Media as Epistemology: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 2

Intro Ch. 1 Ch. 2 Ch. 3 Ch. 4 {pt 1} Ch. 4 {pt 2} Ch. 5 Ch. 6 Ch. 7 
Ch. 8 Ch. 9 {pt 1} Ch. 9 {pt 2} Ch. 10 Ch. 11

Part I: Chapter 2 Media as Epistemology

"I appreciate junk as much as the next fellow...I raise no objection to television's junk. The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it. Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant. Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important culture conversations. (pg. 16)"

But it's still junk. Postman says that television isn't taken serious even by those who want television to be taken seriously. In order to even begin to do this, he says we have to look at the truth that television presents and the sources of these truths. Epistemology is the way to do this. Epistemology, as put in the book, are the origins and nature of knowledge. 

In hopes of simplifying, -his hope as well as mine! -he borrows from Frye again (he was mentioned last chapter about the written word being much more than just an 'echo' of speech). This time he talks about resonance. It did take me a bit to understand this concept, and perhaps I still do not quite understand. Here is what Frye says:

"Through resonance a particular statement in a particular context acquires a universal significance. (pg. 17)"

He (Frye) continued in his writings about the phrase 'grapes of wrath' began in the account in Isaiah to mean a celebration of a victory over an enemy ("prospective massacre of Edomites (pg. 17"). Now, however, this phrase can "give dignity to the human situation instead of merely reflecting its bigotries." He also applies resonance to characters in a story or play, or even the play itself, as well as physical locations, such as a country. Resonance is a "generative force...[it has power to] unify and invest with meaning a variety of attitudes of experiences. (pg. 18)" Postman says that "whatever the original and limited context of its use may have been, a medium has a power to fly far beyond that context into new and unexpected ones...it imposes itself on our consciousness...And it is always implicated in ways we define and regulate our ideas of truth."

How does this happen? He gives three examples of 'truth-telling'. The first is a village that does not use a written system, rather they still rely on the oral traditions. A chief hears the spoken arguments of the people and he in turn passes judgment orally. All parties agree that justice has been served. However, "in a print-based courtroom, where law books, briefs, citations and other written materials define and organize the method of finding the truth, the oral tradition has lost much of its resonance, but not all. (pg.19)" Just imagine a lawyer using a proverb for his argument and calling it good! And finally, the 'doctoral exam' that is given orally. Although the student is expected to show their competence in their subject area well enough through an oral exam, "the written work matters most."

Postman relates the story of one student's footnote that referenced evidence spoken but not written. Four of the five professors dismissed the footnote as legitimate; it was "hardly suitable as a form of documentation and [they] thought that it ought to be replaced by a citation from a book or article. (pg. 20)" Of course the student defended his use of such documentation verbally. The examiners response: "the written word endures, the spoken word disappears..." In other words the written statement represents the truth, but  spoken it is just a rumor.

Postman also tells about Socrates' trial. He (Socrates) begins by apologizing for not having a well-prepared speech and asked the jurors to think of him as they would someone from another city. The reason for this was because the Athenians "did not regard the principles of rhetoric and the expression of truth to be independent and separate of each other. (pg. 22)"

These examples are related to make this point: "The concepts of truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression. (pg. 22)" Or -"the "truth" is a kind of cultural prejudice." Take Aristotle for instance. He deduced the nature of things from a set of self-evident premises (he 'deduced' women had fewer teeth than men and some other stuff that I'm quite unsure how it was 'deduced'). For Aristotle "the language of deductive logic provided a surer road."

Aristotle may have been far off on his deductive logic in some cases and today we may scoff at the method but what of our own present use of numbers. Numbers for just about everything! Psychology, sociology, and especially economics. Postman says that it would just seem odd if an economists were to relate his findings about the current economic condition in a poem or through his experiences or even a parable. At one point in time, and in some cultures, those means would work just fine to relay to the people the condition but it doesn't work for us now. "[To] the modern mind, resonating with different media-metaphors, the truth in economics is believed to be best discovered and expressed in numbers. (pg. 23)"

"As a culture moves from orality to writing to printing to televising, its ideas of truth move with it. (pg. 24)" From this Postman explains that in purely oral cultures, the ability to quickly come up with applicable proverbs to be used in various situations makes one 'intelligent'. Much like the minstrels of long ago, and the bards, who memorized the histories and recited them; "a mobile library. (pg. 25)" Today this ability is simply 'charming.' It doesn't relate to intelligence in a print-culture. The next paragraph Postman relates all that goes into actually reading, and the paragraph is long. Postman shows that the ability to read (and add to that, I think, to memorize and be able to recite) in a print culture is a "primary definition of intelligence. (pg. 26)"

Postman offers three points of defense against the possible counter-arguments.

1. He isn't saying that television rots the brain.
   "My argument is limited to saying that a major new medium changes the structure of discourse; ...by creating new forms of truth-telling. (pg. 27)"
   He alludes to some who do seem to feel that television rots the brain; Jerome Bruner, Jack Goody, Walter Ong, Marshall McLuhan, Julian Jaynes, and Eric Havelock. Interestingly, he seems to agree with them to an extent but won't focus on that in this book.
2. Speech and writing will always be a form of conversation.
   "The epistemology of new forms such as television does not have an entirely unchallenged influence."
3. Television isn't bad for "everything".
   "...A television-based epistemology pollutes public communication and its surrounding landscape, not that it pollutes everything. (pg. 28)"
   He points out the benefit it has for especially those who are shut-ins, who cannot leave their residence or who are essentially alone otherwise.

He ends with: 

"Media change does not necessarily result in equilibrium. It sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes it is the other way around...[As] typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines. (pg. 29)"

Next time, Chapter 3: Typographic America

I'm enjoying this book but I will admit that it's taken more to do these 'narrations' than I thought it would. I find myself nodding in agreement quite often at Postman's words but really don't have any other comments to add in my narration.

One reason I am doing this narration is to improve my skills and also to put these here for when my kids go through this book {yes, it's going to be a required read}.