Insidious Signs

Way out here in Walla Walla, Washington, we have a town dispute. There's this guy who goes through town chalking right wing slogans. He has support from one of the local, evangelical churches plus he is cheered on by folks on the right. His chalking is opposed by moderates and folks on the Left, since what he writes is often directed specifically against immigrants, women, and LGBTQ+ people. Supporters frame it as free speech, opponents frame it as hate speech.

To try to calm the dispute, the town passed an ordinance that anyone chalking in the city limits must erase and clean it up within essentially a day. This way, they figured, they were not preventing free speech, but at the same time were keeping the town free from alienating, polarizing messages. The antagonist here did not stop, nor did he erase or clean up his statements, so he was convicted and the judge found he would have to pay the highest penalty under the ordinance (I believe it's $40k). Predictably, the town is polarized in its response and it has created an ugly environment in which "free speech" and "hate speech" are now thrown at each other more than before the ordinance went into effect. But that disagreement is a surface feature, not the real problem. The problem is summarized by observing that, while brevity may be the soul of wit, it has become the enemy of rational discourse.

So much of my thinking has been guided by Neil Postman's work that it's possible I have only ever been his accolyte rather than much of a thinker of my own. Rather than to go through his arguments about media in length, I will strongly recommend that you read his work (the singular classic is Amusing Ourselves to Death, available free online from various sources), and summarize it as briefly as I can:

• It starts from Marshall McLuhan's idea that "the medium is the message" - a form of communicating influences how we think more than its content alters what we think.

• Pre-literate cultures assume that thinking is comprised primarily of remembering the culture's stories and accounts of things, and they do this really well

• Literacy, more precisely, mass-print culture (typography) changed thinking. Typographic thinking is marked by complex pattern determination and recognition. In neurological terms, a literary culture is pre-frontal cortex friendly. Reading/writing demands the use, and therefore encourages the primacy, of reasoning: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation based upon those.

• Media that emerged between typography and the time of his writing (telegraph, telephone, radio, and television) act primarily as limbic facilitators. They speak best to our emotional and reactive selves. They encourage reflexive, immediate, simple responses. We engage in them primarily for amusement because that is what they provide best and promote the most. The media in and of themselves can present enlightening, rational content, but only a tiny fraction of their content ends up doing so. That is because their form seduces us to amuse ourselves rather than inform ourselves and understand better. Post-typography thinking is emotive and anti-rational.

• His question: what is the fate of institutions and structures that have depended for their existence upon typographic thinking? Can democracy and science endure a world in which people cannot engage in rational argumentation?

  
  

That's where I see prophecy in Postman's argument. Here we are, around half a century later, and democracy and science are indeed facing the threat of extinction under the weight of societies whose people will not, and probably cannot, reason well.

Postman was gone by the time digital media hit its stride. Many people predicted it would defy the trend he pointed to because it is involves so much text as well as image and sound. Instead of a few inputs, it invites them all, and personalizes both inputs and outputs as well. But that has turned out not to matter because of the nature of massive content surplus. We could read books online, and some people do (just like many people watch documentaries on TV), but the form of the medium does not invite that nearly as much as it invites tiny bursts of statement. Whether it's the 15-second advertisement, the skim-and-link "reading"of text, scrolling, or memes, it is all micro-blast of message, a barrage of insidious signs.

It makes television look pretty paltry as a means of lowering our attention span and reducing our willingness and ability to reason. The internet and its social media have redefined thinking so that we no longer engage thoughfully, at length, with most anything. We gradually become incapable of doing so, then incapable of imagining doing so. In the end, "thinking" means what we do most of the time with the new media.

Typographic thinking demanded engagement. It gave us patience, moderation, and rationality. In the world of typographic thinking, if I am to convince you of what I am arguing, I must do so by laying out evidence or rational argument at length, and you must partake of it to decide whether or not (or to what extent) you agree. You can then respond with your own thinking about it in a similar way, and we have a meaningful discussion. We must be patient to gather one another's views fully. We must be moderate, civil, and diplomatic in our treatment of one another to remain in fruitful communication. We must depend upon one another's rationality to move forward, even if we end in disagreement. Having heard, challenged, and discussed, even if we do disagree, we likely have some respect for the other person's views.

With the new, reduced forms of communication, you either immediately agree with what is stated or disagree by reflex, predisposition, and existing opinion. There is no evidence, no persuasion, no attempt to bring you to new understanding. No one puts a political meme out there to get people thinking, or if they do, they're always sorely disappointed by what they get back. It's always some variation of "right on!" or "you suck!" People who still use some typographic thinking may contribute, offering something like, "have you considered that perhaps..." or "an extension to this idea is..." But this is a small fraction of the responses (and I would bet a dwindling one over the last couple of decades) and rather than steer the posts into a discussion, even such attempts at exchange almost always end with some troll posting an inane insult.

Generally, what is presented to us is not there to change our views. Most often, it is there to reinforce our existing opinions, desires, and purchases. Reduced, emotive messaging is terrible at persuading. It can't transmit enough meaningful content to do that.

Both political and product marketing knows that they're almost always after the existing base of believers and purchasers to participate more or buy more of the same. The entire strategy of major political parties in the world today is to get their existing believers to the polls and then to try to get enough people who are on the fence to give the party their vote just this one time. Outrage or emotional sympathy are the primary appeals that are used. So we have a polarized electorate and policy that rocks back and forth depending upon which side got that 1-2% advantage in the advertising race. Not only is it hugely expensive, but worse, it is committed to extinguishing reasonable discourse. Meaningful dialogue and rational discussion are anathema to marketing.

It has always been easier and more effective to campaign with bumper stickers and advertisements - insidious signs - than with meaningful arguments. That was true even before our current range of media because, as every marketing major knows, emotional impact beats rational decision-making every time when you're trying to sell something. But when we add that to our modern media formats, which could not be better designed for the emotional sell, you get where we are now. It is a vicious, downward spiral: as we participate, the means of getting us to participate increase, more emotional/reflexive becomes the norm, and in the end our society is trained to expect and want only the advertisement, only the reduced statements. We no longer see any use for consideration.

This is the frame for understanding the chalking of political slogans on a sidewalk - or putting a political bumper sticker on a car, or posting a political meme online. They are not attempts at civil discourse. They are in the universe of our new-think, the limbic chaos-land in which their intention is to signal affiliation and attempt to dominate space with it. They are representing and gathering a tribe, not attempting to work towards consensus. The message contained in the reductive statement is merely "I stand for this," which is automatically welcoming to those who agree and automatically alienating to those who disagree. It invites no meaningful challenge, no call for discourse, no discussion.

This is why, here in Walla Walla, some people support and other people get mad at the chalk guy. What he is doing is literally free speech, yes, but it is an impoverished and passive-aggressive form of expression made to alienate and exclude, to claim space for his tribe and marginalize any other. It is not free speech in the sense intended by the founders (a typographically-thinking bunch if ever there was one). The point of free speech was to prevent tyranny by keeping public discourse open, rational, and based in evidence which would promote true conclusions.

Our chalk-guy situation is just one tiny example in one American town of insidious signs contributing to the collapse of our civic culture.