After discussing the similarities and differences between Stephen Colbert's character and the author of the Spectator series, one can see how influential the opinions of mass produced literature can be on the public.
Immanuel Kant argues in "What Is Enlightenment?" That freedom is the key to liberty. Not only personal freedoms and economic freedoms, but more importantly the freedom to circulate ideas. He says that "The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings."
With that said and Kant's beliefs about an enlightened world and with all of the opinions and such floating about in the blogosphere, newspapers, television and radio, discuss whether or not you believe that 2011 is an enlightened America.
Also, consider this video, and what Bob Dylan has to say about media and journalism being passed around and what it does to people who read it. Is Dylan on the same page as Kant hundreds of years apart, or are they legitimately worlds apart?
Deadline: Friday (2/25), start of class.
6 comments:
I don't believe that we live in an enlightened America quite yet, but we are on our way. Considering Kant's definition that enlightenment is when the public use of reason is always free, I think that in America there are some opinions that people still can't express freely. As Tom mentions, in today's society public reasoning is easily accessible through the internet, music, newpapers and television programs like The Colbert Report. Despite this wide array of media, there is still censorship in newspapers and restrictions on the internet about what you can post or write about.
Another issue that proves that we're not living in an enlightened America is societal norms. Prior to 2011, controversial topics such as gay marriage might not be able to be printed in newspapers or covered on the news. Today though, more states are legalizing it and people are able to express their thoughts more freely. Not all of the time though, but I believe that in due time America will become enlightened. This can only happen when there are no restrictions to public use of reason.
In the Time Magazine interview, Bob Dylan explains that truth can be found in a "plain picture,” unmediated by a disconnected journalist or ulterior interests. The problem he identifies with the media and journalism of his time is their reliance on facts rather than ideas. In Dylan's opinion, facts are processed and shaped according to the interests of whoever reports them. He claims that one cannot rely on these sources because they have too much to lose by reporting truth that is unencumbered by vested interests.
With every innovation in communication, it appears as though we observe a tension between established and emergent sources of information. The relatively recent emergence of electronic media has democratized public reasoning, but we have also seen a trend to use these sources for private reasoning and consequently restrict how new media operates.
Blogs and various other platforms allow practically anyone to express their opinions or views. This does not ensure that these opinions are well researched or adequately defended, but it does allow people to use their "own reason and to speak in [their] own person" (602). Yet we have also seen an attempt by many popular news sources, such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, to institutionalize this new brand of communication. Practically all the cable news networks have Twitter and Facebook, and their guests are often people who perform most of their reporting through blogs or other new media forms.
By expanding the ability for average citizens to express views and communicate ideas, news today appears to be moving toward Dylan's notion of a "plain picture." The recent reporting done by average citizens in North African and Middle Eastern countries that are experiencing political unrest demonstrates that new media platforms can capture political realities in spite of repressive governments. However, it is not clear whether these sources can maintain their autonomy or will be incorporated into the same establishments that Dylan claims provide facts rather than ideas.
Of course 2011 is an enlightened America according to Kant's definition of 'enlightened' being that people publicly question what they're being told. Not only do we have the legal right to do this, it is extremely common and almost ordinary to do so. I'm not sure what 'censorship' or 'restriction' other comments are referring to. The only 'censorship' I know of is to keep people safe -- such as child pornography being illegal or posting death threats, etc. Sometimes this clearly goes too far, such as the Patriot Act, but even Kant in his article says you can't break the law, you're just allowed to question it. If someone wants to say that child pornography should be legal or that they should be allowed to threaten others, they're allowed to question these laws. In the 2011 America, you can be openly gay, atheist, Jewish, Republican, Socialist, etc, without fear that you will be punished *by the government*. You may fear for your life, but the government would not condone someone harming you because of your sexual orientation, religious views, etc. In Kant's time, this was certainly not the case. It's important that we be cautious and not too self-congratulatory and America is certainly far from perfect, but by Kant's definition, we are 'enlightened'.
I'm not sure I understand how the Dylan clip relates to Kant at all.
