Open Thread: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapters 1-3
So, just as a reminder, “open thread” means the discussion will happen back-and-forth in the comments section. This is just a brief post to get things going, but the real point is simply making a place for the exchange.
In these chapters, Postman made several statements about mediums.
Mediums * are the message * provide the metaphor * provide the categories for thought * provide the structure of the message * create habits of mind * control the type of content allowed * provide orientations toward content * are organizing factors * give definitions
This could spin off easily into all sorts of conversations — why novels and the movies based on them are never the same, what sorts of categories the different media outlets provide, what sort of habits are created by our habitual mediums.
I was reminded of Tolkein’s feelings about images, even as illustrations in his books. He said they provided too much specificity; there was no room for the Platonic idea of “bread” or “mountain” and all the resonances (as Postman said) that the word conjures up once you’ve captured it concretely in an image.
I thought Postman’s point about the second commandment was fascinating. Interesting that he broadly applies it to meaning absolutely all images, rather than simply images of God. What did you think about his statement that an abstract God requires the capacity for abstract thought (which images preclude)? Is God abstract? Jesus is Word, but Incarnate Word, not an abstract Ideal Word.
Primarily, Postman contrasts the mediums of print and television. But what about computers and the Internet? Talk of television is interesting, but less applicable to me since I have never consumed much of it (I say with deep gratitude to my parents); it is a habit I never acquired and one my husband and I chose deliberately not to acquire when we established our first home. Why start when we were already accustomed to living without it? Yet, we do consume vast amounts of content from the Internet. So, how is it different from print and television and how is it the same? It’s rather a mix of the two, but with the added dimension of being immediate and always available. It certainly creates appetites and trains thinking habits, but is it it’s own monster or is it analogous to television? I do find I can’t go straight from computer time to reading a book; my eyes can’t follow the linear line and my brain won’t settle down and focus.
So, if we have had the Age of Print followed by the Age of Television, has the Age of Google, Facebook, and Twitter now come? And how does that impact the conversation?
Once more, if you have read or are reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, feel free to comment and join the discussion. You can jump off any of my comments above, but also feel free to share what stood out to you or what connections you made while reading.
Ooh ooh ooh! This is one of those books that changed our life very early in our marriage, and we are forever grateful to it. We learned to question technology in general using that list you typed up above.
Sorry I’m coming to the party so late. School planning, as you know.
Yes! The age of Google, Twitter, etc. is definitely here. There are some good aspects and bad aspects about that, I suppose. I think that Google has changed the definition of knowledge and causes folks to think they have understanding when they do not. It is also difficult to discern truth out there in the void.
What has occupied our discussions here on the homestead lately has been the relationship between technology and the church. Christians in general, especially if they are not liturgical in any way, tend to swallow technology whole. So they add sound systems, computerize the sermons using PowerPoint, telecast the sermon to other buildings, and add Facebook and Twitter funcions to this new thing called the church website. Over time, I think this has changed the definition of church and, if we use the list above, provided, for instance, structures for how we even think about church. Churches tend to ask “can we do this” or “can we afford to do this” rather than “what is the nature of the church and, once we know it, will this contribute to detract from what God has called us to be.”
You mentioned the Internet. I am not willing to completely throw the Internet baby out with the bath water, but I am rethinking my relationship with it. Mainly, I do not want my children to live their lives in front of a screen. So, even though I find so much homeschooling help online, I have to be the one to set an example.
Yes, technology definitely affects the church. Lately I’ve heard several conversations about Facebook especially. People used to announce babies births via the prayer chain (over an old fashioned machine called the telephone), but now it’s on facebook, and maybe eventually an email for all of those technologically resistant (or perhaps time-conscious) folk who don’t have a facebook account.
If you are setting up an event and inviting friends to it, you do it on facebook – it’s convenient, easy, all in one place, really it’s a great tool for planning parties or sports get togethers. The downside? If someone’s name isn’t on your friends list, they don’t get an invite. Maybe you try to remember to call or email them, but second and third steps frequently get dropped by busy people and the result is, that if you’re not on facebook, you don’t get invited to things.
Our pastor recently warned in a sermon that online communities can make you feel like you’re actually practicing fellowship as commanded, when in reality you’re sitting in your own home, by yourself, staring at a computer screen.
Technology giveth and taketh away – it allows you to easily contact 40 people inside of 5 minutes to ask them to help with a moving party. More than maybe you would call. BUT… It allows them to hit “decline” with little or not guilt or pain, unlike if you asked them in person, or over the phone.
