As someone trained over the course of (probably too many) years of school to think analytically, it has been especially excruciating to watch the evolution of public discourse – if it can still be called that – particularly in its most recent descent into the realm of “alternative facts.” A previous post suggested that perhaps the acceptance of these falsehoods is a repudiation of the scientific method, based on a broad intuition that the traditional five senses are not all there is. While the rejection of science is undeniable, it is probably too hopeful to believe that neuroscience will solve our public angst, and it might not be at the root of our societal anxiety anyway. Maybe the origin is really an inability to collectively wrestle with broad issues in a non-political sphere.
After a recent conversation with a specialist in 19th-century literature*, I was reminded of how closely intertwined science and literature were when the Enlightenment was still relatively fresh. The work of Henry David Thoreau is nearly impossible to separate from ecology, William Blake wrestles continuously with the relationship between religion and nature, one theme of Mary Shelley’s most famous work is the proper place of science in society, and my favorite short story by Nathanial Hawthorne investigates the desirability of the march toward perfection drummed along by science. This brief listing is far from exhaustive, and those are just representatives from the English-speaking world!
In more modern times, surveys indicate that the number of non-readers in the United States has increased markedly over the last four decades, probably resulting from a combination of decreased pure leisure time and increased rivalry for our attention from other media. The deregulation of industries overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which started in the 1970s, both enlarged the pool of possible television channels for the average viewer and likely also enhanced the quality of the shows on offer. The advent of the internet presented further competition, particularly as technology advanced to allow streaming and social media sites developed into primary communication conduits.
All of this means that literature is no longer a primary way that people bond. In the 1984 movie The Ratings Game, Danny DeVito’s character arranges a free cruise for a large number of families so that he can use their addresses to boost ratings for his new television show. One scene on the television-free cruise ship features a group of strangers trying to get to know one another, stumbling along awkwardly until someone mentions a popular TV show, at which point everyone has something to add to the conversation. At least in the United States, shared cultural references are most often based on television, films, and social media memes rather than books.
Consequently, while people in the 1800s used literature to grapple with the rapid technological advancements reshaping their world, people in the 2000s look to live-action tales. Authors are still writing stories exploring the integration of science into our lives – Alexander Weinstein’s Children of the New World comes to mind – but none enjoy the sort of widespread popular support that greeted the publication of Frankenstein in 1818. Most popular examination of the human relationship with science is now handled via the Avengers movie franchise, which manages to weave questions about control of technology and the line between computer and human into what is essentially one long, beautifully shot battle scene interspersed with humor to show that it isn’t taking itself too seriously.
I love the Avengers movies and have been a fan of Robert Downey, Jr. since Back to School. However, I also question whether they are satisfying people’s need to excavate their complicated relationship with the pace of scientific advancement, particularly as it pertains to technological change. While both novels and movies explore themes by telling stories, the written word requires a certain amount of mental engagement that cinema does not. Watching actors work through the implications of social change is a passive activity that can certainly spark ideas, but reading spurs lasting changes in the brain. Without that increased brain connectivity generated by reading, it is likely harder for people to puzzle out how to adapt as science transforms the world around them.
Additionally, as a social species, it is important for us to communicate with others as we try to acclimate to new developments. People can both read and watch films while in the company of others, but it is the communication about the shared experience that is most important. Viewing a movie in a full theater can be a social bonding experience of its own, but how many conversations between friends after watching Captain America: Civil War focused on who should ultimately be in control of technology? Probably not as many as those engrossed with which of the beautiful actors is the hottest. Movies might be posing important questions about science and society, but they aren’t the best medium for pushing further evaluation.
Perhaps the widespread antagonism toward science is the result of not having the right tools to reflect on the myriad changes it is bringing. Electronic media are indubitably efficient at entertaining, but they do not stimulate the human brain the same way that reading literature does, allowing it to make connections. Maybe if we weighted literature more heavily than STEM in school curricula – or incorporated it more holistically as STEAM – people would be able to scrutinize the full picture of technological transformations with less disquiet. Without literature, they don’t have the outlet that humans used so brilliantly in the Industrial Revolution to voice their trepidation and work through it collectively.
(For those unfamiliar with the terms, STEM stands for “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, while STEAM incorporates “Arts” into the acronym.)
*Heartfelt thanks to Dr. Thomas Nurmi for the conversation that sparked this post.
As a former English teacher–and Hawthorne fan–I couldn’t agree more!
make it so. number 1.