Do We Live in a Trivial Culture?
Do We Live in a Trivial Culture?
Neil Postman on the Scourge of Triviality
Moving forward, in addition to writing standalone pieces like the one I published last week, I am going to continue to go deeper into some of Neil Postman’s most important ideas. The second quote from Postman that I’m going to look at is also from his best-known work, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business:
“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.”
- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
It is remarkable that Postman published this in 1985. Already, long before the rise of the internet, television was realizing Huxley’s fears. It’s even more remarkable that Huxley had these fears in 1932, long before the real rise of television. It’s clear now, with the rise of the internet, that Huxley’s fears have been largely realized.
But first, let’s look at Orwell’s fears, which have largely not been realized: Orwell feared that authoritarian governments would ban books, that we would therefore be deprived of information, and that the truth would be actively hidden. Ultimately, Orwell’s fear was that we would become a captive culture controlled by an authoritarian regime. While some of Orwell’s fears have come to pass (in particular, truth being hidden), it is not for the reason that he feared.
It is, instead, Huxley’s fears that have more or less all come true: that people would lose interest in reading, making book bans unnecessary, that information overload would lead to passivity and egoism, that truth would be buried in irrelevant information, and ultimately that we would become a trivial culture obsessed with superficial entertainment. It would seem that the rise and popularity of platforms such as TikTok mark a low point for our culture and do not bode well for the future.
So…what can we do? Again, real change begins with each of us. In order to push back against the triviality of our culture, we need to become more serious people. One way we can do this is to spend a lot less time on TikTok (Instagram, etc.) and a lot more time reading long and challenging books, and then interacting with people in the real world to discuss these books.
Speaking of which…if you haven’t already downloaded The How Did We Get Here? Reading List, now is a good time to do that! If you were to read every book on that reading list, I can nearly guarantee that you would see the world in a very different way.
Please forgive the brevity of this post! While I do plan for future posts to be more substantial, I am still overwhelmed at getting this new endeavor off the ground (making it available as a podcast and video, marketing it on various platforms, etc., etc.) Thank you for your patience and understanding and as always, thanks for subscribing!
Framed in the way Postman does in the quote you provided, Huxley’s fears certainly appear to have achieved a more obvious realization. But, many of Orwell’s predictions are coming to pass. And there is even a synergy between the two types of phenomena: As Huxley’s vision comes to pass and thus more of us are distracted into obliviousness concerning deeper trends and, as T.S. Eliot said, “we can connect nothing with nothing”, Orwell’s fears are more easily implemented and are in fact being implemented.. I’ll give some examples below:
1. “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.”
This most certainly is happening: A number of publishers and authors have been completely banned from Amazon and major booksellers. There is a pervasive if unofficial network of Goodthinkers who absolutely prevent “unapproved” books and ideas from being allowed into schools, libraries, curricula, etc. Now, much of this is achieved informally and not through official government action, but it is real nonetheless and is certainly aligned with the mainstream views of the Western governing classes. Just days ago, Hillary Clinton advocated for prosecuting American citizens for “misinformation”. People in Europe have been prosecuted for quoting Bible verses.
In his Substack column yesterday, Orthodox writer Rod Dreher described how a hit-job piece in the Kirkus Review on his about-to-be released book “Living In Wonder” will all but guarantee that his book will not be picked up by libraries, schools, universities, etc. Again, this is a small and informal but meaningful step, and it is certainly part of the way that power operates in today’s world. Key quote from Dreher’s reaction to the review: “You see what’s going on here: the Kirkus reviewer is signaling to libraries and bookstores that Living In Wonder is bigoted hatecraft. I will not be surprised if many libraries and bookstores decline to stock it after that review.” https://roddreher.substack.com/p/the-wildness-of-the-invisible-sky
2. “Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.”
This is also happening, pervasively. The lack of transparency with respect to government actions in any number of areas (foreign policy and military matters, allocation of funding, conflicts of interest, etc) is ubiquitous. Now, for sure it is in part the inundation of trivial information itself that is also contributing to the success of the deprivation of information: People are too distracted to care that key information is being kept from them. Another example that is not easy to prove but I think many of us of a certain age can confirm it experientially is that the nature of information availability on the Internet has significantly changed: Google results lead to a narrowing range of sources, and the burying of information by neglect. Whether this is intentional or simply the nature of the algorithms etc, who knows, but it is happening and it affects people's ability to ascertain sufficient information to make informed judgments.
3. “Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.”
Similar to and largely covered above. The arrest and prosecution/persecution of people like Snowden, Assange, Aaron Swartz, etc. shows that the authorities will go to great lengths to conceal truth and to destroy those who are trying to provide access to information.
4. “Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.”
Again, in many ways, this has, and continues to, come to pass. Criticisms of Liberal shibboleths ranging from immigration, to the various revolutionary sexual agendas to foreign policy to the imposition of energy quotas (“15 minute cities”) now have the real possibility of resulting in de facto if not de jure persecution, deplatforming and physical threats, etc. or simply the sheer inability to resist or escape from the effects of such policies: A formerly middle class person who has been economically decimated by intentional policy decisions, whose neighborhood is flooded with immigrants, who is prohibited from purchasing certain vehicles, etc etc and certainly cannot publicly criticize any of these such things is very much a captive, and it would be a kind of cruel gaslighting to deny it, even though that is exactly what the mainstream powers do. Many people do indeed feel they are captives through oppressive government policies, neglect and cancel culture, and the completely anti-democratic transformation of their societies, etc.
So, while the Orwellian predictions may be less obvious or perhaps because they do not always directly arise from (overtly) official channels of power, are denied as being real, I would argue that these things are happening and that the trend will be for them to increase as technologies (e.g. CBDC) enable it and increasingly authoritarian Western governments use these tools to impose their vision of the just society.
Anyway, this comment is not mean to be contrarian or argumentative, but just to make the point that both Orwell’s and Huxley’s visions have their descriptive truth in today’s world, and that they can be mutually reinforcing: the more we are distracted by trivialities and oceans of information, the more that centralized powers can enforce their preferred agenda in anti-democratic and authoritarian ways.
I very appreciate your work, both at Protecting Veil and You Are Not A Machine.
I think Huxley's vision is coming, too. If you hear an interesting piece of news that challenges the "official story", search for it a week or two later and it will have been memory holed. Examples: an article by the Atlantic about water treatment options and the pollution of hormonal birth control. Super well researched, impossible now to fine. Ilona Maher played for a few years as a boy, for the boys rugby team, under the name Mason Maher. Did she use male hormones? If she did, did it impact her performance at the Olympics on the women's team? You can't find information on it.