Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue
August 17, 2010 6:04 PM
Print Share 43
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
The proposed Mosque site near ground zero (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
From julieparise
NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.
So will the mosque be moving?
New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center. Paterson told Congressman Peter King about the meeting, and King said the governor asked him to make it public.
You need to download the latest version of flash player to use this player
Need Help?
“The purpose of the meeting would be for the governor to discuss with the leaders of the mosque where state property is available,” said Rep. King. “Whether or not people from the mosque would be willing to consider that property.”
King added that the governor “seemed very enthused” about the anticipated discussions.
For at least a week, the governor’s message to the developers has been one of hopeful understanding.
“I hope that they type of cultural understanding that they’re trying to promote when they build the center could be practiced right now,” Paterson said.
Sources tell CBS 2’s Kramer that Gov. Paterson is concerned that Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a staunch supporter of putting the mosque at ground zero, and President Barack Obama, might be advising mosque leaders to dig in their heels and insist on the present location.
But there was a glimmer of hope that they are open to a compromise.
A Tuesday tweet from the Park51 Twitter account said:
“For the past week, we have focused on trying to respond to attacks and detractors of our project. What’s become clear is – they won’t listen.”
In the next 140 character post, they added:
“Starting today, we’re going to begin addressing questions regarding park51. We’re open to any sensible discussion.”
Paterson’s office confirmed that discussions between his staff and the developer’s staff have been ongoing and said the governor expects to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.
Congressman King said the openness of the developers to a compromise will be the real test of their intentions.
“If the leaders of the mosque take up the governor on his proposal, it would show that their real intention is to bring people together,” he said. “And not just make a political statement by having a mosque at Ground Zero.”
There’s also the issue of separation of church and state, and whether the governor should provide state land for a mosque.
King said in this case it would be okay, especially if the compromise meets the need of both sides.
As for the debate over the mosque in its current proposed location, religious leaders said Monday they are worried this one building is leading to a nationwide backlash.
It is the question Muslim leaders and those of other faiths are asking.
“How far is too close? If two blocks near the Burlington factory is too close then why in Brooklyn is the mosque being opposed in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn? Is that far enough?” said Mahdi Bray, the executive director of Muslim American Society Freedom.
Officials said the ground zero mosque controversy is just one of many attempts to prevent mosques from being built all over the country, and that it may have emboldened other protestors.
Protests have been held on Staten Island, and California, and Tennessee, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida.
“The building of mosques and the resistance to buildings of mosques has increased throughout America as well as the destruction and vandalizing of mosque in Florida with a pipe bomb,” Bray said.
Leaders of other faiths joined the Muslins American Society Freedom on Tuesday.
“I know how I would feel if people started saying there were certain places you weren’t allowed to put up a synagogue and therefore I know what should not be done to people who want to put up a cultural center that will include a prayer space,” said Rabbi Aurthus Waskow, the director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
But on Tuesday at ground zero many said they were opposed to putting the mosque so close to where the 9/11 attacks took place; not to mosque construction in other parts of the city.
“It’s the location, yeah, this is holy ground. A lot of people died here,” said Steven Van Cook of Queens.
“My objection is to ground zero. This is a holy place. It should remain as a holy place,” added Steven Goldberg of Bayside.
What about building it in another place in Manhattan?
“No, I wouldn’t mind because you know it’s freedom of speech in the country, but I object to it being here,” Goldberg said.
When asked is he is opposed to the location or the building mosques in New York City, Vito Serzelczyk of Marlton, N.J., said, “Location, location, location. This is a very sensitive area. I was here on Sept. 11. It was a terrible, tragic event and I feel sorry for the families of those people, victims, and this is not really the place to build the new mosque.”
Aug 17, 2010
Apr 29, 2010
McLuhan and the Future of Education: A Christian Critique
By Guest Columnist Annette J. Ford
McLuhan and the Future of Education
Education is a vast field of communication. In light of our changing society, is our educational system still effective in its present form, or is a paradigm shift needed? Indiana University professor Curtis Bonk wrote, “Web technologies have blown the doors to educational opportunity wide open. Schools, colleges, universities, government agencies, and corporate training organizations not only need to take notice, they need to take action” (2009, p. 22). Collins and Halverson wrote, “People around the world are taking their education out of school into homes, libraries, Internet cafes, and workplaces, where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn, and how they want to learn” (2009, p. 3). Davidson and Goldberg asserted, “We continue to push old, uniform, and increasingly outdated educational products on young learners at their – and, by implication, society’s – peril” (2010, p. 24).
Many are calling for educational reform in our schools and universities. This essay first examines Marshall McLuhan’s views on education and reform, looking at (a) media ecology theory, (b) education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, (c) education’s progress from the print age to the electronic age, and (d) education’s future. The essay then critiques McLuhan’s ideas from a Christian worldview, looking at (a) a Christian perspective on educational reform, and (b) a Christian response to McLuhan’s views.
