But Neil Postman, in "Amusing Ourselves to Death," has created not a picture, but an exposition of the state of America today. For example, we hail the muckracker novels, primarily "The Jungle," as a brilliant picture of the late 19th century in America likewise, any Jonathan Edwards sermon captures the essence of Puritan New England. Occasionally one stumbles across a work which perfectly summarizes an era. "No matter what is depicted or from what point of view, the overarching presumption is that it is there for our amusement and pleasur The vast majority of communication on the television has as its one underlying purpose entertainment. Hence, there arose "context-free information," mouth-sized bytes of information with no true relevance to one's life.Along came television, which makes the "three-pronged attack" upon America's mind even fiercer. A transition began, however, with the telegraph, which "made a three-pronged attack on typography's definition of discourse, introducing on a large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence" (65). Frequently, they even lasted for more than one day! Postman shows that "a language-centered discourse such as was characteristic of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America tends to be both content-laden and serious, all the more so when it takes its form from print" (50). For instance, people in the 1860s were captivated for 4 or 5 hours at a time by the meticulously reasoned debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. As a result, people would gather in droves to hear lectures and debates. All people recognized the value of knowledge. Reading and writing were valued greatly for many reasons, not the least of which was that people could read the Bible. The reader must persevere during the first two chapters because his reasoning, though tight, can tend to be somewhat thick.Beginning with chapter three, Postman gives a historical survey of America's way of thinking, as dictated by its forms of communication. He demonstrates that the Jewish concept of God, with their application of the second commandment, taught them a very high form of abstract thinking. For instance, "`Seeing is believing' has always a preeminent status as an epistemological axiom, but `saying is believing,' `reading is believing,' `counting is believing,' `deducing is believing,' and `feeling is believing' are other that have risen or fallen in importance as cultures have undergone media change" (24). Though it was published in 1985, it has equal, if not more, relevance to us today.To begin, Postman argues that every medium of communication carries with it an epistemology, a theory of knowledge. By doing so, he contends that a culture based on words is superior to one based on pictures. Based on this premise, Postman demonstrates the dumbing influences that the television has had upon modern American minds. Those forms themselves either taint or enhance the message. The forms of media are not merely neutral channels through which facts and ideas flow. In other words, the way something is communicated controls what is actually being communicated. In his eye-opening work, he demonstrates "how forms of public discourse regulate and even dictate what kind of content can issue from such forms" (6). Neil Postman's thesis in Amusing Ourselves to Death is simple. So I am no newcomer to this field of media criticism. And while I was not watching television, I read through much of "Teaching As A Subversive Activity" by Neil Postman and Charlie Weingartner. That dare to an adolescent boy was too good to pass up. When I was about age 14, and in junior high school, I took a media class where the teacher dared us to not watch television for the remainder of the trimester. I like his attention to detail, without smothering the reading with esoteric, I'm-smarter-than-you nonsense. His assertions are critical and probative, but always with a sense of humanity, looking out for us. I like the many lessons and tutorials in each and every chapter. He is writing to me, but including all other listeners.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |