In Neil Postman’s final chapter Word Weavers from The End of Education, we are given an interesting account of technology how things are taught, specifically words and their origins, and the impact they can have. From the first paragraph, the motive of Postman is clear. He is trying to persuade everyone that schools are no longer, or possibly never have given enough information as to how words came about and what they really mean. He also thinks that this can be a detrimental aspect of teaching and learning. Although Postman does provide a persuasive argument for this idea, I believe that he may be blowing some things out of proportion, and this may not be as big of problem as he may think.
Postman does make a very well educated hypothesis that can be hard to argue with. I believe his main claim is that schools tell people what things, specifically words, mean rather than to help students understand what they mean, how they came about, and where they came from. This is a very interesting argument that many people would believe, and given Postman’s credentials, I may be somewhat inclined to believe certain aspects of the argument. Postman seems very passionate in his argument. “I have no choice but to blame the schools for the mischief created by an inadequate
understanding of what a definition is.” This seems to be a headline of what Postman is trying to show throughout the argument. To most people this would seem like a very strong accusation. Who can argue with the American education system that has produced some of the most well educated scholars? From this perspective, it may be hard to side with Postman and his thoughts. With that in mind, I can only side with bits and pieces of Postman’s argument. I agree that some blame for lack of education in the aspect of words and their definitions should fall upon the school systems, but I don’t feel that that can lead to any sort of major downfall within the system.
In Postman’s argument, his passion is eminent from beginning to end. So who cares? What does it all mean in the long run? Are we all going to become computer like people that only know the what instead of the why and how? Who knows if Postman really thinks society will decrease in education to that extent. On the other hand, it is obvious that Postman is using this as a warning. A warning that if we keep on going in the path we are taking now, there could be a very negative effect; to what extent, however, who knows?
In conclusion, some of Postman’s arguments can see far fetched, but the way he delivers and supports his arguments is convincing to say the least. With ample examples to support arguments, it is hard to stray away from what Postman is saying. I believe that Postman honestly believes what he is saying which makes it hard to argue with him based on his accomplishments and reputation. On the other hand though, Postman does tend to lose my attention in some parts of his writing. He seems to get off topic at times, making it hard to follow his argument and follow where he is going with the argument. This can be detrimental to the overall persuasion factor of Postman’s writing. This seems to be the part of the essay that makes me tend to believe that Postman may be using “big words” to make it seem like he knows more than he truly does.
Postman truly did create a persuasive work of art. He gives us a significant warning that can attract anyones attention. With the slow decline of our school system brought into question, who wouldn’t have their attention grabbed? In that aspect, Postman truly did a fine job of grabbing peoples attention and drawing them in deeper. His argument was effective in the sense that he got his point across with a healthy amount of persuasion, which I believe was his main goal. I also think that from analyzing such a in depth argument that Postman provided, you can better understand how critically thinking about the piece can reveal much more about what the author is saying and what they are trying to get across.
