Typographic Mind: Amusing Ourselves to Death, Chapter 4 {1 of 2}

{Disclaimer: This post, on chapter 4, has been edited and split into two posts from its original.}

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

Video: Awkward: Russell Brand Humiliates Fake News Channel MSNBC

Before I viewed the above video, I didn't know who Russell Brand was and to be honest, I still don't want to.  If you know of him, feel free to skip my little bio of him that follows (which comes from wikipedia): 

Brand is noted in the British media for his eccentricity and for controversies such as his dismissal from MTV after he dressed as Osama bin Laden, his behaviour as presenter of various award ceremonies and his former drug use. In 2008, he resigned from the BBC following prank calls he made to actor Andrew Sachs on The Russell Brand Show, which led to major changes to the BBC's policy. His drug use, alcoholism and promiscuity have influenced his comedic material and public image.

I saw that link passed around Facebook- probably even shared it myself -mocking the news. Although in the overall scheme it fits in well with the book Amusing Ourselves to Death it doesn't really go right along with this chapter. Remember from chapter 2, where Postman said that the best thing about television was its junk? But what really struck me was his observation that it isn't taken seriously even by those who want it to be taken seriously.

Part 1: Chapter 4 The Typographic Mind {1 of 2}

In the start of this chapter, Postman gives us a glimpse of the debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858. It was a short debate -1 hour speech by Lincoln, 1 1/2 hour reply by Douglas, and finally a 1/2 hour rebuttal by Lincoln. Short? That's three hours of debates with nothing but the men up there talking. No pictures, slideshows, videos, etc. Lincoln/Douglas earlier debates had been seven hours long. This one was short.

It's partially because of the times and the culture. The audience regarded these public speech debates as an integral part of their political education. They were used to "extended oratorical performances." These were common at county and state fairs but not only there. The "stump" speaker was popular -where an open space was all that was needed to gather an audience.

This audience no doubt had a much longer attention span than current audiences. Can you recall the last seven hour 'talk' or debate that you heard or were present to see? Postman says that the audience not only had a great attention span but also "an equally extraordinary capacity to comprehend lengthy and complex sentences aurally." Indeed! Both Lincoln and Douglas used "long, legally phrased resolutions" -pertaining to abolition I'll add. Postman says both men's "sentence structure in the debate was intricate and subtle. (pg. 46)"

Meaning no disrespect of the office of the President but in our current age to expect President Obama to do likewise is rather absurd. Those of our technological age require plain language both aurally and visually. Postman even goes so far to say that a speech such as "the Gettysburg Address would probably...[be] largely incomprehensible" to today's audience. Postman relates it to his 1985 audience; I relate it to 2013. {Speaking of the Gettysburg Address and Abraham Lincoln, here is a podcast from Hillsdale College- Dr. Arnn and Hugh Hewitt commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg by discussing the Civil War and the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln. If it doesn't work, go here, then choose "Hillsdale Dialogues 7-5-13"}

Postman does go on to say that "it would be false...to give the impression that these 1858 audiences were models of intellectual propriety...[but] the use of language as a means of complex argument was an important, pleasurable and common form of discourse in almost every public arena. (pg. 47)" The debates themselves were generally held at carnivals and places where alcohol was available and bands played. It is because "these audiences were made up of people whose intellectual lives and public business were fully integrated into their social world." 

I'll break off at that point there and put in my thoughts. I do find it interesting that Postman feels that the audiences could still pay attention to the debate as well as comprehend the speakers in this atmosphere. What would happen today in the same scenario? Also, I have a difficult time believing as Postman does that these people, although they were able to pay attention for the lengths of time, all understood what was being said during the debates. He does get to this in a moment though so I will get back on track. 

Postman alludes to the use of references of historical events, political matters, metaphors, irony, etc. by Lincoln and Douglas. According to him, the use of these means that the audiences had an understanding of them. Later he gives reasons for believing this: they were grand children of the "Enlightenment (American version). (pg. 47)" They were the "progeny" of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc. And here is where Postman addresses my concerns about the illiterate and those who most likely wouldn't understand. He says that even with all those, "America was in the middle years of its most glorious literary outpouring." At the time there were great writers such as Emily Dickenson, Mark Twain, Thoreau, Longfellow, and others. 

Each of the authors mentioned wrote in a way that is quite different than our present-day authors, and their works were widely read. Whether or not this proves Postman's view, it is a good point nonetheless. 

The debates illustrate Postman's argument of "the power of typography to control the character of [the] discourse;" at the time all that was offered to the audience or expected of the speakers was language. "And the language that was offered was clearly modeled on the written word. (pg. 48)" All the speeches and rebuttals were all planned and printed in advance. "The resonance of typography was ever-present. (pg. 49)"

Earlier in the chapter, Postman had mentioned that when applause broke out for Douglas in the debate, he (Douglas) told the audience that he preferred silence to applause. Douglas didn't want them to get riled up because they were in a passion over his words; he wanted them to understand his words. Postman credits this to the typographic nature of the discourse. Douglas' words were to be as a text received in the ear and to be pondered, to be understood. 

Postman asks "what are the implications for public discourse of a written, or typographic, metaphor? What is the character of its content? What does it demand of the public? What uses of the mind does it favor? (pg. 49)" Many people know -whether they know it or not- that "the written word...has a content: a semantic, paraphrasable, propositional content." Semantic: of or pertaining to or arising from the different meanings of words or other symbols. Paraphrase: a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness. Proposition: the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done. (All definitions courtesy of dictionary.com.) Bottom line: "an idea, a fact, a claim is the inevitable result. (pg. 50)"

In a culture steeped in print, discourse must be orderly, coherent, and comprised of facts and ideas. To read is hard work, if it's done correctly. With my kids we are going through the book How to Read a Book and Adler and Van Doren talk about this quite a bit. Reading is not a passive activity when done right. Postman says that to "follow a line of thought...

requires considerable powers of classifying, inference-making and reasoning. It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense...I do not mean to imply that prior to the written word analytic thought was not possible. I am referring here not to the potentialities of the individual mind but to the predispositions of a cultural mind-set. (pg. 51)"

Basically, because the medium was typography, it facilitated coherent and orderly, not to mention serious, discourse. Next Postman moves to religion to show this. That is in the second post for chapter 4.