Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (43 page)

Can we really say any longer that a reason to go ahead with a technology is that it is too complex for people to grasp, or too clumsy or difficult to dismantle? Either we believe in democratic control or we do not. If we do, then anything which is beyond such control is certainly anathema to democracy.

At the moment our only choices are personal ones. Though we may not be able to do anything whatever about genetic engineering or neutron bombs, individually we can say “no” to television. We can throw our sets in the garbage pail where they belong. But while this is an act that may be very satisfying and beneficial, in making this act we must never forget that, like choosing not to drive a car, it is no expression of democratic freedom. In democratic terms, this individual act is meaningless, as it has no effect at all upon the wider society, which continues as before. In fact, this act disconnects us from the system and leaves us
less
able to participate in and affect it than before. Like Huxley’s “savage,” or like today’s young people who drop out to rural farms, we find ourselves even further removed from participation in the central processes that direct our society, our culture, our politics, and our economic organization. We are struggling in a classic double bind.

Because eliminating television seems impossible, and personal withdrawal is in some ways not enough, at least at a systematic level, most of us naturally attempt to reform matters. In the case of television we have worked to improve and democratize its output.

But a central argument of this book is that television, for the most part, cannot possibly yield to reform. Its problems are inherent in the technology itself to the same extent that violence is inherent in guns.

No new age of well-meaning television executives can change what the medium does to people who watch it. Its effects on body and mind are inseparable from the viewing experience.

As for the political effects, if we switched from the commercial control of television to, say, governmental control, as in Sweden or Argentina or Russia, this would not change the essential political relationships: the unification of experience, the one speaking to the many, the inevitable training in autocracy that these conditions engender.

Similarly, no change in programming format from the present violent, antisocial tendencies to the more “prosocial” visions of educators and psychologists will mean much compared with the training in passivity, the destruction of creativity, the dulling of communicative abilities that any extended exposure to television inevitably produces. This is even assuming that the programming
could
be substantially changed which, as we have seen, is highly doubtful.

No influx of talented directors or writers can offset the technical limits of the medium itself. No matter who is in control, the medium remains confined to its cold, narrow culverts of hyperactive information. Nothing and no one can change this, nor can anyone change how television’s technical limits confine awareness. As the person who gazes at streams becomes streamlike, so as we watch television we inexorably evolve into creatures whose bodies and minds become television-like.

True, if we banned all advertising, that would allay many negative effects of the medium and diminish the power of the huge corporations that are re-creating life in their image.

True, if we banned all
broadcast
television, leaving only cable systems, that would reduce the effect of the centralization of control. More kinds of people might have access to the medium, but they would still have to submit to the dictates of the technology. As they used the machine, they would find their material and their own consciousness changing to suit the technological form. The people who use television become more like each other, the Indian who learns television is an Indian no longer.

If we reduced the number of broadcast hours per day, or the number of days per week that television is permitted to broadcast, as many countries have, that would surely be an improvement.

If we eliminated all crime shows and other sensational entertainment, it would reveal what an inherently boring medium this is, producing awareness of artificial fixation despite boredom.

If we banned all nature shows or news broadcasts from television, due to the unavoidable and very dangerous distortions and aberrations which are inherent in televising these subjects, then this would leave other, better-qualified media to report them to us. The result would be an increased awareness of far more complex, complete and subtle information.

If we outlawed networks, there would be a new emphasis on local events, bringing us nearer to issues upon which we might have some direct personal effect.

All of these changes in television would be to the good, in my opinion, and worthy of support, but do you believe that they’d be any easier to achieve than the outright elimination of the whole technology? I don’t think so. Considering how difficult it has been merely to reduce the volume or the kind of advertising that is directed at our children, and considering the overwhelming power of the interests who control communications in this country, we might just as well put our efforts toward trying for the hole in one. It will take no greater amount of organization and it does not suffer the inhibitions of ambiguity.

Imagining a world free of television, I can envision only beneficial effects.

What is lost because we can no longer flip a switch for instant “entertainment” will be more than offset by human contact, enlivened minds and resurgence of personal investigation and activation.

What is lost because we can no longer see fuzzy and reduced versions of drama or forests will be more than offset by the actual experience of life and environment directly lived, and the resurgence of the human feeling that will accompany this.

What is lost by the unavailability of escape from what may be the painful conditions of many people’s lives, might be more than offset by the concrete realization that life has been
made
painful, more to some than to others, and the desire to do something about this, to attack whatever forces have conspired to make this so.

Once rid of television, our information field would instantly widen to include aspects of life which have been discarded and forgotten. Human beings would rediscover facets of experience that we’ve permitted to lie dormant.

The nature of political process would surely change, making possible not only more subtle perspectives, but also the possibility of content over style. Political and economic power, now more concentrated than ever before in American history, would surely shift somewhat in the direction of more decentralized, noncapitalistic, community-based structures.

Learning would doubtless reemerge to substitute for brainwashing. Individual knowledge and the collective knowledge of communities of friends and peers would again flower as monolithic, institutional, surrogate knowledge declined.

Overall, chances are excellent that human beings, once outside the cloud of television images, would be happier than they have been of late, once again living in a reality which is less artificial, less imposed, and more responsive to personal action.

How to achieve the elimination of television? I certainly cannot answer that question. It is obvious, however, that the first step is for all of us to purge from our minds the idea that just because television exists, we cannot get rid of it.

Thank you.

S
AN
F
RANCISCO

July 3, 1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

M
OST OF ALL
I am grateful to my immediate family for their involvement, their patience, their love and affection throughout three unusually strained years.

My children, Yari and Kai, not only provided much of the basic research for the book and a large part of the motive for doing it, but the very deliciousness of their presence, their sanity, and their humor kept me centered in many a difficult moment.

My wife, Anica Vesel Mander, while finishing work on two books of her own and teaching a full schedule at Antioch College, found time to give detailed study to the manuscript in its various drafts, adding ideas and suggesting some very major improvements. These, together with the constancy of her love and support, made it possible to survive what became an all-consuming task.

John Brockman, my agent, was far more than that from the very start of the project. More as a friend than anything else, he convinced me to undertake the book, even going so far as to sit me down in his apartment and personally talk me through it for hours, until a coherent outline emerged. Then, he stayed closely in touch throughout the writing process.

James Landis of William Morrow & Company exhibited an amazing sensitivity to nuance, as well as meticulousness, brilliance, patience, speed, efficiency and, not the least of his attributes, toughness, an unbeatable list of qualities for an editor to have.

No less important to the successful completion of this project was San Francisco writer and editor Mary Jean Haley. In addition to accomplishing much of the early research, during the final month of the book’s preparation she worked with me daily, tightening, editing, even rewriting here and there as needed, until a manuscript which was far too clumsy and long became manageable.

Six close personal friends participated continuously, not only through the quality of their support and affection through many crises, but also with specific research, editing ideas, and manuscript criticism. My thanks, love and appreciation, therefore, go to Ernest Callenbach, Cherie Cullen, Jack Edelson, Carole Levine, Anne Kent Rush and Nina Winter.

Another person deserving special mention for her many long hours on this project is Patricia Rain. In addition to doing a considerable amount of research, she typed this manuscript twice, becoming so intimate with many points that her editorial suggestions were among the most useful I received.

Very important research, particularly on the various medical and biological effects of television, was gathered by Mickey Friedman. Mitch Cohen was the person who found that amazing article by Viktor Tausk. Paul Kaufman, of the National Center for Experiments in Television, contributed a whole compendium of important articles, as well as providing me valuable criticism of many of the manuscript’s technical details. For other useful research and/or manuscript feedback, thanks to Stefan Dasho, Alvin Duskin, Roland Finston, Susan Lyne, Stephanie Mills, Karen Payne, Barbara Richter, Tom Turner, Joseph Vesei and Judith Williams.

Financial survival, an extreme problem when holed up for three years, was made possible by grants from Friends of the Earth Foundation, the Laras Fund, and the Foundation for National Progress. For making these grants possible, I would like to thank in particular, Dan Noyes, Mary Anna Colwell, Barbara Hunter and David Hunter. Thank you also Don Aitken, Diana Dillaway, Mark Dowie, Lois Crozier Hogle, Godfrey Reggio, Natalie Roberts and Mela Vesel.

I was happy to have a chance to reacquaint myself with the immaculate graphic work of my former advertising colleagues, Marget Larsen and Robert Freeman, who are responsible for the elegant jacket design and the inside layout of the book.