14 December 2005
And Now For Something Completely Relevant
Upon this age, that never speaks its mind,
This furtive age, this age endowed with power
To wake the moon with footsteps, fit an oar
Into the rowlocks of the wind, and find
What swims before his prow, what swirls behind ---
Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower
Of facts . . . they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill
Is daily spun; but there exists no loom
To weave it into fabric; undefiled
Proceeds pure Science, and has her say; but still
Upon this world from the collective womb
Is spewed all day the red triumphant child. (Millay)1
In 2005, the average American reads books or magazines 231 hours a year, about 38 minutes a day. The same average American adult watches television or movies 1,859 hours a year, about 5 hours a day (U.S. 716). 99% of American households have at least one television, and the national average is 2.6 per home (Herr). Television exerts an immense and (in popular culture) largely unexamined impact on our intellectual life, specifically the ability to think with depth and breadth about the important issues of our lives – philosophy, religion, politics, ethics. Television has trained us to be “ethical spectators,” proficient at watching and judging others, but at the cost of self-examination and doubt (Donohue 391). It has helped blur the distinctions between opinion, belief and knowledge, reducing public discourse to the level of a playground argument – “yes it is, yes it is, yes it is” (Donohue 390). Because of the glut of out-of-context information that bombards us daily and the way it has reduced our capacity for introspection, we must commit to teaching ourselves how to contextualize and process this information. We must find Millay’s loom and learn how to weave.
Marshall McLuhan is famous for saying “the medium is the message,” but in Neal Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Showbusiness, he extends McLuhan’s idea to “our media are our metaphors” (qtd. in Alexander). One of the oldest of human media is the oral tradition. According to Brian Donohue, pre-literate societies have concrete social roles and a limited view of human potential. To insure that their stories (and an understanding of the individual’s role in them) are not repetitive, they reflect the bias of the oral tradition – “it must be heard, inspirational and hard to learn” (394). This medium, exemplified by the ancient epic poems, is best preserved in theater, in which the listener is not passive, as a television viewer is, but actively engaged with the story which “taxes the imagination” (395).
As societies become literate, the primary medium becomes the written word. Postman believes “typography... has the strongest possible bias toward exposition: a sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response” (qtd. in Alexander).
Postman calls the dominance of the printed word the “Age of Exposition” (qtd. in Alexander). He notes that this age brought an increase in knowledge, but not everyone had access to it. We invented technologies that overcame this limitation: the telegraph, photograph, radio, telephone, television and computer (Postman). Supplanting the written word, television now holds the role of meta-medium; its influence stretches past itself and influences other information technologies (Donohue 387).
Postman believes that the bias of television militates against serious thought about complicated issues. The medium is dominated by the need to be entertaining, so that news programs will leave aside context and nuance in order to capture and keep viewers who now have hundreds of channels to choose from. What is sensational, immediate and simple supplants what is important and complex, and “now this” is the only segue between stories that are presented without context. Stories and commercials are shortening and escalating in emotional impact as viewers become accustomed to advertisers’ and programmers’ tactics (Donohue) (“Amusing”) (Alexander) (Postman). Postman says television presents a “peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is a world without much coherence or sense; a world that does not ask us, indeed, does not permit us to do anything; a world that is, like the child’s game of peek-a-boo, entirely self-contained. But like peek-a-boo, it is also endlessly entertaining” (qtd. in Alexander).
Televised dramas also affect the way we think about moral and ethical issues. Donohue argues that the immediacy and self-containment of television is changing the very way we see ourselves and the world around us, turning us into “ethical spectators” (390). Moral dilemmas don’t exist until they are televised (390), and the medium asks us to passively watch and judge the behavior of others based on this short observation (391). He notes:
Every human tragedy is a momentary spasm of human failing and not part of the continuum of human existence. We ignore the context within which events occur and thus obscure the complexity... Our task is to judge, probably condemn, but certainly never to reflect... The more we are governed in our thinking by the cognitive imperialism of the electronic image, the less we are motivated to reflect on what we do. (391-392).
