Fragmenta : Upsaid journal

Fragmenta

May 02 2004 A.D.

POSTMAN
I'm finishing up Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. Most of the points he makes had already trickled down to me through the preaching of Steve Schlissel, on whose thinking Postman's book has had a major impact. But even if it was not all new to me, it made a powerful impression:

First, the epistemological resonance of television is something I will find myself paying more attention to in life. I expect there are instances in my teaching at MHA when I have fallen into an "entertainment" mode. Yet on the whole, our family at least has been largely spared from television's shaping of the mind. We are a very "typographical" family, as Sora relates. It makes me rather hopeful for the future: equipped with classical languages, long attention-spans, a breadth of reading, and a literary approach to life, rather than the opposite of all these things thanks to television-orientation, my kids may be able to make contributions that those raised in a different environment would not.

Postman also makes (though he didn't know it) my point about the 2nd commandment and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Various people have wondered whether, if Christological issues are set aside, Gibson's movie can really be called a 2nd commandment issue. I don't think Postman leaves much doubt about it: the medium has biases which are completely antithetical to Christianity. As Postman puts it, the 2nd commandment "is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author asssumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture." (p. 9)

Postman's pages 72-73 contrasts photography with print media:

The words 'true' and 'false' come from the universe of language, and no other. When applied to a photograph, the question, Is it true? means only, Is this a reproduction of a real slice of space-time? If the answer is "Yes," there are no grounds for argument, for it makes no sense to disagree with an unfaked photograph. The photograph itself makes no arguable propositions, makes no extended and unambiguous commentary. It offers no assertions to refute, so it is not refutable.... There is no such thing as a photograph taken out of context, for a photograph does not require one.

Now, one may think that these statements are not so true of The Passion of the Christ. But upon further inspection, it is apparent that if that movie escapes propositionless-ness, it is only because it has borrowed propositionality from the Bible.

Next up, Technopoly, to see what Postman said about computers and the internet. You can read an email from him here.

() Posted by Matt at 10 : 42 am

Both 'Technopoly' and 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' are fantastic. 'The Disappearance of Childhood' is well worth a read too.

Posted by Al at 3 : 51 pm on 05 . 02 . 04 A.D.

Sandlin writes:

"Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” has accomplished more for Christian culture in one low-budget (but high-impact) movie than any 10 conservative politicians have accomplished in the last 10 years."

Balderdash. The net effect of The Passion of the Christ on both Christianity and American culture will be a negative one. The real impact on culture will come from the sorts of Christians that Sandlin looks down his cultured nose at ("prairie muffins" etc.). Our God uses the weak things of this world.

Posted by Matt at 10 : 16 pm on 05 . 02 . 04 A.D.

The alternative to Postman's reason for the second commandment is the connection between our God-given vocation as God's images and our assignation of that image to anything else. If we re-assign that image to a creature, we not only rob God of His true representatives (us), but turn our own representation (which is inescapable) to suit whatever we imagine the animal or bird is like. Put positively, the second commandment is therefore "you be My images!", and follows the first, "I am your God!"

This reason for the second commandement seems far more connected to the themes of scripture than a concern for cultural quality. It also feeds into a far wider set of consequences: man's very conception of his raison d'etre, his self-conception and 'mission statement', if you will, is at stake. This will of course lead to the impact on culture with which Postman is concerned, but will do so at a far more profound level.

Thus, I am not sure that a Postman-based critique of _The Passion_ is quite as strong as it seems to be.

Posted by aaron at 11 : 39 pm on 05 . 02 . 04 A.D.

False dichotomy, I think. Psalm 135:15-18 seems adequate evidence that for ancient Israelites, Postman-esque reasons were understood to be bound up in the command to "be God's images."

Posted by Matt at 5 : 31 am on 05 . 03 . 04 A.D.

Sure. Except that I've included that point in the second effect of substitution: "we not only... but turn our own representation (which is inescapable) to suit whatever we imagine the animal or bird is like." The psalm is obviously also humorous; but the underlying effect in view is that we become like whatever we image. The god we serve shapes us.

Despite this, I did pose a false dichotomy in my conclusion. You're right. If I'd been consistant, I would have said that a Postman-esquq critique stands in full force, and may even be deepened. Thanks for the correction.

Posted by aaron at 6 : 29 am on 05 . 03 . 04 A.D.

Glad you are reading Postman as well. You'll enjoy Technopoly. You'll see a few of the same points made from Amusing. I would absolutely love to see Postman studied in church small groups some time. It feels weird to say that since he certainly isn't much of a christian and does not argue as one. I'm amazed at how much impact these two little books have had on my own life though.

Posted by Paul Baxter at 8 : 56 am on 05 . 03 . 04 A.D.

Sounds like an interesting book. Our library actually has it for once, too. Now if they'd only get a copy of Reforming Marriage so we could read that, too, I'd be content!

Posted by Eucharis at 12 : 42 pm on 05 . 03 . 04 A.D.

There were an awful lot of carved images in Solomon's Temple considering how evil they are.

Posted by Josh S at 6 : 33 pm on 05 . 03 . 04 A.D.

Images aren't evil, Josh. They just aren't a medium conducive to certain purposes.

Posted by Matt at 6 : 35 am on 05 . 04 . 04 A.D.

Post a new note:

Return to journal home