Reading is a private activity to the greatest extent. You can read to your child. Or be read to at mass by the priest or whoever may be reading the bible txt. But how does one know that what they are hearing is the truth, and I mean the truth in the sense that it exist upon the page the reader is looking at, and nothing more. How many of us have made up the story that we are reading to the child just so we can reach the quota of “two stories before bed” a little bit faster. This is, in my mind a huge problem that the individual has with the idea of being read to – recognizably or subliminally. This is in my mind a large factor in how warmly the idea of television has been accepted. “Seeing is believing”. And with television “seeing” can be a shared experience. For example you are reading this essay on your own, most likely to yourself. While you are reading it, you could possibly be sat in a lounge in front of a television, surrounded by other people watching that television. This act of sharing in a ritualistic way, I believe, appeals to the individual on a very basic and natural level. It is, however, in contradiction to the fact that sitting still, and staring at one thing for prolonged periods of time, is a very unnatural act. But is it a more natural act then reading? Is it healthier? Does it bring people together, or make them into more self-absorbed creatures? Did it’s invention bring about the transformation of modernism to postmodernism? Whether we are to trust television (the news) or not, is irrelevant.
The fact is that people do and probably always will believe what they see. It is how we have evolved – you see something therefore it is real. It is only when you stop to think about it, that any sort of doubt can occur. This is stating the obvious. But what is easier, to question something, or to talk to your friend about the interesting thing you have just “seen” on television? The answer will pretty much always be the latter. However, of course there are well known thinkers, such as Marshal McLuhan, Noam Chomsky, J. Macgregor Wise and Ronald de Souse, who all doggedly ridicule the lies of the media. McLuhan’s theory that literature has created the civilized man is of particular interest. As according to him the introduction of television was causing man to revert or perhaps evolve back to a more tribal man. Now instead of looking at static letters on a page, one could become absorbed in a much more tactile and lifelike sense of “learning” or entertainment.
He believed that the viewer (of television) was taking part in a sort of game. Participation was seen in the form of turning on the television – reasonable. He also believed, or put it that the viewer was stoned – reasonable, as the viewer must be in a mild sense of altered consciousness. This shift from a literary focal point, to a technical one, he eloquently put as “The printed book as the agent of a primitivist and romantic revival. Sheer visual quantity evokes the magical resonance of the tribal hoard. The box office looms as an echo chambered return to bardic incantation”. McLuhan, being a Joycean scholar, goes out of his way to animate his writing, which in a way, is also indicative of his belief that television is superior form of communication than print. He also believed that television was a superior media to the radio. However, he, on many occasions would point out the strengths and weaknesses of these two media, with respect to one another. For example in the Nixon vs. Kennedy pre-election debates, he noted that Nixon was a far superior candidate to Kennedy, when listened to on the radio. However, Kennedy, being a household symbol and far more capable of carrying himself on stage, came across superior on screen. In turn, highlighting the ability of television to misguide and influence the viewer.
McLuhan also believed that the western/civilized man was far more influenced by the information that he would take in through his eyes, as apposed to his ears. I found this point to be particularly interesting due to the reasons for its occurrence. When comparing the non-literate, tribal man, to the “civilized” western man, he found that the westerner neglects the use of his ears due to the conditioning of reading and writing print for a lifetime. Also the western man has to block out a huge percentage of the sounds that he hears every day. These are the sounds of busses and industry. Where as the tribal man, living and hunting on the veld, must be always alert to any external noises. He relies much more heavily on his sense of hearing than his sense of sight – for his survival. Vise versa the western man relies on his sense of sight for his own survival, or ability to thrive in his environment, i.e. he needs to read and add to work and earn money. Which brings me back to the question, which is a more useful form of communication, radio, or television? Which of course raises the question, what are you trying to communicate? Which given the number of variables, makes it very difficult to answer.
This brings me onto Noam Chomsky’s work. He raised the idea, and blatantly proved that the media acts as a profitable machine, without any regard for honesty. “The media are part of the system of power. They produce a product, the product is sold to the market, the market is advertising (advertisers). Advertising is where the money comes from. The product being sold to the advertisers is the audience or audiences”. Thus creating a ferocious cycle and ever-expanding industry. Hence, the advertising industry has grown in the same rate as television – they have become one.
So it can only leave one wondering, what effect does this have on me as an individual? Should I be less self-centered? If I was to read more would I become less tactile? Does watching television make me a more similar creature to my tribal ancestors? It is interesting to look at the change in society over the last fifty years when thinking about the impact of television. In my eyes (not my ears) it appears that people have become less reserved, and more extraverted – in certain environments. Which matches what McLuhan was saying about the tribal evocations of watching television. But the fact that people have become far more self-involved, does not match McLuhan’s theory that television is a “tribalising” medium. It does not match because the tribal man is not self-involved, he sees himself, not as an individual, but as a small part of a much larger organism – the tribe.
Which raises yet another question – has western culture dictated a false understanding of identity within us? For example an English student moves to America. She fills her room with various items and paraphernalia that are indicative of her culture. This is to territorialize, and say something about who she is. But the things that now fill her room are only objects, and do not give a full picture of her identity. Neither does her passport, or her CD collection for that matter. It is how she thinks and feels that makes her who she is.
It is only by entering into conversation with her that we can get an honest picture of her personality, if at all. You might be able to get some, rough idea of her personality from seeing various videos that she might feature in, but in my opinion it would not be a reliable source of identifying her properly. It is only when you are face to face with a person – seeing all of their twitches, instant reactions and responses, that you can get an honest idea of their identity. This is why televised political debates are misleading.
I am using the word identity, not in the ephemeral, territorial sense, but in the sense that it is how you act and react to things – with your personality making up a large part of your identity. Your identity is in your head. This is where television, in my mind, plays such a large part in shaping us as individuals. As identity is not a physical object, and is manifested within the individuals mind, it is vulnerable to influence such as television and radio (music). Perhaps this is why the invention of television has had such a profound effect on society. Also various musical movements such as hip-hop, jazz, pop, punk etc, are evidence of this external influence on the individuals’ identity. Whether this is of course true, I cannot say. I cannot say for sure, that I would be a very different person to who I am today, if I had never listened to music or watched the television. I do think that it would have an effect on my identity though. But how much of what I think, and in turn feel, has been influenced by my nineteen years of watching television and listening to music…
From another angle, how much can we tell about a person from the music that they might create? Is it possible that rather then entering into conversation with an individual, we could tell more about them by the music that they might create if given an instrument? Whether one is a greater indicator of an individual’s identity is somewhat irrelevant. The interesting point is that individuality/identity can be observed from creative expression – sculpture, painting, singing, dancing or joke telling. Joke telling, or rather ‘sense of humour’ is an interesting subject when talking about factors that give away ones identity. I find it so interesting because a persons sense of humour, be it dry, witty or vulgar, plays a huge role in how that person attracts, and is attracted to other people. Laughter is one of the first expressions that an individual shares with another human being. Like when a baby laughs at his mother, as she plays peek-a-boo with him. Laughter is, of course, one of the human expressions of joy. The “funny bone”, be it a figure of speech is a vital part of the human anatomy. We need it to interact and in turn fulfill our basic human needs. This is probably why comedy makes up such a huge part of the entertainment industry and television
No comments:
Post a Comment