Print-Based Epistemology: Can We Go Back?
Postman's second chapter revolves around the idea of seeing "media as epistemology". For those of you who may not have read this chapter in full, I will provide Postman's definition of this term for you: "Epistemology is a complex and usually opaque subject concerned with the origins and nature of knowledge", though Postman is focused more so on the "interest [epistemology] takes in definitions of truth and the sources from which such definitions come" within his second chapter (Postman, 17).
Because his definition may be considered lengthy and hard to digest, below is a diagram that may help with comprehending what this term really entails:
Now that we've covered what epistemology really means, let's dive into what exactly Postman was claiming in this chapter. Midway through Postman's chapter, he states that he hopes to persuade his readers that "the decline of a print-based epistemology and the accompanying rise of a television-based epistemology has had grave consequences for public life" (Postman, 24). In other words, our society's transition to television-based epistemology has created, unfortunately, a society where many may not be considered the sharpest tools in the shed. We are so focused on what television is telling us, and seeing every bit of it as the "truth", that we have become blind to what the real truth may be.
Postman made interesting remarks about we both define and regulate our ideas of truth. He references various examples in his efforts to show that "the concept of truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression" (Postman, 22): A western African tribe who has no writing system and relies solely on spoken word, the trial of Socrates, the importance of spoken testimony in the United States court system, and the weight written material holds in academic standings. According to Postman, these concepts of truth "[do] not, and never [have], come unadorned" (Postman, 22).
After reading through this chapter, and taking in all that Postman had to say, I found myself wondering what modern-day society would be like if we hadn't ever made the transition Postman referenced. How would our society differ if we had never transitioned to television-based epistemology? Would we still find ourselves this politically divided with the erasure of misleading/blatantly untrue political campaigns? Would we still find ourselves concerned with our image, without the falsehoods of what we've been taught is the "preferred body type" if certain types of ads were removed from our daily lives? In a perfect world, we wouldn't have these issues to begin with, even with the transition to television-based epistemology; however, part of me feels as though these issues would be significantly lessened if the transition had never been made.
Today, one of our society's largest issues can be found in the below image:
We are so concerned with basing our opinions, choices, and overall lives on that of others that we forget to think on our own. In other words, we have become obsessed with everything except for ourselves, leading us to forget we have our own lives to pave. Are we truly living our own lives, or just going through life on a day-to-day basis, forever comparing ourselves to those we wish to be?
Granted, all of my above questions don't entirely relate to the issues of public discourse, Postman's chapter allowed me some time to reflect on issues I wasn't necessarily aware were present.
In Postman's last paragraph of this chapter, he stated that "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" (Postman, 29); however, I fear that the value of public discourse is not the only thing we will see decline.
That ven diagram of epistemology is really helpful, actually! I was interested in your thoughts on whether society would have turned out quiet the same if television media was never a factor. It feels so weird to think of a timeline where television never truly made it off the ground, but I don't really think it would hamper the devolving state of society's public discourse or more unhealthy media habits. Tabloids and many kinds of magazines, for example, are practically hard copy television. Gossip about celebrities, what's considered fashionable, what's considered acceptable, who's right and who's wrong, political hearsay, emotionally driven adds which target insecurities and desires; it's all there. If television was never a factor, then I think that magazine and tabloid type media would simply replace it. While media is very important in how culture chooses to convey information, it's ultimately just the vehicle. If cultural tendencies begin to trend in a certain direction, then it will ultimately find a way to do so with existing media or create another one which can accommodate it. Basically, if there's a will, there's a way. At least that's what I think.
ReplyDeleteI liked your pictures that you used in your blog! They really helped emphasize your points and move your post along. You had a very good point by stating "We are so concerned with basing our opinions, choices, and overall lives on that of others that we forget to think on our own." Although you mention television-based media, I think you could even extend that thought into social media. We are so used to seeing the lives of others that we just feel like we need to prove that we have just as sociable of a life as all of the people that we see through social media. In the modern world, technology really lets us see and do anything that we want. It has desensitized us to the more degrading parts of life because we can simply choose to ignore a situation that we don't want to be involved in. Your points about how society may have looked if the transition to television-based media really made me think as well!
ReplyDelete"We have become obsessed with everything except for ourselves, leading us to forget we have our own lives to pave" O O F... I feel seen... I think it's interesting to consider how television/the internet has influenced us (and by extension our public discourse) not only through the means Postman discusses, but through something like fandom culture. As a recovering "Twitter Stan," I have a lot to say about how fandom communities can shape the views a person has about basically anything--definitely including politics. Sometimes I had to take a step back and think, "why am I reading a 60-tweet long thread about the political implications of a singer wearing a certain type of jacket?" Especially now that people have been isolated for so long, the celebrities and characters we're fans of can easily become an unhealthy obsession for young people--add into the mix the frequent political messages that go around fandom communities (either claiming the need to cancel a person/show or trying to give information about certain events) and you can have a pretty overwhelming/toxic experience on the internet. I'm not sure if you meant to be talking about celebrities in this quote, but when I read it that's how I interpreted it and it hit close to home.
ReplyDelete