McLuhan’s Views on Education and Reform
Marshall McLuhan, originator of the media ecology theory, spoke to the issues of education and needed reform decades ago. He observed the effects of technology on our teacher-centered, knowledge-limiting school system, and wrote,
I say, therefore, with impersonal assurance, that unless we choose to abandon all electric forms of technology we cannot possibly retain in our teaching and learning the modes of instruction and apprehension associated with the mechanical forms of print and its innumerable progeny. (McLuhan, 1960, p. 10)
Media Ecology Theory
In order to understand McLuhan’s views on education and reform, a clear understanding of media ecology theory is necessary. Griffin summarized the theory as follows:
The media must be understood ecologically. Changes in communication technology alter the symbolic environment—the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings. We shaped our tools—the phonetic alphabet, printing press, and telegraph—and they in turn have shaped our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. Thus the medium is the message. (2009, p. A-5)
McLuhan said new media infiltrate our lives, “stripping the older forms of experience to their bare bones or basic codes” (1960, p. 11). This revolutionary change happens without our conscious acceptance of it, because we are so focused on what we know from the past that we do not see what is happening to us in the present (McLuhan, 1970). McLuhan and Fiore said, “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future" (1967, pp. 74-75).
A clear understanding of the past does offer, however, a better understanding of the future, if one is willing to learn and apply the lessons. Examining education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, and then to the electronic age, offers wisdom in reforms for the future.
Education’s Progress From the Tribal and Literacy Ages to the Print Age
McLuhan described the pre-printing press era as characterized by orality in the form of dialogue, disputation, and active teacher-student interaction (1960). The printing press changed the world to be visually focused. It empowered students to read widely, quickly and silently, rendering oral learning, memorization, and disputation unnecessary. Instructors no longer needed to mentor students personally in their thinking and writing (McLuhan, 1960). In this new era, education separated the functions of teaching and learning, and focused on learning the content of individual subjects such as math, science and history, rather than on gaining broad insight (McLuhan, 1960). This compartmentalizing happened because “print exists by virtue of the static separation of functions and fosters a mentality that gradually resists any but a separative and compartmentalizing or specialist outlook” (McLuhan, 1962, p. 126).
Education’s Progress from the Print Age to the Electronic Age
McLuhan said, “Today radio, telegraph and T.V. have no moving parts. The electronic age abandons mechanism for the movement of light and information only…. It is inconceivable that school and society alike should not receive the full impact of this change” (1960, p. 2). “The new electric structures for teaching and learning are basically a return to dialogue, or to the fusion of teaching and learning functions” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 15). “Ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. 'Time' has ceased, 'space' has vanished. We now live in a global village ... a simultaneous happening” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967, p. 63). Since McLuhan wrote, the Internet arrived, enabling further connectivity. The Internet combines television’s visual capabilities with the telephone’s two-way connection, and adds the library’s information access, creating a worldwide network unimaginable to past generations.
Although society has transitioned to the electronic age, our education system still operates in the print age. McLuhan said, “I can understand the ferment in our schools, because our educational system is totally rearview mirror. It’s a dying and outdated system founded on literate values and fragmented and classified data” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Davidson and Goldberg said:
Youth who learn via peer-to-peer mediated forms may be less likely to be excited and motivated by the typical forms of learning than they were even a decade ago. Conventional modes of learning tend to be passive, lecture driven, hierarchical, and largely unidirectional from instructor to student. (2010, p. 50)
McLuhan said the environment outside the school is far richer and more informational than within the school, making school an interruption of learning rather than a place of true learning (1970). He said the child of the electronic era “finds it difficult if not impossible to adjust to the fragmented, visual goals of our education after having had all his senses involved by the electric media; he craves in-depth involvement, not linear detachment and uniform sequential patterns” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Just as the assembly line approach to factory production has been largely replaced by electronic functions, so the assembly-line approach to education must be changed to become relevant and effective in our electronic world.
Education’s Future
McLuhan said, “In our schools there is simply too much to learn by the traditional analytic methods; this is an age of information overload. The only way to make the schools other than prisons without bars is to start fresh with new techniques and values” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 14).
Discovery learning.
The future of education, according to McLuhan, lies in discovery rather than in instruction (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967). “There will be no instruction in our schools in a very few years…. No instruction at all. There will be discovery. Teams of students will be prowling the environment on research programmes, and that applies to elementary school children. Discovery takes the place of instruction in any environment in which the information levels are very high” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 3). McLuhan pictured discovery learning taking place by, for example, giving groups of four or five elementary students a project like “Punishment in Society,” and releasing them for several weeks to discover, discuss, investigate and research in the broader community, like detectives (1970, p. 7).
The MacArthur Foundation’s ThinkeringSpace project is a contemporary example of discovery learning. It creates “new experiential opportunities for exploring through tinkering and interacting both locally and remotely. By promoting fluid interplay of physical and virtual experiences, these environments introduce a new genre of hybrid interactive spaces” (Moura, Fahnstrom, Prygrocki, & McLeish, 2009, p. 48).
Discovery learning in schools requires instructors who facilitate and guide the discovery process. McWilliam said that in order for university students to thrive in our increasingly fluid society, they need the active participation of instructors who are meddlers in the middle instead of the traditional sages on the stage or more recent guides on the side (2008, p. 265). McWilliam advocated a shift in pedagogy toward encouraging “experimentation and risk-taking” by the teacher becoming a “usefully ignorant… designer, editor and assembler” and a “collaborative critic and authentic evaluator” (2008, p. 265).
