The
idiot box
Ackerman
and McPherson Dialogue
20
February, 2013
The
following is the fifth in an ongoing dialogue (cyber-discussion)
between two cultural philosophers and regular Transition Voice
contributors, Dr. Sherry Ackerman and Dr. Guy McPherson.
ACKERMAN:
We’ve been having a really intense winter up here in Mount Shasta,
Guy.
With
five feet of snow currently on the ground, it’s been a challenge
for us to not get cabin fever. Daylight hours are still fairly short
and evenings are long. I’ve been using all that “dark time” to
learn to play my harp — I mean, really play it. I’ve messed
around with it over the years, but this winter I’m trying to become
proficient.
Anyway,
when I tell this to some of my friends, they find it strange. Their
responses are something to the effect that I could be watching
television instead!
I
don’t have a TV. In fact, I’ve never had one. When I read the
Albert Bandura studies correlating television viewing and violence —
ouch — it confirmed my decision to not use TV.
But
what gets me is this rather significant disconnect in consciousness
that supports corporations spending millions of dollars on prime time
advertising based on the concept that TV ads affect consumer behavior
resulting in more sales, while it’s vigorously argued that there’s
“no proof” that television violence affects societal behavior.
You
can’t have it both ways.
McPHERSON:
I haven’t watched much TV for about 25 years. And I can’t say I
miss it.
But
on the infrequent occasions I stay in a motel and turn it on, I’m
stunned by the power of TV! In fact, the tube plucks my heart strings
like a cheap banjo, making me care about people I’ve never met as
they play roles they couldn’t care less about.
Between
heroically manipulative drama and humor, the “news” convinces me
that the media, politicians, and a vast majority of industrial humans
actually care about the living planet. Television feeds our massive
case of collective desire, one bullshit sandwich at a time.
Of
course, there’s rarely a mention of global climate change or
economic decline, much less the thousands of daily insults we visit
on the non-industrial cultures and non-human species. The hologram
works brilliantly through its ignorance of issues that actually
matter and in-the-face irrelevant distractions.
ACKERMAN:
Over the years, TV, like other media, has slowly become the
invisible hand of propaganda. People (and society) are bombarded with
a steady stream of messages that affirm the dominant paradigm, the
way things “are” in an unquestioned sense.
After
absorbing hours and hours of this, people’s critical thinking is
dulled if not killed off altogether.
Think
about it: TVs are on an average of 7 hours 40 minutes a day in U.S.
homes. The average American kid sees about 200,000 acts of violence
on TV by age 18*. Forty percent of Americans always or often watch
television while eating dinner. No wonder we’re seeing so many
erosive effects on the quality of American life.
But
hey, don’t take my word for it. In Television and the Quality of
Family Life (Routledge, 1990), author Robert Kubey reminds us that
Frankfurt School theorists believed that a key feature of capitalism
was the progressive decline of the family as a successful socializing
agent. In this view, some of the socializing roles of the family are
passed on to mass media and as a result, the audience becomes passive
and one-dimensional (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1972; Marcuse, 1964).
McPHERSON:
It’s so seductive. After all, everybody’s doing it. If you’re
unfamiliar with the antics of television characters, you really don’t
fit into society. The drive to group membership begins early in life,
and continues well into conversations around the water cooler. Peer
pressure doesn’t end with high school.
Not
only is the process of indoctrination seductive, it’s surprisingly
passive. Watching TV appeals to our natural longing to belong while
reinforcing cultural messages regarding how to act, what to eat, what
to wear. All this happens TO the viewer, who’s only function is
open eyes and ears.
Not
only are TV watchers’ bodies shut down, but he or she doesn’t
even have to think. In fact, critical thinking has to be turned off
for max TV pleasure. This whole thing only works in the good ole’ U
S of A or “United States of Advertising,” to borrow a phrase from
long-dead American comedian Bill Hicks.
But
it’s very different in western Europe, for example. There, students
have to complete a media literacy course before graduating from high
school. They actually learn to critically evaluate what they’re
hearing and seeing instead of just accepting it without question.
This is good for the students and good for their culture.
The
dumbing down of America appears to be nearly complete, and TV plays a
primary role. Fortunately, not everyone’s taking that sitting down.
In
his 1991 book Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory
Schooling, award-winning American educator John Taylor Gatto
described the U.S. public-education system as a twelve-year jail
sentence. As horrifying as it may seem, TV serves as recess and
reward in contrast to an education system gone mad.
So
as something we retreat to for escape TV continues the process of
stupefying the masses while transforming the average American into an
anxious, thoughtless consumer. Talk about hitting us coming and
going.
ACKERMAN:
You are absolutely correct on all points!
And,
then there’s the element of addiction. TV fits the addiction
profile to a T.*
For
example, if I make a comment to any of my TV-addicted peers about the
amount of time they’re glued to the tube, they invariably come back
with a snippy and defensive retort. And I find what they say is
mostly denial, rationalization and projection.
Again,
I look to Kubey for insight. In his Scientific American article (with
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) — “Television Addiction is No Mere
Metaphor” — he argues that,
When
the habit interferes with the ability to grow, to learn new things,
to lead an active life, then it constitutes a kind of dependence and
should be taken seriously.
For
mental health professionals, TV addiction is believed to be a type of
behavioral addiction much like pathological gambling.
In
1990, a symposium at the convention of the American Psychological
Association defined TV addiction as “heavy television watching that
is subjectively experienced as being to some extent involuntary,
displacing more productive activities, and difficult to stop or
curtail.”
It’s
the plug-in drug!
So,
if we see TV as potentially addictive, and note how many folks are
hooked on it, we have to ask the big question: Why?
My
answer would be that addiction runs rampant among people who don’t
feel “whole.”
When
people feel “less-than,” or marginalized, discouraged,
incomplete, and feel what they do is meaningless, they start having a
futile outlook. That sense of futility, rather than being
experienced, or dealt with, is avoided through the self-medication of
addiction.TV seems harmless in this regard in comparison to say,
heroin, or serious alcohol abuse.
But
is it? Is it less harmful? I don’t think so because it informs
public opinion and behavior while pretending to be authentic and
authentically free.
And
we need to call that out, to name and deconstruct and openly
criticize the social structures like TV that reduce, rather than
encourage, positive human development.
McPHERSON:
A statement from writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen
comes to mind:
It’s
no wonder we don’t defend the land where we live. We don’t live
there. We live in television programs and movies and books and with
celebrities and in heaven and by rules and laws and abstractions
created by people far away and we live anywhere and everywhere except
in our particular bodies on this particular land at this particular
moment in these particular circumstances.
What
he says resonates strongly with me. We avoid physical reality, and
it’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop. In avoiding the natural
world — which sustains us, in every way — we rely on addictive
cultural distractions, all of which push us further from the natural
world.
How
do we break this cycle?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.