After the year 1984 passed the world breathed a sigh of relief that Orwell’s prophecy of oppression by government or a “big brother” did not come true. In 1985 Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death in which he describes a takeover of a passive society using Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World as the prophecy. Postman describes imminent death by comparing Orwellian fears to those of Huxley’s:
“We had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another – slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing…What Orwell feared were those who ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy…In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World they are controlled by inflicting pleasure” (vii).

With entertainment and technology surrounding the population everyday is it possible the world is passively floating along, unaware of a hostile takeover that is anything but hostile? It could be considered important to point out the definition of technology according to John Street: “What determines status as ‘technology’ is the deliberate and conscious use by human agents” (8). Information could be considered either an inescapable captivity or a road to freedom of expression that is permanently under construction. According to Postman “nothing could be more misleading than the idea that computer technology introduced the age of information. The printing press began that age and we have not been free since” (1990).

As the world grows, a population grows with it, as does the technology with which the population utilizes. “The medium, or process, of our time – electric technology – is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life” (McLuhan, Fiore, 9). Technological determinism supports technology as the drive behind all social change. According to Postman, “each technology has an agenda of its own…a metaphor waiting to unfold” (84). Technology has been progressing since the creation of the phonetic alphabet and the ability to write down, and freeze, a conversation or thought. Looking at this from a deterministic point of view Andrew Murphie and John Potts point out that if a successful technical innovation (the alphabet in this case) is implemented on a sufficiently wide scale a new type of society will be generated. A new society is what Huxley wrote about in “Brave New World” centering technological determinism as the basis for a society that is oppressed by their addiction to amusement. Postman argues that present-day progressive technology is oppressing the population in an exchange of entertainment for consumer rights.
What is considered by some to be a more optimistic outlook on technologies is the idea that they “do not determine; rather they operate, and are operated upon, in a complex social field” (Murphie, Potts, 22). Human thought, expression and activity are established in the mind and the physical equipment only gives the opportunity to express these technologically independent ideas. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman state their condemnation of technological determinism: “a new device merely opens a door; it does not compel one to enter” (6). There is a choice to denounce new technology as well as the choice to embrace it and it is not the intrinsic quality of the item itself that determines this. “Technology is presumably social only through the purpose it serves, and purposes are in the mind of the beholder” (Feenberg, 304). Murphie and Potts explain that those who “refute technological determinism affirm the importance of choice in implementing, or opposing, new technologies” (22). The implementation of the printing press is considered one of the most important technological advances in communication and has been embraced for centuries.
Postman states the printing press had “a clear bias toward being used as a linguistic medium” (85). The invention and implementation of the printing press allowed those who were interested to have access to printed word. Postman describes America as “dominated by printed word and an oratory based on the printed word as any society we know of” (41). Before there was television or radio, print was the only communication medium available other than conversation. “The influence of the printed word in every arena of public discourse was insistent and powerful not merely because of the quantity of printed matter but because of its monopoly” (Postman, 41). McLuhan and Fiore explain the invention of printing created a “reading public”. According to them it “did away with anonymity, fostering ideas of literary fame and the habit of considering intellectual effort as private property” (122). The printing press did most definitely affect the societies who were using it. This does not necessarily mean that it was predetermined that technology would make these changes. There are other contributing factors that have shaped the world such as natural disasters, famine and pandemic. These events have shaped society and technology has developed due to them not vice versa. “Determinism…makes it seem as though the end of the story was inevitable from the very beginning by projecting the abstract technical logic of the finished object back into the past as a cause of development” (Feenberg, 305). When Huxley wrote “Brave New World” the end of the story may have seemed inevitable. In a society where people are given so much information they were reduced to passivity and egoism, with no desire or need to inquire, oppression was to be anticipated. According to Postman, modern day passivity is created by televisions entertainment and the presentation of news as a form of entertainment programming. “Most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action” (Postman, 68). Without meaningful action there is no way for a society to form or change based on technology, so while this does line up with Huxley’s non-fiction novel it does not stay in line with technological determinism. Postman describes our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce as being transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. This is how “we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death”. (Postman, 4). Television exists in most modern homes and people watch it not only for entertainment but for news and information as well. Postman describes television as “our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore – and this is the critical point – how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged” (92). Is the world really this gullible? Seeing is no longer believing. With a generation that has grown up surrounded by technology there is embracement coupled with a skepticism that has the ability to critically analyze the information that’s been given. What is done with this information is what defines us as a society. Murphie and Potts state, “it’s not the thing itself, but the way it’s used that counts” (22).
