices,mostnotablycellphonesor portableaudioplayersbecausethesedevicesarecurrentlythemostfashionable. Giventhatitismorethanlikelythatyoumyreaderareofthelattergroup,the technologyconsumingmasses,Idon'tfeeltheneedtodescribeindetailthemany advantagesaffordedbyadvancesintechnologywithwhichyouarealreadyfamiliar.InsteadI willlistthoseperceivedaffordancesthathaveimportinmytheory:enhancedcommunication, greaterfreedom,increasedsocialization,improvedefficiencyandsecurity.Iaimtoshowthat thereareaspectsoftheseaffordancesyoumayhaveneverimagined,aspectsworth consideringthenexttimeyouuseanyformoftechnology. Ifweexaminetheseaffordanceswewillfindthatthereareotherlessbeneficialeffects. AstheneoludditewriterNeilPostman[2]isquicktopointoutmostpeopleonlydiscussthe advantagesofthetechnologyandrarelyvoicethedrawbacks,perhapsundertheassumption thatthegoodsooutweighsthebadthatthebadbecomesanegligiblethingnotworth discussing.Thisshowsthepeoplesbeliefthattechnologicalprogressisalwaysafundamentally goodandnecessarygoal.Postman[2]characterizestechnologyasaFaustianbargainthat givethandtakethaway,sowemayaskwhathasbeentakenawayfromthetechnology consumingmasses? WhathavethoseusersofportableaudioplayerssuchasiPodsandwalkmanssufferedto losefortheirtechnology?CulturalcriticAllanBloombelievesthatthesepeoplehavereduced centuriesofWesternculturalprogressinto"anonstop...masturbationalfantasy"celebrating libertinism[3].Thesepeoplewhoareempoweredtocreateasoundtrackfortheirlife,who wontsuffertoexperiencethenoiseoftheoutsideworldareshieldedbywhatThomas