Another thought: online communities make it really easy to interact with a whole bunch of people on a very shallow level: “wall posts,” “twitters.” It’s constant. It’s up to date. It’s in high volume. Little of it has to do with you, but much of it seems to demand a response. In keeping with the thought process of the book we’re reading, how does that train our minds?
I thought Postman’s application of the 2nd Commandment was way, way off. Under that view, God would have ordered the Israelites to violate it with the construction of the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon’s Temple. I also don’t think Moses had a lesser idea of God because God revealed his back and voice, two absolutes, to him.
The Age of Internet is a change from the Age of Television in that it puts many more choices in the consumers hand. When it comes to television, the broadcasters choose what they air and when. The Internet allows you to decide what to read and when. The downside is that it’s easy to begin living in an echo chamber, only choosing to consume viewpoints and articles you know you already agree with. And the power to choose when to read what you want also gives you the ability to choose to read whatever I want all the time. Freedom of time soon can mean the utter consumption of it.
As for online communities, I think the dangers of them are nothing new and wildly exaggerated. Yes I could sit around poking people on facebook all day or taking inane quizzes. Is that inherently worse than someone who is glued to the tube? Or someone addicted to and constantly reading trashy spy or romance novels?
I think I also disagree with the idea that once you commit something to an image, it is set in stone and unchangeable. Who hasn’t gotten into an argument about the meaning and message of a movie? If images really worked so well to set those things in stone, there would never be need for those debates.
I don’t think Tolkein’s objection was that an image makes it unchangeable; his objection was that the image is more specific and less broadly evocative. Here, the quote is in once of Matt’s posts.
Oh, I definitely think his understanding of the second commandment is off base. After all, he says it forbids images of any kind, which, as you pointed out, is completely incorrect. But what he is catching is the spirit that Christianity (New Covenant even moreso than Old) is more word-oriented than image-oriented. Not that images are wrong or bad or can’t be used, but that Christianity does require a predisposition toward reading and words, or at least Word. Historically, wherever Protestantism was strong, literacy was also. There’s a reason for that. And is it completely unrelated that both Christianity and literacy are declining? Without Christianity, and with television, why is reading important? And without strong literacy, how can Christianity stay strong?
Yes, you can ignore people and life equally through books, television, telephones, and internet. But the internet does at least give you back the feeling of being connected and productive or interesting. The possibility of a virtual life is appealing…we can project whatever we want and not have to face people or reality or ourselves. Yet, you can’t totally discount online friendships, either. I have benefited just as much or more from several ladies online as I have from real ladies face-to-face. So, the problem is again just balance and awareness, as it is in all areas we are tempted to misuse (which is all of them!).
I, for one, have probably talked to my husband (before and after marriage) via online channels (chat & email) three or ten times as much as I’ve talked to him on the phone — ever. And I don’t think there’s anything inferior in that communication. Personally, since I write better than I speak, I think it’s been a great boon for us. :)
And what about television and internet opening up the whole world to our consumption? Is international news and events, constant and 24-hours (and not just at crises that directly involve our country) a good thing? Is it really my business, or is it just another news piece that makes me feel good about myself when I consume it? It’s totally outside my sphere of sovereignty, and most of it should be outside the sphere of our country’s sovereignty. So why is it my business, unless I do have business or ministry that is related?
In fact, most “news” items really seem to be gossip. Celebrity news, kidnapping news, strange deaths of children news, bizarre murder cases, international news….none of it is my business and none of it affects me (sure, some of the international events do indirectly, but a lot of the international news items are just more of the same — bizarre happenings that make us want to consume the news, because it serves our appetites to know bad things about people not us.
I’m not comfortable by ascribing such worth to the idea of reading and writing on paper simply because that’s how the New Testament was mainly written. The New Testament is of incalculatable worth, but because of what it is, the Word of God. That a large part was written and sent on letters does not make it more meaningful. And in the time that it was written, how could the Epistles have been spread via images anyway? Television and video recording simply didn’t exist. It’s like arguing that guns are a worse weapon for a Christian to use than a sword. Ehud used a sword, not a gun after all.