No known answers, no absolutes.
McLuhan asserted that strong moral stances and spiritual values are part of the defunct print age (1960, p. 10). He said, “Our kids have no goals because they understand the world they are living in and you can’t have goals in an electronic total-field world. You cannot have fixed objectives” (1970, p. 2). He said the reason instruction should be replaced by exploration is “children reject any form of instruction, the answers to which are already known” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 7). He said, “I don’t care what problem you mention, I would welcome an opportunity to see the youngsters tackle it head on with a full understanding that there are no answers known and no holds barred” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 10). He said, “The meaning of the electronic is total decentralism, total diversity” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 4). “There is no maintaining of a point of view, but only the common participation in creating perpetually new insight and understanding in a total field of unified awareness” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 9).
Christian Critique of McLuhan’s View
Scripture says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB). Where is truth in the electronic future of education? Where is truth in McLuhan’s thinking?
Christian Perspective on Educational Reform
Schultze wrote, “We find ourselves talking about the entire educational enterprise apart from our responsibility to be better persons, caring neighbors, and wiser citizens. New educational technologies certainly deliver information, but can they also cultivate careful discernment and good judgment?” (2002, p. 56). Answers to this question lie both in shalom – “living a good and right life in tune with the moral wisdom gained through revealed truth” (Schultze, 2002, p. 72), and in mentoring.
Technology and shalom.
Educators in an increasingly electronic world must remember, “Unless we intentionally cultivate intimacy in a cyber-world, we will find it evaporating from our lives as we pursue instrumental practices” (Schultze, 2002, p. 36). Caught up in the wonder and novelty of emerging technologies, people easily forget the negative part of the Faustian bargain with technology described by Postman: “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (1990, para. 5). Conway offered this solution to overcoming the negative side of technology:
So those who are members of the Body of Christ, who are building on the foundation of gratitude, praise, and service to the God made known in Jesus, need to help each other discern the attitudes of mind and heart that reflect his love and openness. Only by growing into this way of being and acting can the web of technological decision making become part of the movement toward the shalom of Christ’s kingdom.
(1999, p. 114)
Educators seeking reform must remember that “the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (Schultze, 2000, p. 121).
Educational reform through mentoring.
Jesus taught large groups of people, but he also focused much time and energy on a group of twelve men, three of whom were closest to him. In a world depersonalized by technology, education systems must offer the personal touch and kindness that small group mentoring and peer mentoring offer. Christian educators must work to bring the Christian disciplines of mentoring and discipleship into the classroom – even the secular classroom – developing a system of mentoring that will give each student personal challenge, worth, and attention as trained and trainer, mentee and mentor, learner and teacher. This is possible to an extent through the Internet, but “No fancy technologies that promise to relieve us of the burden of being somewhere are adequate substitutes for conversation, let alone for communities of hospitality and neighborliness. Being in real time and place speaks volumes” (Schultze, 2002, p. 179).
Christian Response to McLuhan
Although McLuhan tried to simply present facts and remain neutral in all he said, and although much of his analysis of the impact of new technologies is true, his postmodern view of absolutes is unscriptural. Referring to Internet based education, Davidson and Goldberg wrote, “The larger questions remain pressing, even universal: What to believe and on what grounds? On what rests the credibility of sources, on what basis are claims to be trusted, and what are the most and least compelling uses of available knowledge?” (2010, pp. 73, 74). As already described, McLuhan believed absolutes, moral values, and set answers are outdated and counterproductive in the electronic age.
Schultze said, “Like ethical chameleons we adapt our moral practices to the latest technologies rather than summoning our technologies to follow a long-term moral vision” (2002, p. 29). Christians must come back to the foundational premise that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17, NIV), and that truth, rather than shackling us and preventing progress, will set us free (John 8:32, NIV). Christians must be open to be led by God’s Spirit “in all the value judgments and decisions made on our pilgrimages as disciples of Jesus within a technological culture” (Conway, 1999, p. 115).
Conclusion
McLuhan implied that a paradigm shift is needed in education. Educators and researchers are looking for ways to introduce needed reform in an outdated system. Reform is necessary, but will be effective only if grounded in the truth of Scripture. With God’s guidance, Christians will discover great reforms that will revolutionize the world in education for the furtherance of the Gospel.
Resources
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1960). New media and the new education. (Report No. 1974). Retrieved from ERIC database: http://firstsearch.oclc.org.ezproxy.arbor.edu
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man (1st ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1970). Education in the electronic age. Interchange 1(4), 1-12.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York, NY: Random House.
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 263-269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
Moura, H., Fahnstrom, D., Prygrocki, G., & McLeish, T. J. (2009). ThinkeringSpace: Designing for collaboration around the book and beyond. Visible Language, 43(1), 44-59.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Rogaway, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. In U. C. Davis, Ethics in an age of technology, ECS 188. (Reprinted from Playboy Magazine, 1969).
