In Soren Kierkegaard’s “The Present Age”, he discusses that information exists solely for people’s amusement and that the tool the public uses to receive and distribute that information is the media. He describes the media as a dog that can be sicked upon a person for the fun of those watching.
I get what Kierkegaard is saying, although if he was my friend I would probably say to him, “Soren, can you not temper your distain for the public at large even a little? “Lazy masses...?” Harsh.” (Note to self - this sounds very Randian... was she influenced by Kierkegaard? (Google pause) Nope, their philosophies are VERY different, except for the lazy masses part anyway.) I think one of the important things Kierkegaard is saying is that certain information presented by the media starts to meld with less important spectacle style of information; an example being that an article on homelessness might be presented in a newspaper alongside an article about Paris Hilton flashing her down-theres while drunkenly exiting her car. I think people do confuse trivial matters with complex ones because of the way the media disperses information and in some ways the more complex issues start to follow suit and become more exploitive, dirtier and glossier - more entertaining.
Because we have become so interested in the minutia of the daily lives of celebrities, politicians and the uber-rich, and media coverage of such things has become so popular, we have attached heightened importance to the same details of our own lives. People now attach importance to their own personal information, or at least interesting, maybe even a little glamourous when polished up and displayed. People are more interesting, smarter, quirkier, more successful and prettier than you may have previously thought - especially on Facebook. I guess this is where Kierkegaard is right in some respect. Why would Facebook exist if it were not for the ability to judge people on what they have published on their assigned pages? I personally am guilty of it, as sometimes I take great pleasure in finding out that an old coworker, while successful in his or her career and family, has obviously gained fourty pounds or that a kid I went to school with is twice-divorced with six children. If they don’t have a profile picture I just assume something horrible has happened to their faces (hard drugs, badger attack, botched plastic surgery).
OK, so I guess Kierkegaard was right, he was probably referring to people just like me. It almost makes me want to shut down my own Facebook account. Unfortunately Facebook is the topic of my blog, so I guess I will have to continue to use it for academic blogging purposes (plus I just was requested friendship status from an ex-boyfriend who I haven’t seen in years, and I’m sure a quick peek around his page wouldn’t hurt anybody).
PS: Do you think that when philosophers are right about a negative aspect of society they are happy because they are right and can say I told you so or are they sad because humanity sort of sucks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As Jordan stated in her comment on my post, we have both chosen the same topic of discussion (Facebook) which, may lead to some like-minded thinking and a lack of opposition. Which leads to my first point -- I Jordan's article was great (and I mean that in a totally sincere way, not in a way a phony person way would say something along the lines of; "super duper pal, that was a great try"). I think you illuminated a lot of interesting ideas.
I agree with both Kierkegaard and Jordan in that the media can be very petty and raise trivial matters (ie; who's sleeping with whom in Hollywood) to colossal heights of importance and subsequently reduce very pertinent issues to mere afterthoughts (ie; global conflicts). However, although I believe the media as a whole can be to blamed to a certain degree for these glaring problems, I also firmly believe that since they are an entity that work based on profit everyone is truly to blame. Without individuals consuming and accepting what the media is offering them, the media seizes to exist. I surmise then that it is not the media that is at fault in this situation, but us the general public, for desiring to remain ignorant, and contently consuming large amounts of bulls*** in an effort to not avoid any real issues.
In keeping with our efforts to avoid the real world and the horrors that befouled it, we turn to Facebook, the king of distractors. Instead of meeting people, having genuine connections and going from their, in either becoming friends, acquaintances or lovers with them, we chose to make meaningless connections with these people we hardly know and we often track their lives from a far in attempt to simulate real celebrity lives. And as much as we attempt to make celebrities of our "friends" we hope others are doing the same with us. A large portion of us are guilty of this (my greatest fault has to be untagging myself from photos I don't care for, which is the majority of them). A need for entertainment and distraction, as well as people's general idea that ignorance is in fact bliss, is responsible for the presence of so many unimportant distractors in our society.
