Antioch Road

Review: Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


The problems Neil Postman wrote about in Amusing Ourselves to Death have been exacerbated in the 26 years since its publication. Postman posited that, at least in the western world, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (what we love will ruin us) -- not George Orwell's 1984 (what we hate will ruin us) -- was right.

Everything in our culture "has been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business." This not only affects how we converse and receive information, but how we think, and not in a good way. In short, technology is not neutral; television is destroying us. (Undoubtedly, Postman would say the internet is only making matters worse, if possible, for he begins his attack against the telegraph as having introduced "large scale irrelevance, impotence, and incoherence.")

Postman is not against entertainment (including television) altogether, he is against religion as entertainment. And politics as entertainment. He is against the way in which our image and video based culture has replaced our print-based culture, for the form of the medium -- in moderns times, the pervasive medium of television -- affects the content.

Postman applies his thesis to politics, religions, news, commerce, and education. Think Billy Graham versus George Whitfield. Think about what we call political debates today versus the Lincoln - Douglas debates. "You cannot do political philosophy on television. Its form works against the content." As a result, "the content of much of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense."

Television does this in a number of ways, including stripping away historical context, "ma[king] entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience," and inserting discontinuities that undermine coherence (e.g., a news report about war followed immediately by a report of a celebrity arrest).

If you are reading this book review about a book that promotes the virtues of a print-based culture, you may have already convinced yourself that television does more harm than good. If so, Postman's book will provide further clarity to your conviction. If not, you will never view television (or, frankly, the telegraph or newspapers) the same after reading this book.

The only thing missing from the book is a solution, though Postman is pessimistic that there is one. I share his pessimism, except at the family level.



View all my reviews

One Paragraph Review: What He Must Be by Voddie Baucham

What He Must Be: ...If He Wants to Marry My Daughter by Voddie T. Baucham Jr.

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In What He Must Be, Voddie Baucham gives us a Biblical model for what our sons must be to fulfill their roles as husbands and fathers, and what our daughters must expect in a future husband. This book is primarily written for fathers. It challenges current dating and parenting models as unbiblical. It calls us to reevaluate how we train our children. For if we care at all about the lives our children lead as adults and about our grandchildren and great-greatchildren, we must care deeply about the spouses our children choose and how they go about making those choices. As Baucham notes, it is a father's duty to protect his daughter, provide for his daughter, and lead his family in worship of God and in Biblical instruction. As a result, when a father gives away his daughter to another man, he must be certain that man will assume those roles. To be so certain, a father must play a significant part in assisting in his daughter's choice of a husband (and protecting her physically, emotionally, and spiritually until that time). Not just any one will do. There are clear things "he must be."

View all my reviews >>

The Religious Case for Throwing Away Your Issue of Newsweek

In Newsweek's Dec. 15 issue, someone named Lisa Miller makes "the religious case for gay marriage." Except the magazine put a picture of the Bible on the cover. The "religious case for gay marriage" is not the same thing as "the Biblical case for gay marriage." Newsweek would have given itself more intellectual credibility had it at least gotten the cover right.

Anyway, on to the story behind the cover.

Wait a second. I don't want to go on to that. The "religious case for gay marriage" has been "made" a hundred times. What a boring cover story. The Bible is antiquated. Modern scholars have found new meaning in the passages or now doubt their veracity. God is love and all He wants is for us to just be happy, however we define happiness. King David was a polygamist. And on and on and on.

Ms. Miller even writes that "while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Well, she's got us there! There is no verse in the Bible that says "the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman." I don't know how we could have missed that.

Anyway, let's leave Ms. Miller's story before she starts writing things like "the Bible endorses slavery." (Oops, too late.)

Instead, let's go on to Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's editorial note on the cover story. Unlike Ms. Miller's story, Mr. Meacham's note is interesting, if in a train wreck sort of way.

Mr. Meacham writes that "conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." The worst kind? Really? He can't think of a kind of fundamentalism worse than that?

And, is liberal resort to biblical authority OK, then? Apparently not, for "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." That's right—Mr. Meacham says that resort to Biblical authority is "unworthy" of the "Judeo-Christian tradition." Also, it is "intellectually bankrupt," which does not exactly explain why he just put a cover story in his magazine resorting to Biblical authority to argue for one side of an issue. Intellectually bankrupt for thee, but not for me?

But if we are to discard Biblical authority, to what authority should we resort? The closest Mr. Meacham comes to offering an alternative is when he says that "history and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion." So history--by which Mr. Meacham means historical trends--and the opinions of younger generations (i.e., "demographics") are to be our guides, eh? Those guides are less than definitive and consistent.

Perhaps, then, Mr. Meacham himself is to be our authority, given as he is in "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context" of the important issues.

Not doubting his good intentions but his omniscience, I pray that he will excuse me from submission to his authority, though it appears that he has already declined my request.

Obama and McCain Stand Together Against the Federal Marriage Amendment

There was an interesting and revealing exchange on marriage and the Constitution between Rick Warren and Barack Obama and then later between Warren and John McCain during Warren's presidential candidates' forum on August 16. First, Obama:

WARREN: Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But --

WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

It does not speak well for the University of Chicago Law School (one of the most highly regarded) that Barack Obama was a lecturer there for a dozen years, for this is plainly a very stupid answer, no matter which view one takes of the federal marriage amendment.

I have quoted Obama's entire answer, so I am not being unfair.

Additionally, it will not do for anyone to claim that Obama was hindered by having to provide a quick response. He has undoubtedly previously thought about this question, given how prominent the issue is in American politics.

He really, actually, and without a doubt did tell the audience that he opposed a federal marriage amendment because we have "historically" not defined marriage in our federal constitution. Instead, we have reserved the issue of marriage to the states.

