“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“I should go so far as to say that embedded in the surrealistic frame of a television news show is a theory of anticommunication, featuring a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction. In aesthetics, I believe the name given to this theory is Dadaism; in philosophy, nihilism; in psychiatry, schizophrenia. In the parlance of the theater, it is known as vaudeville.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“It is quite probable that the most original problem solving activity students engage in school is related to the invention of systems for beating the system.”
Source: TEACHING AS A SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY
“We may take as our guide, here, John Dewey's observation that the content of a lesson is the least important thing about learning. As he wrote in Experience and Education, "Perhaps the greatest of all pedagogical fallacies is the notion that a person learns only what he is studying at the time. Collateral learning in the way of formation of enduring attitudes may be and often is more important than the spelling lesson, or the lesson in geography or history. For these attitudes are fundamentally what count in the future." In other words, the most important thing one learns is always something about *how* one learns. As Dewey wrote in another place, "We learn what we do.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“The question is not, Does or doesn't public schooling create a public? The question is, What kind of public does it create? A conglomerate of self-indulgent consumers? Angry, soulless, directionless masses? Indifferent, confused citizens? Or a public imbued with confidence, a sense of purpose, a respect for learning, and tolerance? The answer to this question has nothing whatever to do with computers, with testing, with teacher accountability, with class size, and with the other details of managing schools. The right answer depends on two things and two things alone: the existence of shared narratives and the capacity of such narratives to provide an inspired reason for schooling.”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Exposition is a mode of thought, a method of learning, and a means of expression. Almost all of the characteristics we associate with mature discourse were amplified by typography, which has the strongest possible bias toward exposition: a sophisticated ability to think conceptually, deductively and sequentially; a high valuation of reason and order; an abhorrence of contradiction; a large capacity for detachment and objectivity; and a tolerance for delayed response.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“The television commercial has mounted the most serious assault on capitalist ideology since the publication of Das Kapital. To understand why, we must remind ourselves that capitalism, like science and liberal democracy, was an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. Its principal theorists, even its most prosperous practitioners, believed capitalism to be based on the idea that both buyer and seller are sufficiently mature, well informed and reasonable to engage in transactions of mutual self-interest. If greed was taken to be the fuel of the capitalist engine, the surely rationality was the driver. The theory states, in part, that competition in the marketplace requires that the buyer not only knows what is good for him but also what is good. If the seller produces nothing of value, as determined by a rational marketplace, then he loses out. It is the assumption of rationality among buyers that spurs competitors to become winners, and winners to keep on winning. Where it is assumed that a buyer is unable to make rational decisions, laws are passed to invalidate transactions, as, for example, those which prohibit children from making contracts...Of course, the practice of capitalism has its contradictions...But television commercials make hash of it...By substituting images for claims, the pictorial commercial made emotional appeal, not tests of truth, the basis of consumer decisions. The distance between rationality and advertising is now so wide that it is difficult to remember that there once existed a connection between them. Today, on television commercials, propositions are as scarce as unattractive people. The truth or falsity of an advertiser's claim is simply not an issue. A McDonald's commercial, for example, is not a series of testable, logically ordered assertions. It is a drama--a mythology, if you will--of handsome people selling, buying and eating hamburgers, and being driven to near ecstasy by their good fortune. No claim are made, except those the viewer projects onto or infers from the drama. One can like or dislike a television commercial, of course. But one cannot refute it.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“The opposite of a correct statement is an incorrect statement. The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth (Niels Bohr)." By this, he means that we require a larger reading of the human past, of our relations with each other, the universe and God, a retelling of our older tales to encompass many truths and to let us grow with change.”
Source: Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future
“And, in the end, what will the students have learned? They will, to be sure, have learned something about whales, perhaps about navigation and map reading, most of which they could have learned just as well by other means. Mainly, they will have learned that learning is a form of entertainment or, more precisely, that anything worth learning can take the form of an entertainment, and ought to.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“A message denotes a specific, concrete statement about the world. But the forms of our media, including the symbols through which they permit conversation, do not make such statements. They are rather like metaphors, working by unobtrusive but powerful implication to enforce their special definitions of reality. Whether we are experiencing the world through the lens of speech or the printed word or the television camera, our media-metaphors classify the world for us, sequencing it, frame it, enlarge it, reduce it, color it, argue a case for what the world is like.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“The form in which ideas are expressed affects what those ideas will be.”
