From Print to Visual and Beyond

My estrangement from Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" continues, well sort of.  Think of this estrangement as a lovers spat.  In any friendship or marriage you often come to realize that you love the other person dearly, but there are some things you just have to put up with and tolerate - you just don't see eye to eye with them on that.  So it is with Postman - in terms of intellect he is to me as Mt. Everest is to an anthill and in terms of influence he is to me as the Pacific Ocean is to a raindrop. But, as I mentioned here, I find myself more and more skeptical about his views on the superiority of print culture to graphical culture.

I am intrigued with the work of Steven Berlin Johnson who says that "Everything Bad is Good for You."  He makes the audacious and heretical claim that things like TV and video games are actually good for you - claims which are doubly heretical coming from a preacher like me who seems to be endorsing them.  After all, we all know that TV and video games are ruining our society and it is the job of clergy like myself to protect society, and impressionable young minds in particular, from these things.

I am still a bit agnostic on whether or not Johnson is right.  You can get a quick summary of his thesis in this review of his book by Malcolm Gladwell.  His thoughts are intriguing to say the least.  It would be helpful if you can read Gladwell's review before you read what I am writing next because it is an important piece of background.  On his blog Johnson imagines a world where video games preceded books.  Now, a new thing has come out which is replacing the old - in this imaginary world, books have been invented and people are shifting en masse to reading them, and this alarms those who have been a part of a video-game driven culture. 

Again, this is imaginary and Johnson prefaces what I am about to quote by saying he doesn't believe this.  He just wants to show the possible objections that those who have spent centuries in a video-game based world might offer to the intrusion of books.  And I offer this as an alternative to Postman - Postman is concerned about what we will lose in the transition from a print based to a graphic based culture. Johnson imagines things the other way around.  And, at the end, I want to suggest that a transition similar to what Johnson envisions has already happened in our past.   

"Imagine an alternate world identical to ours save one techno-historical change: videogames were invented and popularized before books. In this parallel universe, kids have been playing games for centuries –– and then these page-bound texts come along and suddenly they're all the rage. What would the teachers, and the parents, and the cultural authorities have to say about this frenzy of reading? I suspect it would sound something like this:

Reading books chronically under-stimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying –– which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements –– books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices.

Books are also tragically isolating. While games have for many years engaged the young in complex social relationships with their peers, building and exploring worlds together, books force the child to sequester him or herself in a quiet space, shut off from interaction with other children. These new 'libraries' that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers.

Many children enjoy reading books, of course, and no doubt some of the flights of fancy conveyed by reading have their escapist merits. But for a sizable percentage of the population, books are downright discriminatory. The reading craze of recent years cruelly taunts the 10 million Americans who suffer from dyslexia –– a condition didn't even exist as a condition until printed text came along to stigmatize its sufferers.

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path. You can't control their narratives in any fashion –– you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you. For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing. Why would anyone want to embark on an adventure utterly choreographed by another person? But today's generation embarks on such adventures millions of times a day. This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they're powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it's a submissive one. The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' instead of learning to lead."

Now again, all of you who have turned purple, please relax.  Johnson is giving a fictitious scenario and doesn't hate books - after all, he promulgates his ideas through books.  But I would suggest that something similar to what he describes here happened in the shift from an oral culture to a print based culture.

 

Since I wasn't around 500 years ago and haven't done the scholarly grunt work to back up my thoughts, I'll take my own little flight of fancy to imagine the complaints that many may have had as print culture replaced oral culture. 

In an oral culture learning took place through lecture and dialogue, it was community based.  Think of those who first received the words of God that we have inscripturated in the Bible.  Moses and Joshua and David and the priests and prophets didn't hold bible studies.  To receive the word of God, the common man had to come and "hear" the word of God.  The same goes with the New Testament writings.  The apostles letters were circulated amongst various churches and to receive them one had to gather with other believers to "hear" them.  Thus, "study" of the word of God was a communal project.  It was not possible to go home and have a "personal quiet time" or "private devotional."  One may go home and pray privately, but they could not study the bible privately.  Similarly, only a small number of people could ever receive "book learning."  Most learning had to be done in some kind of communal fashion, and I can imagine that this strengthened community. 

