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.