Schultze, Q. (2000). Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
McLuhan and the Future of Education
Education is a vast field of communication. In light of our changing society, is our educational system still effective in its present form, or is a paradigm shift needed? Indiana University professor Curtis Bonk wrote, “Web technologies have blown the doors to educational opportunity wide open. Schools, colleges, universities, government agencies, and corporate training organizations not only need to take notice, they need to take action” (2009, p. 22). Collins and Halverson wrote, “People around the world are taking their education out of school into homes, libraries, Internet cafes, and workplaces, where they can decide what they want to learn, when they want to learn, and how they want to learn” (2009, p. 3). Davidson and Goldberg asserted, “We continue to push old, uniform, and increasingly outdated educational products on young learners at their – and, by implication, society’s – peril” (2010, p. 24).
Many are calling for educational reform in our schools and universities. This essay first examines Marshall McLuhan’s views on education and reform, looking at (a) media ecology theory, (b) education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, (c) education’s progress from the print age to the electronic age, and (d) education’s future. The essay then critiques McLuhan’s ideas from a Christian worldview, looking at (a) a Christian perspective on educational reform, and (b) a Christian response to McLuhan’s views.
McLuhan’s Views on Education and Reform
Marshall McLuhan, originator of the media ecology theory, spoke to the issues of education and needed reform decades ago. He observed the effects of technology on our teacher-centered, knowledge-limiting school system, and wrote,
I say, therefore, with impersonal assurance, that unless we choose to abandon all electric forms of technology we cannot possibly retain in our teaching and learning the modes of instruction and apprehension associated with the mechanical forms of print and its innumerable progeny. (McLuhan, 1960, p. 10)
Media Ecology Theory
In order to understand McLuhan’s views on education and reform, a clear understanding of media ecology theory is necessary. Griffin summarized the theory as follows:
The media must be understood ecologically. Changes in communication technology alter the symbolic environment—the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings. We shaped our tools—the phonetic alphabet, printing press, and telegraph—and they in turn have shaped our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. Thus the medium is the message. (2009, p. A-5)
McLuhan said new media infiltrate our lives, “stripping the older forms of experience to their bare bones or basic codes” (1960, p. 11). This revolutionary change happens without our conscious acceptance of it, because we are so focused on what we know from the past that we do not see what is happening to us in the present (McLuhan, 1970). McLuhan and Fiore said, “When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future" (1967, pp. 74-75).
A clear understanding of the past does offer, however, a better understanding of the future, if one is willing to learn and apply the lessons. Examining education’s progress from the tribal and literacy ages to the print age, and then to the electronic age, offers wisdom in reforms for the future.
Education’s Progress From the Tribal and Literacy Ages to the Print Age
McLuhan described the pre-printing press era as characterized by orality in the form of dialogue, disputation, and active teacher-student interaction (1960). The printing press changed the world to be visually focused. It empowered students to read widely, quickly and silently, rendering oral learning, memorization, and disputation unnecessary. Instructors no longer needed to mentor students personally in their thinking and writing (McLuhan, 1960). In this new era, education separated the functions of teaching and learning, and focused on learning the content of individual subjects such as math, science and history, rather than on gaining broad insight (McLuhan, 1960). This compartmentalizing happened because “print exists by virtue of the static separation of functions and fosters a mentality that gradually resists any but a separative and compartmentalizing or specialist outlook” (McLuhan, 1962, p. 126).
Education’s Progress from the Print Age to the Electronic Age
McLuhan said, “Today radio, telegraph and T.V. have no moving parts. The electronic age abandons mechanism for the movement of light and information only…. It is inconceivable that school and society alike should not receive the full impact of this change” (1960, p. 2). “The new electric structures for teaching and learning are basically a return to dialogue, or to the fusion of teaching and learning functions” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 15). “Ours is a brand-new world of allatonceness. 'Time' has ceased, 'space' has vanished. We now live in a global village ... a simultaneous happening” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967, p. 63). Since McLuhan wrote, the Internet arrived, enabling further connectivity. The Internet combines television’s visual capabilities with the telephone’s two-way connection, and adds the library’s information access, creating a worldwide network unimaginable to past generations.
Although society has transitioned to the electronic age, our education system still operates in the print age. McLuhan said, “I can understand the ferment in our schools, because our educational system is totally rearview mirror. It’s a dying and outdated system founded on literate values and fragmented and classified data” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Davidson and Goldberg said:
Youth who learn via peer-to-peer mediated forms may be less likely to be excited and motivated by the typical forms of learning than they were even a decade ago. Conventional modes of learning tend to be passive, lecture driven, hierarchical, and largely unidirectional from instructor to student. (2010, p. 50)
McLuhan said the environment outside the school is far richer and more informational than within the school, making school an interruption of learning rather than a place of true learning (1970). He said the child of the electronic era “finds it difficult if not impossible to adjust to the fragmented, visual goals of our education after having had all his senses involved by the electric media; he craves in-depth involvement, not linear detachment and uniform sequential patterns” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 13). Just as the assembly line approach to factory production has been largely replaced by electronic functions, so the assembly-line approach to education must be changed to become relevant and effective in our electronic world.
Education’s Future
McLuhan said, “In our schools there is simply too much to learn by the traditional analytic methods; this is an age of information overload. The only way to make the schools other than prisons without bars is to start fresh with new techniques and values” (Rogaway, 1994, p. 14).
Discovery learning.
The future of education, according to McLuhan, lies in discovery rather than in instruction (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967). “There will be no instruction in our schools in a very few years…. No instruction at all. There will be discovery. Teams of students will be prowling the environment on research programmes, and that applies to elementary school children. Discovery takes the place of instruction in any environment in which the information levels are very high” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 3). McLuhan pictured discovery learning taking place by, for example, giving groups of four or five elementary students a project like “Punishment in Society,” and releasing them for several weeks to discover, discuss, investigate and research in the broader community, like detectives (1970, p. 7).
The MacArthur Foundation’s ThinkeringSpace project is a contemporary example of discovery learning. It creates “new experiential opportunities for exploring through tinkering and interacting both locally and remotely. By promoting fluid interplay of physical and virtual experiences, these environments introduce a new genre of hybrid interactive spaces” (Moura, Fahnstrom, Prygrocki, & McLeish, 2009, p. 48).
Discovery learning in schools requires instructors who facilitate and guide the discovery process. McWilliam said that in order for university students to thrive in our increasingly fluid society, they need the active participation of instructors who are meddlers in the middle instead of the traditional sages on the stage or more recent guides on the side (2008, p. 265). McWilliam advocated a shift in pedagogy toward encouraging “experimentation and risk-taking” by the teacher becoming a “usefully ignorant… designer, editor and assembler” and a “collaborative critic and authentic evaluator” (2008, p. 265).
No known answers, no absolutes.
McLuhan asserted that strong moral stances and spiritual values are part of the defunct print age (1960, p. 10). He said, “Our kids have no goals because they understand the world they are living in and you can’t have goals in an electronic total-field world. You cannot have fixed objectives” (1970, p. 2). He said the reason instruction should be replaced by exploration is “children reject any form of instruction, the answers to which are already known” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 7). He said, “I don’t care what problem you mention, I would welcome an opportunity to see the youngsters tackle it head on with a full understanding that there are no answers known and no holds barred” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 10). He said, “The meaning of the electronic is total decentralism, total diversity” (McLuhan, 1970, p. 4). “There is no maintaining of a point of view, but only the common participation in creating perpetually new insight and understanding in a total field of unified awareness” (McLuhan, 1960, p. 9).
Christian Critique of McLuhan’s View
Scripture says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB). Where is truth in the electronic future of education? Where is truth in McLuhan’s thinking?
Christian Perspective on Educational Reform
Schultze wrote, “We find ourselves talking about the entire educational enterprise apart from our responsibility to be better persons, caring neighbors, and wiser citizens. New educational technologies certainly deliver information, but can they also cultivate careful discernment and good judgment?” (2002, p. 56). Answers to this question lie both in shalom – “living a good and right life in tune with the moral wisdom gained through revealed truth” (Schultze, 2002, p. 72), and in mentoring.
Technology and shalom.
Educators in an increasingly electronic world must remember, “Unless we intentionally cultivate intimacy in a cyber-world, we will find it evaporating from our lives as we pursue instrumental practices” (Schultze, 2002, p. 36). Caught up in the wonder and novelty of emerging technologies, people easily forget the negative part of the Faustian bargain with technology described by Postman: “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (1990, para. 5). Conway offered this solution to overcoming the negative side of technology:
So those who are members of the Body of Christ, who are building on the foundation of gratitude, praise, and service to the God made known in Jesus, need to help each other discern the attitudes of mind and heart that reflect his love and openness. Only by growing into this way of being and acting can the web of technological decision making become part of the movement toward the shalom of Christ’s kingdom.
(1999, p. 114)
Educators seeking reform must remember that “the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (Schultze, 2000, p. 121).
Educational reform through mentoring.
Jesus taught large groups of people, but he also focused much time and energy on a group of twelve men, three of whom were closest to him. In a world depersonalized by technology, education systems must offer the personal touch and kindness that small group mentoring and peer mentoring offer. Christian educators must work to bring the Christian disciplines of mentoring and discipleship into the classroom – even the secular classroom – developing a system of mentoring that will give each student personal challenge, worth, and attention as trained and trainer, mentee and mentor, learner and teacher. This is possible to an extent through the Internet, but “No fancy technologies that promise to relieve us of the burden of being somewhere are adequate substitutes for conversation, let alone for communities of hospitality and neighborliness. Being in real time and place speaks volumes” (Schultze, 2002, p. 179).
Christian Response to McLuhan
Although McLuhan tried to simply present facts and remain neutral in all he said, and although much of his analysis of the impact of new technologies is true, his postmodern view of absolutes is unscriptural. Referring to Internet based education, Davidson and Goldberg wrote, “The larger questions remain pressing, even universal: What to believe and on what grounds? On what rests the credibility of sources, on what basis are claims to be trusted, and what are the most and least compelling uses of available knowledge?” (2010, pp. 73, 74). As already described, McLuhan believed absolutes, moral values, and set answers are outdated and counterproductive in the electronic age.