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

2of9

Lipscombcallsanairtightbubbleofsound[3]thattheyerectaroundthemselves.Butthe sonicbubbleshieldsthemfrommuchmorethanthesoundsofeverydaylife.JohnZerzan arguesthatitalsowithdrawspeoplefromsocialconnections[3].MichaelBullputsitbest whenhesaysthattheshieldcreatessolitudeinwhichweallbecome'alonetogether'[4]. FurtherBulldescribeshowtheseshieldscometocompletelyalterthespacesthroughwhichwe passsuchthattheyincreasinglylosesignificanceforusandprogressivelyturnintothe'non spaces'ofdailyliveswhichwetry,throughthoseselfsametechnologies,totranscend[4]. Nowletsaskthesamequestionofcellphones.Themostobviousandoftendiscussed drawbackofthesedevicesisperhapstheblurringlinebetweenbeingattheofficeandbeing offtheclock.Thepromiseofthetechnologywastofreetheworkerstimebymakingthem moreefficient.Butbyprovidinginstantanytimeanywherecommunicationmanypeopleare becomingoverwhelmedbypervasivecommunications[5].Evenmorepeopleagreethat pervasiveaccesstotheofficehasnegativelyimpactedtheirqualityoflife[5].Theefficiency boostofthesedevicesisalsodebatable.ReporterRajaSen[6]reportedanincreasein productivityafterinvoluntarilygivinguphercellphoneforaweekwhichallowedhertoleave worksoonerandgettosleepearlier. Viewingthesepervasivecommunicationsoutsidetheofficeprovidesadifferentpicture. Heretheenhancedcommunication,greaterfreedom,increasedsocialization,improved efficiencyandsecurityareneversuspectbyusers.Thenatureofthedisadvantagesinthiscase areforthemostpartmorebeguiling,theireffectsarelesslikelytobenoticedorevencared about.Uponexaminingthecontentofthecommunicationssovaluedbyuserswefindthat almostallofitcanbeclassifiedasunnecessaryinthesensethatitisnotimportantenoughfor thepeoplecommunicatingtoactuallymeetfacetofacetodiscuss.Gossip,smalltalkandchit chatmakesupmostoftheirconversations.Theusersobviouslyvaluetheseconversationsand itcanbesaidtopromotesocializationbutatwhatcost.Thisviewissimilartotheconcernsthe earlytelephonecompanieshadwhentheydiscoveredhowthemajorityoftheircustomers wereutilizingtheirservices[7]butIbringitupfordifferentreasonssincecurrenttelephone companiesutilizethisasasellingpoint.Usersbecomesousedtopervasivecommunication thattheirdependenceonitchangestheirbehavior.AccordingtoChristineRosentheeaseof obtaininginstantadviceencouragescellphoneuserstorespondtoanyuncertainty,crucialor trivial,bydialinginsteadofdeciding[8].Sheeffectivelystatesthatcellphonesareeroding selfrelianceandcreatingselfdoubt.MarkFedermansupportsthislineofthought,Weareless selfreliantthanever,notbecausewearelessindependent,butbecausewearesomuchmore connected[8].Atthesametimeusersoftenreportaheightenedsenseofsecuritywith cellphoneswhichoftencausesthemtodomoredangerousthings.Visitorstonationalparksare morelikelytoventureoutontheirownandattemptdifficulthikeswhentheyhavetheir cellphone.Theydothisundertheoftenfalsebeliefthathelpisacallawaywheninreality receptioncanbepoorornonexistent[8].Theideaofgreaterfreedomcanoftenbejustthe opposite.Romanticallyinvolvedpeopleusethecellphonetobeabletocheckupontheir partnerwherevertheyareinordertomakesuretheyarenotcheatingjustasparentscheckup ontheirkidsactivitiesbycallingtheircellphones.KenBelsonprovidesanovelcharacterization ofthefreedomaffordedbythecellphone;thereareexpertswhosaythatthediscussionof cellphonesandautonomyhasgottenthecauseandeffectbackwards.Autonomywasalready anillusion,theysay,inaworldbuiltoninstantcommunication,whetherbytelegraphor telephoneorfaxoremailorwhatever.Cellphonesjustaddmoreconvenience[8].

