Recently I read Neil Postman’s 1993 book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. In it Postman talks about the perils associated with the use of new technology and its unseen or unimagined consequences. From writing and print to the introduction and use of the computer, Postman points out the subtle ways in which new technologies designed to be of benefit to humanity have in fact detracted from the true discovery of it and have done little to advance culture, instead enslaving culture through the incessant quest for the latest gadget advertised to “simplify” or otherwise improve our lives.
Postman cites technology historian Lewis Mumford’s writings on the mechanical clock, which was invented by the Benedictine monks to call them to worship, to illustrate his point. Mumford writes, “The Mechanical clock made possible the idea of regular production, regular working hours and a standardized product.” Postman takes this point further by writing “without the clock, capitalism would have been quite impossible. The paradox, the surprise, and the wonder are that the clock was invented by men who wanted to devote themselves more rigorously to God; it ended as the technology of greatest use to men who wished to devote themselves to the accumulation of money.” (1993, p. 15)
Today in the latest edition of the magazine Business 2.0 an article titled Rethinking the Time Clock described the efforts being made by the retail chain Best Buys to move away from specified time scheduling and toward allowing employees to manage their own time based on what needs to be done based on their work assignments. Under a program called Rowe (results only work environment) employees arrange their own work schedule and are evaluated on the completion of tasks rather than time spent doing them. I wonder what the Benedictine monks would think about this concept or what Postman would have to say about this idea. Have we become so dependent upon our technology that we can no longer function properly without it? Is there no allowance for free will or the amazing ability for humans to manage themselves?
Jody Thompson, co-founder of CultureRx, a consulting firm promoting the use of Rowe, says, “Scheduling is an industrial-age mentality. Today’s workers are more capable of managing their time.” Also quoted in the article is Phyllis Moen, a sociology professor from the University of Minnesota who conducted a study of the Rowe project. Moen states, “It’s not about being free to come and go, but being free to come and go based on getting the work done, so covering the show floor will necessitate coordinating with others. It’s a revolutionary idea.” (2007, p. 24) Coordinating with others is a revolutionary idea? What about the early hunters and gatherers, wasn't there some coordination in that?
Is this a revolutionary idea or is it just another in a long line of recruiting and retention strategies? Perhaps now that Best Buys has obtained the resources of The Geek Squad to maintain all of the consumer electronics that they sell, they need a more reliable sales force to move their products out the door and into the home. They have to accommodate younger workers who have a greater desire for “creativity, social connectivity, fun, freedom, speed, and diversity in their workplaces.” (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 248) Or is this just another form of “branding” which captures the unsuspecting public and gets them to commit to what they think is an exceptional level of customer service but subtly snares them in a web of consumerism. Todd Gitlin holds that added to celebrity “testimonials, symbols and logos, the typographies and labels, the long playing theme ads and public relations campaigns that establish ‘corporate identity,’ radiates a feeling about a company’s style, offering a ‘unique selling proposition’ that links a company to a mood and a social type.” (2002, p. 69)
This selling of a workplace atmosphere has become more than just a recruiting tool; it is fast becoming the standard by which a company creates competitive advantage in the global economy. Co-ordination, collaboration, whatever the new buzz word might be, communication is now critical to success in the workplace. No longer can one stand at an assembly line for 30 years without interacting with anything but the machine in front of them. From Best Buy to IBM, companies are looking for ways to re-engage the worker and re-energize the workplace. (Tapscott & Williams, 2007. p. 239 -277) Innovation is more than technology or the unintended drawbacks or rewards of technology filled machines. It is also about the human spirit, imagination, creativity, interaction and yes, fun. Tapscott writes, “Technology can open doors, but it can’t make people walk through them.” (p. 277) Ultimately people make both a choice and a difference. Perhaps it is here that we realize even more the importance of discovery and the paradox, the surprise and the wonder of new methods of communication.
REFERENCES
Gitlin, T. (2002). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. New York: Holt & Company
Hamner, S. (2007, March). What’s next: Rethinking the time clock. Business 2.0, 8, p. 24
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2007) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Orality and Fact
This reflection essay explores two topics, orality (what is said, heard, and orally repeated) and fact. I once thought that a rare phenomenon occurred only in my small home town of Newport. I had noticed that when someone said something with authority, people would often repeat whatever was said until enough people were saying it and it was simply accepted as fact. I referred to this as Newport “truths.” What I once thought was only typical of my small town environment, I have come to recognize now in Fox news and news talk show programming.
