In my previous posting about Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death I made a short comparative analysis of how Postman and Marshall McLuhan viewed public discourse in the Age of Television. I wasn’t overly specific on it though and didn’t cite either one, I just mentioned a short analysis of their work. I’ve decided to extrapolate on those thoughts.
McLuhan’s discussion in the “The Playboy interview” isn’t easily analysed simply because he has a tendency to talk in circles, and at times contradict himself. What I found interesting about Postman’s and McLuhan’s work is that they seem to take contrary stands when discussing the Literary Age.
McLuhan calls the pre-Literary Age of oral communication inclusive and balanced. “Before the invention of the phonetic alphabet, man lived in a world where all the senses were balanced and simultaneous, a closed world of tribal depth and resonance, an oral culture structured by a dominant auditory sense of life (Playboy interview, 1969).” McLuhan suggests that because speech was the dominate form of communication, men did not separate themselves from their tribe, or react as individuals. “…thus no man knew appreciably more or less than any other — which meant that there was little individualism and specialization, the hallmarks of “civilized” Western man. Tribal cultures even today simply cannot comprehend the concept of the individual or of the separate and independent citizen” (Playboy Interview, 1969).
Looking at it from that point-of-view, the Literary Age created us as individuals, but more than that it created an “independent citizen.” Could democracy have arisen without the Literary Age? Democracy as a political system has at its core involvement from the independent citizen. Over the years definitions as to who qualified as a citizen has changed, but even in its most exclusive form a democratic government expected input from some of its citizens. In this system, citizens act independently of each other, although they usually also acknowledge a need for consensus or to act in the “greater good.”
Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death provides a detailed analysis of the Literary Age in Part I. It is not something that I will go into detail here. Instead, I am interested in Postman’s assertion that because of the Age of Television society’s level of public discourse “has become dangerous nonsense” (pg. 16).
Postman takes that one step further when he comments: “Nonetheless, it is not difficult to demonstrate that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American public discourse, being rooted in the bias of the printed word, was serious, inclined toward rational arguement and presentation, and, therefore, made up of meaningful content” (pg. 52).
Essentially, Postman is saying that the Age of Television is more interested in keeping our attention and entertaining us rather than allowing us to engage in thoughtful public discourse and critical thinking.
There are times when Postman seems right. The “If it bleeds it leads” edict of many news agencies means that sensationalism is always at the forefront of news. “Celebnews” has become an area of journalistic study on its own, and carries with it an emphasis on scandal. But, within this environment, public discourse has also become far more complex.
The tribal ideology of oral societies, at least in the Western world, as discussed by McLuhan are long over. The Literary Age that Postman worries is slowly being “amused to death” (along with public discourse) also seems to have come to a dead end. Or, have they?
Postman did not, or perhaps could not, predict the Age of Wireless Communication. The Literary Age is not over, but it has changed and in that change it has become inclusive. The oral age is making a come-back. Technology has made public discourse simultaneously easier and more difficult. Communciation today is now challenging and complex and incorporates the foundation of the communication systems that came before.
Postman’s Literary Age can be found in UseNet groups, forums, and other online discussion groups. Instead, of discussing issues with your neighbour or townsfolk, people are now able to discuss issues with anyone around the world – who has the Internet, of course. The borders of public discourse have come down. Whether it is university professors, doctors, computer technicians, teachers, or general laymen, the opportunity exists to cross ethnic and physical boundaries in order to engage in public discourse.
We have re-engaged in public discourse. We are still acting as “individuals” and yet, we also have taken on the elements of the oral societies that McLuhan discusses in his “Playboy Interview.” Public discourse today is more inclusive, and those who are not literate (oral) and those who are literate can communciate more effectively with each other than ever before. And, the topics for public discourse are no longer limited by a society embedded in WASPish ideology, but are as endless as the opportunities to engage in them.
Work Cited
McLuhan, Marshall. “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Playboy Magazine. March 1969. Retrieved 18 Oct. 2007 from http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html.
Postman, Neil. “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” New York: Penguin, 1985.
Tags: communication, education, mass media, opinion
