Of Luddites, learning, and life - Reflection (Week 1)

Of Luddites, learning, and life - Reflection

Postman, N. (1993). Of Luddites, learning, and life. Technos Quarterly, 2(4).

The Article “Of Luddites, learning, and life” was informative, and insightful. Not really knowing much about the history of the “Luddite” movement, I was inspired to research them and their story a little further. I found their story not being all that much different than what we are faced with today, as we move further towards becoming a Knowledge based economy and away from an Industrial Age Economy. I also thought the author’s questioning of society “when did we decide to mock or despise people who try to protect their children and preserve their way of life?” to be thought provoking.

The author speaks of addressing problems with the right solution. For example, we often seem to deploy technology for technology’s sake. At my job, I have resisted the requests from my users to upgrade to newer versions of Windows and Microsoft Office. We adopted Windows 2003 Server, Windows XP, and Office 2003, on the desktop several years ago, and they are working fine. There have been many upgrades along the way, such as the ability to save Office documents in an XML format that have allowed us to continue using software that is several years old. Some might argue that it is outdated. But, we keep the service packs up to date, and we do have some specialty software that was not complaint with the last version of Windows. The software also allows us to do our work, and we’ve not run across any applications that we wanted to run, that was not compatible with our technology infrastructure.

I typically inform my users that we don’t have a business case to upgrade at this time. The cost to upgrade is just too prohibitive to justify the expense of not only the new software, but hardware upgrades as well. I’m testing Windows 7 as we speak, and while it runs fine on pre-installed systems, Windows 7 would not fully install onto hardware that passed its own compatibility tests. Because of this, there is the possibility of major a disruption in the day to day workflow, if we were to upgrade. This could lead to substantial unforeseen costs related to an extended loss of productivity.

The author also discusses the idea that “contrary to conventional wisdom, new technologies do not, by and large, increase one’s options but do just the opposite”. There is truth to this statement. Take for example the cell phone. I recently had to upgrade my cell phone and service plan. I previously had a basic “flip” style phone that worked very well. The reception was great, and the size was just right. Because I had begun to receive “Text” messages, I decided it was time to upgrade. However, in order for to me to get the best deal, I had to purchase a full service plan including Web Access, and GPS, items that I rarely use. We had a similar problem when we recently upgraded to the Comcast Business class Internet Service. It was less expensive for us to bundle in the Phone, Internet, and Cable TV service, than it was to just have the Internet and Phone service. These are also examples of “getting everyone to conform to the requirements of the new”, as stated by the author. Don’t get me wrong, I’m probably more “techie” than most. I do however tend to deploy technology as needed and for a specific purpose.

In regard to the author’s view on the then “Information Super Highway”, it seems like it was a pretty good investment at only $50 billion dollars. That relatively small investment, helped pave the way for the technology infrastructure that we take for granted today. It helped stimulate the economy, and yes, we did get our 500 channel TV’s. Even the ability for us to take this class is due to that small investment.

I have to agree with the author “our children, like the rest of us are now suffering from information glut, not information scarcity”. He rightly points out that for all of the pieces of information that is available, there is an even greater volume that is stored, and waiting to be retrieved. He believes the role of the school is to “help students learn how to ignore and discard information so that they can achieve a sense of coherence in their lives”. There is merit in this as well.

In closing, I believe the article has many points that need to be considered. We do tend to deploy technology for technologies’ sake. It’s really cool, but we need to ask the question of whether or not the technology addresses and/or solves a problem. With the glut of information available, can we afford to waste time and money on deploying technology that won’t solve a particular problem? Will our children be successful, if our view of deploying technology is “putting a computer in every classroom”? I believe we need to slow down a bit, and make sure that we are using our dollars wisely, and that the technologies we deploy are effective.