Fox Broadcasting uses catch phrases and slogans that allow the listener to assume that these phrases are said with some authority. For instance, the slogan which heralds in Fox News coverage is entitled “Fair and Balanced.” After watching only a few of these news broadcasts or listening to the commentary made by the anchors on other Fox news talk shows, it is clear that this organization has a definite conservative edge. Balance is not part of this equation and fairness might depend on whether or not one agrees with their blatant conservative political leanings or not. (Rendall & Hollar, 2004) Fox has gained more and more listeners and has established its authority simply by implying that they know something that others do not. They offer this authority by saying, “People we’ve talked to,” or “Some people say…” to infer that if they don’t know themselves, they know people who are authorities and they are connected to them. (Greenwald, 2004) People with conservative political views serve on the Fox Board of Directors, act as news expert consultants, provide financially support for their stations through advertising revenues, and secure funding for political action groups and targeted campaigns. Conservative talk radio hosts have quoted Fox News anchors and other Fox talk show expert consultants as stating a particular position which gives legitimacy to their own position and subsequent actions. Something is said with authority, repeated by someone quoting this authority and when repeated enough times by enough people, whatever was said, becomes the “truth” and people then perceive it as “fact.”
Fox is typical of the ideology that supports the notion that “the masses” are not capable of governing and therefore must be told what to think and how to conduct their lives. Noam Chomsky, in the documentary film entitled Manufacturing Consent, (Achbar & Wintonick) talks about what Walter Lippmann described in his book Public Opinion as “the manufacture of consent.” Lippman wrote that the manufacture of consent was “a technique of control” that is useful and necessary because the “common interests (those issues that affect all people in a democracy) very largely elude the public.” So these common interests must be “managed only by a specialized class.” This, in Chomsky’s view, is the opposite of the standard view of democracy and he enlists, as support for this view, the words of moralist Reinholt Niebuhr to complete the picture of how people can be taken in by a well established “myth” and believe that they have power when it has been taken from them. Neibuhr posited that “rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. This naïve faith requires “necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications.” These are provided by the “myth maker to keep the ordinary person on course.” (Achbar&Wintonick, Chapter/Scene 5) These tactics seem to be used daily across all Fox news and informational programming. For a more in depth look at how Fox manipulates information and the power Fox has over its audience I would refer the reader to the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock’s War on Journalism.
The point I want to make here is that while we are bombarded each day with a great deal of information, we are still a society that has been, as part of its culture and its history, influenced by great political speeches and other oral commentary. Words matter. How they are delivered matters. We recall that which is memorable and said with authority or with a catchy turn of a phrase. (Ong, 1988) An example of this might be, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” from the O.J. Simpson trial or one of Fox News favorites regarding 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry, “he’s a flip-flopper.” When these types of words and phrases are uttered with authority, repeated often, heard from several different sources if only in passing throughout the day while busily working in the kitchen making dinner for the family or while driving home listening to talk radio, we pick up on them and they have an impact on our perceptions. We repeat them to our family and friends without questioning their validity or accuracy. We get busy and we think it does not matter; after all we don’t run the country or say what gets on the news. We leave that up to people in authority. We continue to prove those who underestimate us as being right. We do give up power but that does not mean that we can not regain that power. More and more of us are finding alternatives to Fox and other main stream media. Rigorous public discourse continues on the Internet and a variety of political or news blogs that welcome public commentary. People are thinking and regardless of what Fox would have us believe, we still retain the ability to question authority and stand on the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This foundational document does not begin, “according to sources close to Fox” or “some people say”, it starts with the words, “We, the people.”
If the 2006 mid-term elections are any example, the people are becoming wise to the tactics used by Fox and other main-stream media and are exercising their authority at the voting booth. People moved away from the conservative agenda espoused by Fox by electing Democrats to office, taking control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They certainly were not told to do this by Fox, but with their votes, they repeatedly defeated Fox supported candidates across the country, now that is a “truth” that I hope is repeated in 2008 with one addition, the White House. I plan to keep repeating this with authority, perhaps many others will join me and we can eventually make this a fact. Power to the people once again!
REFERENCES
Achbar, M. & Wintonick, P. (Directors). (1993). Manufacturing consent [Motion Picture] Canada: Zeigeist Video
Greenwald, R. (Director). (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism [Motion Picture] New York: The Disinformation Company
Ong, W. (1988). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen
Rendall, S. & Hollar, J. (July/August 2004). Still failing the “Fair and Balanced” Test. Retrieved from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website located at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187
Fox Broadcasting uses catch phrases and slogans that allow the listener to assume that these phrases are said with some authority. For instance, the slogan which heralds in Fox News coverage is entitled “Fair and Balanced.” After watching only a few of these news broadcasts or listening to the commentary made by the anchors on other Fox news talk shows, it is clear that this organization has a definite conservative edge. Balance is not part of this equation and fairness might depend on whether or not one agrees with their blatant conservative political leanings or not. (Rendall & Hollar, 2004) Fox has gained more and more listeners and has established its authority simply by implying that they know something that others do not. They offer this authority by saying, “People we’ve talked to,” or “Some people say…” to infer that if they don’t know themselves, they know people who are authorities and they are connected to them. (Greenwald, 2004) People with conservative political views serve on the Fox Board of Directors, act as news expert consultants, provide financially support for their stations through advertising revenues, and secure funding for political action groups and targeted campaigns. Conservative talk radio hosts have quoted Fox News anchors and other Fox talk show expert consultants as stating a particular position which gives legitimacy to their own position and subsequent actions. Something is said with authority, repeated by someone quoting this authority and when repeated enough times by enough people, whatever was said, becomes the “truth” and people then perceive it as “fact.”
Fox is typical of the ideology that supports the notion that “the masses” are not capable of governing and therefore must be told what to think and how to conduct their lives. Noam Chomsky, in the documentary film entitled Manufacturing Consent, (Achbar & Wintonick) talks about what Walter Lippmann described in his book Public Opinion as “the manufacture of consent.” Lippman wrote that the manufacture of consent was “a technique of control” that is useful and necessary because the “common interests (those issues that affect all people in a democracy) very largely elude the public.” So these common interests must be “managed only by a specialized class.” This, in Chomsky’s view, is the opposite of the standard view of democracy and he enlists, as support for this view, the words of moralist Reinholt Niebuhr to complete the picture of how people can be taken in by a well established “myth” and believe that they have power when it has been taken from them. Neibuhr posited that “rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. This naïve faith requires “necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications.” These are provided by the “myth maker to keep the ordinary person on course.” (Achbar&Wintonick, Chapter/Scene 5) These tactics seem to be used daily across all Fox news and informational programming. For a more in depth look at how Fox manipulates information and the power Fox has over its audience I would refer the reader to the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock’s War on Journalism.
The point I want to make here is that while we are bombarded each day with a great deal of information, we are still a society that has been, as part of its culture and its history, influenced by great political speeches and other oral commentary. Words matter. How they are delivered matters. We recall that which is memorable and said with authority or with a catchy turn of a phrase. (Ong, 1988) An example of this might be, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” from the O.J. Simpson trial or one of Fox News favorites regarding 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry, “he’s a flip-flopper.” When these types of words and phrases are uttered with authority, repeated often, heard from several different sources if only in passing throughout the day while busily working in the kitchen making dinner for the family or while driving home listening to talk radio, we pick up on them and they have an impact on our perceptions. We repeat them to our family and friends without questioning their validity or accuracy. We get busy and we think it does not matter; after all we don’t run the country or say what gets on the news. We leave that up to people in authority. We continue to prove those who underestimate us as being right. We do give up power but that does not mean that we can not regain that power. More and more of us are finding alternatives to Fox and other main stream media. Rigorous public discourse continues on the Internet and a variety of political or news blogs that welcome public commentary. People are thinking and regardless of what Fox would have us believe, we still retain the ability to question authority and stand on the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This foundational document does not begin, “according to sources close to Fox” or “some people say”, it starts with the words, “We, the people.”
If the 2006 mid-term elections are any example, the people are becoming wise to the tactics used by Fox and other main-stream media and are exercising their authority at the voting booth. People moved away from the conservative agenda espoused by Fox by electing Democrats to office, taking control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. They certainly were not told to do this by Fox, but with their votes, they repeatedly defeated Fox supported candidates across the country, now that is a “truth” that I hope is repeated in 2008 with one addition, the White House. I plan to keep repeating this with authority, perhaps many others will join me and we can eventually make this a fact. Power to the people once again!
REFERENCES
Achbar, M. & Wintonick, P. (Directors). (1993). Manufacturing consent [Motion Picture] Canada: Zeigeist Video
Greenwald, R. (Director). (2004). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism [Motion Picture] New York: The Disinformation Company
Ong, W. (1988). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen
Rendall, S. & Hollar, J. (July/August 2004). Still failing the “Fair and Balanced” Test. Retrieved from the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting website located at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