Also, it seems to me that in an oral culture there would have been greater respect for authority.  Since you didn't have your own books to consult you had to defer to the teacher, the one who did, and the one who was learned. 

Further, it seems that the development of memory would have been greater in an oral culture.  Most of the mnemonic and memory systems we use today were developed before print based cultures.  Cultural values, traditions and other things were largely preserved through memory. 

I am sure there are other things that could be pointed to, but those are just a few off the cuff thoughts.  Also, I can see a negative to each of these.  Groupthink may have been more dominant than critical thinking.  Authority could be abused.  And no matter how good the memory systems, it is hard to imagine that memory could be as precise as writing. 

But having noted that, I can imagine that in the switch to a print based culture, those in oral cultures must have been alarmed.  Books made it possible for people to learn in isolation from one another and critique and criticize one another, thus leading to the fraying of community.  Similarly, authority could now be questioned now that the layman had texts available that could enable arguments with the authorities.  Indeed, the printing press threatened the hegemony and authority of the Roman Catholic church, and led them to resist the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. And although I have not seen or read anything to this effect I imagine it could be effectively argued that books must have degraded the intellect, because memory wasn't needed now that the things which used to be stored in the brain could now be stored in a book. 

I am only giving one side of the story here - the printing press brought untold benefits to the world, and each of these complaints had a positive alternative.  The democratization of knowledge made possible by the book made it possible for more people to gain more knowledge and it gave them the tools to rebel against unjust and immoral authority.  It also had to lead to a greater depth and precision of knowledge. 

But I bring up all of these things to suggest we ought to be cautious in our critique of new media and ought to acknowledge that any form of media has it's advantages and drawbacks. 

While I still agree with C. S. Lewis, that we ought to be biased in favor of the old, the tried and true, I think his argument mostly applies to the ideas and content, not to media.  This is not to say that media is morally neutral, I do believe media can and should be critiqued.  But let's not forget that part of the reason for the spread of the protestant reformation is that the protestants were the early adopters with the new technology. 

I realize that there is a technological idolatry we can fall into - I don't mean to say that if we'll just adopt every new technology that comes out everything will be grand.  I also know that many Christians and churches are effectively using technology, particularly the new media. 

But I still see a fair number of Christians who are suspicious of technological innovation and aren't engaged.  We're sure that video games, TV and the internet are ipso facto, morally suspect and are intellectually inferior media compared to print culture.  But I suspect this has much to do with the fact that print culture is our culture and we don't stop to consider that maybe print culture is morally and intellectually inferior in some ways to oral culture (while being in some ways morally and intellectually superior).  Ergo, we fail to consider that while there are indeed ways in which graphic culture is morally and intellectually inferior to print culture, there may be ways that it is morally and intellectually superior to print culture.  And by the way, when I use the terms "morally and intellectually superior/inferior" I am speaking of their abilities, as media, to mediate moral and intellectual values.  Thus we spend more mental energy seeking to guard against their dangers than we do using our imaginations to envision and create ways to use graphics to benefit us. 

The Catholic church objected to the democratization of religious knowledge that was made possible by the technology of the day, the printing press, and lost many adherents as a result.  I don't think we should passively sit back and accept any technological advance as inevitable.  I also think we ought to take technological forecasting with a grain of salt (and a sense of humor - consider these 1910 predictions of what life would be like in 2000 for a chuckle).  But we need to "discern the times."  We're fighting for the preservation of the print culture and are wrapped up in whether or not TV and video games and the internet are healthy.  Meanwhile, scientists and others see the advance of things like robotics and nanotechnology and are having discussions of how this impacts what it means to be human as the line between the born and the made continues to blur (see Kevin Kelly for all kinds of great discussion on these matters).  We've got to engage technology on that level. 

