What do you think?
Rate this book
Επικοινωνία και Κοινωνία
Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future
At a time when we are reexamining our values, reeling from the pace of change, witnessing the clash between good instincts and "pragmatism," dealing with the angst of a new millennium, Neil Postman, one of our most distinguished observers of contemporary society, provides for us a source of guidance and inspiration. In Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century he revisits the Enlightenment, that great flowering of ideas that provided a humane direction for the future -- ideas that formed our nation and that we would do well to embrace anew.He turns our attention to Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Kant, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin, and to their then-radical thinking about inductive science, religious and political freedom, popular education, rational commerce, the nation-state, progress, and happiness.Postman calls for a future connected to traditions that provide sane authority and meaningful purpose -- as opposed to an overreliance on technology and an increasing disregard for the lessons of history. And he argues passionately for specific new guidelines in the education of our children, with renewed emphasis on developing the intellect as successfully as we are developing a computer-driven world.Witty, provocative, and brilliantly reasoned, Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century is Neil Postman's most radical, and most commonsensical, book yet.
226 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1999
65 people are currently reading
1129 people want to read
About the author
Neil Postman
48 books1,039 followersNeil Postman, an important American educator, media theorist and cultural critic was probably best known for his popular 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. For more than four decades he was associated with New York University, where he created and led the Media Ecology program.
He is the author of more than thirty significant books on education, media criticism, and cultural change including Teaching as a Subversive Activity, The Disappearance of Childhood, Technopoly, and Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century.
Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), a historical narrative which warns of a decline in the ability of our mass communications media to share serious ideas. Since television images replace the written word, Postman argues that television confounds serious issues by demeaning and undermining political discourse and by turning real, complex issues into superficial images, less about ideas and thoughts and more about entertainment. He also argues that television is not an effective way of providing education, as it provides only top-down information transfer, rather than the interaction that he believes is necessary to maximize learning. He refers to the relationship between information and human response as the Information-action ratio.
He is the author of more than thirty significant books on education, media criticism, and cultural change including Teaching as a Subversive Activity, The Disappearance of Childhood, Technopoly, and Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century.
Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), a historical narrative which warns of a decline in the ability of our mass communications media to share serious ideas. Since television images replace the written word, Postman argues that television confounds serious issues by demeaning and undermining political discourse and by turning real, complex issues into superficial images, less about ideas and thoughts and more about entertainment. He also argues that television is not an effective way of providing education, as it provides only top-down information transfer, rather than the interaction that he believes is necessary to maximize learning. He refers to the relationship between information and human response as the Information-action ratio.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
February 25, 2008
Read anything by Postman. Twice. More if you're an educator.
February 13, 2009
In this, his final book, Postman's main thesis is that we must look to history to find wisdom to help us tackle the challenges of the future. Having dismissed the 20th century as a disaster, in which people were deluded by the deadly trio of fascism, nazism, and communism, and technological progress was subverted to facilitate more efficient methods of mass killing, he proposes examining the 18th century, the era of the Enlightenment, as the best place to start.
I enjoyed this book far more than I had anticipated. "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was kind of frustrating, a mixture of accurate insights and shrill complaint, largely negative in tone, with no obvious useful conclusion. The tone of this book is far more constructive and, while I don't by any means agree with everything Postman has to say, I found most of the material thought-provoking, with two exceptions.
One part that gave me difficulty was the chapter on childhood (a topic that he has explored in one of his earlier books, apparently), which seemed completely off the mark. Specifically, his argument that childhood is primarily a social construct, invented in the 17th century and perfected in the 18th, at risk of vanishing entirely under the onslaught of information available in our time seems fundamentally misguided. It ignores the reality of the fundamental division that puberty represents in human development. No matter what society or epoch one considers, sexual maturation represents a natural milestone that carries within it an implicit definition of childhood. The natural order, and the imperative to propagate the species, lead virtually all societies to treat those who have not yet realized their reproductive capacity (i.e. "children") differently from those who have attained puberty.
But then, one gets the strong impression that science was never Postman's strong suit. This also contributes to the second aspect of the book that I found problematic - his profound distrust of technology in all its aspects. I should be clear here - I actually agree with Postman that a healthy scepticism about alleged technological "advances" is in order. We should have learned by now not to take the tech prophets' over-hyped claims at face value. And the experience of the last century demonstrates conclusively that delegating responsibility for dealing with the ethical, moral, political and sociological questions raised by scientific progress to the scientists and engineers is a recipe for disaster. The level of Postman's distrust seems exaggerated, however, and gives the impression that it is primarily a result of ignorance, and thus not entirely rational.
(While reading the book, I couldn't stop thinking about how much fun it would be to have Neil Postman and Ray Kurzweil participate in a panel discussion about what the future holds).
The other parts of the book, in particular the chapters on "language", "information", and "narratives" were persuasively argued and thought-provoking. The final chapter, on "education", inherited some of the difficulties arising from Postman's flawed conception of childhood. But overall, I found this book interesting, well-argued, and well-written.
I enjoyed this book far more than I had anticipated. "Amusing Ourselves to Death" was kind of frustrating, a mixture of accurate insights and shrill complaint, largely negative in tone, with no obvious useful conclusion. The tone of this book is far more constructive and, while I don't by any means agree with everything Postman has to say, I found most of the material thought-provoking, with two exceptions.
One part that gave me difficulty was the chapter on childhood (a topic that he has explored in one of his earlier books, apparently), which seemed completely off the mark. Specifically, his argument that childhood is primarily a social construct, invented in the 17th century and perfected in the 18th, at risk of vanishing entirely under the onslaught of information available in our time seems fundamentally misguided. It ignores the reality of the fundamental division that puberty represents in human development. No matter what society or epoch one considers, sexual maturation represents a natural milestone that carries within it an implicit definition of childhood. The natural order, and the imperative to propagate the species, lead virtually all societies to treat those who have not yet realized their reproductive capacity (i.e. "children") differently from those who have attained puberty.
But then, one gets the strong impression that science was never Postman's strong suit. This also contributes to the second aspect of the book that I found problematic - his profound distrust of technology in all its aspects. I should be clear here - I actually agree with Postman that a healthy scepticism about alleged technological "advances" is in order. We should have learned by now not to take the tech prophets' over-hyped claims at face value. And the experience of the last century demonstrates conclusively that delegating responsibility for dealing with the ethical, moral, political and sociological questions raised by scientific progress to the scientists and engineers is a recipe for disaster. The level of Postman's distrust seems exaggerated, however, and gives the impression that it is primarily a result of ignorance, and thus not entirely rational.
(While reading the book, I couldn't stop thinking about how much fun it would be to have Neil Postman and Ray Kurzweil participate in a panel discussion about what the future holds).
The other parts of the book, in particular the chapters on "language", "information", and "narratives" were persuasively argued and thought-provoking. The final chapter, on "education", inherited some of the difficulties arising from Postman's flawed conception of childhood. But overall, I found this book interesting, well-argued, and well-written.
March 19, 2013
This book was half about the importance of enlightenment thought, and half about sticking it to the postmodernists. Postman is correct that we should be concerned about the effects of new technology on our society, but I think that he is too concerned about the Internet, which I think actually goes some way to restoring a political voice to the masses, and a reducing the monopoly of the oligarchs who own the media. I think that the blogosphere is actually a modern form of the eighteenth century pamphlets which Postman extolls.
I felt I had to give the book two stars because of the author's crazy idea that intelligent design should be taught in schools. He is very naive if he thinks that all middle and high school science teachers will honestly teach the two in a way that shows intelligent design to be poor science. Instead he will be giving intelligent design the appearance of being a real science by giving it government sanction as a subject to be taught in schools. He will also be giving science teachers who don't believe in evolution a chance to teach creationism in school, and then devote a few days to teaching evolution in a way that undermines it's sound scientific foundation. Many school districts in areas with a large population of fundamentalist Christians will make sure to hire creationist science teachers. Postman should remember the importance of perspective in approaching an idea, and he should realize that not all school boards will share his world view.
I felt I had to give the book two stars because of the author's crazy idea that intelligent design should be taught in schools. He is very naive if he thinks that all middle and high school science teachers will honestly teach the two in a way that shows intelligent design to be poor science. Instead he will be giving intelligent design the appearance of being a real science by giving it government sanction as a subject to be taught in schools. He will also be giving science teachers who don't believe in evolution a chance to teach creationism in school, and then devote a few days to teaching evolution in a way that undermines it's sound scientific foundation. Many school districts in areas with a large population of fundamentalist Christians will make sure to hire creationist science teachers. Postman should remember the importance of perspective in approaching an idea, and he should realize that not all school boards will share his world view.
July 13, 2018
Two things I really like are curmudgeonly books about modernity and Neil Postman. As such, when I learned that he had written a book extolling the virtues of the past and calling for its wisdom to be brought into a benighted present, I made sure to get a copy immediately. Despite my enthusiasm however I found this book to be quite a letdown. It is basically a shallow summary of his other books, with little new information or argument. While I think many of his other works of cultural criticism are brilliant and timeless, he actually does come across as a bit shrill in this one and I'm not sure what the utility of this work as a whole was. If you're interested in critiques of techno-liberal modernity you're better off just picking up Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly and letting this one pass.
September 23, 2018
I tend to enjoy Postman's critique of technology, education, media, etc. - this book seemed like a summary of his other books.
"Think, for example, of how the words 'community' and 'conversation' are now employed by those who use the Internet. I have the impression that 'community' is now used to mean, simply, people with similar interests, a considerable change from an older meaning: A community is made up of people who may not have similar interests but who must negotiate and resolve their differences for the sake of social harmony. Tocqueville used the phrase “an ethic of reciprocity” to delineate what is at the heart of community life" (p.53).
"Think, for example, of how the words 'community' and 'conversation' are now employed by those who use the Internet. I have the impression that 'community' is now used to mean, simply, people with similar interests, a considerable change from an older meaning: A community is made up of people who may not have similar interests but who must negotiate and resolve their differences for the sake of social harmony. Tocqueville used the phrase “an ethic of reciprocity” to delineate what is at the heart of community life" (p.53).
December 3, 2024
“We live now in a world of too much information, confusing specialized knowledge, and too little wisdom.
The problem to be solved in the twenty-first century is not how to move information, not the engineering of information. We solved the problem long ago. The problem is how to transform information into knowledge, and how to transform knowledge into wisdom. If we can solve that problem, all the rest will take care of itself.
To put information in its place is to give it a useful epistemological frame.”
The problem to be solved in the twenty-first century is not how to move information, not the engineering of information. We solved the problem long ago. The problem is how to transform information into knowledge, and how to transform knowledge into wisdom. If we can solve that problem, all the rest will take care of itself.
To put information in its place is to give it a useful epistemological frame.”
July 16, 2009
If I can bring antibiotics, modern plumbing, and recorded music, I'm going!
July 23, 2018
At first I wasn't really digging this book as I thought some of the ideas about using technology were pretty elitist. Like, how dare we use things so gauche as email and online calendars; how dare we not appreciate the beauty of a pen and paper!!!!111 Those sentiments are super cute for the independently wealthy, who can afford to plot out their own time in the truest way imaginable. For the rest of us, who have tacky old things like jobs and household tasks and such and no household servants in sight to take care of these things for us, yes, we sometimes stoop to using technology to help us get things done more efficiently. How dare we? 🙄
But Mr. Postman redeemed himself for the most part in just a few powerhouse sections that resonated with eerie perfection:
But Mr. Postman redeemed himself for the most part in just a few powerhouse sections that resonated with eerie perfection:
“I know that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must change also and keep pace with the times.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“In America, parties do not write books to combat each other’s opinions, but pamphlets, which are circulated for a day with incredible rapidity and then expire.” — Alexis de Tocqueville
I believe we are living just now in a special moment in time, at one of those darkening moments when all around us is change and we cannot yet see which way to go. Our old ways of explaining ourselves to ourselves are not large enough to accommodate a world made paradoxically small by our technologies, yet larger than we can grasp. We cannot go back to simply times and simpler tales—tales made by clans and tribes and nations when the world was large enough for each purse its separate evolution. There are no island continents in a world of electronic technologies, no places left to hide or to withdraw from the communities of women and men. We cannot make the world accept one tale—and that one our own—by chanting it louder than the rest or silencing those who are singing a different song. We must take to heart the sage remark of Niels Bohr, one of our century’s greatest scientists. He said, “The opposite of a correct statement is an incorrect statement. The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth.” By this, he means that we require a larger reading of the human past, of our relations with each other and the universe and God, a retelling of our older tales to encompass the many truths and to let us grow with change. We can only make the human tale larger by making ourselves a little smaller—by seeing that the vision each of us is granted is but a tiny fragment of a much greater Truth not given to mortals to know. It is the technology-god that promises, “Yes, you can…have it all.” My own limited reading of Scripture tells me that that was never a promise made by God; what is promised is only that we should have such understanding as is sufficient—for each one, and for a time. For people who believe that promise, the challenge of retelling our tale for new and changing times is a test, not only of our wisdom but of our faith.
We know that skepticism, disillusionment, alienation—and all the other words we use to describe a loss of meaning—have come to characterize our age, affecting every social institution. If nothing else, the almost worldwide return to ‘tribalism’ signifies a search to recover a source of transcendent identity and values. We know—do we not?—how dangerous such searches can be, which is why no one need be surprised by the rise in the West of skinheads who have revived the symbols and programs of Nazism, or the emerging popularity in Russia of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the ‘Russian Hitler,’ who promises the masses a future more fully articulated than a conversion to a market economy.
It is clear that most Enlightenment philosophies understood that absolute certainty is an evil that chokes reason and perverts faith; is, in fact, the opposite of the religious spirit. They did not, therefore, find it necessary to have it ‘proved’ that their narrative is certain, or superior to all others, or logically unassailable. Their narrative had only to be sufficient to guide them to a path of righteousness as defined by reason and historical agreement. … It is commonly assumed that the twentieth century has brought about the dissolution of eighteenth-century narratives. It is clear that we have been recent witnesses, if not participants, in the rise and fall of three hideous stories, each of which claimed absolute certainty, each of which demeaned and then tried to eliminate other narratives, and each fo which lasted long enough to produce unprecedented mass murder: Nazism, fascism, and communism.
May 5, 2024
ABSOLUTNIE DOSKONAŁA kondensacja krytyczna myśli oświeceniowej/o oświeceniu w jednym, niezwykle drobnym objętościowo, swoistym vademecum, a może nawet i przewodniku? objawiającym prawdy o procesach i skutkach pewnych tworów myślowych, przekonań, idei i odkryć, które od osiemnastego wieku kształtują nas i nasz świat, budowany strukturami kodów i myśli. dla mnie nowa biblia i kierunkowskaz akademicki, dawno nie czułam takiej walidacji intelektualnej jak w trakcie lektury tego dzieła. absolutnie polecam każdemu
p. s. kocham oświecenie, jak ja się za nim stęskniłam
p. s. kocham oświecenie, jak ja się za nim stęskniłam
Read
March 7, 2018 Postman thesis builds around his understanding that the past informs the way into the future. “What I am driving at is that in order to have an agreeable encounter with the twenty-first century, we will have to take into it some good ideas.” (p13) And for him, it’s all about the Enlightenment. “Let us look there [the 18th century] for instruction rather than models. Let us adopt the principles rather than the details.” (p17)
What follows is an abstract, esoteric discussion chuck-a-block full the voices from the Enlightenment. They, and Postman’s interpretations, offer up perspectives for the future from Technology to democracy, from education to language.
Interesting, if—at almost 20 years old—dated in parts.
What follows is an abstract, esoteric discussion chuck-a-block full the voices from the Enlightenment. They, and Postman’s interpretations, offer up perspectives for the future from Technology to democracy, from education to language.
Interesting, if—at almost 20 years old—dated in parts.
December 8, 2019
Neil Postman is quickly becoming one of my favourite non-fiction writers for several reasons - he focuses on (mainly sociological) topics that are timely, relevant, and have a historical basis, and his writing manages to make accessible the ideas of various historical figures that most of us would never have time to read (eg, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, etc. - in other words, those philosophers with the big, scary, and complex ideas). This book feels like a summary of a few of his previous works, as he brings together various social topics like education, language, technology and explains how we can use Enlightenment values that originated hundreds of years ago to move forward into the 21st c.
For me the most striking aspect of this book is that even though it was written 20 years ago and in some respects is outdated, Postman's comments on how the disruption of Enlightenment values, in other words, of a common narrative people in a society share, has led to the breakdown of many aspects of society, especially in the 20th c., remains convincing and relevant. Also, his warning of our increasing dependence on various technologies being a part of this breakdown has only gotten more alarming in the 20 years since the book's publication. While I didn't agree with all of his points (more on that in the next paragraph), the fact that the book continues to make sense despite all the technological and social advancements of the last 20 years is impressive. Another thing I want to mention is that I appreciated how he managed to summarize the ideas of dozens of Enlightenment thinkers (like the ones I mentioned above) in a clear and understandable way, since most of us just aren't able to read primary texts and always make sense of them. So overall the book was very informative and felt like a crash course on Enlightenment philosophy.
Where I'm more uncertain of my feelings on Postman's ideas is that a) he lets his personal bias seep into a lot of his otherwise well-made points and b) some of his suggestions on how to solve societal issues are absolutely insane. The first point isn't a big deal to me since he admits that where he's biased - mainly, that he's pretty wary of technology and doesn't share the enthusiasm most people have that new technologies will solve societal issues. In some paragraphs it feels like he lets too much of his personal opinion cloud his judgment, but since he's open about that, it didn't really detract from the experience for me. For the second point, all I can say is that he had some pretty wild ideas that I'm glad were never implemented by policymakers. The main one that jumped out at me was his idea of teaching evolution and creationism side by side and allowing students to make their own distinctions about which to "believe". His justification is that this is the best way for students to learn how to think scientifically, since obviously evolution has much more evidence behind it than creationism, and therefore most students will see how it is much more sound. But the obvious problem with this is that teaching both of these "theories" side by side may give many students the false impression that creationism has just as much merit as evolution - which it clearly doesn't. Anyway, I can kind of see what he was getting at here but as an actual policy suggestion for the education system, it's completely crazy.
I could go into more detail about the content of this book since there's a lot of interesting ground that he covers, especially the chapter about narratives, but I feel like there's not much more I can add. It's an interesting and accessible read and worth checking out at least once - but don't take all of his suggestions at face value because some clearly have more merit than others. For my rating this falls somewhere between a 3.5 and a 4 so I'll give it a 4 for now.
For me the most striking aspect of this book is that even though it was written 20 years ago and in some respects is outdated, Postman's comments on how the disruption of Enlightenment values, in other words, of a common narrative people in a society share, has led to the breakdown of many aspects of society, especially in the 20th c., remains convincing and relevant. Also, his warning of our increasing dependence on various technologies being a part of this breakdown has only gotten more alarming in the 20 years since the book's publication. While I didn't agree with all of his points (more on that in the next paragraph), the fact that the book continues to make sense despite all the technological and social advancements of the last 20 years is impressive. Another thing I want to mention is that I appreciated how he managed to summarize the ideas of dozens of Enlightenment thinkers (like the ones I mentioned above) in a clear and understandable way, since most of us just aren't able to read primary texts and always make sense of them. So overall the book was very informative and felt like a crash course on Enlightenment philosophy.
Where I'm more uncertain of my feelings on Postman's ideas is that a) he lets his personal bias seep into a lot of his otherwise well-made points and b) some of his suggestions on how to solve societal issues are absolutely insane. The first point isn't a big deal to me since he admits that where he's biased - mainly, that he's pretty wary of technology and doesn't share the enthusiasm most people have that new technologies will solve societal issues. In some paragraphs it feels like he lets too much of his personal opinion cloud his judgment, but since he's open about that, it didn't really detract from the experience for me. For the second point, all I can say is that he had some pretty wild ideas that I'm glad were never implemented by policymakers. The main one that jumped out at me was his idea of teaching evolution and creationism side by side and allowing students to make their own distinctions about which to "believe". His justification is that this is the best way for students to learn how to think scientifically, since obviously evolution has much more evidence behind it than creationism, and therefore most students will see how it is much more sound. But the obvious problem with this is that teaching both of these "theories" side by side may give many students the false impression that creationism has just as much merit as evolution - which it clearly doesn't. Anyway, I can kind of see what he was getting at here but as an actual policy suggestion for the education system, it's completely crazy.
I could go into more detail about the content of this book since there's a lot of interesting ground that he covers, especially the chapter about narratives, but I feel like there's not much more I can add. It's an interesting and accessible read and worth checking out at least once - but don't take all of his suggestions at face value because some clearly have more merit than others. For my rating this falls somewhere between a 3.5 and a 4 so I'll give it a 4 for now.
August 30, 2014
"Sam kept a diary~~a daybook about his life. It was just a cheap notebook that was always by his bed. Every night, before he turned in, he would write in the book. He wrote about things he had done, things he had seen, and thoughts he had had. Sometimes he drew a picture. he always ended by asking himself a question so he would have something to think about while falling asleep." from Trumpet of the Swan by E.B. White
The questions Sam wrote down in his diary were simple, but profound. Why does a fox bark? How does a bird know how to build a nest? I wonder what I'm going to be when I grow up?
Sam was an independent learner, and his most valuable asset was his ability to wonder; to ask the right questions. Neil Postman, in his book Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century, claims this as the most significant intellectual skill to be cultivated in a student. In his summary of how to teach reason and skepticism (usually called critical thinking), Postman places the first thing on his list this need to teach the art and science of asking questions.
After finishing two of Postman's books, the one quality of his writing that stands out to me is this very thing: here is a who man knows how to ask probing, deep questions.
I am familiar with the Socratic method of teaching, in which teachers guide a learning experience by asking questions designed to draw out thoughtful answers from the learner. But Socratic teaching seems to be the inverse of what Postman is advocating. Ultimately, it is the student that needs to ask the questions if deep learning is to occur. And isn't that the exact opposite of what usually happens in school? Aren't the students usually the ones expected to give answers rather than to ask questions?
Postman says,
"They want our students to be answer-givers, not question-askers. They want students to be believers, not skeptics. They want to measure the quantity of answers, not the quality of question (which, in any case, is probably not measurable). Those who think otherwise, who think an active, courageous, and skillful question-asker is precisely what a "proper education" should produce, can take comfort and inspiration from Voltaire, Hume, Franklin, Priestley, and Jefferson. Surely they would applaud the effort."
These comments have set me to asking my own questions. How does a teacher go about teaching the skill of asking questions? How are young people encouraged to get beyond the surface questions and ask really deep, important questions? How can this skill become integral to the entire curriculum, not just to science?
I've only scratched the surface in finding answers to these queries, but now that I am sensitized to the subject I hope to learn more about this as I practice teaching in homeschool and cooperative school this coming fall.
Here is a short list of thoughts that are getting me started in the direction that Neil Postman suggests:
* Create an atmosphere where questions are welcomed and congratulated. "That's a great question!" seems trite but always makes the student feel glad that he asked.
* Assign students to write study questions instead of always producing a written report. The best ones could be used in a group setting for discussion.
* When studying history, look for the big questions that were being grappled with during a certain historical period or by a famous historical person.
* Model curiosity by learning to ask questions myself.
The questions Sam wrote down in his diary were simple, but profound. Why does a fox bark? How does a bird know how to build a nest? I wonder what I'm going to be when I grow up?
Sam was an independent learner, and his most valuable asset was his ability to wonder; to ask the right questions. Neil Postman, in his book Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century, claims this as the most significant intellectual skill to be cultivated in a student. In his summary of how to teach reason and skepticism (usually called critical thinking), Postman places the first thing on his list this need to teach the art and science of asking questions.
After finishing two of Postman's books, the one quality of his writing that stands out to me is this very thing: here is a who man knows how to ask probing, deep questions.
I am familiar with the Socratic method of teaching, in which teachers guide a learning experience by asking questions designed to draw out thoughtful answers from the learner. But Socratic teaching seems to be the inverse of what Postman is advocating. Ultimately, it is the student that needs to ask the questions if deep learning is to occur. And isn't that the exact opposite of what usually happens in school? Aren't the students usually the ones expected to give answers rather than to ask questions?
Postman says,
"They want our students to be answer-givers, not question-askers. They want students to be believers, not skeptics. They want to measure the quantity of answers, not the quality of question (which, in any case, is probably not measurable). Those who think otherwise, who think an active, courageous, and skillful question-asker is precisely what a "proper education" should produce, can take comfort and inspiration from Voltaire, Hume, Franklin, Priestley, and Jefferson. Surely they would applaud the effort."
These comments have set me to asking my own questions. How does a teacher go about teaching the skill of asking questions? How are young people encouraged to get beyond the surface questions and ask really deep, important questions? How can this skill become integral to the entire curriculum, not just to science?
I've only scratched the surface in finding answers to these queries, but now that I am sensitized to the subject I hope to learn more about this as I practice teaching in homeschool and cooperative school this coming fall.
Here is a short list of thoughts that are getting me started in the direction that Neil Postman suggests:
* Create an atmosphere where questions are welcomed and congratulated. "That's a great question!" seems trite but always makes the student feel glad that he asked.
* Assign students to write study questions instead of always producing a written report. The best ones could be used in a group setting for discussion.
* When studying history, look for the big questions that were being grappled with during a certain historical period or by a famous historical person.
* Model curiosity by learning to ask questions myself.
October 15, 2020
Ever noticed how the politicians today are more focused on providing a negative view of the other man, the other party, than they are about talking about ideas and ideals? This is part of what Postman wants to borrow from the 18th century. It was mentally invigorating, like his others. But I feel like more time could have been given to addressing the evils of the 18th century(slavery, child labor, etc) and some of it was repeated from earlier books. Hence the 4 stars.
January 18, 2025
There are no bounds to human thought. At its own risk and peril it analyses and explores its own bewilderment. —Victor Hugo, Les Miserables
An interesting beginning
Neil Postman tells us the 18th Century represented a great leap forward for human kind. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson redefined citizenship, government, and the proper approach to cosmology. Other guys too. Writers published. People read them. Lives and whole countries were changed for the better. Also, childhood was invented in the 18th Century. I’m all in with him, except for the childhood part, which he qualifies until the claim is meaningless.
Neil looks to the past, because that’s our only reservoir of wisdom. Also, change is not always for the better.
I am suspicious of people who want us to be forward-looking. I literally do not know what they mean when they say, “We must look ahead to see where we are going.” What is it that they wish us to look at? There is nothing yet to see in the future. If looking ahead means anything, it must mean finding in our past useful and humane ideas with which to fill the future.
Not quite, Neil. We can project current trends and make educated guesses at what will happen, as I did when I bought Amazon stock in 2020. All planning is based on these guesses. Otherwise we sit in the mud, talk only to the dead, and wait to die ourselves. Still, in the main, I’m with you.
Progress begets winners and losers
The people we call Luddites were skilled manual workers in the garment industry at the time when mechanization was taking command and the factory system was being put into place. They knew perfectly well what advantages mechanization would bring to most people, but they saw with equal clarity how it would bring ruin to their own way of life, especially to their children who were being employed as virtual slave laborers in factories. They resisted technological change by the simplistic and useless expedient of smashing to bits industrial machinery, which they continued to do until they were imprisoned or killed by the British army. “Luddite” has thus come to mean a person who resists technological change in any way, and it is usually used as an insult. Why this is so is a bit puzzling, since only a fool doesn’t know that new technologies always produce winners and losers, and there is nothing irrational about loser-resistance. Bill Gates, who is, of course, a winner, knows this, and because he is no fool, his propaganda continuously implies that computer technology can bring harm to no one. That is the way of winners: they want losers to be grateful and enthusiastic and, especially, to be unaware that they are losers.
Right, absolutely. So here we are in a 21st century drowning in technology. What do we do?
No bridge here, never mind the title of this book
It does that thing that Op-Eds do, where the ‘call to action’ is to worry about a new thing. —YouTube Video by Books You Haven’t Read, Luigi Mangione and the Decline of Literary Men, December, 2024
This is where Neil deliberately derails his train of thought. What do we do? He has few ideas and he thinks we’re probably doomed.
[If one wants to] control the media’s access to one’s children. There are, in fact, two ways to do this. The first is to limit the amount of exposure children have to media. The second is to monitor carefully what they are exposed to, and to provide them with a continuously running critique of the themes and values of the media’s content. Both are very difficult to do and require a level of attention that most parents are not prepared to give to child-rearing.
As parents of both sexes make their way in the world, children become something of a burden, and, increasingly, it is deemed best that their childhood end as early as possible. I know of nothing that can be done about this.
Neil, this defeatist take is pathetic. Please don’t write another book about a problem, empty of solutions. Oh wait—you couldn’t do that because you’re dead. Okay then,
To Every Living Author:
I don’t need more pointless anxiety. If you want to write about a problem, give me something to DO about it, and don’t put it on the last page. This is what I want when you put Building a Bridge in the title. If you don’t have an actual bridge to share, wait until you do, to write your book.
Violations of this edict will be severely and inescapably punished.
I love this guy, except when I don’t
I was 19 years old when I realized that television was bad for me; not just an annoying habit, but seriously debilitating. So I stopped watching TV. It was simultaneously the easiest and most beneficial change I ever made, but I never evangelized. I did wonder if other people weren’t affected as I was, or if it was killing their spirit, and they just hadn’t noticed yet, as I had. I couldn’t clearly articulate my reasons for this choice, although I was asked about it almost weekly.
Several years later, I heard Neil Postman on the radio, promoting his book about how television was destroying our minds. He sounded reasonable. I bought the book, and Neil explained how TV got us charged up about problems we could do nothing about.
What steps do you plan to take to reduce the conflict in the Middle East? Or the rates of inflation, crime and unemployment? What are your plans for preserving the environment or reducing the risk of nuclear war? What do you plan to do about NATO, OPEC, the CIA, affirmative action, and the monstrous treatment of the Baha’is in Iran? I shall take the liberty of answering for you: You plan to do nothing about them. —Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
Here, clearly stated, was my major problem with television, which I couldn’t articulate myself. I was so grateful, I wrote Neil a fan letter, which he graciously replied to. We were off to a promising start, but when he got to the end of the book, he said the remedy for the damage done by television could not be to simply stop watching.
What? Why not? I’d stopped years earlier and it was easy.
Instead, he said, we should watch more consciously, paying attention to how we consumed the medium, not just the content. That was fairly anti-climactic and flaccid. I had little patience for half measures; it was either on or off. I’m still that way.
An interesting beginning
Neil Postman tells us the 18th Century represented a great leap forward for human kind. Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson redefined citizenship, government, and the proper approach to cosmology. Other guys too. Writers published. People read them. Lives and whole countries were changed for the better. Also, childhood was invented in the 18th Century. I’m all in with him, except for the childhood part, which he qualifies until the claim is meaningless.
Neil looks to the past, because that’s our only reservoir of wisdom. Also, change is not always for the better.
I am suspicious of people who want us to be forward-looking. I literally do not know what they mean when they say, “We must look ahead to see where we are going.” What is it that they wish us to look at? There is nothing yet to see in the future. If looking ahead means anything, it must mean finding in our past useful and humane ideas with which to fill the future.
Not quite, Neil. We can project current trends and make educated guesses at what will happen, as I did when I bought Amazon stock in 2020. All planning is based on these guesses. Otherwise we sit in the mud, talk only to the dead, and wait to die ourselves. Still, in the main, I’m with you.
Progress begets winners and losers
The people we call Luddites were skilled manual workers in the garment industry at the time when mechanization was taking command and the factory system was being put into place. They knew perfectly well what advantages mechanization would bring to most people, but they saw with equal clarity how it would bring ruin to their own way of life, especially to their children who were being employed as virtual slave laborers in factories. They resisted technological change by the simplistic and useless expedient of smashing to bits industrial machinery, which they continued to do until they were imprisoned or killed by the British army. “Luddite” has thus come to mean a person who resists technological change in any way, and it is usually used as an insult. Why this is so is a bit puzzling, since only a fool doesn’t know that new technologies always produce winners and losers, and there is nothing irrational about loser-resistance. Bill Gates, who is, of course, a winner, knows this, and because he is no fool, his propaganda continuously implies that computer technology can bring harm to no one. That is the way of winners: they want losers to be grateful and enthusiastic and, especially, to be unaware that they are losers.
Right, absolutely. So here we are in a 21st century drowning in technology. What do we do?
No bridge here, never mind the title of this book
It does that thing that Op-Eds do, where the ‘call to action’ is to worry about a new thing. —YouTube Video by Books You Haven’t Read, Luigi Mangione and the Decline of Literary Men, December, 2024
This is where Neil deliberately derails his train of thought. What do we do? He has few ideas and he thinks we’re probably doomed.
[If one wants to] control the media’s access to one’s children. There are, in fact, two ways to do this. The first is to limit the amount of exposure children have to media. The second is to monitor carefully what they are exposed to, and to provide them with a continuously running critique of the themes and values of the media’s content. Both are very difficult to do and require a level of attention that most parents are not prepared to give to child-rearing.
As parents of both sexes make their way in the world, children become something of a burden, and, increasingly, it is deemed best that their childhood end as early as possible. I know of nothing that can be done about this.
Neil, this defeatist take is pathetic. Please don’t write another book about a problem, empty of solutions. Oh wait—you couldn’t do that because you’re dead. Okay then,
To Every Living Author:
I don’t need more pointless anxiety. If you want to write about a problem, give me something to DO about it, and don’t put it on the last page. This is what I want when you put Building a Bridge in the title. If you don’t have an actual bridge to share, wait until you do, to write your book.
Violations of this edict will be severely and inescapably punished.
I love this guy, except when I don’t
I was 19 years old when I realized that television was bad for me; not just an annoying habit, but seriously debilitating. So I stopped watching TV. It was simultaneously the easiest and most beneficial change I ever made, but I never evangelized. I did wonder if other people weren’t affected as I was, or if it was killing their spirit, and they just hadn’t noticed yet, as I had. I couldn’t clearly articulate my reasons for this choice, although I was asked about it almost weekly.
Several years later, I heard Neil Postman on the radio, promoting his book about how television was destroying our minds. He sounded reasonable. I bought the book, and Neil explained how TV got us charged up about problems we could do nothing about.
What steps do you plan to take to reduce the conflict in the Middle East? Or the rates of inflation, crime and unemployment? What are your plans for preserving the environment or reducing the risk of nuclear war? What do you plan to do about NATO, OPEC, the CIA, affirmative action, and the monstrous treatment of the Baha’is in Iran? I shall take the liberty of answering for you: You plan to do nothing about them. —Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
Here, clearly stated, was my major problem with television, which I couldn’t articulate myself. I was so grateful, I wrote Neil a fan letter, which he graciously replied to. We were off to a promising start, but when he got to the end of the book, he said the remedy for the damage done by television could not be to simply stop watching.
What? Why not? I’d stopped years earlier and it was easy.
Instead, he said, we should watch more consciously, paying attention to how we consumed the medium, not just the content. That was fairly anti-climactic and flaccid. I had little patience for half measures; it was either on or off. I’m still that way.
Read
July 24, 2011The premise of this book is that the Enlightenment guys, the post-modernists notwithstanding, got it mostly right: about children, language, education, narrative and democracy. The Enlightenment can provide a roadmap or guide to helping build a rational society for the 21th century. A FaceBook review is not the place to a length critique, but allow me to say that I mostly like what he has to say, with the following caveats. I agree with him about post-modernism: it is a belief system that is adrift without a compass on just about every subject it addresses. I was amused to see that, while he distanced himself from any religious belief, he feels strongly that comparative religion needs to be taught in our schools and that faith should be part of our national "narrative" *as if* it were true!? He even cites C. S. Lewis "Abolition of Man", which presents in part the moral argument for the existence of God: without accountability to God there is no moral standard; might makes right. Postman sees the validity of this, but doesn't want to be seen as giving "religious narrative" any legitimacy. But he admits the necessity for religion's role in creating a consensus for moral judgments. But unless one believes that *in reality* one is accountable to God for one's conduct, how can that "narrative" be at all influence one's actions? The reader who is not familiar with the Enlightenment's great figures and writers will be at somewhat of a loss to follow the arguments. By necessity he must pass over them in brief. But overall, Postman is asking important questions, questions which will be answered by default if not addressed intentionally by our society. The distinction between knowledge and information and the role of the media in a digital age is especially cogent for us today.
May 21, 2019
I really enjoyed Amusing Ourselves to Death 20 years ago. There were some interesting takes on the last 5 pages, but this one didn’t seem to age well. And/or I have changed. “I don’t do email” might have been cute when this was written, but even when I read Amusing, pretty damn pretentious, and a great way for a college professor to make himself unavailable to his students. Which I guess is the point. “How will saving an hour here and there make your life actually better?” is just not a great question for a time when folks are working 3 jobs to make ends meet. Those people aren’t flying supersonic, but conveniences are really important. Of course cooking at home is generally healthier for you and the environment. I do it every day. But a lot of people can’t, for many reasons that aren’t obvious to the rarified class of person this book is for.
There’s a twitter thread this morning about how none of the enlightenment philosophers had families and it totally shows. I don’t know the subject matter well enough to comment, but it feels similar to how I felt about this book. They had some good points, but they’re unapologetic about it coming from a pretty narrow world view.
There’s a twitter thread this morning about how none of the enlightenment philosophers had families and it totally shows. I don’t know the subject matter well enough to comment, but it feels similar to how I felt about this book. They had some good points, but they’re unapologetic about it coming from a pretty narrow world view.
May 16, 2019
Used as a textbook in the Modern World course that I teach at Criswell College. I use it in contrast to Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning, by Nancy Pearcey, which I also use as a textbook. Postman is idealistically optimistic about the contributions of the Enlightenment, while Pearcey focuses upon the negative consequences of the Enlightenment.
April 17, 2023
Neil Postman's title, while accurate, was initially off-putting to me because I didn't want to go BACK to a previous century. But the premise is encapsulated in the subtitle:
HOW CAN THE PAST IMPROVE OUR FUTURE.
Our Enlightenment philosophers and philosophes (a term Postman introduced me to), posed deeply thoughtful questions to themselves and others. And proposed answers we might do well to contemplate.
Postman himself poses incisive questions to us in the 21st century in his eight topical chapters: Progress; Technology; Language; Information; Narratives; Children; Democracy; and Education.
Early on Postman considers the problems that we are now facing from what is called Social Media, which problems he suggests, in later chapters, have spilled out into our political consciousness. He quotes Marshall McLuhan predicting that tribalism will result when we abandon our print culture for social, ie, pictorial and verbal, media. The term TRIBALISM seemed to me to perfectly capture our current political state without being overly pejorative.
One key question Postman asks the reader to consider regarding each new innovation is:
WHAT PROBLEM IS THIS SOLVING?
Becoming familiar with this question alone is worth the book's read. It challenges us to examine innovations BEFORE we adopt them. Do we want to take on the potential downsides of a "solution" in order to "solve" the current "problem"?
Postman demonstrates the power of this question through the example of transportation from horsepower to internal combustion engine. Would we, he asks, have adopted the horseless carriage had we seriously contemplated the possible power it might have to change our immediate social connections with one another? to reconfigure our open landscape and our cities? to pollute our planet to the extent of triggering global warming, species extinction, and mass migration of human populations? With enough imagination could we have intelligently discussed and considered the possible pros and cons before we adopted the automotive innovation? Postman is challenging us in his book, as if saying to us today, that not having done so with the internal combustion engine, can we learn from that omission and take a step back before we adopt other radical innovations?
Following his advice, we might ask ourselves: What problem does Artificial Intelligence solve?
By way of highlighting the importance of this latest question, we might consider a question we could have asked just a short while back, and yet did not. What problem will Facebook, ie, Social Media in general, solve, and of course what problems will it unintentionally cause? We are faced now with many of Social Media's unintended consequences, and so we can retroactively evaluate the power of NOT asking about Social Media, as we look Artificial Intelligence in the face.
Hence, our new question in the mode of Postman might be, Do we want to release into the world of good AND bad actors magnitudes of creativity and speed in the innovation of, say, not only medical or astronomical calculations but also hitherto unconceived ways of killing individuals or even wiping whole societies or countries from the earth? AI producers do not assure us that their product cannot be used equally for harm as for good in the world. And warfare and killing machines are certainly prominent in the earth's human ecosystem, both social and economic. Do we want machines devising new ways to destroy in one building, while in the building next door they are devising ways to analyze and design, presumably for good?
Or consider the power of Artificial Intelligence to compose what has never been written before. Is this a power that teachers should grapple with in student compositions, or authors should compete with as they reveal us to ourselves? Might we perhaps be unleashing new ways of lying to one another on that very Social Media exchange mentioned above? Its inventors tell us that AI is not human and it follows no moral compass. It "learns" from us, as we are. Its producers openly state that they can offer no assurances that these computing powers will not and could never be used to befuddle people so completely that humans could no longer rely on rationality and common sense to decide what is true and what is a fabrication, because the evidence itself will have been manipulated beyond our ken to ferret out truth from fiction. This is far from the world of the 18th century.
So, for example, Postman would urge us to ask:
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH AI?
And he and we might add, Are we trying to solve the problems we have already urgently identified, or are we just creating powers of Artificial Intelligence because we have figured out how to do that, even given that we can demonstrate some good uses? It is the same with driverless cars. What problem are we trying to solve? Are the costs to the unemployed drivers and potentially redesigned roads worth the net gain in fewer accidents, for example? These questions are urgent and Postman sets the stage for us all to learn to ask them before innovations are adopted.
Each of Postman's chapters addresses a broad topic and offers background and thinking from our Enlightenment forebears to help us navigate the 21st century and beyond. It is a book well worth reading and then incorporating into our discourse.
HOW CAN THE PAST IMPROVE OUR FUTURE.
Our Enlightenment philosophers and philosophes (a term Postman introduced me to), posed deeply thoughtful questions to themselves and others. And proposed answers we might do well to contemplate.
Postman himself poses incisive questions to us in the 21st century in his eight topical chapters: Progress; Technology; Language; Information; Narratives; Children; Democracy; and Education.
Early on Postman considers the problems that we are now facing from what is called Social Media, which problems he suggests, in later chapters, have spilled out into our political consciousness. He quotes Marshall McLuhan predicting that tribalism will result when we abandon our print culture for social, ie, pictorial and verbal, media. The term TRIBALISM seemed to me to perfectly capture our current political state without being overly pejorative.
One key question Postman asks the reader to consider regarding each new innovation is:
WHAT PROBLEM IS THIS SOLVING?
Becoming familiar with this question alone is worth the book's read. It challenges us to examine innovations BEFORE we adopt them. Do we want to take on the potential downsides of a "solution" in order to "solve" the current "problem"?
Postman demonstrates the power of this question through the example of transportation from horsepower to internal combustion engine. Would we, he asks, have adopted the horseless carriage had we seriously contemplated the possible power it might have to change our immediate social connections with one another? to reconfigure our open landscape and our cities? to pollute our planet to the extent of triggering global warming, species extinction, and mass migration of human populations? With enough imagination could we have intelligently discussed and considered the possible pros and cons before we adopted the automotive innovation? Postman is challenging us in his book, as if saying to us today, that not having done so with the internal combustion engine, can we learn from that omission and take a step back before we adopt other radical innovations?
Following his advice, we might ask ourselves: What problem does Artificial Intelligence solve?
By way of highlighting the importance of this latest question, we might consider a question we could have asked just a short while back, and yet did not. What problem will Facebook, ie, Social Media in general, solve, and of course what problems will it unintentionally cause? We are faced now with many of Social Media's unintended consequences, and so we can retroactively evaluate the power of NOT asking about Social Media, as we look Artificial Intelligence in the face.
Hence, our new question in the mode of Postman might be, Do we want to release into the world of good AND bad actors magnitudes of creativity and speed in the innovation of, say, not only medical or astronomical calculations but also hitherto unconceived ways of killing individuals or even wiping whole societies or countries from the earth? AI producers do not assure us that their product cannot be used equally for harm as for good in the world. And warfare and killing machines are certainly prominent in the earth's human ecosystem, both social and economic. Do we want machines devising new ways to destroy in one building, while in the building next door they are devising ways to analyze and design, presumably for good?
Or consider the power of Artificial Intelligence to compose what has never been written before. Is this a power that teachers should grapple with in student compositions, or authors should compete with as they reveal us to ourselves? Might we perhaps be unleashing new ways of lying to one another on that very Social Media exchange mentioned above? Its inventors tell us that AI is not human and it follows no moral compass. It "learns" from us, as we are. Its producers openly state that they can offer no assurances that these computing powers will not and could never be used to befuddle people so completely that humans could no longer rely on rationality and common sense to decide what is true and what is a fabrication, because the evidence itself will have been manipulated beyond our ken to ferret out truth from fiction. This is far from the world of the 18th century.
So, for example, Postman would urge us to ask:
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH AI?
And he and we might add, Are we trying to solve the problems we have already urgently identified, or are we just creating powers of Artificial Intelligence because we have figured out how to do that, even given that we can demonstrate some good uses? It is the same with driverless cars. What problem are we trying to solve? Are the costs to the unemployed drivers and potentially redesigned roads worth the net gain in fewer accidents, for example? These questions are urgent and Postman sets the stage for us all to learn to ask them before innovations are adopted.
Each of Postman's chapters addresses a broad topic and offers background and thinking from our Enlightenment forebears to help us navigate the 21st century and beyond. It is a book well worth reading and then incorporating into our discourse.
May 3, 2021
First postman! ended education and then he builded a bridge to the century 18. Only thing I can't figure about his books is about how he thinks maybe technologie don't make us smarter or better. I 4 one would like to see evidence of this.
June 21, 2018
"We are presented with a world of 'and's, not 'because's."
Anyone who cares about education or our future should read Postman - this is a good place to start as it summarizes much of his earlier work. READ IT.
I wanted to shout "yes" throughout the book - but his main idea is that we need to learn to be good questioners, that it is important to understand the history of all subjects - how we got to where we are, and that we should always ask why. Published in 1999 he foresaw many of the results of the computer age and our current overwhelming access to information, with little ability to sort through and decide and discuss why this information is important, what to do with it, how it connects to our other knowledge.
He is not anti-technology, but he is opposed to technology just because we can. He insists before creating any new technology we should ask ourselves 1) "What is the problem to which this technology is the solution" This brings me to one of my biggest pet peeves - he wrote this 20 years before all the Alexas and Google whatever machines - is it really that difficult for me to change the channel using my remote control? Or turn up or down the volume on my music? What is the problem that these voice activated personal assistants solve? Or is it simply because we can. Even more importantly our second question should ALWAYS be 2) "What new problems might be created because we have solved this problem?" Our current education system fails at encouraging our creators, engineers and inventors to ask these kinds of questions or think about the larger implications of their creations. and finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should ask ourselves 3) What sort of people and institutions might acquire special economic and political power because of technological change? Wow. Bingo.
Postman is looking forward to the 21st century, from his vantage point at the end of the 20th - a century he considers an epic failure filled with war, fascism, genocide, etc. He looks to the Enlightenment as a time when men (he admits, not an epoch kind to women) "did not give infomration to make another 'informed.' One gave information to make another do something or feel something,. . . it was a rhetorical instrument.
I love his ideas for education. He is spot on that we see children as little economic machines and school systems as places to create better workers and consumers. He insists that children should be taught to ask significant questions - to ask those big why? questions. He proposes simple changes like calling it "American histories" not history to make kids more aware that history is all different people's points of view and interpretation. He believes Creation science and Evolutionary theory should both be taught in schools - BUT the significant question is "To what extent does a theory meet scientific criteria of validity. After all, what students need to know is not whether this or that theory is to be believed, but how scientists judge the merit of a theory."
He believes technology education should focus on "what are the psychological, social and political effects of new technologies. " He accurately predicts that people will learn how to use technology regardless of their "education." Kids don't need to learn how, they need to know why. And why not "Its goal must be to teach students to use technology rather than to be used by it."
And of course, I love "I regard history as the single most important idea for our youth to take with them into the future. I call it an idea rather than a subject because every su ject has a history, and its history is an integral part of the subject. History, we might say, is a meta-subject. No one can claim adequate knowledge of a subject unless one knows how such knowledge came to be."
Anyone who cares about education or our future should read Postman - this is a good place to start as it summarizes much of his earlier work. READ IT.
I wanted to shout "yes" throughout the book - but his main idea is that we need to learn to be good questioners, that it is important to understand the history of all subjects - how we got to where we are, and that we should always ask why. Published in 1999 he foresaw many of the results of the computer age and our current overwhelming access to information, with little ability to sort through and decide and discuss why this information is important, what to do with it, how it connects to our other knowledge.
He is not anti-technology, but he is opposed to technology just because we can. He insists before creating any new technology we should ask ourselves 1) "What is the problem to which this technology is the solution" This brings me to one of my biggest pet peeves - he wrote this 20 years before all the Alexas and Google whatever machines - is it really that difficult for me to change the channel using my remote control? Or turn up or down the volume on my music? What is the problem that these voice activated personal assistants solve? Or is it simply because we can. Even more importantly our second question should ALWAYS be 2) "What new problems might be created because we have solved this problem?" Our current education system fails at encouraging our creators, engineers and inventors to ask these kinds of questions or think about the larger implications of their creations. and finally, and perhaps most importantly, we should ask ourselves 3) What sort of people and institutions might acquire special economic and political power because of technological change? Wow. Bingo.
Postman is looking forward to the 21st century, from his vantage point at the end of the 20th - a century he considers an epic failure filled with war, fascism, genocide, etc. He looks to the Enlightenment as a time when men (he admits, not an epoch kind to women) "did not give infomration to make another 'informed.' One gave information to make another do something or feel something,. . . it was a rhetorical instrument.
I love his ideas for education. He is spot on that we see children as little economic machines and school systems as places to create better workers and consumers. He insists that children should be taught to ask significant questions - to ask those big why? questions. He proposes simple changes like calling it "American histories" not history to make kids more aware that history is all different people's points of view and interpretation. He believes Creation science and Evolutionary theory should both be taught in schools - BUT the significant question is "To what extent does a theory meet scientific criteria of validity. After all, what students need to know is not whether this or that theory is to be believed, but how scientists judge the merit of a theory."
He believes technology education should focus on "what are the psychological, social and political effects of new technologies. " He accurately predicts that people will learn how to use technology regardless of their "education." Kids don't need to learn how, they need to know why. And why not "Its goal must be to teach students to use technology rather than to be used by it."
And of course, I love "I regard history as the single most important idea for our youth to take with them into the future. I call it an idea rather than a subject because every su ject has a history, and its history is an integral part of the subject. History, we might say, is a meta-subject. No one can claim adequate knowledge of a subject unless one knows how such knowledge came to be."
April 17, 2021
Neil Postman's writing and ideas has made me a fan. This is the third books of his that I've read and I'm bound to go after the others, or re-read his classics. What I love about his work is the clear ideas, the use of analogies and metaphors to bring better understanding, and depth of knowledge and observations he brings to each chapter.
From hearing President Clinton talk about building a bridge to the 21st century, Postman thought about what we, humanity, would carry cross. "Surely an HD TV," he remarked in a lecture. Here he goes in depth as to why we should revisit the ideas of the 18th century, the Enlightenment period for our answers.
He justifies this with a reference to Marshal MacLuhan's metaphor of driving towards the future while keeping our eyes on the rearview mirror. Of course Postman's spin is that even the windshield is coloured by our past. He mentions the adage of remembering the mistakes of our past, but also to remember the successes. The rest of the book borrows ideas and thinkers from the 18th century, mixed with large doses of his own commentary on what we need to bring to the future. His topics include democracy, language, information, technology, education, and others.
Knowing Postman, he really shines when it comes to the chapters of technology,information, and education. He strikes out against those who have called him a luddite by providing a context for the word, and the proudly wearing the label. He warns against the tendency to be used by technology rather than being using it.
He makes two standout points on technology:
1. There's no point in being anti-technology; it's like being anti-food. We need food for sustenance. But what type of food are we eating? Does the food have nutritional value? Or is it junk. We can eat food that's gone bad, or infested with disease. What happens to us when we don't pay attention to what we eat?
2. There is an argument that he worries too much about the electronic age, and that it will not change human nature. To this he asks, what is human nature? Is it genetics and emotions, then surely that will not change.
But if we're talking about psychic habits (habits of though), social interactions and relations, political and educational institutions, and the content and quality of discourse, then technology does change these things.
If human nature doesn't change through technology, then our humaneness is changed.
The chapter on Information is also a standout. Postman makes the distinction between information, knowledge and wisdom. Information and facts can be provided, but we need knowledge to understand it's context, purpose and importance. Wisdom is distinguishing which body of knowledge is needed for the problem at hand. He provides great examples to think about this as well.
He ends the chapter on information with the following statement (paraphrasing):
Having solved the problem of moving information in the quickest time to as many people as possible, we must solve the problem of transforming information to knowledge and then wisdom.
The chapter on education talks about what it's focus should be. Among his other claims, this one stood out to me (paraphrasing):
Children should be taught the art and science of question-asking. The education system teaches them to be answer-givers. They want students to be believers, not skeptics.
Why 4 stars? Out of the 3 Postman books I've read so far, this one covered the biggest breadth of topics, and I think Postman had the most difficult time getting his point across. His commentary on the idea of progress was interesting but not entirely clear. The other books had a more streamlined topic and resulted in a compact, artful package.
This book has many great ideas, built upon many of Postman's previous works. A Postman 4, is probably a 5 or 6 for any other cultural critic. Postman doesn't write strictly for a narrative, or to try to simplify grand ideas into stories. Postman's writing is not only clear but artistic, and he endeavours to make us notice the things we are too immersed in to see.
From hearing President Clinton talk about building a bridge to the 21st century, Postman thought about what we, humanity, would carry cross. "Surely an HD TV," he remarked in a lecture. Here he goes in depth as to why we should revisit the ideas of the 18th century, the Enlightenment period for our answers.
He justifies this with a reference to Marshal MacLuhan's metaphor of driving towards the future while keeping our eyes on the rearview mirror. Of course Postman's spin is that even the windshield is coloured by our past. He mentions the adage of remembering the mistakes of our past, but also to remember the successes. The rest of the book borrows ideas and thinkers from the 18th century, mixed with large doses of his own commentary on what we need to bring to the future. His topics include democracy, language, information, technology, education, and others.
Knowing Postman, he really shines when it comes to the chapters of technology,information, and education. He strikes out against those who have called him a luddite by providing a context for the word, and the proudly wearing the label. He warns against the tendency to be used by technology rather than being using it.
He makes two standout points on technology:
1. There's no point in being anti-technology; it's like being anti-food. We need food for sustenance. But what type of food are we eating? Does the food have nutritional value? Or is it junk. We can eat food that's gone bad, or infested with disease. What happens to us when we don't pay attention to what we eat?
2. There is an argument that he worries too much about the electronic age, and that it will not change human nature. To this he asks, what is human nature? Is it genetics and emotions, then surely that will not change.
But if we're talking about psychic habits (habits of though), social interactions and relations, political and educational institutions, and the content and quality of discourse, then technology does change these things.
If human nature doesn't change through technology, then our humaneness is changed.
The chapter on Information is also a standout. Postman makes the distinction between information, knowledge and wisdom. Information and facts can be provided, but we need knowledge to understand it's context, purpose and importance. Wisdom is distinguishing which body of knowledge is needed for the problem at hand. He provides great examples to think about this as well.
He ends the chapter on information with the following statement (paraphrasing):
Having solved the problem of moving information in the quickest time to as many people as possible, we must solve the problem of transforming information to knowledge and then wisdom.
The chapter on education talks about what it's focus should be. Among his other claims, this one stood out to me (paraphrasing):
Children should be taught the art and science of question-asking. The education system teaches them to be answer-givers. They want students to be believers, not skeptics.