Moreover, God would use images to communicate important information. He appeared before Paul and sent visions to John. He came down himself in bodily, visible form for his ministry and ultimate work of mankind’s salvation. Those men recounted what they saw, the images they saw, the best they could and with what they had, the written word. The Gospels are eyewitness accounts, directly linked to images and what the disciples actually saw when they followed Christ on earth. I don’t think that attaching a mystical value to the alphabet serves us any purpose.
What do you mean by illiteracy? IIRC, by the standard (CIA) definition, 99% of American citizens can read and write. That is larger by huge margins than any point during Renaissance or even the Reformation. While translating the Bible into the vernacular was a huge accomplishment and step forward, it was still a problem because the vast majority of the citizenry couldn’t read. However, they were definitely serviced better by sermons in their own language, but that’s a function of the spoken word, not the written word.
Yes, you can feel connected to people via the internet. This may be because unlike books and television, there is a large chance you actually are. I mean, even mother meets up with her internet friends in real life now ;). One of my coworkers is from California. I got him an interview and a job because I knew him from online. These things aren’t the case 100% of the time of course, but not even socializing in real life is. People always put on masks to hide things and parts of themselves they don’t want other people to see. As long as we are fallen humans with things to hide, this will always be the case. Online or offline. As you say, the problem is definitely balance and knowing if you have a problem, but that’s not really different from anything else.
Is it our business when crisis occurs outside our country? When a tsunami hits the Philippines, the world knows instantly. Individuals are able to donate to charities to help the families who have been hurt by a disaster like that. Why? Because they know about it. Tech-savvy protesters in Iran use Twitter to pass on information and pictures of protests and government crackdowns, and people in the west were able to put up and share proxy servers to allow them to keep doing so, to make the world see what was happening instead of just letting their efforts get snuffed out. A famous football player gets 30 days in prison for killing a couple people while driving drunk, and a regular citizen gets sentenced to pay millions of dollars in damages for uploading/downloading 30 mp3s, we become aware of inequalities in our system that need to change.
Is it all necessary? No. I don’t really care who Jennifer Aniston is dating, how many kids Brad Pitt has or anything like that. And it makes me grind my teeth that it filters through while I try to find what I deem important. But I’d rather have to sort through that than not have news available at all. Even news from other countries.
Hmm. Too much typing, not enough reading. Better get back to that. Thanks for this opportunity though.
Good points.
I do think there is more value to written word because that was the medium God primarily uses to reveal Himself. Christ came in the fullness of time, and that apparently was before television. God chose the time when letter writing was possible but television coverage was not — I think that is significant. But that’s not the only reason. Two significant factors in the discussion are that 1) Even the OT was written down, though the ancient cultures were primarily oral. God spoke, but he commanded it be written as well. God spoke creation into existence. 2) Christ is the Word. The Word that created and upholds the world. The Word made flesh. But, the Word. So, yes, I would say that words, therefore, are more important than images — all of which God ordained in the OT were destroyed as they are now fulfilled in the Word. Obviously, words are both spoken and written, and both (preaching, hearing, and reading for oneself) are important to the Christian life. Television or computer skills are irrelevant to Christianity. You can have them; you don’t need them. If you can’t read, or if you aren’t comfortable reading, or if you don’t read (which is probably more the American problem than technical illiteracy), you can’t spend time with God’s — Word.
And, here, Dad pipes in with “But I have the Bible on MP3!” Yes, I do to and use it for reading aloud to my children who can’t read yet. The blessings of technology. Now we can return to an ancient oral culture. :)
Yes, too much typing, but I have dishes to wash and snotty noses to wipe and swimming stuff to gather so we can meet up at the park with flesh and blood, real life people. :)
I’m cheating, because I haven’t read the book. But that’s okay, because it’s the Internet, and all you need to justify an opinion on the Internet is a computer and two fingers. One, if you’re talented.
> I was reminded of Tolkein’s feelings about images[...] > > I don’t think Tolkein’s objection was that an image makes it unchangeable[...]
Speaking of illiteracy, my dear, I vehemently object to your consistent misspelling of Tolkien’s name. It tends to erode whatever credibility you may have had in using his arguments.
> Is it our business when crisis occurs outside our country? When a tsunami hits the Philippines, the world knows instantly. Individuals are able to donate to charities to help the families who have been hurt by a disaster like that.
An admirable end, but one which frequently causes people to care more about the happenings on the other side of the world than on the other side of their town. In much the same way, people by and large think it far more important to vote for a president than for a state legislator or county commissioner, even though the latter (if we read and followed our own laws–a pipe dream, I know) has a good deal more influence over your everyday life. In this way, global media distracts us, refocusing our attention on the high-profile national/global events, and thereby weakens the local community.
A couple thoughts that intersect with this conversation…The first one isn’t mine. It is from a far more reliable source, New College Franklin. NCF sent out an email at least a year ago concerning their appreciation for Comenius’ philosophy of pansophism that I have kept and referred to again and again. Comenius organized his philosophy into seven principles based on Deut. 6. Anyhow, the section where they briefly explain dependence on Word (especially written) might be helpful:
In general, images are too concrete to build an accurate theological understanding. This isn’t to say that images are wrong, but when they become the focus of the culture, too many important aspects of life are not understood.
As far as literacy is concerned, I am not sure how it is possible to say that it is at 99%. Our local public high school graduates students with an average of 17% functional literacy, meaning that only 17% of the students can actual read AND comprehend what they are reading. When we were working with some young married couples earlier in our marriage, it became very obvious that a number of the couples had very low literacy/comprehension levels, and as a result they struggled in their faith, for daily Bible reading was impossible, and it was even difficult to keep up in church. They could not be “Bereans” at heart, because they had an inherent inability to check what they heard and compared it with Scripture.
All of this is to say that I agree that the decline of literacy effects the faith. Of course, it is hard to say which comes first, right? It is a sort of chicken-or-egg situation. The decline might just have well been a result of our lack of interest in literacy and in training our children to be able to read their Bibles.
I was thinking about your mentioning an “oral culture” with the MP3s…Oral cultures are still word-based, they just are not written-word based. Image-based cultures are very limited in the ability to communicate abstract ideas; oral-based cultures are not. So it seems like having the Bible on MP3 (a dyslexic friend of mine had this once) is different from immersing our minds in images.
Why aren’t all of the other comments showing up on your blog site for me? I only see mine and Mysties – but on my bloglines feed I see all the rest!
Haha, I hope we don’t exhaust everything on this subject before we’ve even finished the book.
How far do you want to take that though? The Apostle Paul mainly used boats and walking to move from church to church. That was the means available at the time, but I don’t see traveling by boat to deliver the Word any more sanctified than using a car. Moreover, when Christ himself came he did not write pamphlets and author books to distribute and leave in telephone boxes. He gathered multitudes before them, spoke aloud in visible form to them, and performed visual miracles. Yes, the Gospels are the inspired Word of God that came after his ministry, but are they more significant than the way that Christ himself actually preached, spread his message, and gained his disciples? And as you yourself say, God spoke Creation into existence. He didn’t scribe a symbol, write a book, or diagram a sentence, he spoke aloud and it came to be. Hmm, maybe I could write a book about how radio is the ultimate communicative tool ;). Maybe we actually should return to an ancient oral culture, makes about as much sense as relying on the printing press ;).
As for the 99% literacy rate, I got that from the CIA world factbook. It states: “There are no universal definitions and standards of literacy. Unless otherwise specified, all rates are based on the most common definition – the ability to read and write at a specified age.” Maybe that means only enough to read from a McDonalds menu, but even being able to read “Quarter Pounder with Cheese” is higher than what most of humanity has been able to read in their vernacular throughout history.
I don’t think that Postman is at all trying to say that images are bad or can’t convey meaning. It seems like he’s focusing on how an image-based-communication-informed culture is trained to analyze and evaluate the information they receive, and that, since television isn’t a good medium for conveying logical thought, that logical thought is going out of style. I was very impressed and humbled by the Lincoln-Douglas debates he quoted. I know my eyes would glaze over almost immediately at a speech like that. And I’d think – “I’d rather be watching a movie, it’s much more fun.”
On the other hand…. When entertainment was where you found it – at a local fair, in a book you had to buy or borrow, at a local horse-race or cockfight or country dance – I imagine that a 3 hour long debate had a lot more appeal – after all, it was something to do. I can think of tons of things I can do from inside my own home or yard (movies, tv shows, books, internet, phone) that I would much prefer to standing for 3 hours and listening to politicians pontificate. It’s like Moby Dick – in the days before television, the descriptions of storms and whales and adventure on the high-seas was probably as thrilling as it got for an adolescent boy. But I’ve seen A Perfect Storm, and after that READING a description of a storm just doesn’t seem very exciting.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, except to say that I agree that television is largely best used for entertainment, and that when people get too used to being entertained all of the time, it can’t be good for the culture.