It’s interesting to see that some people do not believe that there is any danger in the lack of reciprocal communication but I wonder if today’s culture could envision it any other way.
Erika had posed the question, “But isn’t the absorption of knowledge, whether it is pop culture, historical facts, or just the report on everyday occurrences, the point of education?” If this were the case then what is the point of an educational institution or a professor for that matter? Why can’t we simply collect a room full of students and play them some video documentary on a subject? Why then can’t we just standardize the educational system across the country so that every classroom of a particular subject is watching the exact same videos in order to educate?
I would say that this is probably a good example of the difference between a skilled professor and a teacher there to collect a paycheck. While it’s true that today’s educational system has been diluted down into a formulaic presentation of material and subsequent testing, this is not how it has always been. A more skilled professor is not there to simply present a regurgitation of material to a classroom through redundant lectures or Powerpoint slides; they are there to foster and encourage a form of learning that encourages thinking for oneself and discovering the material for themselves. Teaching has not always been so dogmatic but rather an experience in questioning and the provocation of thought that lead, through experience, a level of understanding that went well beyond textbook knowledge. This form of education demanded reciprocal communication as well as hands-on practical experience. It is unfortunate that this has long been forgotten and reduced its current state, educational fast food.
R. Reynolds had posted one of Erika’s thoughts in his own words, “Though a viewer/listener cannot respond while taking in news media, they still can retain the knowledge and form an individual opinion as long as they are actively watching, reading, or listening.” While I must agree that the audience has the capacity in these moments to formulate their own opinions of the subject matter it still does not suggest that they understand what it is they are experiencing.
Despite the fact that the audience can have a very internal reaction to information that is presented there is no way for them to share that with the presented of it. This denies the audience the chance to question, to postulate or to even suggest their own ideas and thoughts that might either support or refute the information presented. Our only choice as an audience is either to accept the ideas presented or to ignore them; to purchase the concept or reject it.
It makes me wonder if we’ve become so indoctrinated into this society where communication takes place in this one-way fashion that we cannot imagine it taking place in any other way. There are message all around us, attacking us as it were, so much so that we’re left is a constant state of filtering them rather than responding to them. Advertisements are everywhere that constantly tests our resolve even in the most private situations – they’ve now resorted to placing advertisements over urinals so that I’m contemplating my next car purchase while relieving myself.
I believe that Baudrillard is warning us against this society of isolationism but it makes me wonder if we haven’t already reached a state well beyond salvation from it. Steve’s story regarding the text messaging couple is frightening to me. Have we become so detached, so isolated and disconnected not only from the world around us but from the people we share it with that we’ve been reduced to text messaging when sharing the same table? What kind of social ineptitudes is this kind of behavior certain to bring? How long will it be before normal human interaction is completely discarded as ‘outmoded’ and we’re all left thinking in the patterns of text-messaging shorthand?
No comments:
Post a Comment