|
|
|
Jerry Mander shows readers clearly why televison should be abandoned altogether
|
Title:
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television
Author: Jerry Mander
Publisher: William Morrow and Co.
Pages: 371
That
television is harmful is a tangible reality easily grasped by any
parent of school-aged children. Staring blankly at the screen almost
as if in a trance, kids the world over provide evidence daily of the
mind-numbing effects of this technology. Yet for some reason, people
continue to hold out hope for the redeeming qualities of TV,
assuming they exist.
Jerry
Mander, in his 1978 classic, Four Arguments for the Elimination of
Television, deconstructs the case for TV, even as a potentially
positive and educational tool. He is harsh in his critique, brash in
some of his statements and prescient in his early understanding of
how television impacts society at large.
Mander
makes his thesis clear at the very beginning of the book: “Far
from being ‘neutral’, television itself predetermines who shall
use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on
individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts
of political forms will inevitably emerge.”
It
is his contention that television is itself the modern incarnation
of autocracy. Gone are the days of jack-booted government enforcers.
They have been replaced by a technology that so effectively directs
mass thought and mass behavior, that people willingly acquiesce to
the whims of those in control of the technology.
If
this all sounds a bit like an Orwellian rant or a warning about the
“brave new world” we may fall into, that’s because Mander was
influenced by both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. In fact, he
cites both of their seminal works repeatedly throughout the book.
But before readers dismiss Mander as just a doomsday crackpot with
mad visions of a looming authoritarian future, consider the absolute
sense he makes in Four Arguments for the Elimination of
television.
To
start, Mander keeps things simple. Although he refers to various
studies throughout the book, much of his argumentation is based on
good old solid common sense. For instance, he notes early on that
television can be used only for certain purposes, most of which are
detrimental. To drive this point home, he draws an analogy to the
existence of firearms in modern society. He notes that guns have a
very specific purpose and they actually predetermine their use as
well as the people who use them. Guns are for killing things, plain
and simple. And the majority of people who end up using guns are
people who kill.
The
technology predetermines the outcome. The same, argues Mander, can
be said of television. It is simply a matter of mapping TV’s form
and function in order arrive at conclusions concerning the
detrimental nature of its influence.
Mander’s
first argument centers on the mediation of experience. Speaking not
so much about television and more so about how society has
progressed, he explains that as humans have moved more and more into
controlled living and working environments, we have lost touch with
true direct experience. To his mind, this has led to a crisis in
knowledge. Everything is interpreted and processed and packaged to
the point that the true nature of things is completely lost. This
alienating experience narrows the field of vision on life.
Secondly,
argues Mander, experience itself has been colonized, distilled and
condensed. By whom? By those who own and control the media. Mander
recognized the problems inherent in consolidation of large media
companies back in 1978. The situation is worse now, with only five
companies being responsible for nearly all the media production in
the United States. With control of media centralized, the human
being is at the whim of self-interest. And for these large
companies, that self-interest mean making money off the consumer.
It
is within his second argument that Mander explains the relationship
of advertising to television. A former advertising executive at one
of the most successful ad agencies of the 1960s and 1970s, he has a
great deal of expertise in this area. He notes that advertising is
only necessary when trying to get people to buy things they don’t
need.
In
business jargon, this is a process of “creation of value”. With
humans now separated from nature and stuffed into large cities or
suburbs, it is possible to target society with all sorts of
products. The isolation within communities is key in this process
and television is the tool by which a small number of people can
speak to a large number of people about the what they should eat,
where they should go, how they should live. Mander laments that all
this is artificial in nature.
“A
food in its natural state, unprocessed, does not need to be
advertised,” says Mander. “Hungry people will find food if it is
available. To persuade people to buy the processed version is
another matter because it is more expensive, less naturally
appealing, less nourishing and often harmful. The need must be
created.”
In
his third argument, Mander tackles the physiological and
psychological effects of television. Written in 1978 when much of
the research in these areas was nascent, this section is maybe the
weakest in argumentation because of the lack of serious study in
these matters. But looking at it retrospectively and drawing upon
the research of the 80s and 90s, what Mander says makes a lot of
sense.
Indeed,
sitting in front of a television set is a mesmerizing experience.
You zone out. It is hypnosis of sorts. Measuring brainwaves while
watching television reveals an almost zombie-like state. Mander’s
point is that in a virtual state of hypnosis, learning cannot take
place, assuming that educational programming is being viewed. What
can take place is rather akin to brainwashing with images being
implanted in the mind for later retrieval when consumer activity
takes place.
Additionally,
there is concern over the electromagnetic spectra absorbed by the
body while watching television.
In
his fourth and final argument, Mander explores the inherent biases
of the technology. After explaining the manner in which television
numbs the mind and sinks the human into boredom, he reveals that
there are many tricks used in the media industry to keep people
watching.
Because
the television screen is so small, a broad range of activity cannot
be adequately portrayed. For this reason, television camera-work is
largely close-up based. Facial shots and quick cuts from one person
to another predominate.
Additionally,
it is difficult to convey nuances of emotion on television. This is
partly because of technical constraints and because of audience
intolerance for inaction. Therefore, content is biased towards
action and over-emphasized romance, two things that can be portrayed
quite demonstratively.
In
the end, Mander comes to the conclusion that television simply
cannot be reformed as a technology. Furthermore, because of the
detrimental effects it can have, he argues that it should be treated
with all the care of nuclear energy or other realistically harmful
technologies.
Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television is a book that was
ahead of its time. With the more recent developments in computer
technology as well as satellite and cable television, this work has
more applicability now than ever. As MTV tells our kids what think,
as Martha Stewart tells us how to decorate our houses, as Dan Rather
tells us what is important in the world each day, we should all give
consideration to the points brought up by Mander.
To
put it simply, this book is a must read. 
|