Schultze said, “Like ethical chameleons we adapt our moral practices to the latest technologies rather than summoning our technologies to follow a long-term moral vision” (2002, p. 29). Christians must come back to the foundational premise that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17, NIV), and that truth, rather than shackling us and preventing progress, will set us free (John 8:32, NIV). Christians must be open to be led by God’s Spirit “in all the value judgments and decisions made on our pilgrimages as disciples of Jesus within a technological culture” (Conway, 1999, p. 115).
Conclusion
McLuhan implied that a paradigm shift is needed in education. Educators and researchers are looking for ways to introduce needed reform in an outdated system. Reform is necessary, but will be effective only if grounded in the truth of Scripture. With God’s guidance, Christians will discover great reforms that will revolutionize the world in education for the furtherance of the Gospel.
Resources
Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2010). The future of thinking: Learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
McLuhan, M. (1960). New media and the new education. (Report No. 1974). Retrieved from ERIC database: http://firstsearch.oclc.org.ezproxy.arbor.edu
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man (1st ed.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1970). Education in the electronic age. Interchange 1(4), 1-12.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage: An inventory of effects. New York, NY: Random House.
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 263-269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
Moura, H., Fahnstrom, D., Prygrocki, G., & McLeish, T. J. (2009). ThinkeringSpace: Designing for collaboration around the book and beyond. Visible Language, 43(1), 44-59.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Rogaway, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan. In U. C. Davis, Ethics in an age of technology, ECS 188. (Reprinted from Playboy Magazine, 1969).
Schultze, Q. (2000). Communicating for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mar 26, 2010
Engaging our media culture
Engaging our media culture by guest columnist, Annette Ford
Postman and the Effects of Media on Culture
Gifted communicator and celebrated professor Neil Postman wrote, spoke, and taught extensively about media ecology, the theory initiated by Marshall McLuhan. Postman said, “I believe I know something about what technologies do to culture, and I know even more about what technologies undo in a culture” (1990, para. 4). An investigation of Postman’s ideas reveals four points to consider regarding the effects of media on culture: 1) The influence of new media, 2) The influence of power holders, 3) The influence of television, and 4) The influence of Truth. Other media theorists’ ideas add further understanding to these points.
The Influence of New Media
Postman described the profound influence of each new technology on society. He said just as changes in the ecological world neither add to nor subtract from the existing environment, but instead alter it completely, “a new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (1993, p. 18). McLuhan’s viewpoint elaborates this, saying,
“When we continually use a communication technology it alters our symbolic environment – the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. We concentrate on analyzing or resisting the content of media messages, yet we miss the fact that the medium itself is actually the message.” (Griffin, 2009, p. 309)
Although McLuhan asserted this change is neither positive nor negative, Postman said, “I don’t see any point in studying media unless one does so within a moral or ethical context” (2000, para. 6). He said technological change is a Faustian bargain. “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (Postman, 1990, para. 5).
Postman adhered to McLuhan’s description of history and of new technologies’ influence on culture. McLuhan divided history into: 1) the Tribal Age, where listening and storytelling shaped society; 2) the Literate Age, where the phonetic alphabet introduced linear instead of cyclical thinking; 3) the Print Age, where the printing press introduced mass production; and 4) the Electronic Age, where the telegraph became the first of many devices to extend not only the human ear or eye, but also the whole central nervous system (Griffin, 2009).
Postman described the progress of change from tool-bearing cultures to technocracies to the present American Technopoly (1993). He said Technopoly is the control of technology over culture, and it redefines “what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (1993, p. 48).
Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. (Postman, 1993, p. xii)
According to Postman each new technological shift profoundly changes society, though not necessarily for the good of the people.
The Influence of Power Holders
Postman described the power of society’s experts, of the elite who make decisions for the masses (1993). Schultze said, “These managers aim for greater production and distribution efficiencies and for more control over markets…. They seek and reward only impact, not virtue” (2002, pp. 150, 157).
Agenda-setting theory agrees with this view. It speaks of the “gatekeepers” of the news, “the handful of news editors who set the agenda,” who “select, emphasize, elaborate, and even exclude news stories or parts of news stories to create a certain effect for the audience” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 199). McCombs and Shaw said, “The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). They view media as shaping the way we see reality and what we perceive as truth (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). In his cultural studies theory Hall said because much of our information comes from the giant corporations of society, the media “keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world” (Griffin, 2009, p. 338).
Hall believed “the mass media provide the guiding myths that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control” (Griffin, 2009, p. 341.
Hall also said, however, the media are not overtly trying to manipulate society, but rather they reinforce society’s generally accepted ideas, thus presenting those ideas as the only acceptable ones (Griffin, 2009). Uses and gratifications theory also presented the view that the audience exercises control, saying the audience responds only if the media gratifies them (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Although Postman spoke strongly about the control of power holders over media, he did concede that the audience has a strong influence on media as well. (Postman, 1996).
