“These include the beliefs that the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency; that technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment; that in fact human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking; that what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value; and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.”
Explore This Quote Further
-
Working on it...
-
Working on it...
-
Working on it...
Quote Analysis: Neil Postman on the Modern Technocratic Mindset
This quote by Neil Postman critically examines the prevailing values that dominate contemporary society, especially in the context of labor, knowledge, and governance. It highlights a worldview that prioritizes efficiency, technical calculation, and expert control, often at the expense of human judgment, subjectivity, and qualitative values.
Efficiency as the Ultimate Goal: Postman points out the belief that the main purpose of human effort—whether mental or physical—is to maximize efficiency. This narrows the broader aims of labor to mere productivity and output, potentially overlooking deeper human needs such as creativity, meaning, and ethical considerations.
Supremacy of Technical Calculation: The quote reveals a strong preference for quantitative, technical methods over human judgment. It suggests that decisions based on data and algorithms are deemed inherently superior, implying that humans are too prone to error and inconsistency to be reliable decision-makers.
Distrust of Human Judgment: The characterization of human judgment as “plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity” demonstrates a dismissal of the nuanced, context-dependent nature of human thought. This sets up an opposition between the clear-cut, rule-based logic of machines and the “messy” qualities of human reasoning.
Devaluation of Subjectivity: Postman critiques the notion that subjectivity is a hindrance. Instead of recognizing subjective experience as valuable insight, this view treats it as an obstacle to objective understanding and rationality, sidelining emotional and moral dimensions.
Quantification as the Measure of Value: The belief that “what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value” crystallizes the reductionist tendency of modern technocracy. It excludes qualitative aspects of life that are difficult to quantify, such as happiness, justice, or cultural richness.
Rule by Experts: Finally, the quote underscores a faith in expert governance, implying that ordinary citizens are less capable of self-rule. This technocratic ideal elevates specialized knowledge as the primary criterion for leadership and decision-making.
Overall, Postman’s statement is a critique of the overreliance on efficiency, measurement, and expert control that can strip away important human qualities and democratic values, urging a reconsideration of what constitutes meaningful progress and wisdom.
Similar quotes
“With the invention of the clock, Eternity ceased to serve as the measure and focus of human events.”
“The point is that television does not reveal who the best man is. In fact, television makes impossible the determination of who is better than whom, if we mean by 'better' such things as more capable in negotiation, more imaginative in executive skill, more knowledgeable about international affairs, more understanding of the interrelations of economic systems, and so on. The reason has, almost entirely, to do with 'image.' But not because politicians are preoccupied with presenting themselves in the best possible light. After all, who isn't? It is a rare and deeply disturbed person who does not wish to project a favorable image. But television gives image a bad name. For on television the politician does not so much offer the audience an image of himself, as offer himself as an image of the audience. And therein lies one of the most powerful influences of the television commercial on political discourse.”
“. . . we come astonishingly close to the mystical beliefs of Pythagoras and his followers who attempted to submit all of life to the sovereignty of numbers. Many of our psychologists, sociologists, economists and other latter-day cabalists will have numbers to tell them the truth or they will have nothing. . . . We must remember that Galileo merely said that the language of nature is written in mathematics. He did not say that everything is. And even the truth about nature need not be expressed in mathematics. For most of human history, the language of nature has been the language of myth and ritual. These forms, one might add, had the virtues of leaving nature unthreatened and of encouraging the belief that human beings are part of it. It hardly befits a people who stand ready to blow up the planet to praise themselves too vigorously for having found the true way to talk about nature.”
“A book is an attempt to make through permanent and to contribute to the great conversation conducted by authors of the past. […] The telegraph is suited only to the flashing of messages, each to be quickly replaced by a more up-to-date message. Facts push other facts into and then out of consciousness at speeds that neither permit nor require evaluation. (70)”
“One way of looking at the history of the human group is that it has been a continuing struggle against the veneration of "crap.”
“The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes.Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry--is not even a "subject"--but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.”