In "What is Enlightenment" by Immanuel Kant he states that "nothing is required but freedom, and indeed the least harmful of anything that could even be called freedom: namely, freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters" (page 601). I feel that Kant has a totally different perspective than Bob Dylan. Kant thinks that individuals should have the opportunity to circulate their ideas, it is a way of having the ability to go beyond personal freedom. In Bob Dylan's interview, he addresses this concept of the truth being presented in this "plain picture" or ways of facts being discussed rather than ideas. He feels that it is a "class of people" that read these magazines because it is more of entertainment for them. I agree that many people watch the news, read magazines, or engage in social networking such as Twitter, blogs, or Facebook for pure entertainment. Bob Dylan uses the example of someone going to get whipped as a way of expressing that people do as they want only because they find some entertainment or enjoyment doing so. In this interview, Bob Dylan focuses on how the media and journalism plays a major role in this enlightened world that Kant describes. However, after reading Kant and listening to Bob Dylan's Interview it has not changed my thoughts about the year 2011 being an enlightened America. I still feel that in today's society there is still an existence of social norms. I still feel that Americans do not have a lot of freedom although this could be debated by many other countries who see America as a way of exploring new opportunities and gaining freedom to live their life accordingly. I think that we do have some freedom but we are still constrained to live a certain way based on how the society feels is morally right or advantageous to live a life of happiness. My understanding of freedom is that people should be able to live their lives regardless of another beings opinions. Every American should be able to say or do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't cause any harm to another. Although, I do believe that America is working towards being more enlightened as they are allowing people to pursue a life according to their own without serving severe punishments for acting or believing in something that might be different than another individual. I think we have seen a few examples of this in the stories we have read this semester.
First of all, before getting to the details of the content, I have to point out that I think we witness in Dylan a man who knows what he thinks, and asserts his beliefs with abandon. And in doing so he meets Kant’s definition of enlightened, having freed himself from the suffocating bounds of self-imposed immaturity. He has forged his own personal framework of thought, and melded that with the confidence to play it to the world. If we are to maintain he does so to the tune of progress and the good, the man before us is in the form of a rare culmination: an artist. And I think we can maintain that without a doubt, or at least I do.
Facing such an artist, the reporter doesn’t stand a chance against Dylan’s incisions into the root of communication’s value. When Dylan says publications have too much to lose in printing the real news, he cuts to the core of the dichotomy between outlets of real ideas and those only impersonating such channels of thought. The news doesn’t say anything or reveal anything real, it just obscures whatever real object it focuses on through bulbous commentary. As Dylan says, it fails to provide the pure understanding of picture alone.
Dylan claims his music means nothing, while the editors claim their news means a lot. But shattering past Dylan’s show of humility, the truth lies as the opposite of the claims made on the works by their own creators: The news, as presented, means little if anything, despite its creators’ pompous claims otherwise. As Dylan says, news is really just people turning in assignments, commentary with little credence that fails to capture what it aims to. And Dylan’s music, while he claims it means nothing, really means a lot, his symphony of real ideas and rhythm echoing clearly through the superficiality that muffles most else, at least for those willing to listen. He was the voice of the counterculture, and the fact that he denies it provides all the more reason to feel open to his words.
At the end of the day, the reporter will go to Dylan’s show. He’ll sit somewhere, separate from the pulsing crowd, huddled over his notebook, jotting down observations to use in his article. Chances are, the article will take issue with Dylan, at least to some extent. And people will read the article, those types of people who read Time magazine, and form opinions of the artist based on what the reporter wrote. Maybe they’ll read that he’s irreverent, abrasive, arrogant, etc., all things unwelcome in their corner of reality. So, understandably, they’ll write off this kid named Bob Dylan.
When Bob Dylan says he doesn’t need Time magazine, he means it. All he needs are those waves of people that are at the show, who are really listening, opening themselves to understanding. They’re there interacting with experience, not looking at the picture Dylan talked about but seeing it for themselves. They’re plugged in to the highest forum of ideas--Art. And they’ll enjoy it, and talk about it with their friends, and the music from one stage will shatter outward in all of them as they continue their lives. They saw Dylan for themselves, they know what they saw, they believe it. And no negative review in Time magazine is going to change that.
Is America enlightened? No, not even close. And the sources who claim so are the most pathetically far away. But in the shadows a lot of people are making art and viewing art and talking about it, and in those little outliers such people inevitably inch closer. They’re making noise, and they’re going to find other people who listen. It’s called the counterculture, and its the only culture in this country that means anything.
Really though, I think any sincere discussion of this Dylan video will arise out of a false premise. I think he says what he does just to impress the girl with the cigarette in the background. Because he’s enlightened enough to know that caring what that one girl next to him thinks is more important than how millions of people he's never met do.
The United States, compared to much of the western world, is on the high end with regards to censorship and restriction. While we are becoming increasingly more progressive, there are strong limitations as far as what can be portrayed in the media, what kind of research can be conducted, and what one is allowed to do in public. Much of this is for the sake of protection, but it still limits what we are allowed to think and freely express. In this sense, we are not quite at the point of enlightenment from Kant's perspective.
Post a Comment