I will make some brief remarks about each of the authors, starting with "my" author, Castells.
MIGUEL CASTELLS
I suspect we could do nothing else but plow through his three volumes and
have plenty to think about and discuss!
Since I am "responsible" for this brief excerpt from his tome, here are some
questions to think about before, during, or after your reading of his essay.
I am well aware that these are deep questions but I don't see any other way
to deal with Castells.
a) Castells feels the search for identity has always been a major issue, but now he sees it as almost the only alternative left for people who do not wish to become absorbed by the net. Should we be looking for meaning in what we do (the net) or in who we are (the self)? Since most of you will probably say "both" I will follow up by asking you how to integrate the two goals, and to consider in what situations one or the other goal must yield. Castells certainly feels that "we should keep in mind that the search for identity is as powerful as techno-economic change in charting the new history."
b) Are there any parallel to the technological dominance (followed by stagnation) of Ancient China and our own situation? A few months ago the National Geographic magazine had a two part series on the Roman Empire and the author drew some parallels with the end of the Roman Empire and some conditions in our own society. Now Castells goes in a different direction and shows what happened to China. Any lessons for us, or should we just assume we will go on forever setting the destiny for the rest of the world? Example of how difficult it is to decide: is the government attack on Microsoft an example of a state aiding or retarding technological innovation? You can make a case both ways! Finally, notice that Japan (as Castells says) avoided both the Chinese and Russian problems but see the next remark below.
c) Castells is struck by the Aum Shinrikyo group in Japan. (I think this is the group that released poison gas in the subways.) He points out that some have sought identity by "significantly mixing spirituality, advanced technology, global business connnections, and the culture of millenarist doom." I too find this striking, because the stereotype of anti-technology is more well fulfilled by the Unabomber than by those who are skilled in its use and who plan to use it to achieve their own ends in pursuit of their own identity. The villain in the recent thriller "The Cobra Event" by Richard Preston also fits this mold. The Unabomber and his ilk are tolerated because it is felt that they are eventually caught and dealt with, and after all they kill no one or one person at a time, but those willing to use technology for mass terror are much more difficult to deal with, let alone compete with. (You are probably wondering: Is there a question here???) Castells is apparently going to try and explain the "paradoxical manifestation of the self in the informational society." Question: are those that do what Scheffler warns them against doing (redefining educational goals along the lines of what technology can do) and thus creating Cuban's "Technophile's Scenario" creating the very nightmare that Castells is trying to understand? (On that flamboyant note I shall end my remarks on Castells.)
ISRAEL SCHEFFLER
He points out correctly that we have not really figured out the influence
television has, although we know the environment of children has been
fundamentally altered by it. Now on top of that we have to deal with "The
school is now the tail, the whole world the computerized dog." When he wrote
this in 1985, he noted that the Japanese were in no rush to computerize the
schools; anyone know what is happening these days? I am certainly
sympathetic to the idea he attributes to corporations and businesses that
"schools can best contribute to the general education of their students and
to the development of students' social skills and character, leaving the
rest to on-the-job experience."
(This is echoed in Murnane and Levy, "Teaching The New Basic Skills," who list the following as their "floor" for skills:
I go to the trouble of listing these because we might ask what role technology could play or should play if we agree with this list.)
I think one of Scheffler's best points is how the computer redefines our goals. That is, we often don't think about what we want to do and how we can enlist computers; instead, "we tend to redefine our goals so as to match what the computer may do." And it may get worse, if AI is still at the state described by Scheffler: that we can handle tasks that involve computation, like playing chess, but getting them to visually discriminate between shapes or understanding English has been another problem. Anyone want to tell me about what AI has accomplished since 1985? Is the quote in the middle of page 89 still relevant?
LARRY CUBAN
Computers meet Classroom: Classroom Wins. Is that good or bad? I won't say
much about Cuban because someone else is responsible for it and I am sure we
will have a very lively discussion about his piece, more than most of the
others because of its readability and good analysis. I think technologists
often underestimate the belief of many that "the emotional bond between
teacher and student is the basis for learning in schools." Along those
lines, the differences between elementary and secondary schools summarized
by Cuban are also telling points and good springboards for our discussion.
Is he correct that innovation more easily occurs in elementary environments
than in secondary? Does the nature of secondary school goals preclude those
innovations? The reliance on raising test scores is certainly a "real life"
problem for secondary schools, even though Cuban and others (as I quoted in
a previous post) can make a case that by not pushing test scores, we are not
stifling good old American creativity and ingenuity in this land of "an
infinite number of second chances."
(By the way, a good essayist on the differences between America and other nations/cultures is Richard Rodriguez, who besides his books can be heard on the PBS program "Newshour with Jim Lehrer.")
JACQUES ELLUL
Ellul tried with his writings to build bridges between those with religion
and those without. I think the best way of summarizing his feelings on
technique is that he saw the potential for technique to become a god, or at
least the subject of "religious" fervor. The line that stood out most in
this essay was "Technique has become autonomous; it has fashioned an
omnivorous world which obeys its own laws and which has renounced all
tradition." He also noted that "techniques are always put to immediate use"
and lamented the shrinking interval between discoveries and applications,
and the resulting pressure on scientists who are dependent on government
funding, and thus "results" for research. Cloning technology might be an
example here. We CAN do it, so we MUST do it. It is interesting to note
that Ellul was a theologian as well as a social critic, and once said,
"Having accepted the God of Jesus Christ, I affirm that he is our only
recourse in the face of Technique." Castells would probably see this as an
example of the search for identity being used as a bulwark against rapid
technological change.
MELVIN KRANZBERG
What can you say about someone who covers all bets with "Kranzberg's First
Law?"
I will say that I was disappointed that he could not find a better way of
answering the question raised in his title, even though I found the essay
insightful. However, I came away feeling that this was more of an evolution
than a revolution, but my own bias, as already stated, is towards Cuban's
evolutionary rather than revolutionary scenarios, so perhaps I found what I
was looking for. I will be interested in the discussion of this piece.
NEIL POSTMAN
I find his opening remarks about "technology as a religion" a good
supporting argument for Cuban's remarks on why the Technophile's Scenario is
not the right one. I also agree with him when he says "...what we need to
know ...is not how to use them [important technologies] but how they use
us." The fact that "technological change always produces winners and
losers" is certainly going to be true for computers, even though some people
still run around quoting Moore's Law, as if that has anything to do with
school budgets. The recent Federal bonanza, the so-called e-rate, is perhaps
an example of how the government is willing to pour money into “all” schools
for technology, but not for teachers or books.
WENDELL BERRY
The real issue is not his hatred for power companies. Instead, I was struck
by his remark that "I disbelieve, and therefore strongly resent, the
assertion that I or anybody else could write better or more easily with a
computer than a pencil." His "standards for technological innovation" are
all well and good, but they only work for him because of his Wife. It would
have been interesting to see what, if anything, Berry would have said if HE
had to do all of his own typing and revising.
Dan McDonough