Thursday January 8, 2009
I do not have a television, and I haven’t had one for years. That it is possible to live without this particular bit of equipment is something that the television licensing people (because you need a licence in the UK to own a television) find hard to believe, and so every few years they send me a polite letter asking me to pay for a license, I send a polite reply saying I don’t need to as I don’t have anything to license, they send me a less polite letter reminding me to pay, I send a reply to tell them that they should refer to my earlier letter, they send a heavy-handed threat telling me that owning a television without a license is a Very Bad Thing and promising court action, I send yet another letter in which I give way to the terrible temptation to lampoon the whole situation, and they then fall silent for a few years… before the whole thing starts again.
Anyway, the result of all this is that I do not often see television news, something that I think my life is none the worse for. Indeed, when I see television news these days, I find myself increasingly uneasy with the whole business of news reporting in the media. When I had the chance to watch the TV news whilst staying in Paris last week, it was a decidedly queasy spectacle, particularly on the 24-hour news channels: news items mixed with commentary, personal opinion, individual “testimonies” and vox-pops of those strolling down the street (the news machine loves canvassing the views of outraged members of the public), a tendency towards moral simplification, and the use of hip editing techniques, special effects, background music, spiffy computer graphics and the like seem together to conspire towards the creation of a package which is more seductive than it is informative. And what it seduces us into, I think, is something far from helpful: a tendency to get excited by, and tangled up in, drama. I’d prefer my news much less dramatic. Give me back short news broadcasts given by people with clipped accents dressed in ballgowns and dinner jackets.
This love of drama is something that I think is all-pervasive, and not just in the news media. It is there in politicians speeches, in academic writing, in the dullest of policy documents. Change is not just change, but it is “radical” change or “unprecedented” change; events are not just events, but they are “dramatic events” (or, once again, “unprecedented”); new pieces of information are not just new pieces of information, but “shocking revelations”.
Our love of drama is something that has strong ethical implications. I am increasingly convinced our tendency to get caught up in particular dramas (or, as I said in the last post, quoting Bruner, our tendency to get caught up in the “tyranny of a single tale”), particularly dramas in which ethics itself is at issue, is one of the most destructive of human tendencies. It is not that, when thinking about ethics, we should “put all emotion to one side” as certain dried-up judges like to counsel their juries. We need to stop thinking in terms of reason and/or emotion, as if this is the main issue when it comes to making decisions. The judge’s advice doesn’t work, because it is becoming increasingly clear that emotion has an important part to play in decision making. If we truly could put emotion to one side, I suspect (and the research of the likes of António Damásio tends to support this view) that we would not find that we became the ideal decision maker, but that we would find ourselves either paralysed and incapable of deciding anything, or making decisions in an entirely arbitrary fashion. It is more a case of asking what kinds of emotional and cognitive states (because the two go together) are necessary to make the kinds of decisions that will actually lead to the kinds of ends that we claim we are seeking.
How many lives could be saved, and how much misery could be avoided, if new information was simply treated as new information, and not as “shocking revelations”, if changes were just allowed to be changes, without thinking of them as “radical” or “unprecedented”, if events were just allowed to be events, without the additional drama?
Image: Scene from a Play by Molière: Daumier – Wikimedia Commons
Comments are turned off for this article.
Today's Most Popular
The View from the Chariot: Wednesday January 30, 2008
The Buddha: bad psychologist?
Without authority...: Tuesday August 25, 2009
Blogs, mainstream media and the idea of authority.
Doing Nothing: Saturday August 25, 2007
Hanging around, doing nothing.
Pathfinding: Tuesday January 3, 2006
What does it mean to tread the Buddhist path? Where is the path to be found?
Virtuosi: Monday November 24, 2008
Thoughts on meditation and virtuosity.
Get Real...: Friday May 15, 2009
Some thoughts on tragic storytelling.
Vain, Deluded, Pigheaded, Secretive, Bigoted...: Thursday February 14, 2008
That’s the trouble with the mind – it has a mind of it’s own.
Holding Back: Monday October 3, 2005
Ethics begins in holding back…
The Trouble With Ethics: Thursday October 6, 2005
Is the trouble with ethics that there is simply too much of it?
Judgement and Experience: Saturday August 21, 2010
Testing judgements against the fine-grain of experience.
Zen, Brains and Making Friends With Your Own Head: 10 Nov, 2008
It’s a complicated business having a brain.
Lies in Which not Everything is False: 10 Sep, 2008
Stories – they are nothing but a pack of lies.
The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: 30 Oct, 2007
Aidan Delgado on Buddhism, ethics and the war in Iraq.
Baboon: 06 Jun, 2006
Feeling like a grumpy old baboon?
Meditation as Unphenomenology: 07 Feb, 2008
Meditation, cartography and the territory of the mind.