“...we must not overlook the fact that a reading people develop the capacity to conceptualize at a higher level of abstraction than do the illiterate.”
Source: The Disappearance of Childhood
“In other words, so far as many reputable studies are concerned, television viewing does not significantly increase learning, is inferior to and less likely than print to cultivate higher-order, inferential thinking.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“What we are confronted with now is the problem posed by the economic and symbolic structure of television. Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it. Our Ministry of Culture is Huxleyan, not Orwellian. It does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to entertain ourselves.”
“Watch a man--say, a politician--being interviewed on television, an you are observing a demonstration of what both he and his interrogators learned in school: all questions have answers, and it is a good thing to give an answer even if there is none to give, even if you don't understand the question, even if the question contains erroneous assumptions, even if you are ignorant of the facts required to answer. Have you ever heard a man being interviewed say, "I don't have the faintest idea," or "I don't know enough even to guess," or "I have been asked that question before, but all my answers to it seem to be wrong?" One does not "blame" men, especially if they are politicians, for providing instant answers to all questions. The public requires that they do, since the public has learned that instant answer giving is the most important sign of an educated man.”
“An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan. Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us. We are not likely, for example, to be indifferent to the voices of the Sakharovs and the Timmermans and the Walesas. We take arms against such a sea of troubles, buttressed by the spirit of Milton, Bacon, Voltaire, Goethe and Jefferson. But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter?
I fear that our philosophers have given us no guidance in this matter.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Of course, in television's presentation of the "news of the day," we may see the Now...this" mode of discourse in it's boldest and most embarrassing form. For there, we are presented not only with fragmented news but news without context, without consequences, without value, and therefore without essential seriousness; that is to say, news as pure entertainment.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“As a television show, and a good one, "Sesame Street" does not encourage children to love school or anything about school. It encourages them to love television.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Stern reported that 51 percent of viewers could not recall a single item of news a few minutes after viewing a news program on television. Wilson found that the average television viewer could retain only 20 percent of the information contained in a fictional televised news story. Katz et al. found that 21 percent of television viewers could not recall any news items within one hour of broadcast.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“The point is that television does not reveal who the best man is. In fact, television makes impossible the determination of who is better than whom, if we mean by 'better' such things as more capable in negotiation, more imaginative in executive skill, more knowledgeable about international affairs, more understanding of the interrelations of economic systems, and so on. The reason has, almost entirely, to do with 'image.' But not because politicians are preoccupied with presenting themselves in the best possible light. After all, who isn't? It is a rare and deeply disturbed person who does not wish to project a favorable image. But television gives image a bad name. For on television the politician does not so much offer the audience an image of himself, as offer himself as an image of the audience. And therein lies one of the most powerful influences of the television commercial on political discourse.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“My point is that we are by now so thoroughly adjusted to the "Now . . . this" world of news—a world of fragments, where events stand alone, stripped of any connection to the past, or to the future, or to other events—that all assumptions of coherence have vanished. And so, perforce, has contradiction. In the context of no context, so to speak, it simply disappears. And in its absence, what possible interest could there be in a list of what the President says now and what he said then? It is merely a rehash of old news, and there is nothing interesting or entertaining in that.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Todo nuestro pasado nos ha preparado para reconocer y resistir una prisión cuando las rejas empiezan a cerrarse detrás de nosotros. Nos alzamos en armas contra estos problemas. Pero ¿qué si no se sienten gritos de angustia? ¿Quién está preparado para luchar contra un mar de diversiones? ¿A quién y cuándo nos quejamos, y en qué tono de voz, cuando un discurso serio se disuelve en risas estúpidas?”