Anthony Meyer
As a society, Americans have presumed that the television is a piece of furniture. We believe that the home is not complete without it. We assume that the television is as necessary as a couch or a stove. In fact, look at the design off our living rooms. They share an essential floor plan, an acceptable American feng shui: a couch, a coffee table, and a television.
The centerpiece of my living room is a reasonably sized Sony, outdated by about 5 years. My couch could put an adrenaline junky into a coma. Its leather cushions put all others to shame. I float on top of them like a bather on a Bahaman beach. The act of watching television happens on this couch.
I watch television late at night. As all night owls eventually realize, nothing worthwhile is on late night television. The viewer, however, finds the act of turning off the television impossible. Somehow I repress all desire to press the power button on the remote even though there comes a point after watching x-many episodes of Blind Date and suffering through y-many Coke commercials when I ask myself, “Isn’t there more to life than this?”
Socrates would have agreed that a life spent in a television comatose is not a life worth living. I divide a television comatose into a dichotomy between commercialism and anti-intellectualism. Commercialism is rampant in the world of television. Literal commercials and product placement attempt to convince viewers to consume. More importantly, a whole culture of consumption forms. Anti-intellectualism describes how the programming on television contributes to the delinquency of American society. People read books before the television was invented.Therefore, how should I finally disconnect myself from my leather womb of a couch when its cushions entice my back to the world of television perpetually? The world of television is complex and ever-present, but it is not reality. I can sever my television umbilical cord if I do not buy into the dual systems of television and commercialism. Although the solution to this problem may be a simple gesture, standing up from the couch and turning the television off, the philosophical implications of the gesture are much more complex.
My beliefs as to why television has such odious properties boarders on a conspiracy theory. I argue that the structure of television (referring to the programming on television) is such that people are brainwashed into believing that the world of television (consumerism and anti-intellectualism) constitutes the norm. There is a life outside of MTV; however, the advertisers who sponsor MTV’s programming would not profit if the masses realized this. In a more general statement, television has a hypnotic quality to it, which causes people to prefer the sleep-like existence on a couch over the real, visceral existence of life without television.
With those generalizations in mind, I believe I can infer that television is a vehicle of poverty (or at least that television perpetuates like poverty). Poor people have a tendency to search for escapes to poverty, television being one of those escapes, instead of attempting to resolve their unfortunate plight. Likewise, those well off look for escapes to their existences. With such a metaphor, why would anyone watch the tube?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

3 comments:
First of all, I enjoyed thinking of a television as a peice of furniture. (It had never occured to me until now to see it that way)
I understand what Tony is saying in the last paragraph about escapism but I'm confused as to the point he is making about poor vs. rich television viewers and their motives. If everyone watches television for the same reason (to escape one's own reality) then why make the distinction between poor and rich?
I'm not sure what the 2 part problem is, but I'm wondering if perhaps it has to do with: Why do we keep watching television even after we have asked ourselves "Isn't there more to life than this?" as Tony writes.
The idea of commercials and consumerism on the television made me wonder about educational television and if there is a place for that kind of entertainment. I'm a discovery channel/animal planet/cooking network viewer and I have actually gained positive knowledge from watching some of those programs so I think that television can have a positive impact at times. There are people who believe that television does not represent our culture, and others that feel it is an accurate respresentation. I want to know where Tony stands on that issue. He seems to view television as a negative part of our culture (which most of us can agree on) but I would like to know if he thinks it still has a place or not and what that is.
Two things first off. Socrates would probably just sit around and ask questions rather than outright disapprove because that's all. he. did. (A nitpicky thing, not that I have a personal dislike of Socrates, nope, nope). Secondly, "leather womb" was a fantastic image.
Question: are there any benefits to TV? What about Discovery, National Geographic, the History Channel, Preschool television? Will our society really stop commercialism if all the TV's fizzled out? (I agree with you that they certainly don't help; I'm played devil's advocate) What would take TV's place in that scenario?
If you could do a study on a smattering of opinions from other countries on how they view the US by the TV shows and movies, would you consider it? Looking at an outsider's opinion as to how our culture is reflected may strengthen your case.
Your last paragraph inferred psycological need for escapism; I would be interested to see how this develops.
Your introductory paragraph is clever. It shows the focus of the television in the home while also showing that it will be a focus in your essay. And, your second paragraph nicely established a tone of humor and your voice.
I think the argument flows very logically from paragraph to paragraph. But, I think the jump was a little too big to the point on poverty. I’d like to see more how your thoughts are unfolding here and more support for this argument. I think mostly because that’s a really interesting and unique argument and I’d like to see you go further.
Post a Comment