Name and Place for Tuesday, October 28 (’14)
Neil Postman wrote a book well ahead of its time way back in 1985. In Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (2005 edition), Postman argues that Huxely, not Orwell, was right about the future of the American Republic. Specifically, “In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us while Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right” (Foreword). We highly recommend this book as brilliant, concise (163 pages), and (perhaps ironically) filled with quite Tweetable turns of phrases.
This is a section from chapter 1 where Postman is developing the book’s theme that the medium is the metaphor for communication:
In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. “Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth.” I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became a blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture. People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centered to image-centered might profit by reflecting on this Mosaic injunction. But even if I am wrong in these conjectures, it is, I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccupations” (9).