Television can become like Aldous Huxley’s fictional drug “soma,” as Postman pointed out, and we trade understanding and introspection for entertainment (“Amusing”). We become sleepwalkers, addicted to the passive drug of the ethical spectator, knowing neither the desire nor the language to differentiate between opinion, belief and knowledge. We state our unjustified beliefs unselfconsciously and with conviction and expect others to accept them as truth.
How do we counter television’s bias? We cannot simply remove the medium, and few individuals will voluntarily eliminate it from their lives. An understanding of epistemology, “the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge” (“Epistemology”) may help. According to the author of “Epistemology”, one common definition of knowledge is justified true belief; for something to be knowledge, it must be true, believed, and justified (“Epistemology”). Knowing what we believe is insufficient; we must know why we believe it. The author describes several ways philosophers justify beliefs. Rational means of justification include Foundationalism and Coherentism. Foundationalists claim that there are some statements that do not require justification, and these statements can justify beliefs. Coherentist claim that there is not a small subset of claims that statements are built on, but a justified belief is said to cohere to a whole set of claims which can be modified if a justified belief turns out to be untrue. Irrational means of justification include Nihilsm (knowledge is impossible) and mysticism. Epistemological mystics justify their beliefs with emotions or simply with a desire that it should be true (“Epistemology”).
In the age of oral tradition, we found much knowledge by irrational, mystical means, such as tradition. Some beliefs of pre-literate societies may have been true, but many – that the earth rests on a turtle, for instance – are examples of irrationally justified beliefs that turn out to be untrue. Epistemological mysticism was common when the primary medium was oral. As the primary medium became the printed word, means of justification like the scientific method – rational justifications – replaced epistemological mysticism as a common method of justifying belief. In the televisual age, when we are flooded with decontextualized facts and emotional appeals, epistemological mysticism is common again.
Relativism, the belief that everything is true and it shows different sides of itself to different viewers (“Epistemology”) is also very prevalent in the televisual age. When the majority of our information is presented without context, we give up trying to justify our beliefs, since there is no larger framework with which to justify them. This is also irrational. A famous parable that illustrates epistemological relativism describes a group of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant. One touching the tail says, “The elephant is like a branch.” One touching the ear says, “The elephant is like a leaf,” and one touching the leg believes the elephant is like the trunk of a tree. They were each receiving facts about the elephant, but out of the context of the whole elephant. Further, they were all blind and apparently unwilling to take a step or two to see the other man’s perspective. This is not unlike the out-of-context facts that characterize the televisual age.
Awash in a sea of information without context, without a larger framework with which to understand it, public discourse degrades to bullying opinion. The one with the cleverest slogan, the biggest stick, the most sincere smile wins. Politicians push each other to the outer edges of their party’s agenda during elections, dragging most political Americans with them, only to meet in the center when their jobs aren’t on the line. Internet pundits and zealots of every flavor argue with no regard to whether or not the argument makes sense, insulting everyone who was not cloned from the same source cells as they were. With no means to justify our beliefs, we polarize for polarization’s sake.
I have seen, however, anecdotal evidence in popular culture that gives me some hope. CBS’s “C.S.I.” is a popular television drama that has prompted two spin-offs and several imitators on other networks. It teaches that we must submit our beliefs to scientific fact. Fox’s “The X-Files” was, until this year, the longest running science-fiction show in television history (“Stargate”). It is arguably an extended meditation on the nature of belief and truth. Sci-Fi channel’s “Stargate SG-1” just surpassed it in longevity (“Stargate”). Two of the longest story arcs in “Stargate SG-1” involve defeating false gods and their ideology. ABC’s “Lost” deals with how different personalities deal with the mysteries they find around them, and how each person’s past informs how they understand the present. Collectively, these shows may indicate an epistemological concern in popular culture. “Lost” also speaks to another way to ameliorate the televisual bias.
