Forward from the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" by Neil Postman, 1985:
We were keeping our eye on 1984.
When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside George Orwell's (1903-1950) 1984 (1949) dark vision, there was another-slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's (1894-1963) Brave New World (1932).
Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.
Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.
But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."
In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.
In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.
Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
State-sponsored default addiction is the compliance mechanism. State-mandated language in the manufacture of abject fear and hatred is the enforcement mechanism. Put them together at digital scale and you wind up with Huxwell: a new-and-improved global totalitarianism.
Every so often one trips upon someone who is able to puncture the bizarre insular bubbles of unreality we find ourselves in. This is right but how will people ever become unhooked. I did quit Facebook. At least for now.
Thank you for the kind words, Sasha, and congratulations for stepping away from Facebook. Just as addiction occurs when you replace the meaningful rituals in your life with the rituals of your addiction, healing occurs when you do the exact opposite -- pretty much what happens in all recovery programs. And you don't need to go cold turkey. Remember: abstinence is just another form of extreme behavior. The opposite of addiction is moderation, not abstinence.
I appreciate that. It was causing me genuine anxiety, which I also attribute to what must happen to a human being when they separate from their "tribe," as I've done lately. I used to be a devoted Hillary supporter all through 2016 and gained a large group of friends ("friends") because of it. But recently, after what happened at the New York Times and what has followed I have begun to separate from that way of thinking, which turned out to be harder than I thought it would be. Like any religion, questioning it makes you a dangerous person, or an "other." So rather than continue to fight with people -- I left. The only downside is that there were a lot of them who felt as I did but did not have the courage to speak out. I know they appreciated that there was someone like me who did but ...it got to be too difficult. Maybe at some point I'll figure out how to use it better. Thank you.
For what it's worth, Sasha, freedom always induces anxiety, at least initially, and you have at least one ally in yours truly. Most these days prefer the succor of their addiction to all things media and all things digital to the discomfort and pain of speaking out -- one of the reasons why folks in NY and other major media markets were so appallingly quick to sacrifice their civil liberties to authoritarian Covid-19 lock downs. Your freedom is worth preserving. I applaud your courage, and please know that the apostates are always better reasoned. Finally: Don't worry. Be happy.
Forward from the book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business" by Neil Postman, 1985:
We were keeping our eye on 1984.
When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside George Orwell's (1903-1950) 1984 (1949) dark vision, there was another-slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's (1894-1963) Brave New World (1932).
Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.
Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.
But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."
In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.
In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.
Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Thank you for commenting, Gaetano, and apologies for the delayed response. Postman was certainly the most readable of the major media ecologists, and his above assessment from Amusing Ourselves to Death is point on (see my 45-minute feature video, Brave New Digital World: the Revelation: https://open.substack.com/pub/jeffeinstein/p/brave-new-digital-world?r=7hc45&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web).
State-sponsored default addiction is the compliance mechanism. State-mandated language in the manufacture of abject fear and hatred is the enforcement mechanism. Put them together at digital scale and you wind up with Huxwell: a new-and-improved global totalitarianism.
Every so often one trips upon someone who is able to puncture the bizarre insular bubbles of unreality we find ourselves in. This is right but how will people ever become unhooked. I did quit Facebook. At least for now.
Thank you for the kind words, Sasha, and congratulations for stepping away from Facebook. Just as addiction occurs when you replace the meaningful rituals in your life with the rituals of your addiction, healing occurs when you do the exact opposite -- pretty much what happens in all recovery programs. And you don't need to go cold turkey. Remember: abstinence is just another form of extreme behavior. The opposite of addiction is moderation, not abstinence.
Thanks again, and all the best to you and yours.
I appreciate that. It was causing me genuine anxiety, which I also attribute to what must happen to a human being when they separate from their "tribe," as I've done lately. I used to be a devoted Hillary supporter all through 2016 and gained a large group of friends ("friends") because of it. But recently, after what happened at the New York Times and what has followed I have begun to separate from that way of thinking, which turned out to be harder than I thought it would be. Like any religion, questioning it makes you a dangerous person, or an "other." So rather than continue to fight with people -- I left. The only downside is that there were a lot of them who felt as I did but did not have the courage to speak out. I know they appreciated that there was someone like me who did but ...it got to be too difficult. Maybe at some point I'll figure out how to use it better. Thank you.
For what it's worth, Sasha, freedom always induces anxiety, at least initially, and you have at least one ally in yours truly. Most these days prefer the succor of their addiction to all things media and all things digital to the discomfort and pain of speaking out -- one of the reasons why folks in NY and other major media markets were so appallingly quick to sacrifice their civil liberties to authoritarian Covid-19 lock downs. Your freedom is worth preserving. I applaud your courage, and please know that the apostates are always better reasoned. Finally: Don't worry. Be happy.
Thank you again.