Suchergebnisse

The anti-utopian technology critique of Ellul, Postman, and other important social analysts has been the primary mode of critical response to technological developments since the 1950s. However, this mode of technology critique has had a disappointingly small effect on the way we, as a society, receive technology. Rather than attribute this failure to the negativity of the anti-utopian perspective, this article suggests that there are other important and largely overlooked factors at work—in particular, the critics' inability to speak about technology in a way that relates to us as social individuals coping with the contingencies and realities of the day-to-day use of technological devices. The purpose of this analysis is not to suggest that we abandon as irrelevant the work and ideas of technology critics such as Ellul and Postman but, on the contrary, to find a way to reframe their important ideas for wider acceptance.

This article disrupts the logic of the "just-a-tool" argument, a powerful rhetorical device commonly offered as a rationale for using computers in education (and health care and other areas of society). Although this argument is articulated in many ways, its essence is the contention that computers are merely instructional tools, like blackboards or pencils, that can be used to enhance learning and therefore should be used in classrooms. The just-a-tool argument is difficult to challenge because it automatically constructs counterarguments as illogical; they necessarily become arguments against using technology to improve the human condition. However, an analysis of the just-a-tool argument reveals that far from being logical and unassailable, it is both invalid and unsound. This "techno-illogic," as the author calls it, arises when wisdom is subjugated to the dictates of technological "rationality," and it is something that people must learn to recognize and defend against.