Here's what will probably be a bit of a jumbled bit of thoughts on TV from my MDS 3001 class. I'll include the original questions, but not the classmates' comments that I'm sometimes responding to...
This week's discussion questions will focus on Winn's "TV Addiction" essay.
1. In her essay, "TV Addiction," Marie Winn describes watching television as "an unproductive experience, that by any human measure almost any other endeavor is more worthwhile." Do you agree or disagree with her statement, and why or why not?
2. Winn's argument is precise, clearly phrased, and to the point. But is there something this short argument is overlooking?
1. While I am sympathetic to most of Winn's arguments in "TV addiction," her claim "that by any human measure almost any other endeavor is more worthwhile" is an overreach. I would say that at the very least watching television is more worthwhile than building chemical weapons, lobbying for regressive tax policy, or clear-cutting rain forests to make space for sugar cane plantations. Depending on what programs are viewed, television at least has some potential to convey useful and worthwhile information. Granting Winn's main point, that television is at least potentially addicting, it must be seen as one of the least damaging of our society's common additions.
In fact, if by "unproductive," Winn is referring to simply the economic realm (which I doubt), television must be seen as an inherent part of current cycle of productivity. Seventy percent of the economy is driven by consumer spending, and a huge proportion of advertising budgets go to television ads. Assuming that companies are not so foolish as to spend billions of dollars on advertising that is not effective, these ads play a big role in shaping the spending habits of television viewers, which is essentially to say of all Americans. Planting a garden, reading a book or hosting a dinner party may be more "worthwhile" than watching television, but they probably do less to add to GDP than spending the same amount of time watching television's ads and generally implicitly pro-consumerist programming. Winn says that television allows people to enter into a "pleasurable and passive mental state." Passive people seeking recreation and satisfaction of their needs through consumption is exactly what will make the economy grow, at least in the short term.
2. In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander makes a thorough, and to my mind convincing, argument that the overall effect on society would be clearly positive if television were somehow eliminated. Marie Winn does not seek to make such a complete case in her short essay, "TV addiction." She does succeed in explaining a reasonable alternative way to envision television viewing. By establishing what an addiction is, and showing that television fits those patterns, Winn makes her case.
However, I believe the essay would have been stronger if she had gone into more depth about what distinguishes television addiction from other addictions. For one thing, television viewing is a purely psychological addiction, obviously since no part of the television physically enters the body, there is no direct chemical impact on the body or brain. Substance addictions involve both psychological and physical aspects, with relative weights varying by individual and substance. Secondly, television is more culturally ubiquitous than anything commonly seen as addictive. Depending on which drug and where you live, drugs can range from very difficult to find to difficult to avoid, but not even alcohol is as widespread as television. Even alcohol, which in commonly used in most adult social groups, has the benefit of being recognized as addictive, and people who quit drinking are widespread and rarely challenged on the validity of their decision to not drink. At this point, someone who makes a point of not watching television is likely to face questions and some level of social isolation.
In fact, if by "unproductive," Winn is referring to simply the economic realm (which I doubt), television must be seen as an inherent part of current cycle of productivity. Seventy percent of the economy is driven by consumer spending, and a huge proportion of advertising budgets go to television ads. Assuming that companies are not so foolish as to spend billions of dollars on advertising that is not effective, these ads play a big role in shaping the spending habits of television viewers, which is essentially to say of all Americans. Planting a garden, reading a book or hosting a dinner party may be more "worthwhile" than watching television, but they probably do less to add to GDP than spending the same amount of time watching television's ads and generally implicitly pro-consumerist programming. Winn says that television allows people to enter into a "pleasurable and passive mental state." Passive people seeking recreation and satisfaction of their needs through consumption is exactly what will make the economy grow, at least in the short term.
2. In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, Jerry Mander makes a thorough, and to my mind convincing, argument that the overall effect on society would be clearly positive if television were somehow eliminated. Marie Winn does not seek to make such a complete case in her short essay, "TV addiction." She does succeed in explaining a reasonable alternative way to envision television viewing. By establishing what an addiction is, and showing that television fits those patterns, Winn makes her case.
However, I believe the essay would have been stronger if she had gone into more depth about what distinguishes television addiction from other addictions. For one thing, television viewing is a purely psychological addiction, obviously since no part of the television physically enters the body, there is no direct chemical impact on the body or brain. Substance addictions involve both psychological and physical aspects, with relative weights varying by individual and substance. Secondly, television is more culturally ubiquitous than anything commonly seen as addictive. Depending on which drug and where you live, drugs can range from very difficult to find to difficult to avoid, but not even alcohol is as widespread as television. Even alcohol, which in commonly used in most adult social groups, has the benefit of being recognized as addictive, and people who quit drinking are widespread and rarely challenged on the validity of their decision to not drink. At this point, someone who makes a point of not watching television is likely to face questions and some level of social isolation.
---------------------------------
1. No, I think that the ends of "grow the economy" is way over-valued, and far too much is already sacrificed in justification of those ends. I was just saying that in terms of GDP, television is probably a hugely, albeit indirectly, "productive" activity. (Actually, there's a lot of GDP in producing tv and selling ads/subscriptions, but we're looking at it from the perspective of the viewer, so to speak.) My "(which I doubt)" was to try to say that I think Winn is defining "productive" in a more holistic way. I think it's clear that she is not using "productive" in a way where paying $100 for 30 TV dinners is twice as productive as buying $50 of fresh produce from the farmer's market and the time spent cooking with your spouse instead of watching TV isn't productive at all...
2. Those guys always have a TV in their room, but so does just about every American in the room they spend the most time sitting, so it's a pretty weak statistic!
My point wasn't about the physical impact as the physical aspect of the addiction itself. An addict's body can become so accustomed to alcohol, heroin, etc. that their life would actually be in greater immediate jeopardy if they quit cold turkey. Physical withdrawal is notorious when quitting cigarettes, and I can personally attest to the body's potential to develop a need for caffeine to function normally! TV shares the psychological mechanisms common to all addictions, but does not have a physical component to the addictive mechanism. In this way it shares more in common with other non-substance addictions/compulsions - gambling, etc.
2. Those guys always have a TV in their room, but so does just about every American in the room they spend the most time sitting, so it's a pretty weak statistic!
My point wasn't about the physical impact as the physical aspect of the addiction itself. An addict's body can become so accustomed to alcohol, heroin, etc. that their life would actually be in greater immediate jeopardy if they quit cold turkey. Physical withdrawal is notorious when quitting cigarettes, and I can personally attest to the body's potential to develop a need for caffeine to function normally! TV shares the psychological mechanisms common to all addictions, but does not have a physical component to the addictive mechanism. In this way it shares more in common with other non-substance addictions/compulsions - gambling, etc.
----------------------------------
| 1. No, I think that the ends of "grow the economy" is way over-valued, and far too much is already sacrificed in justification of those ends. I was just saying that in terms of GDP, television is probably a hugely, albeit indirectly, "productive" activity. (Actually, there's a lot of GDP in producing tv and selling ads/subscriptions, but we're looking at it from the perspective of the viewer, so to speak.) My "(which I doubt)" was to try to say that I think Winn is defining "productive" in a more holistic way. I think it's clear that she is not using "productive" in a way where paying $100 for 30 TV dinners is twice as productive as buying $50 of fresh produce from the farmer's market and the time spent cooking with your spouse instead of watching TV isn't productive at all... 2. Those guys always have a TV in their room, but so does just about every American in the room they spend the most time sitting, so it's a pretty weak statistic! My point wasn't about the physical impact as the physical aspect of the addiction itself. An addict's body can become so accustomed to alcohol, heroin, etc. that their life would actually be in greater immediate jeopardy if they quit cold turkey. Physical withdrawal is notorious when quitting cigarettes, and I can personally attest to the body's potential to develop a need for caffeine to function normally! TV shares the psychological mechanisms common to all addictions, but does not have a physical component to the addictive mechanism. In this way it shares more in common with other non-substance addictions/compulsions - gambling, etc. |
-----------------------------------------------------------
| I didn't mean to undermine her argument. I actually think by being clear that it is not exactly the same as a substance addiction, but that it does resemble other activities that are widely acknowledged as "addictive," like gambling, and less common ones like kleptomania, pyromania, etc. |
------------------------------------------- Well, as a Post Office loyalist, I'd suggest that TV ad revenue should be redirected to mail, which I've heard from biased sources is actually the best ROI of any form of advertising. Maybe that was just for small businesses? Anyhoo, I think reducing the overall volume (in both senses of the word) of advertising we're subjected to would be tremendously beneficial to our psycho-social well-being, if not our economic well-being. By the way, according I got curious and to Wikipedia, compulsive gambling is not considered an addiction by the American Psychological Association: Severe problem gambling may be diagnosed as clinical pathological gambling if the gambler meets certain criteria. Although the term gambling addiction is common in the recovery movement[1] pathological gambling is considered to be an impulse control disorder and is therefore not considered by the American Psychological Association to be an addiction.[2] .................... Considered to be part of the obsessive-compulsive disorder spectrum,[2] impulse control disorders are often associated with substance use disorders because "it has been speculated that these disorders are mediated by alterations of partially overlapping neural circuits".[3] -----------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment