As I have mentioned previously, I write an occasional guest post for the Quote of the Week feature for the official blog of the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College. Hannah Arendt was one of the leading philosophers and Jewish intellectuals of the 20th century, and we will be having a special event and screening about her coming up on Sunday January 19th, so save the date, and we'll fill you in later on. For now, I thought I would share with you the post that was originally published on August 12th on their blog, which you can read right here:
"The state of affairs, which indeed is
equaled nowhere else in the world, can properly be called mass culture;
its promoters are neither the masses nor their entertainers, but are
those who try to entertain the masses with what once was an authentic
object of culture, or to persuade them that Hamlet can be as entertaining as My Fair Lady,
and educational as well. The danger of mass education is precisely that
it may become very entertaining indeed; there are many great authors of
the past who have survived centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is
still an open question whether they will be able to survive an
entertaining version of what they have to say. "
-Hannah Arendt, "Mass Culture and Mass Media"
I recently completed work on a book entitled Amazing Ourselves to Death: Neil Postman's Brave New World Revisited, to be published by Peter Lang. And as the title implies, the book takes up the arguments made by Postman in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,
published nearly three decades ago, and considers them in light of the
contemporary media environment, and the kind of culture that it has
given rise to. I bring this up because the passage from Hannah Arendt's
essay, "Mass Culture and Mass Media," is a quote that I first read in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Interestingly, Postman used it not in his chapter on education, but in
one focusing on religion, one that placed particular emphasis on the
phenomenon of televangelism that exploded into prominence back in the
eighties. To put the quote into the context that Postman had earlier
placed it in, he prefaced the passage with the following:
There is a final argument that whatever
criticisms may be made of televised religion, there remains the
inescapable fact that it attracts viewers by the millions. This would
appear to be the meaning of the statements, quoted earlier by Billy
Graham and Pat Robertson, that there is a need for it among the
multitude. To which the best reply I know was made by Hannah Arendt,
who, in reflecting on the products of mass culture, wrote:
And this is where Arendt's quote appears, after which Postman provides the following commentary:
If we substitute the word "religion" for
Hamlet, and the phrase "great religious traditions" for "great authors
of the past," this question may stand as the decisive critique of
televised religion. There is no doubt, in other words, that religion can
be made entertaining. The question is, by doing so, do we destroy it as
an "authentic object of culture"? And does the popularity of a religion
that employs the full resources of vaudeville drive more traditional
religious conceptions into manic and trivial displays?
In returning to Postman's critique of the age of television, I
decided to use this same quote in my own book, noting how Postman had
used it earlier, but this time placing it in a chapter on education. In
particular, I brought it up following a brief discussion of the latest
fad in higher education, massive open online courses, abbreviated as MOOCs.
A MOOC can contain as many as 100,000 students, which raises the
question of, in what sense is a MOOC a course, and in what sense is the
instructor actually teaching? It is perhaps revealing that the acronym
MOOC is a new variation on other terms associated with new media, such
as MMO, which stands for massive multiplayer online (used to describe certain types of games), and the more specific MMORPG, which stands for massive multiplayer online role-playing game. These terms are in turn derived from older ones such as MUD, multi-user dungeon, and MUSH, multi-user shared hallucination, and also MOO, multi-user dungeon, object oriented.
In other words, the primary connotation is with gaming, not education.
Holding this genealogy aside, it is clear that offering MOOCs is
presently seen as a means to lend prestige to universities, and they may
well be a means to bring education to masses of people who could not
otherwise afford a college course, and also to individuals who are not
interested in pursuing traditional forms of education, but then again,
there is nothing new about the phenomenon of the autodidact, which was
made possible by the spread of literacy and easy availability of books.
There is no question that much can be learned from reading books, or
listening to lectures via iTunes, or watching presentations on YouTube,
but is that what we mean by education? By teaching?
Regarding Arendt's comments on the dangers of mass education, we
might look to the preferences of the most affluent members of our
society? What do people with the means to afford any type of education
available tend to choose for their children, and for themselves? The
answer, of course, is traditional classrooms with very favorable
teacher-student ratios, if not private, one-on-one tutoring (the same is
true for children with special needs, such as autism). There should be
no question as to what constitutes the best form of education, and it
may be that we do not have the resources to provide it, but still we can
ask whether money should be spent on equipping classrooms with the
latest in educational technology, when the same limited resources could
be used to hire more teachers? It is a question of judgment, of the
ability to decide on priorities based on objective assessment, rather
than automatically jumping on the new technology bandwagon time and time
again.
The broader question that concerns both Arendt and Postman is whether
serious discourse, be it educational, religious, or political, can
survive the imperative to make everything as entertaining as possible.
For Arendt, this was a feature of mass media and their content, mass
culture. Postman argues that of the mass media, print media retains a
measure of seriousness, insofar as the written word is a relatively
abstract form of communication, one that provides some degree of
objective distance from its subject matter, and that requires relatively
coherent forms of organization. Television, on the other hand, is an
image-centered medium that places a premium on attracting and keeping
audiences, not to mention the fact that of all the mass media, it is the
most massive. The bias of the television medium is towards showing,
rather than telling, towards displaying exciting visuals, and therefore
towards entertaining content. Of course, it's possible to run counter
to the medium's bias, in which case you get something like C-SPAN, whose
audience is miniscule.
