Johnson vs. Bauerlein, third and final round
Round 1, Round 2. You can find the relevant links there, so I won’t repost them here.
I earlier suggested that Mark Bauerlein doesn’t have enough comparative data to back up the claim that young people today constitute “the dumbest generation” — a point that Bauerlein himself (at least I think it’s him) sort of acknowledges — and since the book’s title is pointedly comparative, that’s a real problem. On the other hand, if the title of the book had been The Generation That’s Dumber than It Ought to Be and Needs to Be — well, for a claim like that he has some significant evidence. The chief value that underlies Bauerlein’s book is good citizenship, and he shows in all sorts of ways that a frightening number of young people lack the factual knowledge and habits of mind to be good citizens.
(Now, one might also say that there is reason to believe that several other generations of Americans exhibit the same deficiencies, so that an even more useful and accurate title for the book could be The Country That’s Dumber than It Ought to Be and Needs to Be — but that book has recently been written by Susan Jacoby and for that matter was written half-a-century ago by Richard Hofstader, and very effectively too. But enough of such quibbles.)
It’s a good thing that Bauerlein has this meaningful standard of value in relation to which we can assess ourselves; it’s just such a standard that Steven Johnson, as far as I can tell, lacks. As I noted in the earlier posts, Johnson’s primary argument is that movies, television shows, and video games have become progressively more cognitively demanding: they are more complex than ever, and require their users to master certain skills of attention and response before they (the shows, the games) can really be enjoyed. The problem with the way Johnson develops this argument is that, all too often, what he shows is that the real payoff for our attention to these genres is the ability to enjoy more examples of the same genres. Watching Pulp Fiction prepares you to enjoy Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; watching The Sopranos prepares you to enjoy Lost. Whether these pursuits have any actual value is a question Johnson rarely raises.
When he does raise it, he does so in order to make two points: first, that the people who immerse themselves in these cognitive worlds are well-prepared to make a lot of money; and second, that these people tend to be politically active. Whether their activity is informed and therefore useful to the public good is not a question Johnson raises; whether money-making is intrinsically good, ditto.
Johnson’s unreflectiveness in these matters is troublesome — especially when he mocks “obsessive novel readers” for their likely future poverty. This is perhaps not so wise, given that people who disdain novels may well disdain other book-length narratives: Jason Jones, one of the commentators on my first post in this series, wrote: “I teach [Johnson's] book all the time in writing courses, as an example of how to build certain kinds of arguments. Students always complain that the book is “too long” — at 200 pages!! — and that they can just watch his Stewart and Colbert interviews.”
I don’t think this is quite fair to Johnson: All he really says in the Guardian piece is that we need better ways to assess the transition from paper-based to electronic reading. (It’s “obsessive novel readers” vs. “obsessive computer programmers.”)
And, as I commented on the first in this series, he Really Does say that, even by the terms of his argument, a shift away from reading sustained narratives, arguments, or other forms of expression is cognitively impoverishing.
As someone who left a job associated with software development to return to graduate school in English, I’ll be the first to concede that money’s not always the best metric for understanding something’s value . . . but, again, I don’t think that’s Johnson’s point.
What reasons are usually offered for public education? Preparation for a career. Entry into civic society. Perhaps equipment for the life of the mind. “More money” and “politically engaged” are at least proxies for the first two.
Having said all of that, I tend to agree with both Johnson and Bauerlein about a lot of this stuff. (For instance, one of the things I tend to take away from Johnson is the failure of most schools to think about technology in ways that would, you know, educate. Instead, attention goes to illusory cost savings, etc.)
— Jason B. Jones · Jul 9, 01:05 AM · #
You’re right, Jason, to remind me of your balanced view of Johnson’s arguments — I should have acknowledged that in my post. However, I think the brief passage you mentioned from Everything Bad is (a) too brief and (b) somewhat more equivocal than you suggest. I’ll try to provide chapter and verse later.
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 9, 01:38 PM · #
One thing to note about Johnson’s notion of complexity in Everything Bad, Alan, is that it is all formal and allusive—plot twists, inside jokes, allusions, and the like. It does not include moral complexity, philosophical complexity, or psychological complexity. Johnson holds post-80s TV shows above 60s shows for just that reason, but I find the moral complexity in an episode of the Andy Griffith Show to exceed that of any Simpson’s episode (much as I love them).
— Mark · Jul 9, 07:47 PM · #
But Mark, where is the anthology, The Andy Griffith Show & Philosophy: Mayberry as Paideia?
The point about focusing on formal complexity only is a good one, although I think this is one of those moments where Johnson would employ his “Long Zoom” metaphor (found in The Ghost Map) to explain that formal complexity indicates other forms, as well.
Full disclosure: I interviewed Johnson about the Long Zoom idea last year—you can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/55v5os
— Jason B. Jones · Jul 10, 01:33 AM · #
I know I’m late getting to this, but all through this thread I’ve been wondering one thing: has Johnson ever watched a table of old people playing duplicate bridge? And we’re supposed to believe that Lost is more cognitively demanding? Really?
— Matt Frost · Jul 13, 12:55 PM · #