Why 4 stars? Out of the 3 Postman books I've read so far, this one covered the biggest breadth of topics, and I think Postman had the most difficult time getting his point across. His commentary on the idea of progress was interesting but not entirely clear. The other books had a more streamlined topic and resulted in a compact, artful package.
This book has many great ideas, built upon many of Postman's previous works. A Postman 4, is probably a 5 or 6 for any other cultural critic. Postman doesn't write strictly for a narrative, or to try to simplify grand ideas into stories. Postman's writing is not only clear but artistic, and he endeavours to make us notice the things we are too immersed in to see.
February 13, 2021
my rating - overall Score: 3.2/5.0
- quality of writing (5/5)
- quality of the content (3/5)
- impact on my perspective (4/5)
- personal resonance (4/5)
- rereading potential (0/5)
In this book, Postman tries to take stock of the good ideas passed down by our ancestors (from the 18th-century enlightenment movement) to help provide us some useful tools to apply for the future.
Postman is most known for this critical view of technology's role in modern culture. This view strongly comes across in his chapter titled technology. He asks some thought-provoking questions, such as the unintended consequences of new technology on the individual and society levels. While he is not so lost in his views to shun technology altogether, he does promote a more wholesome engagement with technology, first, by clarifying the problem that tech is supposed to solve and then spending time understanding the pros/cons of tech solutions before deploying them in large-scale. Imagine if the creators of Facebook or Twitter had this in mind when they started their companies.
Another notable chapter titled information which explores how technology has inundated us with endless information but with no real way to synthesize the information into knowledge or wisdom.
His more deep chapters involve exploring the concept of narratives for humanity. A narrative helps provide meaning to an examined life by providing us with "an elementary sense of justice, the ability to see things as others do, a sense of transcendental responsibility, archetypical wisdom, good taste, courage, compassion, and faith."
The book concludes by providing some dystopian commentary on how TV technology is (1) ending childhood—by allowing them to see the same material as adults—and (2) weakening democracy by moving public discourse away from the written word to visual images.
He concludes the book by providing a reimagined education system that stresses critical thinking development based on logic, rhetoric, questioning, and skepticism.
I agree with Postman that the 18th century has many useful concepts and ideas to bring back into modern culture. While these ideas might not change the current momentum of technology evolution, they can help provide a better framework for engaging with technology moving forward.
- quality of writing (5/5)
- quality of the content (3/5)
- impact on my perspective (4/5)
- personal resonance (4/5)
- rereading potential (0/5)
In this book, Postman tries to take stock of the good ideas passed down by our ancestors (from the 18th-century enlightenment movement) to help provide us some useful tools to apply for the future.
Postman is most known for this critical view of technology's role in modern culture. This view strongly comes across in his chapter titled technology. He asks some thought-provoking questions, such as the unintended consequences of new technology on the individual and society levels. While he is not so lost in his views to shun technology altogether, he does promote a more wholesome engagement with technology, first, by clarifying the problem that tech is supposed to solve and then spending time understanding the pros/cons of tech solutions before deploying them in large-scale. Imagine if the creators of Facebook or Twitter had this in mind when they started their companies.
Another notable chapter titled information which explores how technology has inundated us with endless information but with no real way to synthesize the information into knowledge or wisdom.
His more deep chapters involve exploring the concept of narratives for humanity. A narrative helps provide meaning to an examined life by providing us with "an elementary sense of justice, the ability to see things as others do, a sense of transcendental responsibility, archetypical wisdom, good taste, courage, compassion, and faith."
The book concludes by providing some dystopian commentary on how TV technology is (1) ending childhood—by allowing them to see the same material as adults—and (2) weakening democracy by moving public discourse away from the written word to visual images.
He concludes the book by providing a reimagined education system that stresses critical thinking development based on logic, rhetoric, questioning, and skepticism.
I agree with Postman that the 18th century has many useful concepts and ideas to bring back into modern culture. While these ideas might not change the current momentum of technology evolution, they can help provide a better framework for engaging with technology moving forward.
July 24, 2017
Postman continues to explore his preoccupation with technology and—more wholly—modern society's ailments. Each chapter mines a certain topic (e.g. children, technology, education, etc.) and its relationship to 18th century thinking, more specifically, the Enlightenment. Postman uses the work of Enlightenment thinkers to search for ways to better secure a viable future for ourselves. He is skeptical of progress for progress's sake. He begs us to ask why; why do we need progress? His best argument revolves around the speed of information. That, even though we receive information almost immediately and for centuries now, we still complain about not having enough information. He posits that it is more important to have knowledge to better sift through the glut of information. But how do we teach that?
His humor shines through as usual.
His humor shines through as usual.
May 3, 2019
This review isn't going to properly cover my reaction to this book. Some of the chapters were really interesting, and something I think I'd dive deeper in to (Technology, Children, Education). And some I found counter to my logical common sense that I felt it simply didn't fit (Narratives, Children - yes same as above; interesting overlap of confusion). I had to keep checking the print date (1999) of this book because it seems rather prescient in relation to Internet, "Fake News", and Democracy of more recent times. I wish Postman were still alive to get his take on where we've come even in the last 20 years. Certainly not closer to what we could learn from the 18th century.
February 28, 2021
“We learned how to invent things, and the question of why receded in importance. The idea that if something could be done, it should be done was born in the 19th century.”
Neil Postman, at the turn of the century, proved to be strikingly prophetic. Some of his views are a little extreme, but he raises a lot of questions that are important for everyone to consider. Questions about the relation of information, knowledge, and wisdom, the role of technology in our lives, and the decline of dialogue and literacy.
Very interesting thoughts and the book is not too long! It was a good review of Enlightenment-era philosophers and writing as well. I do recommend!
Neil Postman, at the turn of the century, proved to be strikingly prophetic. Some of his views are a little extreme, but he raises a lot of questions that are important for everyone to consider. Questions about the relation of information, knowledge, and wisdom, the role of technology in our lives, and the decline of dialogue and literacy.
Very interesting thoughts and the book is not too long! It was a good review of Enlightenment-era philosophers and writing as well. I do recommend!
October 21, 2018
I was really excited to read this because I read an excerpt of one of Postman's other books for a class last semester and loved it. I was a bit disappointed by this book though. Maybe it was the way the information was presented, maybe I didn't know enough in the first place, or maybe I just couldn't get into it because of all the other readings I do for class, but nothing Postman wrote about felt alarmingly interesting.
March 20, 2019
When you read Postman, whether you agree with him or not, he forces you to think. Since I've read most of his other works, this was somewhat inferior, possibly because a lot of the ideas here are familiar to the Postman reader. Still, I'll read anything by him. This became my before dinner chapter on many a night while I waited for something to cook, or the BBQ to warm up or whatever. Sometimes, I would sip a drink. Often, I would jot down notes for future use.
December 28, 2020
The 1700's were a lot cooler than you may think. This is a celebration of literacy, skepticism, religion(corralled in its proper place) and above all, the written word. Understanding the tools of cognition, and not throwing them out with the postmodern or technological bathwater are what Postman drives at. There are some amazingly prescient passages considering he was writing well before the turn of the 21st century. It's worth looking backward!
March 23, 2023
I wanted to like it a lot more than I did, but that being said, it's still a worthwhile read. There were a few times he ventured pretty far into the weeds and I questioned why I thought I liked him so much, but he always brought the focus back around and the final chapter on education was very strong and sensible. He even surprised me, very pleasantly, given what I thought I knew about his ideologies.
April 16, 2024
I wasn’t sure what to expect from this book but I really enjoyed it.
It’s classic Postman - each chapter is a history of an idea that flourished during the Enlightenment (democracy, childhood, education, language, etc.). In learning about the evolution of the topics/ideas he thinks we can take what works (or learn from what didn’t) and bring it with us into the new century.
It’s not a new idea but it’s worth repeating.
It’s classic Postman - each chapter is a history of an idea that flourished during the Enlightenment (democracy, childhood, education, language, etc.). In learning about the evolution of the topics/ideas he thinks we can take what works (or learn from what didn’t) and bring it with us into the new century.
It’s not a new idea but it’s worth repeating.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews