Imagine: rows and rows of mindless zombies- identical in appearance, numb and ignorant to their lack of freedom, fervently accepting and defensive of their subservience. You’d have Huxley’s “brave” new world. Picture a race of mind-washed inferiors, kept under surveillance, deprived of privacy and instilled with every type of fear. Orwell’s horrifying prediction of 1984 would be reality. In 1984 and A Brave New World, every citizen is presumed to be identical in their vulnerability, gullibility and weakness. Huxley depicts people who are drugged (by a substance called soma) and brain-washed in their sleep (a process called hypnopaedic conditioning) by a highly manipulative and scientific government. Orwellian government punishes and monitors their people so severely that dissent is impossible. This theme of Huxleyan and Orwellian civilization is central to Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death. Clearly by Postman’s title, he leans toward the ideas in Brave New World. So, how do these societies relevantly compare to America today? I’m willing to stand by the independence of the individual; in modern times the masses simply aren’t as complacent and gullible as Orwell and Huxley would’ve conjectured in 1942 and 1932. There are undoubtedly more than one type of viewer, thus technologies like television and the internet have the possibility to be positive or negative, depending on what species of consumer that is seeking out the information feed.
As a culture which is blessed to have TV’s in virtually each and every home since the 1950’s, Americans have become accustomed to them. There are certain assumptions we make when regarding television’s versatility, audience and nature of viewing. Neil Postman makes references to the many subjects incorporated into modern television: “politics, religion, news athletic, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, without protest or even much popular notice.” I concur that television deals with every aspect of life: E! fills the fashion, style and fad needs, TLC tells us what a family should look like, Animal Planet deals with creatures outside of the human realm, History deals with, well, history- I could go on and on and on. James Poniewozik, in his “Campaign ‘08: The Media’s 24-Minute News Cycle”, reminds us of just how much politics is integrated into television for entertainment value, saying “While Katie Couric grilled Palin on CBS, it was Tina Fey’s impression [on Saturday Night Live] that seared the moment into national consciousness.” (Source B) We can all agree that we have every bit of news- on the newest summer trends, on how to know if you’re getting enough Vitamin F395, even Mit Romney’s dog “abuse”- at our ever ravenous fingertips. Postman’s incredulous tone makes the variety seem superfluous; Poniewozik’s irony makes the reader feel almost guilty as they realize that, they too remember Tina Fey’s famous impression. But, while they convey this attitude that the surplus of information is negative to an audience of buffoons- Corbett Trubey brings up an interesting point: the “interpretive viewer” that forms an opinion on what they see, on, say, Saturday Night Live and CBS.
In 2012, users are incredibly familiar with the internet found on our computers, phones, and ipods, too. Critics reduce this familiarity to a dependent addiction, though. Dalton Conley, in “Wired for Distraction? Like it or not, social media are reprogramming our children’s brains. What’s a good parent to do?”, claims “Scientific evidence suggests that, amid all the texting, poking and surfing, our children’s digital lives are turning them into much different creatures from us- and not necessarily for the better.” He’s suggesting that internet activity among minors is simply casual. As an adolescent, of course I do my share of texting, poking and surfing, but I also keep tabs on news and practice my french, and look up things I’d like to know more about. Believe me, I have the resources. The UK research company Netcraft released their estimate last February that there are 612 million websites in existence to date. That's intriguing! There’s a website for everything. It is understandable that this access to what is, frankly, a different world of information and entertainment would be popular amongst all ages. Of course, there are those who abuse the internet and watch Youtube four hours a day, but it isn’t fair to make the assumption that all internet use is negative. The benefits of information found on the internet is subjective to who is seeking it.
On the subject of epistemology, Postman fears that the way the television communicates with us will inevitably affect how we communicate with the world and our exchange of information. Could our news networks and TV programs weave the very fabric of our culture? Is technology suffieciently omnipotent to surpass people in determining our modes of communication? Technology has little to do with the grand idea of epistemology, and more to do with the transport of information. Randy Glasbergen mocks the prevalence of technology in our culture in his cartoon that snarkily comments, “You should turn off your cell phone on a date.. especially if it’s smarter and cooler than you are.” Glasbergen implies that our technology is a statement about social interaction and how the world views our ability to do so. Our cell phones, TV’s and computers are as much as an extension of ourselves as typewriters and feather pens were to previous generations. No one remembers Einstein for the type of textbooks he used, they just remember his brilliance.In the end, it depends on the person that uses them. For technology to define one’s definition of knowledge, one must be extremely passive and reliant on the technology itself. Absolutely, these lugubrious individuals exist. An active utilizer of technology creates their own ideas and uses internet, cell phones and TV to their advantage- not the other way around. And these fine specimens exist, too! These objects- our technologies- are just mediums for the operators. Our epistemology does not change just because of technology’s advances, because technology is just a vehicle.
Albert Camus wisely observes, "More and more, when faced with the world of men, the only reaction is one of individualism." Existential in nature, yes, but relevant to modern society. The immense, awe-evoking monster that is technology isn't a creature of dominance seeking to smother culture and warp global epistemology. Beside Camus, I aspire for the individual in each television watcher, twitter-er, blogg-er, text-er, email-er, videogam-er to rise to the occasion of the infinite information available. Human nature requires variety to survive, ask Darwin. No viewer is the same, and that is exactly why media is subjective- and not all bad.
