Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Huxleyan Warning

More than two decades ago, an author foretold of a country that was slowly rotting away in front of hundreds of pixels that presented the attractive images that kept them coming back for more nonsense. Neil Postman wrote Amusing Ourselves to Death and brought to the public’s attention (or at least those who chose to read his book (who commonly weren't the people who needed to hear Postman’s warning)) that television has become the central point for our culture's information. And with so much influence over the many minds of the huge country of the United States of America, Postman sadly informed us that we were only being fed garbage. Poisonous, radioactive garbage at that, which passes on from each contaminated generation to the next. With his thorough analyzation of the past and what was currently taking place in the country, Postman wrote this admonitory novel. And with his unique writing style and numerous rhetorical devices, Postman created a novel that could possibly inform and protect people from a "Huxleyan" future, and ending.

Outstanding relevance plays a key role in the validity of Postman’s argumentative warning (outstanding because of when it was written). A lot has changed in America’s technological culture during the 22 years between now and the time that Postman wrote his prophecy. Logically, one would think that this time difference would cause the argument to lose accuracy and thus become irrelevant in comparison to more current information and arguments. Yet Postman has made it clear and obvious that "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" (or that if you study history and write a book you may be able to save a country or something along those lines). Postman understood how humans and culture reacted to technologies of the past and thus made a conclusion about what could be expected of of the future. This is how the book has kept it’s relevance until today. He may not address iPods and the advanced models of computers that are all to common these days – as well as the TV programs that are actually on the air – yet Postman has studied the psychology behind the minds in front of technology and with this information he was able to sustain a relevant argument that targets something larger than a specific model of technology. Postman has studied not only what television presents but also how television presents it and how television functions as the core for information in America. Yet more importantly, as I mentioned, he has scrutinized the aspects of the past and of matters other than television to truly argue why television has become so hazardous. With his overall perspective on the matter, Postman made the subject of television and it’s perilous effects a possible argument that would carry on through the years. Now all the relevant and exponentially demanding matter needed was an author with a persuasive writing style – and maybe some rhetorical devices.

Postman has a natural way of speaking with his audience and not at them. He informs his readers respectively and intelligently, never stooping down from his level yet never biting (too hard) at the fragile reader. With his writing full of antitheistic sentences supported by italics, he makes his point clear. The writing style supports itself yet is given a stronger foundation by the various sources and quotes within the novel. His included statistics and facts form the backbone of a logos environment and tend to only strike down the naïve thoughts that were once thought of about an overlooked matter. All of this and more create a formula for persuasion. Thus with a relevant subject and a solid, persuasive book in hand, Neil Postman brought to America’s attention what Huxley feared. I was no one to stand against this assault of persuasion and I agree with Postman about what he proposes overall.

3 comments:

Dan Shepler said...

I like your writing style for this essay. It seems like myself and others were more interested in tidbits of information to prove our points (or Postman's), whereas you looked at the book as a whole and came up with an essay. I mean, instead of focusing in on individual words, your essay represents the whole of the book. If I were to use any one person's essay to give to a person thinking about reading the book, I would most definitely give them yours. Good work.

wang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wang said...

Miguel..is this you? Well anyways.. I agree with your statement about the Postman's writing style. He wrote the book with more intellectually challenging words, but they weren't too confusing if you looked them up in the dictionary. He didn't over simplify or "dumb his writing down," but it probably may have been easier for me to get through the book in one sitting if some of it was in "layman's terms". His writing style actually bored me, but his writing style was good for his intended audience of "mature" readers who would understand his topic.