Manjoo 5-Epilogue
"It's real to us, at least," writes Manjoo, "and that's as real as it gets" (58). This has been a running thread throughout this book, and I argue that it undermines the value of analyzing how the confluence of cognitive bias and media fragmentation have affected public discourse. The value of writing something like this is that it can let us see our errors and do better. If we sincerely believe that reality is only what we perceive and can't be more than what we perceive, then there is no better to be pursued.
Think about what it means to say "Love the truth." Love has to be aimed at something outside of us, something that is other than us, free to be as it is regardless of what we want it to be. "Real to us" is none of those things. When what is in my mind is the only standard for what is real, then our two options are certainty or helplessness. Certainty would spring from ignoring the flaws in our own perception, helplessness from knowing our flaws and believing that they're the only thing available to us.
There is a space beyond the two poles of helplessness and certainty. When we believe in reality as something that exists outside of our minds, and we value understanding it, then we can recognize our flaws in apprehending it honestly. Humility is what empowers us to serve the truth.
Here's the odd thing: I don't think Manjoo deeply believes in this idea, not at the level of a philosophical truth. If he did, he'd only be writing for the paycheck or to see his name in print. He wouldn't be a journalist. Maybe he even says so at one point, and I just missed the line. The value of using reality in the manner that he does is that it communicates just how strongly felt perception can be, or how valid subjective experience can feel. To say reality is splitting in that sense only means that we now lack a shared perception, which is important for understanding what has changed about public discourse. But, as a metaphor, reality is very close to truth, which we need as a destination in order to act as writers and thinkers.
"The pulsing medium fosters divergent perceptions about what's actually happening in the world--that is, it lets each of us hold on to different versions of reality" (224). I added the emphasis to "lets." It implies permission, in this case the permission to consume and disseminate ideas that the old media and scholarly establishments would not disseminate. If there was at one point a shared reality, it wasn't because prior generations had a more level-headed grasp on science and issues of public concern, but because "reality" sat on power. Power is great because you never have to worry about the experience or actual thinking of those you have power over. Instead, they have to work around you because of the potential for you to provide or withhold. Power is great because its the shortest route to the desired end, since you never have to worry about individuals embracing and working towards that end on their own.
This is where I get frustrated with Manjoo. The new media landscape means that the internal locus of control is much more important than the control exerted by institutions, but Manjoo seems to just end with, "Welp, now the individual gets to just believe whatever, guess that's the way it is." A horde of Swift Boaters gathers on the horizon. Maybe this critique amounts to "I wish he had written a different book," but right now I think the way to look at our institutions isn't through the lens of how totally they can enforce a set of perceptions, but with how they educate. I mean educate in the sense of how they draw out or affect the capacity of a person to resist falsehood and seek truth. We forget that education has as much to do with how you learn as it does with what you learn.
Think about what it means to say "Love the truth." Love has to be aimed at something outside of us, something that is other than us, free to be as it is regardless of what we want it to be. "Real to us" is none of those things. When what is in my mind is the only standard for what is real, then our two options are certainty or helplessness. Certainty would spring from ignoring the flaws in our own perception, helplessness from knowing our flaws and believing that they're the only thing available to us.
There is a space beyond the two poles of helplessness and certainty. When we believe in reality as something that exists outside of our minds, and we value understanding it, then we can recognize our flaws in apprehending it honestly. Humility is what empowers us to serve the truth.
Here's the odd thing: I don't think Manjoo deeply believes in this idea, not at the level of a philosophical truth. If he did, he'd only be writing for the paycheck or to see his name in print. He wouldn't be a journalist. Maybe he even says so at one point, and I just missed the line. The value of using reality in the manner that he does is that it communicates just how strongly felt perception can be, or how valid subjective experience can feel. To say reality is splitting in that sense only means that we now lack a shared perception, which is important for understanding what has changed about public discourse. But, as a metaphor, reality is very close to truth, which we need as a destination in order to act as writers and thinkers.
"The pulsing medium fosters divergent perceptions about what's actually happening in the world--that is, it lets each of us hold on to different versions of reality" (224). I added the emphasis to "lets." It implies permission, in this case the permission to consume and disseminate ideas that the old media and scholarly establishments would not disseminate. If there was at one point a shared reality, it wasn't because prior generations had a more level-headed grasp on science and issues of public concern, but because "reality" sat on power. Power is great because you never have to worry about the experience or actual thinking of those you have power over. Instead, they have to work around you because of the potential for you to provide or withhold. Power is great because its the shortest route to the desired end, since you never have to worry about individuals embracing and working towards that end on their own.
This is where I get frustrated with Manjoo. The new media landscape means that the internal locus of control is much more important than the control exerted by institutions, but Manjoo seems to just end with, "Welp, now the individual gets to just believe whatever, guess that's the way it is." A horde of Swift Boaters gathers on the horizon. Maybe this critique amounts to "I wish he had written a different book," but right now I think the way to look at our institutions isn't through the lens of how totally they can enforce a set of perceptions, but with how they educate. I mean educate in the sense of how they draw out or affect the capacity of a person to resist falsehood and seek truth. We forget that education has as much to do with how you learn as it does with what you learn.
Comments
Post a Comment