tbarron wrote:I've just gotten started with this book as well as the one by Howard Bloom and at first blush I'm struck by the contrast between their points of view. Hedges seems very pessimistic (I'm wondering to what extent he's going to offer solutions or if he's just griping about a problem he sees as unfixable) while Bloom seems very optimistic. I would guess that Hedges might point to Bloom as one of the cultural figures offering us an overly optimistic viewpoint. I imagine Hedges might characterize Bloom's viewpoint (bearing in mind that I've just barely had time to begin forming an impression of what each is saying
) as "Just reframe it all and everything will be fine."
Hey TB, exactly right. Unfortunately my bookshop lost my order for
Empire of Illusion, so I have jumped straight to
The Genius of The Beast. Just from the summaries, Hedges' argument seems quite clear that he thinks there is an elite capitalist conspiracy to dumb down and control the masses. You are right there is an amazing contrast with Bloom. Bloom celebrates capitalism, for example the soap opera seems moronic, but it was used to fund the marketing of soap which is one of the biggest health benefits in the world, and still not widely used in some non-capitalist countries. Bloom's argument is that people complain about the negative and take the positive for granted. Bloom asks us to respect and tune in to mass opinion. For example, he comments that the plots of TV shows have evolved to become steadily more complex since the 1950s, and claims that this is associated with a measured rise in average IQ. Similarly with video games, he argues the benefits - engagement with complex stimuli and vicarious violence instead of real violence - outweigh the negatives of possible desensitisation and couch-potato syndrome.
Bloom's argument is that capitalism gives people what they want, indicated by public willingness to spend time and money on various products and pastimes. I suspect there is a strong push of moronic values though, as these are the lowest common denominator which are popular and accessible to people with limited education and energy, who only want their instinctive senses titillated. Bloom might compare Hedges to the CBS execs who were total snobs about the tastes of their customers, and so subsequently sent the company broke.
It is possible to critique mass culture and engage with people and issues on a level that seeks intellectual understanding. This is what Booktalk aims to do. The question all this raises for me is why such critique so often presents as elitist despair and fails to engage more with public taste in the way Bloom suggests. If people really want to change the world then they have to make new myths that will resonate with popular nerves. Hedges seems to imply this is impossible and we are headed for extinction or at least a bleak
1984-type hierarchy of inner party, outer party and proles. DWill made a good point to the effect that many university people are suck-up snobs who are incapable of honest analysis of big questions but prefer their careerist hole and group-think prejudices. Bloom endorses this critique of academia with his slogan 'the truth at any price, even at the cost of your life'.