Neil Postman introduces the theme for the entire book which is that schools are a way for a means, but not an end. He agrees with Nietzsche’s philosophy, "He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how." This "meaning" Postman describes as a god or a narrative (he uses this two word interchangeably throughout the book).
Chapter 2: Gods That Fail
In this chapter, Postman identifies gods that have existed and have failed. Specifically he mentions the god of utility, "You are what you do for a living," which is defined as the willingness to succeed or to make a living. Coupled with the god of utility, is the god of consumership, which he describes as "whoever dies with the most toys wins," and "You are what you accumulate." Clearly, Postman identifies these gods as reasons that have failed. The god of utility is presented repeatedly as parables in commercials; it is told and retold as the reason to why children should go to and stay in school. More importantly, it emphasizes the reason why schools should receive more public support. Parents, however, see schools as training grounds for future employees. However, Postman refutes these positions by saying that there is no strong proof that lucrative and stimulating employment will be available for students upon graduation.
We both agree about how the gods were defined. On the other hand, we both felt that these gods do provide a motivation for schooling. Students do attend school with aspirations to become somebody. Schools facilitate this by sponsoring programs such as Career Day and mentorships with local businesses.
Chapter 3: Some New Gods That Fail
The major focus of this chapter encompassed the gods of Technology and of Multiculturalism.
Postman references several people’s thoughts on the gods of Technology:
Dr. Ravitch who presents us with little Eva as the ideal little girl who is sleepless and decides to tune into a channel to learn Algebra and young John who decides he would like to learn the history of Japan. Postman disagrees with this ideology, as he believes that Dr. Ravitch is full of crap because little Eva and young John would never wake up yearning to learn more but instead want to tune into SkinaMax, (just kidding, the Disney Channel) since both their parents are asleep. Ravitch believes that this mode of education offers equal access to all, however, Fulghum’s book refutes this because he identifies skills not addressed in this type of learning: sharing, playing fair, flushing, and not hitting people. Postman half-heartedly disagrees by commenting that children don’t learn all these skills in kindergarten but throughout several years of schooling. Thus, the reason children should not learn in isolation.
Hugh McIntosh: Presented three scenarios, which envision those who are tired of reality and move toward virtual reality.
· Chatting with a scientist to receive expert assistance for science class/homework
· Virtual labs
· Computer simulation to design life forms
Postman disagreed with the views of McIntosh and believed a technology solution to a psychological problem is more like “therapy.”
Bottom line to this chapter is that the information is out there, the desire to gather the most information is present, and however, people don’t know what to do with it.
This chapter was the most interesting to us as it dealt a great deal with technology. We agreed with several points made, however, they were all made by different people. Those points included:
· Learning should not take place in isolation
· Technology does allow for equal access to more people
· Schooling provides the learning of skills needed by children over a period of years
On the contrary, we do believe that there are those children who possess an innate desire to learn without being directed to, and, therefore, can learn independently. It’s not necessarily a new species of child.
Concluding point: There is a lot of technology out there, using it in moderation is key.
Chapter 4: Gods That May Serve
“Why do birds suddenly appear…?” (Did anyone else think of this song when you read the first line of this chapter?)
Postman identifies and describes 5 narratives in this chapter.
1. Spaceship Earth: the responsibility of taking care of earth. “The caretakers of a vulnerable space capsule.”
2. Fallen Angel: we are born imperfect. The example given was the concentration camp of Auschwitz, Poland; when man aspires to possess the knowledge of the gods, or arrogance and dogmatism overpowers man, it leads to evil deeds.
3. American Experiment: Is described as continuous question to help form, maintain, and preserve a nation. Students are taught in school to take part in the great experiment by learning how to argue, learning to decide which questions are worth arguing about, and learning what happens when the arguing stops. Postman mentions that when arguing halts, blood flows.
4. Law of Diversity: This narrative emphasizes the common core of knowledge about other people thus creating intelligent humans.
5. The Word Weavers/The World Makers: This chapter discussed the importance of language and the role it plays in identifying our moral standing. Postman also sees language as a way to transform the world. (However, here he mentions that America is more apt to adopting other words or creating new words quite often, while other nations are not necessarily following suit).
