Jordan Munn's Reviews > Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
by
by
There are some good ideas in this book, but only incidentally so- Postman himself delivers almost nothing of merit. Postman tends to come across as a curmudgeon in his writing, but in Amusing Ourselves to Death, he presented a reasonable, fairly robust argument that felt supported by evidence. Even when he was opining, his position was plausible. In Technopoly, he fails to develop a convincing hierarchy of technological development.
Postman never admits as much, but across his books he has a gigantic bias for some never-really-defined golden era of the United States, against which every development since is an attack. But, whereas in AOtD, Postman kept close enough to his evidence, here he is way, way beyond support of his x's. Massively overextended, he pontificates with out-of-the-blue, sensational claims without a whiff of evidence. He makes bold, universal, absolute declarations with a straight face and expects the reader to trust him. He tries to persuade readers of the legitimacy of his coined terms- tool-using, technocracy, technopoly- by just using the words themselves over and over and over and over. He uses fallacious arguments as well- diverting to strawman tactics and guilt-by-association workarounds to attack what he percieves as huge cultural enemies. He does not maintain rigor in his definitions, and without much elaboration or evidence to support his claims, the writing comes across as the scattershot rant of a drunk, paranoid uncle.
By the end of the book, Postman's thesis (never clearly formulated in the beginning) is butchered beyond coherence. His argument bounces all over the place in some spastic attempts, and by the end, the reader is expected to swallow some mumbo-jumbo, half-baked prescription for thwarting the Technopoly, contradicting himself numerous times even in the final few pages. I expected so much more.
Postman never admits as much, but across his books he has a gigantic bias for some never-really-defined golden era of the United States, against which every development since is an attack. But, whereas in AOtD, Postman kept close enough to his evidence, here he is way, way beyond support of his x's. Massively overextended, he pontificates with out-of-the-blue, sensational claims without a whiff of evidence. He makes bold, universal, absolute declarations with a straight face and expects the reader to trust him. He tries to persuade readers of the legitimacy of his coined terms- tool-using, technocracy, technopoly- by just using the words themselves over and over and over and over. He uses fallacious arguments as well- diverting to strawman tactics and guilt-by-association workarounds to attack what he percieves as huge cultural enemies. He does not maintain rigor in his definitions, and without much elaboration or evidence to support his claims, the writing comes across as the scattershot rant of a drunk, paranoid uncle.
By the end of the book, Postman's thesis (never clearly formulated in the beginning) is butchered beyond coherence. His argument bounces all over the place in some spastic attempts, and by the end, the reader is expected to swallow some mumbo-jumbo, half-baked prescription for thwarting the Technopoly, contradicting himself numerous times even in the final few pages. I expected so much more.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Technopoly.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 15, 2012
–
Started Reading
January 15, 2012
– Shelved
January 16, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)
date
newest »
message 1:
by
flamingstone
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
Aug 22, 2018 03:26AM
I'm not even halfway thru the book and feelings frustrated almost every page of the way. You've nailed why his arguments felt so subjective and hollow. I wonder if i should just stop or finish it if only to see how badly he flails about..
reply
|
flag
Well, you’ve saved me having to write a review because you said everything I was thinking only better. Thanks
"Postman tends to come across as a curmudgeon in his writing, but in Amusing Ourselves to Death, he presented a reasonable, fairly robust argument that felt supported by evidence."
In reference to the above quote from your review, I feel that the only reason why Amusing Ourselves to Death felt so much more coherent and robust, was because it was largely a restatement of Huxley's Brave New World Revisited essays. Considering Postman was working with an already polished material, it would've been very hard for him to screw it up as badly as he did Technopoly.
In reference to the above quote from your review, I feel that the only reason why Amusing Ourselves to Death felt so much more coherent and robust, was because it was largely a restatement of Huxley's Brave New World Revisited essays. Considering Postman was working with an already polished material, it would've been very hard for him to screw it up as badly as he did Technopoly.
I think this review missed the point of the book. "out of the blue sensational claims without a whiff of evidence", yet there are historical references, statistics, and nearly all of the arguments he makes have specific case studies or instances he tags along with his argunents. Ironically, he specifically challenges the idea of what the modern conception of evidence really is, so I would be curious to hear what you mean by "no evidence".
The thesis of the book is stated quite succinctly in the introduction to the book before he expounds upon the details. In fact, the whole book is really expoundung upon many of the same ideas stated in AOtD, with Marshall McLuhan in mind.
This review is mostly made of perjoratives about curmudgeonliness or the author pining for a golden age America. Even if this were true (it is not immediately clear that it is) , so what? You don't really say anything substantial about his argument, or even what it is. If the content of this review were reduced solely to content about what is actually argued in the book, it would be a blank box.
The thesis of the book is stated quite succinctly in the introduction to the book before he expounds upon the details. In fact, the whole book is really expoundung upon many of the same ideas stated in AOtD, with Marshall McLuhan in mind.
This review is mostly made of perjoratives about curmudgeonliness or the author pining for a golden age America. Even if this were true (it is not immediately clear that it is) , so what? You don't really say anything substantial about his argument, or even what it is. If the content of this review were reduced solely to content about what is actually argued in the book, it would be a blank box.