Television is primarily a passive technology that talks at people rather than with them and therefore information has to be deduced rather than absorbed. The Internet and the computer provide the public with an interactive technology. McLuhan’s basic premise is that all technologies are extensions of human capacities. “Tools and implements are extensions of manual skills; the computer is an extension of the brain” (Murphie and Potts, 13). Postman disagrees that the computer will make education, religion, politics and our minds better. “This is, of course, nonsense, and only the young or the ignorant or the foolish could believe it.” (speech). Education from the perspective of most people in the world is improving with technology, but perhaps this is not because the computer is giving this information but because of the people behind the screen sending the information into the world. As Feenberg explains, “as a social object, technology ought to be subject to interpretation like any other cultural artifact, but it’s generally excluded from humanistic study” (307). Technology and cultural often go hand-in-hand but if Feenberg is correct then technology and culture should be separate areas of study.
Arnold Pacey explains, “in the world at large, it is argued that technology is essentially amoral, a thing apart from values, an instrument which can be used for good or ill” (2). He points out that “if people in distant countries starve; if infant mortality within inner cities is persistently high; if we feel threatened by nuclear destruction…then all that, it is said should not be blamed on technology, but on its misuse” (2). This theory goes against technological determinism and instead takes an arm’s length approach. Dealing with technology as a separate part of our society rather than one that is intertwined with values gives the opportunity to appreciate and respect it rather than fear it. Pacey argues “we would understand this much more clearly...if the concept of practice were to be used in all branches of technology as it has traditionally been used in medicine” (4). Feenberg agrees “technology would thus resemble science and mathematics by its intrinsic independence of the social world” (304). Postman describes how television has not evolved around our culture but rather become our culture. This means, he says, “that we rarely talk about television, only about what is on television” (79). He claims, “we have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge, and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seen eminently sane” (80). Is our culture so swept up with television that we are incoherent to what is false and what could possibly be true when it comes to things like advertising, news and politics?
McLuhan and Fiore describe a new form of “politics” that is emerging, turning our living room into a voting booth. Although party propaganda and political “bashing” commercials do exist in our living room, so do the opportunities to research, be exposed to a multitude of opinions and communicate with others about our political thoughts. Street claims, “we need to recognize that technical change can have a dramatic effect upon the way politics are conducted, on the issues that occupy the political agenda, and the interests at play within the political arena” (3). Choosing whom to vote for can come down a number of things, including platforms, past initiatives and overall credibility. Postman describes credibility as being “the ultimate test of the truth of a proposition” (102). His argument extends to the claim that credibility no longer refers to the past record of the speaker’s ability to be honest but only the impression the speaker gives whether it be sincere, authentic, vulnerable or attractive. If Canadian politicians are getting votes in the upcoming 2011 elections it is would be hard to imagine with all the accusations flying around how they could be based on honesty, sincerity, authenticity or vulnerability. There is a possibility that Canada is less vulnerable than the America Postman describes, due to the countries content regulations and century-long battle to escapes commercialism and Americanism.
Throughout history Canada has struggled to escape American influence and possibly the destiny that Postman describes, through strict regulations to allow original content and avoid commercialism. The Aird Commission, the Massey Commission, the Fowler commission, the Broadcasting Act of 1968 and others may have proved useful in escaping what McLuhan and Fiore describe as the “mass audience” or what used to be referred to as “the public”. The Massey commission in 1951 clearly notes that Canadians, although enjoy American entertainment, they perceive it as entertainment and not a truth telling, be-all-end-all. “Canada became a national entity because of certain habits of mind and convictions which its people shared and would not surrender” (Canada, 4). As a country with regulations of import content and an anti-commercialism attitude perhaps Canada is less susceptible to ignorance in place of knowledge.
Almost everywhere in the world is touched by technology. Looking at technical change from the perspective of a technological determinist can lead one to believe that society’s change is inevitable and perhaps this thinking will lead us to the prophecy that Huxley portrays in Brave New World. Canada has survived on the advancing media trail still producing what the Broadcasting Act of 1968 describes as “high quality” news and entertainment. Postman describes news as being a form of entertainment rather than an informational outlet further destroyed by television and computers. McLuhan and Fiore says, “all media works us over completely” but add that with knowledge of the way media works as an environment an understanding of social and cultural change is possible. Perhaps if knowledge maintains a hierarchy over ignorance then generations to come will not fall victim to Huxley’s prediction and we as a culture, will not amuse ourselves to death.