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Free human dialogue, wandering wherever the agility of the mind allows, lies at the heart of education. If teachers do not have the time, the incentive, or the wit to produce that; if students are too demoralized, bored, or distracted to muster the attention their teachers need of them, then THAT is the educational problem which has to be solved. . . That problem . . . is metaphysical in nature, not technical”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“Educators may bring upon themselves unnecessary travail by taking a tactless and unjustifiable position about the relation between scientific and religious narratives. We see this, of course, in the conflict concerning creation science. Some educators representing, as they think, the conscience of science act much like those legislators who in 1925 prohibited by law the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. In that case, anti-evolutionists were fearful that a scientific idea would undermine religious belief. Today, pro-evolutionists are fearful that a religious idea will undermine scientific belief. The former had insufficient confidence in religion; the latter insufficient confidence in science. The point is that profound but contradictory ideas may exist side by side, if they are constructed from different materials and methods and have different purposes. Each tells us something important about where we stand in the universe, and it is foolish to insist that they must despise each other.”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“La ignorancia es siempre corregible pero, ¿qué pasaría con nosotros si llegáramos a aceptar que la ignorancia es conocimiento?”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Finalmente, Huxley intentaba decirnos que lo que afligía a la gente en “Un mundo feliz” no era que estaban riendo en lugar de pensar, sino que no sabían de qué se reían y por qué habían dejado de pensar.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Attend any conference on telecommunications or computer technology, and you will be attending a celebration of innovative machinery that generates, stores, and distributes more information, more conveniently, at greater speed than ever before, To the question “What problem does the information solve?” the answer is usually “How to generate, store and distribute more information, more conveniently, at greater speeds than ever before.” This is the elevation of information to a metaphysical status: information as both the means and end of human creativity. In Technopoly, we are driven to fill our lives with the quest to “access” information. For what purpose or with what limitations, it is not for us to ask; and we are not accustomed to asking, since the problem is unprecedented. The world has never before been confronted with information glut and has hardly had time to reflect on its consequences (61).”
Source: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
“Public education does not serve a public. It creates a public. And in creating the right kind of public, the schools contribute toward strengthening the spiritual basis of the American Creed. That is how Jefferson understood it, how Horace Mann understood it, how John Dewey understood it, and in fact, there is no other way to understand it. The question is not, Does or doesn't public schooling create a public? The question is, What kind of public does it create? A conglomerate of self-indulgent consumers? Angry, soulless, directionless masses? Indifferent, confused citizens? Or a public imbued with confidence, a sense of purpose, a respect for learning, and tolerance? The answer to this question has nothing whatever to do with computers, with testing, with teacher accountability, with class size, and with the other details of managing schools. The right answer depends on two things, and two things alone: the existence of shared narratives and the capacity of such narratives to provide an inspired reason for schooling.”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“Truth does not, and never has, come unadorned. It must appear in its proper clothing or it is not acknowledged, which is a way of saying that the "truth" is a kind of cultural prejudice. Each culture conceives of it as being most authentically expressed in certain symbolic forms that another culture may regard as trivial or irrelevant.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Televizyon okuma kültürünü yok etmiştir. Halbuki zihinsel gelişim için okuma eyleminin yerini hiçbir eylem tutamaz. Seyirci olmak için hiçbir beceri gerekmez. "Televizyon okuma-yazma kültürünü genişletmez ve pekiştirmez. Tersine, okuma-yazma kültürüne saldırır. Televizyon, herhangi bir şeyin devamıysa eğer, on beşinci yüzyıldaki matbaanın değil, 19. Yüzyılın ortasında telgraf ile fotoğrafın başlattığı geleneğin devamıdır.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Prior to the age of telegraphy, the information-action ratio was sufficiently close so that most people had a sense of being able to control some of the contingencies in their lives. What people knew about had action-value. In the information world created by telegraphy, this sense of potency was lost, precisely because the whole world became context for news. Everything became everyone's business. For the first time, we were sent information which answered no question we had asked, and which, in any case, did not permit the right of reply.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“El legado más importante dejado por el telégrafo y la fotografía quizá sea el pseudo-contexto. Un pseudo-contexto es una estructura inventada para dar a la información fragmentada e irrelevante una apariencia útil. Pero el pseudo-contexto no proporciona acción, ni solución de problemas, ni cambio. Y eso, obviamente, es entretener. Podríamos decir que el pseudo-contexto es el último refugio de una cultura abrumada por la irrelevancia, la incoherencia y la impotencia.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Los estadounidenses ya no hablan entre sí, sino que se entretienen recíprocamente. No intercambian ideas, sino imágenes.