This way is to seek a larger view of human history and present, finding a framework, a loom, to organize and contextualize the fact around us. Postman writes:
We in the West are inheritors of two great and different tales. The more ancient, of course, is the one that starts by saying, "In the beginning, God . . ." And the newer is the account of the world as science and reason give it. One is the tale of Genesis and Job, of Mark and Paul. The other is Euclid's tale, and Galileo's, Newton's, Darwin's. Both are great and stirring accounts of the universe and the human struggle within it. Both speak of human frailty and error, and of limits. Both may be told in such a way as to invoke our sense of stewardship, to sing of responsibility. Both contain the seeds of a narrative more hopeful and coherent than the technology story. (Postman)
Finally, we must also be willing to consider the other party when we disagree. Some disagreements will clearly fall outside the area where acceptance is possible, but where there is room to understand, to tolerate, why not try? Timothy George suggests three questions we should ask ourselves when we disagree with someone.
“What do I owe the person who differs from me?” (George). Are they a part of the story of our lives? Do we owe them respect, a fair hearing, a little understanding if not agreement? Will we treat them like we want to be treated? We are all on this strange journey together, and it may be that we have more in common that not.
“What can I learn from those who differ from me?” (George). Perhaps an understanding of the other’s view might strengthen and inform our own. Maybe there is a larger understanding that satisfies both parties, once we understand the goals of our opponent clearly.
“How can I cope with those who differ from me?” (George). Regardless of whether or not we agree, we will have to deal with each other, one way or another. What harm can come from approaching each other in humility? It is possible to agree to disagree, and allow for a plurality of views, without declaring culture war.
There is much to be gained or lost in the culture war that is escalating in America and the world. It is worth the time that it takes to examine ourselves. It is worth the effort it takes to search out and understand. A question is never wasted, a doubt never condemning. Andrew Bard Schmookler addresses this idea:
The best resolution of our culture war is not to be found through our present mode of conflict. Neither is it to be found in mere centrist political compromise. The real challenge is for both sides to work together toward an integration at that higher level where opposites no longer seem so irrevocably opposed, where the expressions of our liberty and the requirements of our civilized order achieve a fuller harmony. No easy task. But the more quickly we can move out of our stance as partisan combatants into a position from which we can see how we are in this dance of polarization together, the sooner we can get to the real work (Schmookler).
Endnotes
1 Neil Postman quotes part of this poem and places it in relation to the televisual age in his article "Science and the Story that We Need." Though the poem was published before television became the predominant media (1939), Postman points out television was the culmination of earlier instant or visual developments in communication.
Works Cited
Alexander, Sandra. Rev. of "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” by Neil Postman. IntellectualConservative.com. 7 Nov 2004. 20 Nov. 2005 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3933.html.
"Amusing Ourselves to Death." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 21 Nov 2005. Wikipedia.com. 30 Nov 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death&oldid=28913578.
Donohue, Brian. "THE ELECTRONIC IMAGINATION: Requiem for a Narrative." ETC: A Review of General Semantics 59.4 (2002/2003):387-399. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Mt. Sierra Learning Resources Center. 20 Nov 2005 http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&an=9174271.
"Epistemology." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 29 Nov 2005. Wikipedia.com. 30 Nov 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=29617283.
George, Timothy. "A Peace Plan for the Gender War." Christianity Today. Nov 2005: 49:50-56. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Mt. Sierra Learning Resources Center. 20 Nov 2005 http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&an=18721543.
Herr, Norman D. "Television Statistics." The Sourcebook for Teaching Science. 04 Dec. 2005 http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&health.html.
Millay, Edna St. Vincent, “Upon this age, that never speaks its mind.” Huntsman, What Quarry? Harper Brothers, 1939. U of Michigan. 30 November 2005 http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Poetry/Millay/Upon_this_age.html.
Postman, Neil. "Science and the Story that We Need." First Things 69 (1997). 29 Nov 2005 http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9701/articles/postman.html.
Schmookler, Andrew B. "The Dance Of Polarization, and the Next Step Beyond." 20 Nov. 2005 http://members.tripod.com/schmookler/lib/beyopola.htm.
"Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis renewed." Gateworld. 24 Oct 2005. 14 Dec. 2005 http://www.gateworld.net/news/2005/10/istargatesg-1iandiatlantis.shtml.
U.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005 (124th Edition). Washington, 2004. 03 Dec. 2005 http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/04statab/infocomm.pdf.