When considering this last chapter, we asked ourselves a question posed in the Postman reading: Can we use them to provide an end - that is, a purpose - to schooling? We tend to agree with only a couple of the narratives. The American Experiment and the Law of Diversity had for us the most solid cases. Word Weavers/World Makers had some valid points. We felt that the American Experiment and the Law of Diversity encouraged a deep craving for learning and questioning what has already been established as fact. If indeed, we settle on accepting what has been established as fact, and then all we do is memorize those facts. If we learn to question and investigate, we continue to grow and to discover. This applies to the Law of Diversity, as well, as we discover the greatness of the world around us and the people in it. In the Word Weavers/World Makers narrative language is referred to as “God’s greatest gift to humanity.” We believe that language is a gift, and that it helps to make us who we are and should therefore be a basis for schooling.
Final thoughts (Not just Jerry gets those): We felt that Postman had many valid points presented, however, his support tended to be a bit far fetched and ludicrous at times. Therefore, just at the point when we both felt he was leading towards something concrete and substantial, he would lose us at the mention of a spaceship or a child from Mars. We both felt that his arguments were disjointed and discombobulated making us feel that way while reading his book.
Marcy and Kerri
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Marcy and Kerri, You made some very good points in your blog. I'm not sure I would agree with Postman on his Gods that Fail. For instance, I would disagree with the comment "You are what you do for a living" however, I would reword it to say that People perceive that you are what you do for a living." I know of a janitor who is very intelligent. People perceive him as not being very intelligent because they see him as a janitor.
I would like to comment on this conclusion:"Concluding point: There is a lot of technology out there, using it in moderation is key." I'm not sure moderation is the key but it is important that technology enhance the educational experience rather than just using technology to use technology. It doesn't even mean someone needs to learn more because of technology -- it could just make it more fun to learn and therefore motivate learning. It could make learning faster. Just a thought...
Deb
Your blog is very well written -- nice summaries.
Hi,
Interesting blog. It is a lazy Sunday afternoon here in Singapore and I'm afraid I'm too influenced by the atmosphere here to sustain the quality thinking that your post deserves. However, these few comments did occur to me.
1. Postman's view of school is too narrow. It is a complex place that meets many needs for its stakeholders. Some parents view schooling as training grounds. Some view it as a necessary evil that they had to get through. Some see it as childcare and social services that they can't provide on their own. Likewise, a few of my elementary students do see school as a means to their future jobs-- most of those students do seem to get that view from their parents. However more of my students show up each day because for them it meets social needs or is fun.
I have a philosophy minor. I can see Postman trying to make a point, but I think oversimplifying things to make a point doesn't work philosophically. It cheapens the argument.
Goodlad DID find that there is little correlation between grades and future income. The strong correlation was between who you knew and your future income, so maybe my students do have the right idea-- they are networking. (c:
I too disagree with Postman's suggestion that technology needs be used in moderation. Technology needs to be used correctly. When used correctly the length of use will be determined by the parameters of the job at hand. It may well be that when examined after the fact over a period of time the technology my have been used in moderation, but the reason would be that it was not needed any more than that.
Technology is a tool like the pen or pencil. One should use it when the task at hand calls for it.
Concerning the self motivated child, you point out that, "On the contrary, we do believe that there are those children who possess an innate desire to learn without being directed to, and, therefore, can learn independently. It’s not necessarily a new species of child."
I would take that arguement ever further by saying that most, if not all children possess an inate desier to learn without being directed. We begin beating that out of them the day they come to school and we dictate what and the when they should learn.
In Growing Up Digital by Don Tappscott, he tells the story of a little boy (I think his name was Raymond) who's father thought he was watching too much TV so he got him a computer and Reader Rabbit.
A few weeks later his father walked into his room and Raymond said, "Whatch this, Daddy."
He then proceeded to recite words scrolling across the screen. His father said, "That's nice. You memorized the words."
Raymond said, "No. I'm reading them."
"Yeah, right." said his father taking a book down off the shelf and handing it to Raymond. "Read this."
...and he did.
A week later Raymond walked past his father who was watching TV in the livingroom and went to the front porch carrying an ice cube tray and some paper.
His father followed and asked him what he was doing.
Raymond told he he wanted to see if the ice cubes would melt faster on white paper or dark paper.
Raymond was learning what he wanted, when he wanted, with a teacher who didn't make judgments, dictates, or demands.
We have no right to take that away from him when he comes to school. Rather we must find a way to nurture that inate desier to learn and facilitate it.
Art
i was referred to your blog by a fellow ed techer.
but, it might be helpful to make the blogs smaller -- perhaps one blog for each chapter dissection.
as it was, as i read without taking notes i got a bit lost in the lenghtly detail.
things that stood out --- i'm not sure the take on nietzche was correct. of course he's often misunderstood and misapplied -- partly why its mushy ground to throw his name around.
i was also surprised to read 'full of crap' in what otherwise appears to be a work of intellect.
i'll try to respond more in segments; but, as i suggested it might be more digestable to break up the posts.
hmm....I just read this from the blog:
Therefore, just at the point when we both felt he was leading towards something concrete and substantial, he would lose us at the mention of a spaceship or a child from Mars. We both felt that his arguments were disjointed and discombobulated making us feel that way while reading his book.