The expansion of television via cable and satellite has given us
better quality entertainment, via the original series appearing on HBO,
Showtime, Starz, and AMC, but the same is not true about the quality of
journalism. Cable news on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX does not provide much in
the way of in-depth reporting or thoughtful analysis. Rather, what we
get is confrontation and conflict, which of course is dramatic, and
above all entertaining, but contributes little to the democratic
political process. Consider that at the time of the founding of the
American republic, the freedom to express opinions via speech and press
was associated with the free marketplace of ideas, that is, with the
understanding that different views can be subject to relatively
objective evaluation, different descriptions can be examined in order to
determine which one best matches with reality, different proposals can
be analyzed in order to determine which one might be the best course of
action. The exchange of opinions was intended to open up discussion,
and eventually lead to some form of resolution. Today, as can be seen
best on cable news networks, when pundits express opinions, it's to
close down dialogue, the priority being to score points, to have the
last word if possible, and at minimum to get across a carefully prepared
message, rather than to listen to what the other person has to say, and
find common ground. And this is reflected in Congress, as our elected
representatives are unwilling to talk to each other, work with each
other, negotiate settlements, and actually be productive as legislators.
Once upon a time, the CBS network news anchor Walter Cronkite was
dubbed "the most trusted man in American." And while his version of the
news conformed to the biases of the television medium, still he tried to
engage in serious journalism as much as he was able to within those
constraints. Today, we would be hard put to identify anyone as our most
trusted source of information, certainly none of the network news
anchors would qualify, but if anyone deserves the title, at least for a
large segment of American society, it would be Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.
And while there is something to be said for the kind of critique that
he and his compatriot Stephen Colbert provide, what they provide us
with, after all, are comedy programs, and at best we can say that they
do not pretend to be providing anything other than entertainment. But
we are left with the question, when so many Americans get their news
from late night comedians, does that mean that journalism has become a
joke?
Cable television has also given us specialized educational
programming via the National Geographic Channel, the History Channel,
and the Discovery Channel, and while this has provided an avenue for the
dissemination of documentaries, audiences are especially drawn to
programs such as Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan, Moonshiners, Ancient Aliens, UFO Files, and The Nostradamus Effect. On the Animal Planet channel, two specials entitled Mermaids: The Body Found and Mermaids: The New Evidence,
broadcast in 2012 and 2013 respectively, gave the cable outlet its
highest ratings in its seventeen-year history. These fake documentaries
were assumed to be real by many viewers, prompting the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to issue a statement stating that
mermaids do not actually exist. And it is almost to easy to mention
that The Learning Channel, aka TLC, has achieved its highest ratings by
turning to reality programs, such as Toddlers & Tiaras, and its notorious spin-off, Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.
Many more examples come to mind, but it is also worth asking whether
Facebook status updates and tweets on Twitter provide any kind of
alternative to serious, reasoned discourse? In the foreword to Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman wrote, "As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited,
the civil libertarians and rationalists 'failed to take into account
man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.'" Does the constant
barrage of stimuli that we receive today via new media, and the
electronic media in general, make it easier or harder for us to think,
and to think about thinking, as Arendt would have us do? Huxley's final
words in Brave New World Revisited are worth recalling:
Meanwhile, there is still some freedom
left in the world. Many young people, it is true, do not seem to value
freedom. But some of us still believe that, without freedom, human
beings cannot become fully human and that freedom is therefore supremely
valuable. Perhaps the forces that now menace freedom are too strong to
be resisted for very long. It is still our duty to do whatever we can to
resist them. (1958, pp. 122-123)
It's not that distractions and entertainment are inherently evil, or
enslaving, but what Huxley, Postman, and Arendt all argue for is the
need for placing limits on our amusements, maintaining a separation
between contexts, based on what content is most appropriate. Or as was
so famously expressed in Ecclesiastes: "To everything there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under heaven." The problem is that now the
time is always 24/7/365, and the boundaries between contexts dissolve
within the electronic media environment. Without a context, there is no
balance, the key ecological value that relates to the survival, and
sustainability of any given culture. For Postman, whose emphasis was on
the prospects for democratic culture, we have become a culture
dangerously out of balance. For Arendt, in "Mass Culture and Mass
Media," the emphasis was somewhat different, but the conclusion quite
similar, as can be seen in her final comments:
An object is cultural to the extent that
it can endure; this durability is the very opposite of its
functionality, which is the quality which makes it disappear again from
the phenomenal world by being used and used up. The "thingness" of an
object appears in its shape and appearance, the proper criterion of
which is beauty. If we wanted to judge an object by its use value alone,
and not also by its appearance… we would first have to pluck out our
eyes. Thus, the functionalization of the world which occurs in both
society and mass society deprives the world of culture as well as
beauty. Culture can be safe only with those who love the world for its
own sake, who know that without the beauty of man-made, worldly things
which we call works of art, without the radiant glory in which potential
imperishability is made manifest to the world and in the world, all
human life would be futile and no greatness could endure.
Our constant stream of technological innovation continues to
contribute to the functionalization of the world, and the dominance of
what Jacques Ellul called "la technique," the drive toward efficiency as
the only value that can be effectively invoked in the kind of society
that Postman termed a technopoly, a society in which culture is
completed dominated by this technological imperative. The futility of
human life that Arendt warns us about is masked by our never-ending
parade of distractions and amusements; the substitution of the trivial
for greatness is disguised by the quality and quantity of our
entertainment. We experience the extremes of the hyperrational and the hyperreal, both of which focus our attention on the ephemeral, rather than the eternal
that Arendt upholds. She argues for the importance of loving the world
for its own sake, which requires us to be truly ecological in our
orientation, balanced in our approach, clear and true in our minds and
our hearts. Is there any question that this is what is desperately
needed today? Is there any question that this is what seems to elude us
time and time again, as all of our innovations carry us further and
further away from the human lifeworld?