Words will always be central to human life, to communication and community.  For those of us who are Christians, our faith is founded on the Word.  God may have written the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone for Moses, but they were communicated from Moses to the people primarily by sound, not sight.  In the New Testament the "Word" that saves is a word that is "heard" (Romans 10:17).  A hyper-literalist might want to use that to argue for the priority of auditory media over print media.  That's not an argument I want to make, but it is worth noting what Romans 10:17 says.  And it is worth being open, albeit cautious, to how new forms of media may benefit us intellectually, morally and spiritually. 

Comments

[Amanda]

You make some good points to counterbalance his claims, though at this point I'm not sure how much I agree with them (your points). Nevertheless, I definitely think that Postman's real strength lies in getting people to think about the impact of the medium on the message and on the recipients of that message and their culture, but should be taken in moderation. You're also not the only one who doesn't fully agree with Postman's view on everything, though my differences are not the same as your's (I take issue with his views on language). And regarding those 1910 predictions, some of them are actually eerily accurate (cars of war = tanks; correspondence cinema = cinemas and home theater systems; car shoes = skates and motorized scooters; hearing the newspaper = radio, TV, and internet news; etc.).

[Diane R]

Our society at the present is transitioning from a left-brained, analytical "book" one to a right-brained more intuitive, graphic-oriented one. I am wondering if this is why so many younger Christians are enthralled with everything medieval as applied to their churches.

Think of it this way. In our lifetimes, if you brought home your elementary report card and it showed mostly A's and B's in music and art and penmanship, with D's and F's in history and math, your parents would be very upset. But wonder if that was reversed. Would they get as upset? Probably not. But in the future, will it perhaps be the way of the first illutration? One where parents will be more upset with low grades in the arts than in the historical "core" subjects.

Perhaps not, but I hope you get my illustration. For too long, right-brained children have suffered in a mostly left-brained system. But the answer isn't for society to pick one side only as it usually does. For example, note the long wars between phonics-a left-brained approach; and the language approach-a more right brained one. The solution is to be bilateral. So, in education that would mean educators would present material in both analytical, black-and-white print formats as well as in right-brained approaches, more intutive and graphically oriented.
Thankfully, schools are already catching on. Now, finally, I am seeing in my lifetime that the schools are teaching reading in both formats - phonics AND the language approach together. I hope churches will learn from this and be bilateral instead of going to an extreme side, thereby leaving many of their congegants behind.

[David Wayne]

Amanda, thanks for the constructive input. For what it's worth I'm not 100% sure I agree with myself either ;-) I like the person who said that all blogging should be considered a rough draft and indeed I am processing my own thoughts here.

What I observe from many is a knee-jerk suspicion to new technology and new media and Postman-like arguments are often marshaled in defense of this. I'm just not sure he got it all right and would love to explore this with some greater interaction and input from others.

I'd be curious about your disagreements with him on the language.

And, thanks for the comment about the 1910 predictions - I didn't connect the dots the way you did !!

[David Wayne]

Diane - in the words of Artie Johnson - verrrryy interesting . . .

Have you seen this interview of Daniel Pink (A Whole New Mind) with Thomas Friedman (The World is Flat). They hit on exactly what you are talking about - the privileging of math and science over the arts. They say this has to change and one of my favorite examples is there discussion of happenings at Georgia Tech. Over here in the southeastern part of the country Georgia Tech is the most prestigious engineering school and one that you expect to privilege math and science above all else. Pink and Friedman note that at Ga. Tech they are now requiring engineers to take classes in screenwriting and other artsy-fartsy stuff - it will be essential for their future success.

I think you are right - we need to ask what the church can learn from this.

[David Wayne]

Oops - I forgot to put the link to the Pink/Friedman article in the last comment

http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=9736&snItemNumber=950&tnItemNumber=

[John Hayes]

It seems to me that oral learning had a place when the amount of information changed little. Not being all that knowledgeable about religion it is still fair to say that it seems to be getting dated somewhat.

In my opinion even the word of God 2000 years ago needed to reflect the cultural norms of that time to be accepted.

