We come now to Postman’s concluding chapter entitled, "The Huxleyan Warning," in which he gives some summary statements and then attempts to give two solutions which are feeble even in his eyes. In short, his analysis is a brilliant piece of induction and detective work, but what to do is lost to him. But we shall see.

Final conclusions and summary statements:

"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours." (page 155)

"An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan. Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us....But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter?" (page 156)

"To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple." (page 157)

"We must, as a start, not delude ourselves with preposterous notions such as the straight Luddite position as outlined, for example, in Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Americans will not shut down any part of their technological apparatus, and to suggest that they do so is to make no suggestion at all. It is almost equally unrealistic to expect that nontrivial modifications to the availability of media will ever be made." (page 158)

"The problem, in any case, does not reside in what people watch. The problem is in that we watch. The solution must be found in how we watch. For I believe it may fairly be said that we have yet to learn what television is." (page 160)

Postman’s answer to the problems he has so clearly elucidated is two-fold, but of questionable practicality even in his own estimation.

"In any case, the point I am trying to make is that only through a deep and unfailing awareness of the structure and effects of information, through a demystification of media, is there any hope of our gaining some measure of control over television, or the computer, or any other medium. How is such media consciousness to be achieved? There are only two answers that come to mind, one of which is nonsense and can be dismissed almost at once; the other is desperate but it is all we have." (page 161)

The first answer: the nonsensical one - not much help:

"The nonsensical answer is to create television programs whose intent would be, not to get people to stop watching television but to demonstrate how television ought to be viewed, to show how television recreates and degrades our conception of news, political debate, religious thought, etc." (page 161)

The second answer: the desperate one - equally impotent even in Postman’s estimation:

"The desperate answer is to rely on the only mass medium of communication that, in theory, is capable of addressing the problem: our schools. This is the conventional American solution to all dangerous social problems, and is, of course, based on a naive and mystical faith in the efficacy of education. The process rarely works." (page 162)

One answer he misses, of course, is that of home schools where parents can structure learning in biblical patterns and the television is a minuscule, if not non-existent, part in the lives of the family members corporately or individually. Regardless of having missed any workable solution, Postman’s analysis of the problem is still quite accurate and, unfortunately, relevant fifteen years later.

"What I suggest here as a solution is what Aldous Huxley suggested, as well. And I can do no better than he. He believed with H. G. Wells that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted people in the Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking." (page 163)

Here concludes our analysis for the day. We’ve now seen by way of Mr. Postman’s presentation the nature of the problem before us. His answers to the problem are lacking in potency and accuracy. I would submit that this is, at least in part, because he lacks the insight provided by a serious study of God’s Word, the Bible. I’ve already hinted at what I believe to be part of the solution to the problem in several other posts here at the Interface. I will conclude this series with one final post in which I will seek to synthesis my own analysis and response using the data Mr. Postman has brought to light. This might take some time, especially in light of other posts I have planned, so your patience, dear Reader, will be sought until I can generate that response. Until then....

Final installment

Last installment

First installment