The second commandment is also profoundly different than anything found in ancient documents when it forbids the creation of any graven images.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image … You shall not bow down to them or serve them… (Exodus 20:4-5)
Technology scholar Neil Postman (who was himself of Jewish origin) wrote,
“It is a strange injunction to include as part of any ethical system [instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience] unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture.” (Amusing Ourselves to Death, p. 9. Emphasis in the original.)
The Israelites might have argued that the technological means they used to approach God didn’t matter as long as they were devoted to him and him alone. But God begged to differ, because he knew that the instruments we use for worship always reinforce certain beliefs.
In the case of Israel, if they had used images to represent Yahweh then it might have appeared that he was like every other God. Instead, by forbidding images of himself, God was reinforcing his identity as wholly other. He is not an idol among idols or an image among images – He is the one, true God.
This means that the second commandment is a technological reinforcement of the first. The medium – or lack thereof in this case – was the message.
I think there will always be a gulf between the haves and have-nots, so far as technology is concerned. Such a gulf even exists between automobiles. Most people can afford to buy an automobile, but there is a big difference between a Mercedes-Benz and a Saturn. But even when the problem of the access to technology is solved so that anyone who wishes can have access to technology, there still remains a problem. For example, just about anyone has access to a public library (at least in America). In that library we find the greatest, most profound, most illuminating literature that human beings have so far produced. Do most people read these books? Have you read Cervantes? Have you read the sonnets of Shakespeare? Have you read Hagel or Nietzsche? Their books are in the library, you have access to them, why have you not familiarized yourself with this literature? (Even if you have, I think you will agree that most people have not. Why?) Neil Postman ☀
To be an Athenian is to hold knowledge and, especially the quest for knowledge in high esteem. To contemplate, to reason, to experiment, to question-these are, to an Athenian, the most exalted activities a person can perform. To a Visigoth, the quest for knowledge is useless unless it can help you to earn money or to gain power over other people. To be an Athenian is to cherish language because you believe it to be humankind’s most precious gift. In their use of language, Athenians strive for grace, precision, and variety. And they admire those who can achieve such skill. To a Visigoth, one word is as good as another, one sentence in distinguishable from another. A Visigoth’s language aspires to nothing higher than the cliché. To be an Athenian is to understand that the thread which holds civilized society together is thin and vulnerable; therefore, Athenians place great value on tradition, social restraint, and continuity. To an Athenian, bad manners are acts of violence against the social order. The modern Visigoth cares very little about any of this. The Visigoths think of themselves as the center of the universe. Tradition exists for their own convenience, good manners are an affectation and a burden, and history is merely what is in yesterday’s newspaper. To be an Athenian is to take an interest in public affairs and the improvement of public behavior. Indeed, the ancient Athenians had a word for people who did not. The word was idiotes, from which we get our word “idiot.” A modern Visigoth is interested only in his own affairs and has no sense of the meaning of community. And, finally, to be an Athenian is to esteem the discipline, skill, and taste that are required to produce enduring art. Therefore, in approaching a work of art, Athenians prepare their imagination through learning and experience. To a Visigoth, there is no measure of artistic excellence except popularity. What catches the fancy of the multitude is good. No other standard is respected or even acknowledged by the Visigoth. Neil Postman ☀
Ronald Reagan, for example, could not have been president were it not for the bias of television. This is a man who rarely spoke precisely and never eloquently (except perhaps when reading a speech written by someone else). And yet he was called The Great Communicator. Why? Because he was magic on television. His televised image projected a sense of authenticity, intimacy, and caring. It did not much matter if citizens agreed with what he said or understood what he said. This does not in itself suggest that he shouldn’t have been president or that he did his job poorly. It is to say that television gives power to some while it deprives others. Neil Postman ☀
Today, we must look to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada as a metaphor of our national character and aspiration, it’s symbol a thirty-foot high cardboard picture of a slot machine and a chorus girl. For Las Vegas is a city entirely devoted to the idea of entertainment, and as such proclaims the spirit of a culture in which all public discourse increasingly takes the form of entertainment. Our politics, our religion, news, athletics, education, and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. Neil Postman ☀
Communication Conundrum ☀
So what will communication look like in 10-15 years from now? Will people even have face-to-face conversations, or will that be looked down upon, almost as if it’s invasive? My occupation affords me the opportunity to evaluate how our upcoming generation does at communication, and while I cannot say that it is non-existent, it does seem to be diminishing. So many people prefer to share their true opinions, and in some cases, live false lives, via the internet, because for them it feels safe. No one there to look them in the eye or read their facial expressions. No one to call you out on a lie because they know better. No, when you communicate online, you basically have the ability to speak bluntly, or lie like a dog and get away with it. So where does that lead us? Are we becoming better communicators, or worse? Is it even conceivable to consider that an entire culture would eliminate most, if not all (I can’t imagine how you could eliminate all), personal communication and simply utilize various tools online? If so, what would be the challenges to the effectiveness of that kind of limited communication? What would be the benefits, if any? I’m trying to imagine where all this blogging, facebook, MySpace, etc. is leading us as a culture. If I can look beyond the curve ahead, I can prepare for how my kids will prefer to interact with dear ole’ dad. It’s funny how the older generations feel like so much of what we do today would be considered an insult back in their day. I’m curioius if how we communicate will be one of those things for us in the future.
Thoughts…
- Face-to-face communication will always trump electronic forms, although the digital platforms will continue to evolve in richness and texture, increasingly approximating all the nonverbal cues and tics inherent in real-life interfaces.
- New generations take for granted today’s communication tools technology provides. For my generation (at least I, for one), I am in awe and marvel at the wonder of the internet age, and how I carry in the presence of my iPhone, a data store greater than the science fiction yarns that entertained in my childhood. Those coming of age with this technology already preexistent, I wonder what the ramifications are. Both positive and negative.
- Accelerated shift from literary to image based communications. A revolution with a genesis in the technology of the photograph. Advanced to critical mass with the advent of television and video. Now as computers become more portable, powerful and ubiquitous, written words are far less relevant than the evocative capacity of images and moving pictures. Eary computing was entirely a text based affair — monospaced characters in monochrome. But in 2009, we can watch, create and edit movies on a cell phone, and upload to share with others via a finger tap. Does that mean our communcation mode is evolving to new millenium hieroglyphics or pic-icons? I can’t imagine to venture on such a long term prospect, but the dichotomy between image and the written word has weighty cultural repercussions.
- I believe the internet age fosters more transparency, not less. Yes, digital braggadocio, along with snarky pseudo-anonymous rage can reign, but as interweb saturation permeates, on both global and local levels, we’re all becoming a more open book. While some herald this a grand development, others lament the loss of privacy or worse, for growing youth, the extension of real world ills into one’s 24-7 existence. For example, cyber-bullying.
Finally, let me cite this insightful piece on technological change by the late Neil Postman:
And so, these are my five ideas about technological change. First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
If we had more time, I could supply some additional important things about technological change but I will stand by these for the moment, and will close with this thought. In the past, we experienced technological change in the manner of sleep-walkers. Our unspoken slogan has been “technology über alles,” and we have been willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change. We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that we many use technology rather than be used by it.
First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us. Neil Postman ☀
A GNT creation ©2007–2010
