Living in an age of amusement
Diving into Neil Postman's classic, Amusing Ourselves to Death
Recently, I finished reading Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death which explains how Americans who thought they would live in a 1984-esque Orwellian society constantly on the lookout for big brother actually live in a society that welcomes technology and amusement with open arms without asking how it is molding and shaping us. Postman wrote this book in 1984 which demonstrates what a prescient thinker he was as a lot of what he discussed is directly applicable 40 years later. While this book promised more than it delivered upon, a few chapters really stood out in my mind and I wanted to dig into a few fascinating ideas a bit more in a Substack.
Since Postman wrote this book in 1984, his focus is on television and the impact TV has had on Americans especially in the political sphere. He discusses how advertisements changed completely when TV became ubiquitous, how political debates became about entertainment versus a focus on the right person to do the right job, and how TV encouraged people to be entertained versus educated.
The sections of the book that interested me the most were when Postman compared books with other forms of quick information such as the telegraph or TV. When the telegraph came onto the scene, Postman argued that it was the exact opposite of typography: “the principal strength of the telegraph was to move information, not collect it explain or analyze it…[whereas]…books are an excellent container for the accumulation, quiet scrutiny, and organized analysis of information and ideas.” He goes on to explain that our culture views book burning as anti-intellectual because of the effort and scholarship it takes to write books whereas a telegraph by its nature is meant to be burnt because it is a quick snippet of information easily superseded by another piece of information. As he further explains: “facts push other facts into and then out of consciousness at speeds that neither permit nor require evaluation.” This is one of Postman’s key points - the speed at which TV or telegraphs provide information prevents people from really thinking about the information being provided to them.
I wonder if Postman could have dreamed of how we take in information and news now through quick TikToks and pithy character-limited statements. Refresh a news site, or X, or any social media feed and you are presented with a new set of facts and information that trumps what you were just reading. The decision of what is important to focus on is not left with the consumer, but with the news site or Instagram account, but that is only because we have given that deciding power to those entities because of laziness on our parts. As Postman predicts: “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” I would argue this is true in our current age especially given how many people say they need to spend less time on their phones and/or social media (thanks Anxious Generation!), yet continue to return to those mediums again and again. While it is good we are aware of a need to put down our phones, are we even aware of how technology is affecting our thinking capacity?
There is such a lack of willingness and desire to dive deep into an idea in our current society. As Postman says, we want to be entertained and are happy to laugh our way through life without really thinking. His explanation about TV applies to other current technologies: “what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical, noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to amuse ourselves.” We like to be amused and lazy in our pursuit of knowledge.
Even as someone who values research and with a job of having to dive deep into an idea to be able to communicate it to others, I still do not like to take the time to research something in depth. I would much rather watch a quick video that explains a concept to me or shoot off a quick query to ChatGPT that leaves me with understanding. However, I would argue that ‘understanding’ is more of a perception than an actual reality. To truly understand an idea, you must approach it like a fine gem - hold it up to the light, look at it from many different angles, scrutinize it, and try to identify if there are any imperfections or nuances to understand it fully.
Postman astutely says: “the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccupations.” If you examine our current media landscape, much of it is focused on quick dopamine hits of information designed to grab our attention. Few media forms prioritize prolonged engagement of attention which I previously wrote about. Our intellectual and social preoccupations as a culture are not great if you consider how much we prioritize the speed of information transfer versus willingness to engage in a nuanced manner with complex topics. It much easier to passively intake information versus vigilantly curate and select the sources that you want to listen to or read.
While Postman’s book did not fully deliver on the hype, I still found some of his ideas to be very relevant. I expect that I will be thinking more about how the media I consume is shaping my thinking. I know that taking time away from social media and being on my phone less in general promotes creative thinking. Though I have not interrogated why this is I now would really like to based on Postman’s observations of media informing intellectual and social preoccupations.