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“La inteligencia se define fundamentalmente como nuestra capacidad para captar la verdad de las cosas.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Hasta 1890, la publicidad, que hasta entonces se creía que consistía sólo en palabras, se consideraba en una empresa seria y racional cuyo propósito era transmitir información y proponer ofertas. A principios del nuevo siglo, con la intrusión masiva de ilustraciones y fotografías y el uso de eslóganes, los publicitarios dejaron de asumir la racionalidad de sus clientes potenciales. La publicidad se convirtió, por una parte, en psicología profunda, y por otra, en teoría estética.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Cuando se está transmitiendo un programa de televisión, es prácticamente imposible decir “Déjeme pensar en ello” o “¿qué quiere decir cuando afirma…?”. Este tipo de discurso no sólo enlentece el ritmo del espectáculo, sino que crea una impresión de incertidumbre o falta de determinación. Tiende a revelar a la gente que el acto de pensar es tan desconcertante o aburrido en la televisión como lo es en los escenarios de Las Vegas. Los directores de televisión hace mucho tiempo que descubrieron que el acto de pensar no encaja bien en ese medio. No hay mucho que ver en él.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Cada uno tiene su opinión. Quizá sea más preciso llamarlas emociones en lugar de opiniones, cosa que explicaría por qué cambian cada semana.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Los tiranos siempre han confiado, y lo hacen aún, en la censura. Después de todo éste es el tributo que los tiranos pagan por suponer que el público conoce la diferencia entre el discurso serio y el entretenimiento, y que le importa.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Lo mejor de la televisión es su basura y nadie ni nada está seriamente amenazado por ella. Porque no medimos una cultura por su producción de trivialidades no encubiertas, sino por lo que juzga significativo.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“La aparición en la arena política del asesor de imagen y el simultáneo declive del redactor de discursos atestiguan el hecho de que la televisión demanda un contenido que difiere del exigido por los otros medios. No se puede hacer filosofía política en televisión porque su forma conspira contra el contenido.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Creo que la epistemología creada por la televisión no sólo es inferior a la epistemología basada en la imprenta, sino que es peligrosa y absurda.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“Thomas Jefferson. . . knew what schools were for--to ensure that citizens would know when and how to protect their liberty. . . It would not have come easily to the mind of such a man, as it does to political leaders today, that the young should be taught to read exclusively for the purpose of increasing their economic productivity.”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes.
Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry--is not even a "subject"--but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.”
Source: The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School
“Marx understood well that the press was not merely a machine but a structure for discourse, which both rules out and insists upon certain kinds of content and, inevitably, a certain kind of audience.”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“People like ourselves may see nothing wondrous in writing, but our anthropologists know how strange and magical it appears to a purely oral people - a conversation with no one and yet with everyone. What could be stranger than the silence one encounters when addressing a question to a text? What could be more metaphysically puzzling than addressing an unseen audience, as every writer of books must do? And correcting oneself because one knows that an unknown reader will disapprove or misunderstand?”
Source: Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
“We had learned how to invent things, and the question of why we invent things receded in importance. The idea that if something could be done it should be done was born in the nineteenth century. And along with it, there developed a profound belief in all the principles through which invention succeeds: objectivity, efficiency, expertise, standardization, measurement, and progress. It also came to be believed that the engine of technological progress worked most efficiently when people are conceived of not as children of God or even as citizens but as consumers-that is to say, as markets.”
Source: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
“The point is that profound but contradictory ideas may exist side by side, if they are constructed from different materials and methods. and have different purposes. Each tells us something important about where we stand in the universe, and it is foolish to insist that they must despise each other.”
“Make no mistake about it: the labeling of someone's language as 'sexist' involves a political judgment and implies the desirability of a particular sociological doctrine. One may be in favor of that doctrine (as I believe I am) but it is quite another matter to force writers by edicts and censorship into accepting it.”
“You cannot avoid making judgements but you can become more conscious of the way in which you make them. This is critically important because once we judge someone or something we tend to stop thinking about them or it.”
Source: Teaching As a Subversive Activity: A No-Holds-Barred Assault on Outdated Teaching Methods-with Dramatic and Practical Proposals on How Education Can Be Made Relevant to Today's World