I'm not sure I follow your loss of connection here. Are you suggesting simply because his analogies made no sense to you that the beef of his logic was lost?
Like you -- i'm not so much interested in how he connects his arguments to space ships -- but I am interested on your take of the essence of his position.
i'd also like to see both of you expand on using technology in moderation is key. i want to take offense here -- but, before I do i'm not sure if you mean what I read.
Marci and Kerry, I am really glad you two are blogging your readings. I have been wanting to read some well-reasoned skepticism of technology in education, but I didn't know where to start and am probably too overscheduled to actually start, even if I knew.
Question about this statement you made:
"If indeed, we settle on accepting what has been established as fact, and then all we do is memorize those facts. If we learn to question and investigate, we continue to grow and to discover."
There is certainly a danger in *uncritically* accepting statements as true. But surely the point of questioning and investigation is not merely to *avoid* accepting facts, but to accept them in a circumspect way? It is almost sounding like you're setting up a dichotomy here -- accepting facts versus seeking knowledge -- between two acts that are not actually mutually exclusive.
And I don't agree that we "continue to grow and discover" if we continue to question and investigate. If we do so in disciplined ways -- with a view toward finding the truth -- then yes. But there are plenty of people, certainly in my own experience, who lead a lifestyle of questioning everything all that happens to them is that they believe in nothing and live lives of confusion.
What is the *balance* between seeking/questioning on the one hand, and belief in truth on the other? I really think this is one of the fundamental questions of education.
Also, just a couple minor technical points: (1) I concur with the previous commenter that I'd like to see the articles you post be a little shorter. I've got a 3-year old and can only read stuff this long when she's down for a nap! and (2) I also agree that the "full of crap" type of comments distract from what you're trying to do here.
Here's a manual trackback from my blog:
http://www.castingoutnines.net/2007/01/27/blogging-about-ed-tech-skeptics/
I appreciate your comments, Deb. I certainly agree with the rewriting of the statement...People perceive that you are what you do for a living. As sad as that may be.
Oh, I definitely agree with "it could just make it more fun to learn and therefore motivate learning." As a 3rd teacher, I find that incorporating technology into my lessons pulls in children who otherwise would not be intrinsically motivated to do so. (Unlike little Eva...from Mars). As for the children who are already deeply involved in the learning process, it provides for additional and enhanced ways of learning.
As for the "moderation is the key" comment, I still stand behind that comment but I do like your clarification. Absolutely, technology should be used to enhance the educational experience rather than using technology to use technology. Unfortunately, I often see articles commenting on the push for an excess of technology without much solid evidence provided that supports the children or the consumer's best interest.
It reminds me of the reference in the book that is made regarding the use of cars. Studies report the effects of cars on the lives of people.
Thanks for sharing,
Marcy
After reading everyone’s posts, I noticed that a couple of people commented on the length of our blog. We would love for our posts to be shorter, but since we are doing this as part of an independent study for our graduate class, we have specific criteria that we must follow making our blogs longer than some of you would like. We hope you understand our situation and continue to view and comment on our postings each week.
I would also like to respond to the following question posed by Pine:
“Are you suggesting simply because his analogies made no sense to you that the beef of his logic was lost?” I do not feel that the “beef of his logic was lost “ through the use of his analogies. I understood his logic, but often had to read certain paragraphs over and over again before realizing what point he was trying to make. I simply feel that it would have been easier to understand and less tedious to read if Postman were to not skip around so often.
Kerri
I propose instead of "crap" the following: balderdash, blather, bunkum, drivel, nonsense, piffle, poppycock, rigmarole, rubbish, or trash.
Keep up the excellent insights.
I agree with what Art said about children having the inner desire to learn,and I do feel as teachers we sometimes take that desire to learn out of them by having to teach what the curriculum tells us to teach. Technology can be useful if used in moderation as Art claims. It is perhaps as Postman says a god that is flawed, You do need to think about what consequences there are by using this technology. There are schools spending so much money on purchasing equipment, when many teachers can't even turn the computer on, let alone know how to integrate it into the curriculum. What happens when students get used to the ease at which information comes to them? Would they be able to exercise patience when other things in life don't come as easy?
Post a Comment