2000 years later there are some new issues that could properly be addressed and updated. This go forth and multiply has to have some limitations that were not seen then.

It also seems to me that it is reasonable to think that a woman's equality to man has changed from when it was thought it was proper for her to be chattel .

I would also like to see a better statement of business ethics . It wasn't as important 2000 years ago but the ability to disrupt the environment and cheat thousands of people at a time seems wrong by any measure and needs to be a bigger issue and addressed now.

I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water because I do believe that much of the bible is timeless and will always be true.Still I have to think that there could be God inspired additions to the big 10.

[Amanda]

"I'd be curious about your disagreements with him on the language."

It's been a while since I've read the book and I don't have a copy in front of me, but from what I remember, Postman made a correlation between a degeneration in grammar and the decrease in the written medium (which while a relatively common idea, still one that I disagree with). Give me a day or two to check out the book and I can be a bit more specific with my disagreements.

[Alan Noble]

The unfortunate side effect of challenging a dominate idea (whether it be theological, sociological, or philosophical) is that the challenger usually overstates their case. I think you've given us some good examples of that with Postman, who is for the most part spot on in his analysis.

[DLE]

We need storytelling in all forms--oral, written, and visual/artistic.

We need facts in all forms--oral, written, and visual/artistic.

We need those forms.

The question is whether all forms are intrinsically correct for all situations and whether one form may be superior to another for communicating certain types of information.

Another question asks what the "gotcha" is for each form and whether it's possible to abuse a form.

But all those questions avoid the kinds of issues Postman ultimately addresses. The title alone of his most famous tome tells us all we need to ask: are we, in fact, amusing ourselves to death?

It's hard to argue against that proposition. Ours is an entertainment-saturated culture where the most damning characteristics assignable to any human interaction/event/knowledge/action/etc. is that it's--heaven help us!--boring.

Having cranked up the levels of excitement to a fever pitch, the chances that most things people do today are classifiable as "boring" are astronomically high. Hence the overstimulation required to get the thrill-seeker's high.

This extends to every part of life. A trip to the grocery store alone will prove the point. We can't just buy frosted flakes. Our frosted flakes have to be organic maple/brown sugar with almonds and a hint of Tahitian free-trade vanilla bean. In the coffeeshop, our coffee can't be just a cuppa joe, but a hazelnut cappucino mocha truffle latte.

Yes, consumerism ties in powerfully with entertainment and the crazed flight from boredom.

Yes, it doesn't take a genius to see how damaging this has been to the Church, especially in the West.

But like the person on a low-sodium diet who rediscovers the the subtle flavors in a basic food devoid of salt, we need to rediscover a simpler life. We must crank down the bar for what constitutes "boring" and pull back from the hyper nature of everything we think, do, and consume. The TV must go off. The cinema must become a twice-yearly event rather than something we do every weekend. We need to unplug ourselves from our portable music players so we can interact with other humans again, to strike up a conversation with a stranger, to perhaps even lead someone to Christ through a casual conversation.

We must stop consuming so much so that we can work reasonable jobs that allow us to have lives after the workday is over. This will, in turn, allow us to develop communities of support, which will help us restore what it truly means to be the Church, the network of life that God instituted to bring about His Kingdom. We might even be able to meet in each other's homes daily for things like prayer, fellowship, shared meals, and worship. It may even allow us to finally know God in a way that our current lifestyles fight against. We may even find eternal life in doing so.

We can only hope and pray that one day we will wake up from the sociological nightmare we've created for ourselves.

[Christian]

Thankyou for your blog! :) God Bless You

[David Wayne]

Alan Noble - just curious - do you think I'm the one who overstated my case, or Postman? Or maybe both of us?

Dan, I think I agree with your points, I'm just not convinced Postman connects all the dots properly. He seems to suggest that graphic/visual = amusement, print = prevention of death by amusement. Having said that, I think I am mostly in agreement with you but it seems to me that you are suggesting that we withdraw from media in order to develop community. Postman on the other hand wasn't arguing media vs. no media, he was arguing media vs. media.