The Influence of Television
Postman perceived television as a negative influence on society. Griffin said, “Postman argued that television is detrimental to society because it has led to the loss of serious public discourse. Television changes the form of information ‘from discursive to nondiscursive, from propositional to presentational, from rationalistic to emotive’” (2009, p. 319). Hall, in his Cultural Studies theory, explained the necessity for making meaning through discourse, the “‘giving and taking of meaning’ between the members of society or a group” (1997, p. 2). Postman said television hindered this discourse.
Postman also described television’s trivializing force (Postman, 1993). It reduces education, for example, to mere entertainment. In “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Postman argued that “educational television” is no more or less educational than “Little House on the Prairie,” “Cheers,” or “The Tonight Show.” Each one forms people’s opinions, and each one’s primary purpose is to entertain and to encourage people to love television (Postman, 1985, p. 144). This follows McLuhan’s thinking. Since the medium is the message, television as the medium in this case has one purpose – entertainment and the love of television – so the television programs all convey the same message.
Cultivation theory and social learning theory also decry the negative influence of television on society. Cultivation theory suggests extensive television watching will make people more fearful (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Social learning theory “predicts that the use of force modeled on television today may erupt in antisocial behavior years later” (Griffin, 2009, p. 347).
McLuhan said, “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us” (Griffin, 2009, p. 308). Griffin wrote, “As Boudrillard suggests, ‘It’s not TV as a mirror of society, but just the reverse: it’s society as the mirror of television.’… The issue is not whether media distort reality. In today’s world the media have become the reality – the only one we have” (2009, p. 309).
The Influence of Truth
McLuhan said the progress and influences of technology are not right or wrong, they just exist. Hall urged people to fight injustice through semantic battle (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner’s Cultural Environment Movement believe the public must take control of television to ensure more equitable stories are told (Griffin, 2009). Some theorists only ask hard questions about how to bring positive change to society. Other theorists give some answers, but few offer the radical, world changing answers found in the Word of God.
“The first step in dethroning technology, to chasing it back to its proper place in the order of things,” said Conway, “is not to belittle it or detract from its intellectual fascination or its power to set men and women free from drudgery, but, rather, to erect around it and over it other values and wisdoms that oblige us to see technology in its correct perspective (1999, p. 31). Schultze said the media “are really extensions of our God-given ability to cocreate culture. In spite of their limitations, the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (2000, p. 121).
Postman said, “The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory” (1990, para. 35). In the same paragraph he quoted the words of the prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Herein lies the answer. Rather than being cloaked in “technological glory,” the world will change positively if its citizens instead cloak themselves in godly justice, mercy and humility.
In his many books, articles and public addresses, Neil Postman spoke of the influence on society of new media, of power holders, and of television. He also touched on the influence of the Truth. In all, however, his core belief could be summarized in the words of Thoreau, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Postman, 1990, para. 35).
References
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Hall, S. (1997). Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, England: Sage.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage.
Postman, N. (1996, January 17). Re: Neil Postman ponders high tech [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january96/postman_1-17.html
Postman, N. (2000, June). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote address at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031013150449/http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for life: Christian stewardship in community and media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Postman and the Effects of Media on Culture
Gifted communicator and celebrated professor Neil Postman wrote, spoke, and taught extensively about media ecology, the theory initiated by Marshall McLuhan. Postman said, “I believe I know something about what technologies do to culture, and I know even more about what technologies undo in a culture” (1990, para. 4). An investigation of Postman’s ideas reveals four points to consider regarding the effects of media on culture: 1) The influence of new media, 2) The influence of power holders, 3) The influence of television, and 4) The influence of Truth. Other media theorists’ ideas add further understanding to these points.
The Influence of New Media
Postman described the profound influence of each new technology on society. He said just as changes in the ecological world neither add to nor subtract from the existing environment, but instead alter it completely, “a new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (1993, p. 18). McLuhan’s viewpoint elaborates this, saying,
“When we continually use a communication technology it alters our symbolic environment – the socially constructed, sensory world of meanings that shapes our perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and behavior. We concentrate on analyzing or resisting the content of media messages, yet we miss the fact that the medium itself is actually the message.” (Griffin, 2009, p. 309)
Although McLuhan asserted this change is neither positive nor negative, Postman said, “I don’t see any point in studying media unless one does so within a moral or ethical context” (2000, para. 6). He said technological change is a Faustian bargain. “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates. But it is never one-sided” (Postman, 1990, para. 5).
Postman adhered to McLuhan’s description of history and of new technologies’ influence on culture. McLuhan divided history into: 1) the Tribal Age, where listening and storytelling shaped society; 2) the Literate Age, where the phonetic alphabet introduced linear instead of cyclical thinking; 3) the Print Age, where the printing press introduced mass production; and 4) the Electronic Age, where the telegraph became the first of many devices to extend not only the human ear or eye, but also the whole central nervous system (Griffin, 2009).
Postman described the progress of change from tool-bearing cultures to technocracies to the present American Technopoly (1993). He said Technopoly is the control of technology over culture, and it redefines “what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements” (1993, p. 48).
Stated in the most dramatic terms, the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. (Postman, 1993, p. xii)
According to Postman each new technological shift profoundly changes society, though not necessarily for the good of the people.
The Influence of Power Holders
Postman described the power of society’s experts, of the elite who make decisions for the masses (1993). Schultze said, “These managers aim for greater production and distribution efficiencies and for more control over markets…. They seek and reward only impact, not virtue” (2002, pp. 150, 157).
Agenda-setting theory agrees with this view. It speaks of the “gatekeepers” of the news, “the handful of news editors who set the agenda,” who “select, emphasize, elaborate, and even exclude news stories or parts of news stories to create a certain effect for the audience” (Dainton & Zelley, 2005, p. 199). McCombs and Shaw said, “The media may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (Griffin, 2009, p. 366). They view media as shaping the way we see reality and what we perceive as truth (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). In his cultural studies theory Hall said because much of our information comes from the giant corporations of society, the media “keep the average person more or less powerless to do anything but operate within a corporatized, commodified world” (Griffin, 2009, p. 338).
Hall believed “the mass media provide the guiding myths that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control” (Griffin, 2009, p. 341.
Hall also said, however, the media are not overtly trying to manipulate society, but rather they reinforce society’s generally accepted ideas, thus presenting those ideas as the only acceptable ones (Griffin, 2009). Uses and gratifications theory also presented the view that the audience exercises control, saying the audience responds only if the media gratifies them (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Although Postman spoke strongly about the control of power holders over media, he did concede that the audience has a strong influence on media as well. (Postman, 1996).
The Influence of Television
Postman perceived television as a negative influence on society. Griffin said, “Postman argued that television is detrimental to society because it has led to the loss of serious public discourse. Television changes the form of information ‘from discursive to nondiscursive, from propositional to presentational, from rationalistic to emotive’” (2009, p. 319). Hall, in his Cultural Studies theory, explained the necessity for making meaning through discourse, the “‘giving and taking of meaning’ between the members of society or a group” (1997, p. 2). Postman said television hindered this discourse.
Postman also described television’s trivializing force (Postman, 1993). It reduces education, for example, to mere entertainment. In “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” Postman argued that “educational television” is no more or less educational than “Little House on the Prairie,” “Cheers,” or “The Tonight Show.” Each one forms people’s opinions, and each one’s primary purpose is to entertain and to encourage people to love television (Postman, 1985, p. 144). This follows McLuhan’s thinking. Since the medium is the message, television as the medium in this case has one purpose – entertainment and the love of television – so the television programs all convey the same message.
Cultivation theory and social learning theory also decry the negative influence of television on society. Cultivation theory suggests extensive television watching will make people more fearful (Dainton & Zelley, 2005). Social learning theory “predicts that the use of force modeled on television today may erupt in antisocial behavior years later” (Griffin, 2009, p. 347).
McLuhan said, “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us” (Griffin, 2009, p. 308). Griffin wrote, “As Boudrillard suggests, ‘It’s not TV as a mirror of society, but just the reverse: it’s society as the mirror of television.’… The issue is not whether media distort reality. In today’s world the media have become the reality – the only one we have” (2009, p. 309).
The Influence of Truth
McLuhan said the progress and influences of technology are not right or wrong, they just exist. Hall urged people to fight injustice through semantic battle (Griffin, 2009). Gerbner’s Cultural Environment Movement believe the public must take control of television to ensure more equitable stories are told (Griffin, 2009). Some theorists only ask hard questions about how to bring positive change to society. Other theorists give some answers, but few offer the radical, world changing answers found in the Word of God.
“The first step in dethroning technology, to chasing it back to its proper place in the order of things,” said Conway, “is not to belittle it or detract from its intellectual fascination or its power to set men and women free from drudgery, but, rather, to erect around it and over it other values and wisdoms that oblige us to see technology in its correct perspective (1999, p. 31). Schultze said the media “are really extensions of our God-given ability to cocreate culture. In spite of their limitations, the media are potential resources to help us serve our neighbor by telling the truth and building communities of shalom” (2000, p. 121).
Postman said, “The human dilemma is as it has always been, and we solve nothing fundamental by cloaking ourselves in technological glory” (1990, para. 35). In the same paragraph he quoted the words of the prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Herein lies the answer. Rather than being cloaked in “technological glory,” the world will change positively if its citizens instead cloak themselves in godly justice, mercy and humility.
In his many books, articles and public addresses, Neil Postman spoke of the influence on society of new media, of power holders, and of television. He also touched on the influence of the Truth. In all, however, his core belief could be summarized in the words of Thoreau, “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end" (Postman, 1990, para. 35).
References
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of technology: A Christian perspective. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Hall, S. (1997). Representations: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London, England: Sage.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death. New York, NY: Viking Penguin.
Postman, N. (1990, October). Informing ourselves to death. Speech given at the meeting of the German Informatics Society (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik), Stuttgart, Germany.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY: Vintage.
Postman, N. (1996, January 17). Re: Neil Postman ponders high tech [Online Forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january96/postman_1-17.html
Postman, N. (2000, June). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote address at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20031013150449/http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/proceedings/v1/humanism_of_media_ecology.html
Schultze, Q. J. (2000). Communicating for life: Christian stewardship in community and media. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Schultze, Q. J. (2002). Habits of the high-tech heart: Living virtuously in the information age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)