Of words and speakers 10.2: Part three.

        The comedian Dennis Leary provided a successful riposte to the charge that his generation was media-obsessed: “We watched Lee Harvey Oswald get shot, live on national television- we were afraid to change the channel for the next thirty years.” While the sad events in Dallas do not excuse the continued unchecked excesses of what passes for contemporary journalism, they nevertheless give a frame of reference. With said method of reaching the many, the few aired their consciences and thrust their beliefs on the unwitting many. While some expressed themselves with colorful (to say the least) language and wild accusations, others appeared in a much more seductive form: rational, well-spoken, and confident to a point only mildly short of self-righteous.

        Regardless of its origin, the net effect was simple: it was no longer sufficient to be endowed with a natural right to one’s opinion; a medium for self-expression became a derived right. As a matter of note, the present author is neither against the self-expression of others nor the proper role of the media. Unfortunately, the combination of an ignorant populace and an instilled sense of false entitlement has lead directly to the present deplorable condition of contemporary society. The “evening news,” long a stalwart of untainted information presented for the digestion of an informed and educated public, has devolved into a mix of canned banalities and “human interest” vignettes. As an example, one need only consider the effects of a major speech by a political figure: how much time is devoted to reporting on what was said vice the reaction to the speech by either an analyst (one uses the term loosely) or an average citizen (which roughly translates as whomever the field reporter found most provocative or most in line with his or her opinion).

        It is little wonder, therefore, that the public finds itself bereft of hard information, finding in its stead a soft, overly massaged reaction to events. Absent a healthy dose of skepticism, yet replete with an almost child-like sense of curiosity, the “informed” viewer now takes to the cyber-sphere, ready to astound the forums with their new-found erudition. Finding similarly ill-equipped fellow posters, the misshapen information is further melded through the bickering and insults of second-rate minds into an amorphous blob of half-truth, conjecture, and opinion. The scant few hard facts of the initial issue are usually buried by the time a score or two of people have posted; left to their own devices, these threads typically spiral into political discussion, the gist of which seems to insults leveled at “repukes” or “dumb-o-crats.”

        If this were simply the end of it, it would bode ill on its own. However, a much more nefarious result may be noted: the legacy of a people inundated with “information” yet precious little ability to filter it into manageable portions or process it on more than the most superficial of levels. These are the men and women of the 21^st century. They are loud, intrusive, illogical, but creative in a certain way: rather than read source documents or bona-fide textbooks, they have derived their sense of history from the internet- and they are determined to share it with others.

Of words and speakers 10.1: Part two…

        At the dawning of the twentieth century, the face of education differed greatly from current models: looked upon in many circles as a luxury, its content was rigorous, its presentation methods coarse (by modern standards), and its results were undeniable. Precious little room was made for questioning either the teacher or the content in the early stages of one’s educational continuum. The rationale for this was elegantly simple: having no knowledge of a subject, how then could one question its validity or applicability? One is tempted to smugly remember the disconsolate wails of fellow students bemoaning the “fact” that algebra was of little use in daily life- and then be taken by surprise in financial arrangements whose terms were clearly spelled out in the impenetrable language of numbers.

         In the upper echelons of learning, the very reverse could be found: convocations of students engaged in fierce battles of intellect with their respective professors, never to be given answers outright, but rather to be led, little by little, to their own arrival at philosophical truth. Such students exited the universities to begin their careers with a bipartite foundation: knowledge and reason. Not only did they know the “facts” of the day, they could arrive at logical conclusions largely on their own when problems arose that were outside of their personal intellectual spheres. Having used the phrase, spheres of intellect could hardly be referenced in the specialist terms so often utilized today. While one may be a doctor of medicine, it was expected that one knew something of the arts, social graces, literature, history, and religion.

         Unfortunately, for reasons both political and social, such broad-based knowledge is rarely encountered. Perhaps a more clear statement could be made: socially-driven politics have destroyed the art of learning for the sake of learning. As a result, the interminable drive towards generalized ignorance has bequeathed a neurotic, over-specialized populace that has learned not to question its own motives- but to question everything else. At the risk of offense, this trend most likely began in the tumultuous decade of the 1960s.

         Recalling his own early education, the present author remembers a statement made by a history teacher that (while generalized and obviously metaphorical) in the year 1969, the United States of America was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Such a verbal painting surely suffices to represent a nation suffering both domestically and abroad, the reverberations of which were felt worldwide. To mend a few fences, it is necessary to note that many advances were made in the 1960s (the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, space exploration, etc.). However, something changed in the national conscience that has rarely been explained to the satisfaction of many. Suffice to say, the argument could be made that given a measure of social and political tolerance largely absent in previous decades, some of the younger generation (perhaps with the prodding of older fringe elements) turned such largesse into a vehicle for the advancing of radical social change.

