miscellanies (25 May 2024)
not so random reads from the interwebs
miscellany [ mis-uh-ley-nee], noun 1. a miscellaneous collection or group of various or somewhat unrelated items 2. a miscellaneous collection of literary compositions or pieces by several authors, dealing with various topics, assembled in a volume or book
Why on earth do I post the links that I do here? Why point out articles that are sometimes very long, sometimes go against the grain, and sometimes raise your hackles as you read them?
Because we have largely stopped thinking critically...about anything.
In 1985, Neil Postman published a short, 200 page book titled Amusing Ourselves to Death. If you haven't read it, you should. Buy a copy. Check it out from the library. Ask me, and I'll buy you a copy if you don't have ten bucks to get your own.
Seriously. Tolle lege, as Augustine heard from the angelic voice. Take up and read.
Why? Because, as much as we like to point out the Orwellian realities that have come true in our American culture, Orwell largely got it wrong. We haven't been dominated by autocratic government oppression. Complain as you will, it simply hasn't happened. Instead, Aldous Huxley's vision, as portrayed in Brave New World, ended up winning the day. We have become distracted, amused to intellectual death, to the point where we have willfully given up our desire (and ability) to think deeply about anything, choosing instead to be sedated by the non-stop clamor of 'news' and social media that take up so much of our lives.
Here is Postman's introduction. It is prophetic and powerful. As he points out in this work, Huxley was right. If you haven't read Brave New World, go read that first. (By the way, the same offer applies as above. It is an eerie but fantastic read that does not disappoint.)
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another — slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity, and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.