To sum it all up, if we want the trivial information to go away, we're all in control. But for most of us, I don't think we want it to go away. Sure, I like to keep up with what's really going on in my world, but when I wake up in the morning I don't like reading about children being blown up in Iraq. I want to read about what movie came first at the box office and about how the Canucks are shaping up. Our world can be quite bleak, but it doesn't have to be and through our distractions we can chose what to make of it.
PS: Jordan, I do believe that when philosophers are right about negative aspects of society they are absolutely stoked about it, because for them I think being right is what makes them happy.
First of all thanks for the great reply. I wish I could be more argumentative in this project to add a little drama, but unfortunately I pretty much agree with you, David.
The media does not exist in a vacuum; it needs viewers, readers, listeners and users. We create a demand for certain information and the media responds to it. I am pretty sure this is how the media is supposed to work, and while I don’t think it is always that simple, or that the ideals of society is always reflected properly, it does illustrate that each of us has choices available as to what kind of information we would like and ultimately the control of what information we will seek out for our own benefit. This also means that if we don’t like how the media disperses information it is also up to the people it is addressing to change it.
I think we could both agree that programs like Facebook, when used in moderation, can be a great tool for entertainment purposes, and that is about it. Although I have to add that a friend of mine who advocates for housing for the homeless and the mentally ill has really started to use Facebook as a protest organizing tool. I will keep my eye on how effectively she can use Facebook to get people in her community involved.
Thanks again David, I enjoyed this project and I think that both Postman and Kierkegaard wouldn’t mind us using information technology (blogging) for this purpose.
Hey Jordan guess who?!
I think its probably a mixture of satisfaction of being right (because everyone loves being right) but a sadness that humanity is so shallow in its inhibitions. We waste so much precious time and money snooping into the lives of others via celebrity gossip magazines, TV shows, or even on things like Facebook when there are thousands of others things that we could be doing to help humanity. You know, things like curing cancer, feeding and sheltering homeless people, ending world hunger, pulling troops out of the pointless war in Iraq when we could just share the oil like we did building blocks in kindergarten...
People are so used to living in their own little social bubble which theoretically should be expanded with the aid of the internet, but because of our egotistical society this potential broadening of social horizons results in us thinking about ourselves more than we already did, and allows us to occupy ourselves with petty tasks such as how we should portray ourselves in our next profile picture.
Maybe it is more of a sadness. Or maybe pity. Humanity must seem pretty stupid to those philosopher guys when there are so many more important things to be done.
Jordan your post is quite an intriguing one to say the least. I think that the way information has always been portrayed has had an impact on how we now perceive information given to us. The news talks about the horrible death of a village after a flood and then in a blink of an eye is saying that the for the next week it will be sunny with no clouds, before anyone has any time to digest the story and feel any sort of compassion or sympathy. It is also the terms that everyone has started using that takes the personal effect off of things. Presidents no longer call their country people, but rather folks; it is never soldiers but troops; and as Kierkegaard says lazy masses instead of lazy people that seems to take on an insulting tone.
On another note, your question about philosophers being happy when they are right or sad because humanity sort of sucks... I think the better word is dissapointed. Yes, they can have the honor of saying that they told you so but in the end, that is not what they were hoping for. Its like when you make a bet against the team that you want to win so either you win money, or your team wins, it will always be a win/loss situation. I don't believe that Kierkegaard wants to call the public "lazy masses" but what else is there to call people that sit around all day in front of a screen whether it be for a computer, tv, or ipod. By using a term like lazy masses it might initiate a response from offended citizens that may end up changing the way in which the public is viewed. Anyway, in a way information does exist for people's amusement and curiosity for we could all live happy lives not knowing if there is a God or if the earth is square, but it is our curiosity that wills us to know.
As for media being a dog that can be sicked upon a person for the fun of those watching, well isn't that the perfect definition of the paparazzi? Whose job is it to find interesting stories for magazines whose purpose it is to solely entertain?
Post a Comment