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

3of9

Inthecontextofgroups,publicspacesandcultureasawholethedisadvantagesof cellphonesarehavingthemosteffectonsociety.Thedisadvantagesstemfromasimilar alteringoftheworldcausedbycellphonesasthatcausedbyportableaudioplayers.Theideais thatcellphonescreateazoneofintimacyinpublicplaces[3].Similartothesonicshield,this privatezoneofintimacywithdrawstheuserfromsocializationintheirlocalareainfavorof supportingdistantexistingrelationships.Itwouldappearthereisatrendwiththese technologieswhichMaxFrischtouchesoninhisdefinitionoftechnology;Technologyisthe knackofsoarrangingtheworldthatwedonotexperienceit[9].Butunlikethesonicshields whichcreatecompletelyprivateexperiencesthecellphoneworkstobroadcasttheprivate experiencespublicly. Theintroductionofprivatespaceintopublicspacewithcellphonescomesinmany formsandhasmanyconsequences.Motorolaresearchhasshownthatringingcellphonesare disruptive,evenarrestingasaringingcellphonewilloftentakeprecedenceoverthesocial interactionsitdisrupts[10].DependingontheuserofthecellphoneMotorolacategorized threedifferentresponsestothedisruption:flight,suspensionandpersistence.Flightisthe leastdisruptiveoftheresponseswheretheuserwillabandontheircurrentsituationtohandle thecall.Suspensionhastheuserstayingputbutstoppingthecurrentinteractioninorderto handlethecall.Persistencehastheuserstayputandcontinuetheinteractionandatthesame timehandlethecall.Allthreeresponsescausethoselocalinteractorstofeeldisempowered [10].Thedynamicofthesituationchangeswithouttheirinvolvementandtheyfeelasifthey havebeendroppedandpickedupbytheircompanionwithoutanychancetonegotiatethe terms[10].Theimpositionbythepersonreceivingthecallalsoeffectsstrangerslocalto them.ResearchbyAndrewMonkhasshownthatstrangersfoundmobilephone conversationsdramaticallymorenoticeable,intrusiveandannoyingthanconversations conductedfacetoface.Whilevolumewasanissue,hearingonlyhalfadiscussionalsoseemed touptheirritationfactor[11].Atthesametimethepersonreceivingthecallhastodealwith anynumberofonlookersandeavesdropperslisteningtotheirprivateconversations.Although cellphoneusersappeartohavelittletroublevoicingtheirprivatematterstocompletestrangers anytimeandanywhere.Walkdownabusysidewalkortakearideonpublictransportationand youaremorethanlikelytolearndetailsofotherpeopleslivesthattheywouldn'thave otherwisetoldyoufacetoface.TheeffectsalsoseemtodifferaccordingtocultureasMotorola studyhighlights,themobileismoreathomeincultureswhichfosterarelaxedattitudeto issuesofprivacyandpersonalspace,thanitisinthosewhichprioritiseprivacy[10].They giveamostastoundingexample;movietheatersinBangkokarealivewiththesoundof cellphoneconversations[10].WhereasintheUScellphoneuseintheatersisstillverymuch taboo. SofarIhaveconsideredthelesstangibleargumentsagainstthesetechnologiesbut therearemoreimmediateconcernsworthaddressingsuchashealthissues.Thereistheever presentconcernthatconsistentexposuretotheradiationemittedfromcellphonesmaybe harmfulandlastingexposuretoloudmusicwithaudioplayersisknowntocausedeafnessbut stilltherearemorepressingissues.Drivingwhileusingacellphoneorportableaudioplayeris almostcertainlythemostimmediatedangerfacedandignoredmostoften.Attemptingto immerseyourselfinyourprivateworldwhileatthesametimenavigatingthestreetsofthe publicworldisarecipefordisaster.SomewhatlessdangerouseffectswherereportedbyRaja Senduringhisweeksanscellphone.Hecontraststhestresscausedbyhiscellphonewiththe

