Amusing Ourselves to Death

[Johan (Keyholder)]

Today I came across a substack article, written by James Marriott, in September this year. The article is entitled: “The dawn of the post-literate society”.

But the zest of his article deals with a book written by Neil Postman, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”. And the main quote from Postman’s book is as follows: “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book because there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

I searched this forum and found a few (about ten) references to this book. Yet I find it – maybe – useful to discuss the content of Marriott’s article more in depth. And for the readers amongst us, Postman’s book can be, well, “enlightening”.

The foreword of the 1985 book (by Postman) can be an introduction. I will paste it below. For those interested, James Marriott’s article can be found here: https://jmarriott.substack.com/p/the...te-society-aa1

Foreword by Postman’s book

We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held.

Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another—slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."

In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.

In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

[AutumnW]

I've responded twice now to this post and for some reason they're not appearing here. Will see if this appears and then respond again.

[AutumnW]

Okay, that went through. What I wrote before is, the wealthy and what's left of the middle class, get the Huxley treatment. But there's a combination of Orwell and Huxley for everyone else.

I read the book about 30 years ago and it holds up really well, but doesn't account for tech, the internet and govt/corporate tech surveillance. Postman also didn't account for tiktok and youtube, that take our already fractured concentration and break it down further.

In Postman's time, linear thinking wasn't completely trashed as episodic television forced you to, at least, follow a plot. Imagine what we would have thought of super hero videos that are so fast moving and visually overwhelming (compelling?) that the plot almost doesn't matter.

As a society we're now using association and impression to think almost exclusively and it partners so well with tech networks. It allows for and enhances sophistication in that particular mode of thinking, but encourages conspiratorial thinking, due to more of an absence of the linear and analytical mental functions, that reading encourages.

There are downsides and upsides to that. We're less naive, but more paranoid. One of the self correcting mechanisms, is the long form interview, pioneered by Joe Rogan. You really have time to sit back and think analytically about what's being presented, without distraction of visual overwhelm.

I think Postman is dead but I would love to know what he thought about tech.

[Johan (Keyholder)]

@AutumnW - " I think Postman is dead but I would love to know what he thought about tech."

Yes, Neil died in 2003. But as a response to your question (about 'tech'), his son Andrew wrote a foreword in 2005 (to a reprint of his father's book), that begins as follows:

A book of social commentary published twenty years ago?
You're not busy enough writing e-mails, returning calls, down
loading tunes, playing games (online, PlayStation, Game Boy),
checking out Web sites, sending text messages, IM'ing, Tivoing,
watching what you've Tivoed, browsing through magazines
and newspapers, reading new books—now you've got to stop
and read a book that first appeared in the last century, not to
mention the last millennium? Come on. Like your outlook on
today could seriously be rocked by this plain-spoken provoca
tion about The World of 1985, a world yet to be infiltrated by
the Internet, cell phones, PDAs, cable channels by the hun
dreds, DVDs, call-waiting, caller ID, blogs, flat-screens, HDTV,
and iPods? Is it really plausible that this slim volume, with its
once-urgent premonitions about the nuanced and deep-seated
perils of television, could feel timely today, the Age of Comput
ers? Is it really plausible that this book about how TV is turn
ing all public life (education, religion, politics, journalism) into
entertainment; how the image is undermining other forms of
communication, particularly the written word; and how our
bottomless appetite for TV will make content so abundantly
available, context be damned, that we'll be overwhelmed by
"information glut" until what is truly meaningful is lost and
we no longer care what we've lost as long as we're being
amused. . . . Can such a book possibly have relevance to you
and The World of 2006 and beyond?

If anyone wants the entire foreword, just PM me.

[Bill Ryan]

Here's the book, now in the Avalon Library:

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Nei...20Business.pdf

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Johan (Keyholder) (here)
...the main quote from Postman’s book is as follows: “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book because there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Aldous Huxley, author of the classic dystopian novel Brave New World, was decades ahead of his time.

Do also see this worrying thread, btw:

• Many American kids can NOT read