         Granted, many of the items on the change agenda (for want of a better phrase) were poorly elucidated and sufficiently vapid to the point of inanity. However, “change” was the mantra of the day (distant echoes of the present, perhaps?). To this end, some form of validation was needed to said demands for alteration of the status quo in order that they reach the ears of those not in the vanguard of the progressives- the so-called silent majority of the era. Without their support (or at least tacit non-intervention), little of the more radical ideas would have ever seen the light of day, let alone still haunt the national conscious nearly half a century later. Therefore, unelected tribunes of “the people” began to bray at the masses through an unprecedented upsurge in media penetration.

Of words and speakers 10.0: Part one…

        The lessons of history are never without irony; they instruct, they chide, they chuckle, they weep. Were it not for its continual overuse by intellectual charlatans attempting to make a facile point devoid of both content and intent, the phrase “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” could be considered a noteworthy dictum. Unfortunately, the adage has fallen into disrepute at some level due to an incontrovertible similarity among its users: they are ignorant of the history they attempt to recall. Having said as much, it is imperative not to view the previous sentences as an indictment of the contemporary trend among historians towards revisionism. These misguided attempts, by nominally intelligent people, are the equivalent of a drooling child’s efforts to drive a round peg into a square whole: if at first the written record does not conform to one’s worldview (to use the term philosophy borders on the criminal), simply interpret said record until it does. This obviously fraudulent approach to history is certainly not without precedent. Philosophers such as Hegel and Marx are among the most unrepentant abusers; one can at least admire them for the admission that their philosophical constructs are based on their singular interpretation of history. .

        Rather than focus on this area, the more damnable offense against history is foist by the masses. One has surely witnessed this in daily life: an obnoxious lout who, given the opportunity, regales listeners with historical “facts” to serve as balsa wood supports to his or her woefully inadequate reasoning. Said facts are the conflation of a poor education and desultory critical thinking skills: filtered through prejudice and personal inclination, sprinkled with popular viewpoints and skewed by current social trends, they carry less objective validity than an outright incorrect statement. Rather than foment worthy disagreement, these facts are tossed out with an aura of righteous authority that often manages to overwhelm the common sense and questioning attitude of listeners.

        Consider how simply this may be done using a few key phrases: hearing the right words of validation often disarms the listener to a deferential point of acceptance that negates any notion of challenge to further declarations by the speaker. As a particularly egregious (and perhaps more common) example, health-related topics are easily bluffed into truth via the use of “studies.” Consider the following statement:

“Recent studies show that consumption of more than 3.5 cups of coffee per day may increase the risk of heart disease.”

Such a statement carries the twin demons of keywords and numbers: by using the phrase “recent studies show” and giving a marginally specific numerical value, it ushers in a sense of legitimacy. However, note a few of the indictments that can be made:

1.)    Who conducted said studies under what conditions and what was the peer-review process employed for verification?

2.)    How is the word “cup” used? Does it refer to the accepted standard of eight fluid ounces or is it used to denote a typical “traveler” mug which may hold 20 ounces or more?

3.)    What is the meaning of the word “may” when used in this context? Is there a noted percentage increase in a given control population or does it refer instead to a chemical linkage?

While these indictments are certainly not immune to their own shortcomings, the point is nonetheless made: how many listeners/readers would actually have taken the time to form these questions? Herein lies the uncomfortable reality: not only is the speaker guilty of an astonishing lack of specificity, the listener is likewise culpable due to the enabling their silence provides. While the aforementioned health example is perhaps overly simplistic, the use of historical validation (while perhaps more subtle) is cut from the same cloth.

        Time and again, interpretations are applied to the motives and methods of historical figures that bear little resemblance to verifiable fact. Explaining that a certain person reacted in a manner because of how he or she “felt” about an issue cannot be given as certain absent proof through autobiographical information or the like. Unfortunately, this has neither lessened the occurrence of ipse-dixitism in contemporary editorials nor mitigated its impact. The reader may be tempted to wonder why this trend carries such an obvious level of offense to the present author; hence the central contention of this essay:

            – A populace bereft of critical thinking skills, discretionary judgment, and historical education holds in its grasp the seeds of its own descent into irrelevancy; having failed to grasp the meaning of history, citizens re-write it after their own fashion and thus fail to profit from its lessons.

 

        The above statement is not to be misconstrued as demonstrating truth via hyperbole; rather it is meant to convey both the seriousness of the present condition and the bleak future said condition promises. A well-intentioned person may thus be led to ask for a solution. However, this is perhaps not the most appropriate initial query. Instead, a more prescient inquiry seeks to determine the source. While the following argument is admittedly bordering on the circular, the reader’s indulgence is begged for the moment: if history is to be used as the well-spring from which a contemporary viewpoint is derived, the misinterpretation and degradation thereof is most appropriately observed in its own historical context. Simply put, if history may be popularly used to turn reason on its ear, it is only fitting that the origins of this trend may give clues as to its present reality (and more to the point, hints at a workable method of correction).