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

4of9

newfoundpeaceandquietandtheabilitytosleepbetterwhichwasmadeavailableoncehe disconnected[6].Forothersthetablesmightbeturned.Inthesemostalarmingcasesusers formanextremedependenceontheirdevicesthatcouldonlybedescribedasanaddiction. TheMotorolaresearchfoundsomeseriouscases,InTokyo,severalteenagegirlsandboyssay theywoulddiewithouttheirmobiles[10].Theurgetostayconnectedissostrongthatusers changetheirbehaviorinordertoavoidplaceswherereceptionispoor;theyconsciouslyavoid signalfreeareassuchasbasements[10].Theseusersliveinfearofmissingacallorlosing reception[10].Solitudehasbecomestigmatizedandisavoidedatallcostseventhoughitisa valuablepsychologicalstate[12].Toexamineanextremecaseofwithdrawalwecanlookat theincidentinvolvingtheworld'sfirstcyborgSteveMannbeingunpluggedinhisattempt toboardanairplaneshortlyaftertheterroristattacksin2001.Inattemptingtoboardaplane thesecuritypersonnelattheairportstripsearchedhim,toretheelectrodesfromhisskin, dismantledhisequipmentandrequiredthatsomeofhisequipmenttravelinthebaggage compartment.Withouthisfullyfunctioningsystemhefounditdifficulttonavigateandfellat leasttwiceandpassedout.Weeksaftertheincidenthestillhadtroubleconcentratingandwas behavingdifferentlyandtherewasconcernhisbrainhadbeenaffectedbythesudden detachment.[13] IsthecaseofSteveMannreallysofarfetched?Atthecurrentrateoftechnological progressionwhocansaywhatdevicesandhookupswillbeutilizedbythecommonconsumer intwentyorthirtyyears.Butdowereallywanttocontinuedownapaththatleadstosucha future,whatChrisCrittendencallsatechnopsychoticannihilationviacyborg[14].Inorder toanswerthisquestionwehavetobetterunderstandwhattechnologyrepresents,wemust knowthenatureofthebeastbeforewecondemnit.Inthecaseofcellphonesandother communicationtechnologiesStephenBensonhassomeveryinterestinginsights.Anyformof communicationotherthandirectfacetofacecontactisanimpoverishedformof communication.Thefundamentalparadoxofcommunicationisthattheverymeansand processesofcommunicatingreinforceseparationbetweenandisolationofthecommunicating parties....Theisolationwhichinyearspastwasprimarilyafunctionofdistanceand geographyisnowafunctionofincreasedchoice[15].StephenBensonalsousesthefollowing passagefromEMForstersnovelTheMachineStopstoeloquentlydescribetheshortcomings ofelectroniccommunication;'IwanttoseeyounotthroughtheMachine,'saidKuno.'Iwant tospeaktoyounotthroughthewearisomeMachine.''Oh,hush!'saidhismother,vaguely shocked.'Youmustn'tsayanythingagainsttheMachine.'[15].Theworryisthat communicationtechnologyisstrivingtocreateaglobalvillageatthecostofdismantlinglocal villages. Steppingupalevelweneedtoconsidertechnologyasawholebyexaminingthelessons ofhistoryinordertobetterforecasttheroadahead.NeilPostmanhasafirmgraspofthebig pictureandIwillborrowliberallyfromhiswritingstoexpressmyviewsatthislevel.Postman observedthatwhenevertechnologyintroducesanewwonderitreplacestheoldone[2].In mostcasestheolderitemisnolongerproduced,thedemandforitdisappearswiththe introductionofabetterinstrument.Theseantiquesaswecallthemarestillcherishedby someandsoitbegsthequestionofwhatvaluewemayhavelostinourrushtoupgrade.Few peoplecriticallyexaminewhattheymaybegivingupintheirquestsforbigger,better,faster. BeyondthephysicalchangePostmanpositsthatthereareculturaleffectspresentin everywaveofnewtechnology[16].Usingtheprintingpressasanexamplehearguesthatit

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

5of9

fosteredthemodernideaofindividualitybutitdestroyedthemedievalsenseofcommunity andsocialintegration[16].Obviouslymostofthechangeswroughtbytechnologydonot occurovernightorelsewewouldheedmuchmoreattentionthanwedonow.RatherPostman believesthattherearealwaysunforeseenconsequencesoftechnology[16].Consequencesin whichthenewtechnologytendstofavorsomegroupsofpeopleandharmsothergroups [16].Thesewinnersandlosersmaynotalwaysbeapparent.Inthecaseoftheprintingpress itsinventorJohannGutenbergwasbyallaccountsadevotedChristianwhowouldhavebeen horrifiedatMartinLuther'suseofthedevicewhichbroughtaboutarevolutionthatdestroyed themonopolyoftheChurch[16].'Whatwillanewtechnologydo?'isnomoreimportant thanthequestion,'Whatwillanewtechnologyundo?'Indeed,thelatterquestionismore important,preciselybecauseitisaskedsoinfrequently[17]. IfweacceptthatculturealwayspaysapricefortechnologyasPostmanbelieveswe shouldaskwhatitisinthenatureoftechnologythatdemandsthistoll.Postman'sprovidesan answer: ..everytechnologyhasaphilosophywhichisgivenexpressionin howthetechnologymakespeopleusetheirminds,inwhatit makesusdowithourbodies,inhowitcodifiestheworld,in whichofoursensesitamplifies,inwhichofouremotionaland intellectualtendenciesitdisregards.Thisideaisthesumand substanceofwhatMarshallMcLuhanmeantwhenhecoinedthe famoussentence,"Themediumisthemessage."[17] Itisapowerfulidea,technologychangesourbehavior,itchangesthewaywethink.I doubtmanypeopleliketothinktheycanbesoinfluencedbyinanimateobjectsofwhichthey regardthemselvesasthemaster,butthefollowingexamplesPostmanprovidesarehardto refute: ..everytechnologyhasaprejudice.Likelanguageitself,it predisposesustofavorandvaluecertainperspectivesand accomplishments.[17] Toamanwithahammer,everythinglookslikeanail.Wemay extendthattruism:Toapersonwithapencil,everythinglookslike asentence.ToapersonwithaTVcamera,everythinglookslikean image.Toapersonwithacomputer,everythinglookslikedata. [17] ..thecomputerpersonvaluesinformation,notknowledge, certainlynotwisdom.Indeed,inthecomputerage,theconceptof wisdommayvanishaltogether.[17] Thereisanotherpropertyoftechnologythatmayexplainitspower.Postmanarguesthat technologyisnotadditive,butecological[17].Anewmediumdoesnotaddsomething;it changeseverything[17].Theprintingpress,radio,televisionandtheinternetareallproofof

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

6of9

thisconcept. Ascribingthesepropertiestotechnologyitisnowondertheytendtobecomemythic, [usingthe]word"myth"torefertoacommontendencytothinkofourtechnologicalcreations asiftheywereGodgiven,asiftheywereapartofthenaturalorderofthings[17].Putting technologyonsuchaloftypedestalisdangerousforthereasonsIhavealreadydiscussed.With peoplereveringtechnologysoitisnoteasilysusceptibletomodificationorcontrol[17]. PostmanfoundthatGeorgeOrwelltouchesonanevenmoreinterestingcomparison: heremarkedthattheaveragepersontodayisaboutasnaiveaswas theaveragepersonintheMiddleAges.IntheMiddleAgespeople believedintheauthorityoftheirreligion,nomatterwhat.Today, webelieveintheauthorityofourscience,nomatterwhat.[16] Ifscienceisequivalenttoreligionwemustasktowhomdowepray?Whatofferingsdo wegive?IsBillGatestheheadofsuchareligion?(Wealmostsurelypayhimtithes)Lessglib andmoreseriousisPostman'sview: WhatIamsayingisthatourenthusiasmfortechnologycanturn intoaformofidolatryandourbeliefinitsbeneficencecanbea falseabsolute.Thebestwaytoviewtechnologyisasastrange intruder,torememberthattechnologyisnotpartofGod'splanbuta productofhumancreativityandhubris,andthatitscapacityfor goodorevilrestsentirelyonhumanawarenessofwhatitdoesfor usandtous.[17] Inanycase,thegreatstrengthofthesciencegodis,ofcourse,that itworksfarbetterthansupplication,farbetterthanevenFrancis Baconcouldhaveimagined.Itstheoriesaredemonstrableand cumulative;itserrorsarecorrectable;itsresultspractical.The sciencegodsendspeopletothemoon,inoculatespeopleagainst disease,transportsimagesthroughvastspacessothattheycanbe seeninourlivingrooms.Itisamightygodand,likemoreancient ones,givespeopleameasureofcontrolovertheirlives.Somesay thesciencegodgivesmorecontrolandmorepowerthananyother godbeforeit. Butweknow,andeachdayreceiveconfirmationofit,that thisisafalsegod.Itisagodthatspeakstousofpower,notlimits; speakstousofownership,notstewardship;speakstousonlyof rights,notresponsibilities;speakstousofselfaggrandizement,not humility.[9] FalsegodthoughitmaybeIwouldcategorizescienceasasubconsciousreligionthatis notexclusivetootherreligions.Iknowofnopeoplewhoopenlyclaimtechnologyastheir religionbutatthesametimemosteveryoneisanadherentofit.Whocandenythepowerof technologywhilesurroundedbytheevidenceofitmiracles.ButPostmancallsonusto

