Thoughts on "The Sleeper Curve"

I read this commentary with great interest, because I remember making a similar argument in one of my classes last semester. It has to do with defining literacy; this is the address for this blog and it's something I'm very interested in. I think literacy is a way of thinking; as Johnson puts it, "Think of the cognitive benefits conventionally assigned to reading: attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads." "Good" television shows demand viewers to possess these abilities, and watching good shows furthers them.

Last semester I argued that teachers and schools come at literacy from a culturally biased perspective--schools value books and writing and that's how literacy is defined in those institutions. But as I said about my favorite show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, television can be just as much brain food as books. Buffy is layered, metaphoric, witty, and develops a new mythology. The motivation and ability to follow complex programs like Buffy is the same needed to read complex books.

Now, having said that, I'm not sure I would argue, as Johnson does, that good t.v. is making our culture smarter. The programs that he refers to are not ratings winners; they have a cult audience, but they are not in the top 10 or 20 shows per week. So, not everyone, or even most people, are watching them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think everyone has to want to watch challenging shows--or read challenging books. And that's part of why I don't think our culture is being made smarter; it's still the same percentage or subset of people who are seeking these kinds of shows as who sought out "high" literature before. And that's not the majority. It's not that we're smarter; it's that the form, the medium, that the content is presented in, has changed. I take a bit if an issue with Johnson's assertion that audiences from 20 or 50 years ago couldn't have understood shows like The Sopranos. The medium of television had not developed enough to have shows written like that on it yet, but it's not like people then were morons. If for no one else, people that chose to read and enjoy complex texts could have followed right along--because, as Johnson himself says, it's the same cognitive abilities at work.

I'm not implying that our culture isn't smart. It is. But it's also dumb. It's always been that way and it always will. This is for two reasons: one, people are not all the same, with the same interests and motivations; and two, culture is not monolithic.

Thoughts on Shannon

I want to start this off by saying I'm no philosopher, so I need to qualify the following thoughts and remarks with that understanding.

As I read Shannon, I was struck by a disagreement with him--not in his underlying thesis about what's become of reading instruction and how it's been hijacked by businesses, transforming students into commodities and teachers into unskilled factory workers. What I dispute is his pinning that on capitalism. Okay, bear with me.

I appreciated that he increasing identified rationality as the issue (although in continued to tie this to capitalism). When we look at Western (and Eastern for that matter) countries, even those who have espoused Marxism value rationality, efficiency, above creativity and individuality. Neither system intends for people to lose their individuality, but whenever rationality is highly prized, this will happen to some extent because thoughts and behaviors that deviate from the rational are dichotomized as then irrational. There becomes no middle ground. Shannon writes, "The material fate of the masses becomes increasingly dependent upon the continuous and correct functioning of the increasingly bureaucratic order of private capitalistic organization." Well, this statement could just as easily apply the masses in the old Soviet Union, Cuba, or even modern Russia controlled by the mafia. You just replace "private capitalistic organization" with the name of whoever is in control.

However, I think the problem goes deeper than any economic or social philosophy. Capitalism is no more inherently dehumanizing than Marxism, yet in practice both of them can suck. Marxism in practice has certainly not embraced the individual or free thinking. The deeper issue is the nature of man. I don't think that all people are doomed to selfishness in a Hobbesian/Lockean, but I do believe that men are corrupted by power--in whatever framework they get that power (government, business, etc.). Reading Shannon's arguments, I couldn't help but wonder (I feel like Carrie Bradshaw typing that phrase) how a capitalist reading of education in China or Cuba would look. It would probably talk about how capitalism relies on individuality and original ideas as the foundation for business and economy. Man is corrupt and those in power will always try to control those who aren't in power; the social or economic system in place has little to do with it.

All that said, I do agree with Shannon's thoughts. I hate what has become/is becoming of teaching and learning in this country--but really, it's happening everywhere. The world is small and only a few people own it.