Beyond this, she seems to misunderstand the concept of popular culture. Just because its on television, doesn't make it popular culture. Mad Men, Perry Mason, Law & Order, 24: none of these are really popular television series, with the possible exception of 24 (I should probably admit that I don't have a television, which may disqualify me from having an position here, but I don't think I'm wrong). How about American Idol? Or Dancing with the Stars? Those of us worried about the state of popular culture are going to have to realize and come to grips with the fact that the most popular things in our culture are precisely those that require the least amount of thought and have the least amount of meaning. The real question for me is why - why do we seem to have become a less interested and less interesting society? Why are we getting dumber and getting prouder of our stupidity?
Vanden Heuvel does make some insightful comments that help to frame thinking about these issues, which is the silver-lining. For instance, she points out that Michael Moore seems like a left-wing, thinking populist that can really speak the people's language, that takes intellectualism and distills it into language that is easily digestible.
The proliferation of technology has allowed the creation of multiple masses that, as vanden Heuvel points out, "has of course increased the dangers of only listening to oneself." And made it more challenging, if not impossible, for intellectuals to communicate in any meaningful way with the broader public. She quotes Noam Chomsky as saying, "the responsibility of intellectuals was to tell the truth and expose lies." But if nobody's listening then the impact of truth-telling is limited. Worse, the nature of "the truth" is challenged by post-modernist relativism from one direction and by technology which creates a vortex in which lies spoken loudly are mistaken for truth.
4 comments:
I wonder, though, if you'd find that this anti-intellectualism you find in today's culture is new. 150 years ago, without television or radio, people certainly read more; but that didn't mean they read good things. Generally speaking, genre-novels requiring little thought pervaded the book market. With few exceptions (Dickens was popular throughout the US, and UNCLE TOM'S CABIN was notably a best seller, though its literary merit is dubious).
In other words, they clung to the nineteenth century pop garbage. Ancient Greeks decried the lost of intellectualism of yore just as we do. It's all relative (or, is that out of bounds to say? :) ).
I suppose you're right. I've just read a review of a book that argues that the French Revolution had a lot less to do with the philosophes and a lot more to do with gossip rags and scandal sheets.
On the other hand, I think left-wing intellectuals in particular have forgotten that this is the case. We've distanced ourselves from populism, perhaps with good reason, but on the other hand, it means that we've given up that portion of the population that responds to populist rhetoric.
But I also am interested in the ways that technology play out in terms of what people are exposed to. Books, radio, television, the Internet - they each create information in different ways, require different things from their audience members and ultimately can create a mass culture (see radio and to a lesser extent - at least since cable - TV) or diffuse culture (see the Internet, and to a lesser extent, books). With routes to information limited (there are only so many radio stations) people are more likely to be exposed to ideas they wouldn't have heard elsewhere, that challenge them intellectually or politically.
I'm not trying to argue that everybody read Sartre in the 1950s and 60s. I don't think intellectualism will necessarily ever be popular - people are just not that smart (isn't this the basis for Plato's Republic?). But intellectuals have had more or less power in their culture and society depending on the time period we look at and intellectualism does seem to be on the wane. Perhaps not everybody read Sartre, but he certainly had more of an impact on the culture as a whole, than any intellectual today has on contemporary culture. Why is that the case?
It's a shame you don't have a tele to experience one of the greatest television shows in the history of moving pictures (Mad Men).
To answer you question, intellectuals are having a diminishing impact in our society because "we" don't see the value. It doesn't help the fact that for the past few decades the view of an intellectual has been some ivory tower conservative snob with a silver spoon born into his mouth. Nor does it help that intellectuals have been striving to be more exclusive than inclusive (I would probably trace this mostly back to the advent of the IQ test and how slavishly it's been followed).
Intellectuals' influence have also been shaving off with the creation of the something that should have empowered them and spread like wildflower, the internet. Now with the internet society has come to the stance that all opinions are equally valid regardless of what the say, the support given, etc. There's only so much noise one can make when there 100x as many people screaming over you.
Our society has gotten to a place where everything is valid or fair regardless of anything, or further and further away from our (flawed) meritocracy ideals.
I've heard good things about Mad Men. But I suspect that your contention that it is one of the greatest things to grace the screen would be debated (inanely) by people who prefer spectacles such as the true popular entertainments I mentioned in my post (_American Idol_).
In any case, I'm intrigued by your description of intellectuals as conservative, since if you replace that word with "left-wing" or "liberal" you get precisely the conservative talking-points that seem to win them elections (and I think is more accurate, anyway).
The history of the IQ test is an interesting and twisted one - it in many ways being rooted in the history of eugenics as well. At first I was dismissive of the idea that the IQ test was a particularly intellectualist exclusivist tool, but on second thought . . . maybe. I'm still somewhat skeptical, since I'm unfamiliar with pissing matches regarding IQ scores, but maybe I just haven't been paying attention.
As regards the Internet, I would contend your suggestion that the intellectual class has been remiss in using it to advantage. Communications technologies are things that are ungovernable (well, unless you're China, but let's confine our argument to the US for now). My thesis is that the Internet is an inherently dispersive technology, which divides rather than builds community - it is atomistic and only allows community of like-minded people, not at all the sort of community in which people are exposed to difference that I would argue is the sort of community we should be building.
As you point out, it is the nature of the Internet to make all ideas equally valid. Some thought this would be a boon to democracy, since it was believed that power would no longer control information. The unforeseen consequence was that with zero controls on information - with no real gatekeeper, it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish lies from truth.
Your comments on the meritocracy are interesting in that the right would argue that it is precisely this function which allows for a true meritocracy. According to them, the intervention of the state in setting and enforcing the rules of engagement is arbitrary and therefore skews the meritocratic nature of the system. The market/genetics/God (depending to whom you talk) decides who merits a decent life. There are no rules, other than the rules of nature and the wild-west of the Internet fosters this perspective.
I'm not necessarily calling for regulation of the Internet, merely trying to explain one reason for why we seem to be losing the culture wars.
Post a Comment