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

7of9

examinethesebeliefsmorecarefully: PaulGoodmancalledittechnologicalmodesty.Hemeantthatwe mustcultivateasenseofthewholeandnotcedetoourtechnologies moredominionthantheirparticularfunctionswarrant.Thisiswhat mathematicianNorbertWiener,founderofcybernetics,meantwhen heusedthephrase,thehumanuseofhumanbeings.Myownterm forthisideaistechnologicalatheism,bywhichImeanthatwe mustdisbelieveinthedivinityoftechnology.Forifwedefinegod,as didthephilosopherandtheologianPaulTillich,asthatwhichisour ultimateconcern,thentechnologyclearlyqualifiesasAmerica's deity.[18] Yetwitheachpassingyearwesinkfartherintoastatetechnologicaldependency. Technologybegetsmoretechnology.Eventhenatureofnewtechnologiesischanging.No longeristhereanobviousproblemsolvedbyeachnewdeviceandmoreoftenthannot technologyisbeingusedtosolveproblemsofothertechnologies.Oneoftheseproblems PostmanhighlightsistheinformationglutcausedbyTV ,newspapers,billboards,videos,radio, books,internet,photos,spamandothers[2].Helamentsthatwehavedirectedallofour energiesandintelligencetoinventingmachinerythatdoesnothingbutincreasethesupplyof information.Asaconsequence,ourdefensesagainstinformationgluthavebrokendown;our informationimmunesystemisinoperable.Wedon'tknowhowtofilteritout;wedon'tknow howtoreduceit;wedon'tknowtouseit.WesufferfromakindofculturalAIDS[16].How arewefightingthisinformationglut?Itisoneofthefewproblemsthatyoumayactuallysee inanewspaperormagazineinoneformoranother.Google,MSNandYahoo!areouranswers, moretechnologytosolveatechnologyproblem.Whenaculture,overcomebyinformation generatedbytechnology,triestoemploytechnologyitselfasameansofprovidingclear directionandhumanepurpose.Theeffortismostlydoomedtofailure.Thoughitissometimes possibletouseadiseaseasacureforitself[9].Ifyourememberthetimebeforesearch enginesthewebprobablyseemedlikeawonderfullyboringlittleplacebutthesenew technologieshaveonlyexacerbatedthedisease.Whenwasthelasttimeyouneededto browsethefourbillionpluspagesGoogleoffersforthetermcomputer.Informationhas effectivelybecomethegarbageofourculture. Whatcanbesaidofaculturesoenamoredwithtechnology.Postmanformulatesthe conceptofatechnocracyinwhichtoolsplayacentralroleinthethoughtworldofthe culture.Everythingmustgiveway,insomedegree,totheirdevelopment.Thesocialand symbolicworldsbecomeincreasinglysubjecttotherequirementsofthatdevelopment.Tools arenotintegratedintotheculture;theyattacktheculture.Thebidtobecometheculture.Asa consequence,tradition,socialmores,myth,politics,ritual,andreligionhavetofightfortheir lives[19].Orperhapswearestillinanearlierstagenotyettoomiredinthesingleminded technocracy.Acultureinwhichtwoopposingworldviewsthetechnologicalandthe traditional[19]coexistinuneasytension.ThisistheculturedocumentedinAlexisde Tocqueville'smonumentalDemocracyinAmerica.Inaword,twodistinctthoughtworldswere rubbingagainsteachotherinnineteenthcenturyAmerica[19].Couldthisculturestillbe prevalentforthelasthundredyearstosurvivetothisdayorhasthetechnologicalmanagedto

