E-Portfolio for Lani Rush

This video is about all the technology that is becoming available in all levels of education. One emphasis is the individual tailoring of the learning process, which I think is a crucial step forward in the technology of education. I don't know how reliable this video is, as it is from YouTube, but I thought it was interesting and had a couple good points.



ROUGH DRAFT PAPER ONE
Who Controls Whom?
For anyone who has been woken by the irritating buzzing of an alarm clock or interrupted from peace and relaxation by a phone call, Emerson’s plaintive cry that “Things are the in the saddle/ And ride mankind” seems, empirically, to be true1. An average person in the United States has daily conflicts with personal desires and technology, such as a job consisting of staring at a computer screen or struggling with a troublesome copy machine. On a greater scale, many feel as though they have little control over the technology used and promoted in their own society. Some might feel that television serves no purpose and is an inferior form of communication, but that has not stopped the evolution of that particular medium. Others reject the automobile as an inefficient mode of transportation, but a large majority of people in the United States still use it as their primary mode of transportation. These feelings of frustration towards technology at a personal and societal level lead many people to feel that technology is an unstoppable force that marches onward, which is the foundation of technological determinism. Emerson’s claim that things control mankind is also echoed in determinism. Nye investigates the historical aspect of technological determinism, but his final thoughts conclude that uses of technology are shaped by society and technology is not a separate, autonomous force.
The belief that technology is inevitable and dominant is further encouraged by the thoughts of many historical scholars. Nye presents many examples of prominent scholars’ belief that technology dictates to mankind, notably Karl Marx. Marx was adamant in the inevitability of industrialization and its influence on world economies, suggesting that industrial revolution would inevitably lead to social revolution.2 This belief implies that once a technology has been introduced to a culture, societies and individuals have no say in the consequences and results of the new technology. Furthermore, both Lenin and Charles Steinmetz, a prominent General Electric scientist, believed that society would inevitably become socialist when a national electric grid was established.3 Other intellectuals, such as Marshall McLuhan and Alvin Toffler, presented externalist views, the idea that “machines inexorably impress change on society.”4 Though the academics disagreed on the source of societal change, communication medium for McLuhan and electronics and the space program for Toffler, they shared the fundamental principle that technology is a separate entity that influences culture rather than integral part of society that evolves simultaneously.5 This externalist view is very removed from the creation process of many technologies, and is not supported by more internalist analysis that reveals the capricious nature of invention and technological progress.6 Another scholar presented by Nye, Michel Foucault, believed that “the individual author, inventor, or citizen was not the master of his or her fate.”7 Foucault emphasized that the individual was completely at the whim of the values and structure of the current society and introduced a new level of determinism.8
The position that views humanity as subservient to technology seems correct when examined in the context of the average person in the United States’s daily life and some historical scholars’ opinons, but when examined at a societal level, it can be seen that cultures influence the uses of technology. Perhaps as individuals our influence is small, but societies can control the technologies permitted. One such example given by Nye is the rejection of the gun in samurai-era Japan. Although the Japanese were aware of the technology of the gun, it fell into disuse due to the samurai class’s favor of more traditional weapons.9 The Amish and Mennonite societies also employ this practice, using only selected and approved technology to ensure self-sufficiency of their communities.10 These allegories contrast with Emerson’s idea of dominant technology, as does Nye’s continued analysis. Historically, technological determinism is favored by many learned people, but there are several examples of a rejection of determinism. A student of Leo Marx, Langdon Winner, believed that “human beings do not stand at the mercy of a great deterministic punch press…individuals are actively involved in the daily creation and recreation, production and reproduction of the world in which they live.”11 Winner implies that humans are not passively involved in their environment, that they shape and change the technology used. The former anecdotes support this ideal, as well as the thoughts of William Ogburn. Ogburn acknowledged the impact of the industrial revolution, but unlike Marx he realized that “social change is seldom the result of a single invention”12 In essence, Ogburn recognized the blurred lines bewteen culture and technology and realized that trying to determine causation was nearly impossible.13 The complex view of the interplay between technology and society is further explored by Nye.
An interesting concession that “people become enmeshed in a web of technical choices made for them by their ancestors,” further complicates the relationship between technology and culture.14 This admission addresses the feeling of being trapped in a technological world discussed earlier, but it is not determinism. Nye makes this clear by stating that “most specialists in the history of technology do not see machines as coercive agents dictating social change, and most remain unpersuaded by determinism.”15
Nye’s personal beliefs that “deterministic conceptions of technology seem misguided” are mirrored in my own ideals.16 Although it feels as though our individual influence makes no difference in the grand scale, I do not believe that is true. It has been shown that societies can reject and control technology through the examples of the Amish and the Japanese, and societies are composed of individuals. Granted, it takes dedication to principle and influence to change society as an individual, but it is not impossible. Although the majority of my desk is now occupied by cords, cords for a computer, a lamp, an internet hook-up, a cell phone charger, an alarm clock, an iPod charger, a refrigerator, etcetera, I do not feel that these objects determine my life. I still choose when I work on homework and when I take a walk outside. All the aforementioned devices are tools, conveniences. Some seem more necessary than others, such as a refrigerator over an iPod, but the bottom line remains that no object, no philosophy can dictate your life without your consent. People choose to feel trapped by technology and allow it to rule their lives through inaction. For example, many older generations feel that today’s technology is inaccessible or too confusing, but one can find many elderly people with a firm grasp of a myriad of new technologies. These outliers are not participating in the dominance of technology over man, rather, they are choosing to learn to master the newest tools available. I believe that new technology is always optional. From personal experience, individuals choose the technology they allow in their lives. The composite of these individual choices determine society’s response to technology, whether it be acceptance or rejection, and thus people are the masters of technology, not the opposite.