To see how ridiculous an answer this is, all we have to do is apply the stated principle to other issues. If Obama applied his principle consistently, he would have opposed all constitutional amendments. After all, the only reason to amend the Constitution is to include something that has not "historically" been a part of the Constitution.

Applied more specifically, Obama's principle would require him to have opposed the 13th Amendment. Slavery was an issue "historically" left to the discretion of the states.

Unfortunately, John McCain (though not the former law school lecturer like Obama) gave a similar answer:

I strongly support preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I'm a federalist. I believe that states should make those decisions. In my state, I hope we will make that decision, and other states, they have to recognize the unique status between man and woman. And that doesn't mean that people can't enter into legal agreements. That doesn't mean that they don't have the rights of all citizens. I'm not saying that. I am saying that we should preserve the unique status of marriage between one man and one woman. And if a federal court -- if a federal court decided that my state of Arizona had to observe what the state of Massachusetts decided, then I would favor a constitutional amendment. Until then, I believe the states should make the decisions within their own states.

McCain does at least omit the "historically" part of Obama's answer and leaves open the possibility of supporting the amendment in the future. But, for now, his answer is essentially the same.

Federalism is a system. It is not a principle on which to base decisions.

Shifting the Definition of Business Casual

The August 2007 issue of the Edge Business Magazine, the local business periodical, has an article on workplace dress. It seems that some companies are having a little trouble with employees dressing down during the summer. Flip flops and sleeveless shirts and all that. The director of human resources at Kirkwood Community College, for instance, says that faculty "think they can dress or behave like younger students." (His inclusion of behavior is interesting; a topic for another day.)

The problem for many companies, it appears, is that no one knows what the definition of "business casual" means anymore. People have changed the definition to include things like jeans. This is another example of how shifting definitions have practical and, in some ways, negative consequences.

The same lessening of standards of dress apply to church as well. Whether we like it or not, the clothing we choose to wear (or not wear, as the case may be) conveys messages.

Will Plan B Increase STDs?

Jennifer Roback Morse at National Review Online makes a persuasive prediction that the FDA's recent approval of the "morning-after pill" for over-the-counter sales will increase the rate of sexually transmitted diseases. "If you think preaching abstinence is unrealistic, try preaching consistent condom use to people who already have a foolproof birth-control method," she writes.

One Paragraph Review: No More Christian Nice Guy

Following the reading of this review by Bryan Preston at JunkYardBlog, I purchased and read No More Christian Nice Guy by Paul T. Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin's book is a timely reminder of the importance of being a man and what it means to be a man. It follows in the tradition of C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man and, much more recently, Terrence E. Moore's essay "Wimps and Barbarians" in the Winter 2003 Claremont Review of Books and Donald Sensing's November 2003 discussion of the feminization of Jesus. I concur with Mr. Preston: "It's not a perfect book, from an orthodox evangelical perspective. . . . But getting beyond that, the book does useful service in doing one thing and doing it persuasively: Demolishing the modern portrait of Jesus of Nazareth as a nice guy." We are to be, as Jesus, not always nice, but always good. I would have liked to have seen Mr. Coughlin provide more useful practical applications. His chapter on work is good at that. And one final criticism: Mr. Coughlin has trouble picking a Bible version; he uses several different ones in his book. For someone who is promoting male assertiveness, his unwillingness to stick with a version is incongruous. Overall, though, a quick and useful read.

"I probably have a worse mouth than anybody else in my department."

This is the culture we live in:<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2218331">an article</a> on the possibility that Major League Baseball may soon have its first female general manager in <strong>Kim Ng</strong> of the Los Angeles Dodgers (currently the assistant GM), the <em>AP</em>'s <strong>Ronald Blum</strong> interviewed New York Yankees assistant GM <strong>Jean Afterman</strong>. Apparently the men in Ms. Afterman's life are so crude that they can only tolerate a female who is similarly crude. At least that's the way Ms. Afterman describes things:<blockquote>Afterman said she never felt gender issues with players, but she did when working alongside club officials.<br />
<br />
"You feel it in what I call quaint ways,'' she said. "The guys tend to try to modify their language. There are two things that I try and establish any time I'm going into a room where I don't know the people. One is that I'm an attorney, because there's a healthy respect. The other is <strong>I have to drop a profanity as soon as I come in there</strong>. I probably have a worse mouth than anybody else in my department."</blockquote><p>With pride, she says.<br />
<br />
How about acting <em>better</em>?<br />
<br />
Additionally, there aren't a lot of things more awkward in life than someone swearing for the sake of swearing.</p>

Madonna's Stand

Madonna tells people to "turn from their wicked behavior," reports Matt Drudge. Somehow I think that Madonna's definition of "wicked" is different from mine.

Declining Manners

The Washington Times picks up an Associated Press report on rude behavior (Donna Cassata, "Nevermind Your Manners," 10/15/2005):

Nearly 70 percent questioned in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll said people are ruder than they were 20 or 30 years ago. . . .

A whopping 93 percent blamed parents.

Anecdotally, I'd say both of these are true. More people lack basic manners than they did 30 years ago and parents are (at least to a large extent) to blame. Proverbs 22:6 says: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Of course, it is easy to read articles like this and think, yes, people are more rude. It's a good thing I'm not, and that my parents trained me right. I know how to hold the door for a lady and I don't swear in public (or anywhere).

Then I read this in the article: "The most common complaint about rudeness in the poll was aggressive or reckless driving, with 91 percent citing it as the most frequent discourtesy." Conviction. While I would not consider my driving to be anywhere close to pervasively impolite, I know there have been occasions where patience in my driving would have been the better course of action. I need to resolve to be better.