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

8of9

overthrowthetraditional? ThequestionineithercaseishowdowepracticePostman'sproposedtechnological atheisminourtimes.Whenoursocietyissounquestioningoftechnologywhatcanbedoneto opentheireyesandrevealtothemthefalsegodthattheyworship.Ourunspokensloganhas been"technologyberalles,"andwehavebeenwillingtoshapeourlivestofitthe requirementsoftechnology,nottherequirementsofculture.Thisisaformofstupidity, especiallyinanageofvasttechnologicalchange.Weneedtoproceedwithoureyeswideopen sothatwemanyusetechnologyratherthanbeusedbyit[17].Postmanconcludeswitha bleakoutlook: Itisallthesame:Thereisnoescapingfromourselves.Thehuman dilemmaisasithasalwaysbeen,andwesolvenothingfundamental bycloakingourselvesintechnologicalglory.Eventhehumblest cartooncharacterknowsthis,andIshallclosebyquotingthewise oldpossumnamedPogo,createdbythecartoonist,WaltKelley.I commendhiswordstoallthetechnologicalutopiansandmessiahs present."Wehavemettheenemy,"Pogosaid,"andheisus."[16] Ifwearetrulyatwarwithourselvesthenweareallthelosers.Whoamonguswould evenbewillingtofightsuchawar?Regardlessitseemsasthoughourpathhasalreadybeen chosen.Therewillbenosuchwar,thefutureisintechnology.Woeisustheslavestoourown creations.

References 1. Ryder,Martin(2006).LuddismNeoLudditesandDystopianViewsofTechnology. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html 2. Postman,Neil(1993).OfLuddites,Learning,andLife. http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_02/4postman.php 3. Biddle,RiShawn(1999).PersonalSoundtracks. http://reason.com/9910/fe.rb.personal.shtml 4. Bull,Michael(1994).TheIntimateSoundsofUrbanExperience:AnAuditory EpistemologyofEveryday.http://www.netzwissenschaft.de/mobi.htm 5. Lin,Eric(2004).NoRestfortheWary.http://www.thefeaturearchives.com/100825.html 6. Sen,Raja(2004).Aweekwithoutmycellphone! http://specials.rediff.com/getahead/2005/mar/16sld.htm 7. Fischer,ClaudeS.(1994).AmericaCalling:ASocialHistoryoftheTelephoneto1940. 8. Belson,Ken(2004). http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/weekinreview/10bels.html?ex=1255060800&e n=253358d23dc1b84d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland 9. Postman,Neil(1997).ScienceandtheStorythatWeNeed. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9701/articles/postman.html

TechnologyvsCulture|AndrewTrusty

9of9

10. Plant,Sadie(2003).OntheMobile. http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/0/234_MotDoc.pdf 11. Monk,A.,Carroll,J.,Parker,S.,Blythe,M."WhyareMobilePhonesAnnoying?" BehaviourandInformationTechnology,vol.23,no.1,2004,pp.3341. 12. Marano,HaraE.(2003).SolitudevsLoneliness. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto20030825000001.html 13. Guernsey,Lisa(2002).AtAirportGate,aCyborgUnplugged. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN.html?ex=114645 6000&en=15c8cbf668fd6ad4&ei=5070 14. Crittenden,Chris(2002).SelfdeselectionTechnopsychoticAnnihilationViaCyborg. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v007/7.2crittenden.html 15. Benson,StephenP .(1998).VillagePeople?TheNetGeneration. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/35/14148/00649325.pdf?arnumber=649325 16. Postman,Neil(1990).InformingOurselvestoDeath. http://interact.uoregon.edu/MEDIALIT/mlr/readings/articles/informpost.html 17. Postman,Neil(1998).FiveThingsWeNeedtoKnowAboutTechnologicalChange. http://itrs.scu.edu/tshanks/pages/Comm12/12Postman.htm 18. Postman,Neil(2001).DeusMachina.http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_01/4postman.php 19. Postman,Neil(1995).WhatNeilPostmanhastosay... http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/hyper/npcontexts_119.html