Amusing Ourselves to Death: Huxley Fanfic or Habermas?

 Throughout Amusing Ourselves to Death, author Neil Postman repeatedly references George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, famous utopian novelists. So much so that readers should have been warned that 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World were required prerequisite reading.  

While their relevance to Postman’s argument is unmistakable, I found it difficult to separate Postman’s arguments from Habermas’ description of the bourgeois public sphere and its subsequent disintegration. Instead of prerequisite reading, I’d argue Habermas and Postman are companion reads. They are better understood as supporting texts. 

Habermas defines a few key characteristics of the bourgeois public sphere that Postman uses to define the Age of Typography. Habermas describes the bourgeois public sphere as rational, equal, open and democratic as seen in early colonial America as described by Postman (Habermas, Donnelly lecture notes). In “The Typographic Mind’ chapter, Postman uses politics, theology, law and advertising to demonstrate how early Americans would sit for hours consuming content that instilled critical thinking skills and demonstrated a love for learning and discourse. Thousands gathered to hear the Lincoln-Douglas debates, hour-long debates structured as written arguments spoken aloud, for politicians who weren’t even up for the presidential office. They wanted to hear both sides of a fully flushed out argument. In addition, all advertisements were descriptive and honest. Someone was convicted or indicted based on the quality of the argument rather than the quality of the opposing counsel’s suit. These all exemplified the rational, equal, open, democratic bourgeois public sphere, which was possible through the critical-rational American mindset developed by the age of typography (Postman, p. 45-63). 

Habermas describes the bourgeois public sphere as capable of rational-critical, disinterested debate among diverse people who function as relative equals, despite unequal social positions (Habermas, Donnelly). Postman uses Thomas Paine as an example of how someone with lowly origins, with little formal schooling and of the lowest laboring class before emigrating, could be placed on the same level as Voltaire and Rousseau. What’s more, his Common Sense sold an unprecedented number of copies, meaning that all citizens in America were discussing and debating his philosophy no matter their station (p. 35). 

Finally, Habermas describes the bourgeois class as a new form of publicness. Individuals have access to reliable information that makes critical debate of public opinion possible (Habermas, Donnelly). Postman argues that America experienced unprecedented literacy rates, incomparable to anywhere in Europe. Book sales in early America couldn’t hold a candle to today, despite a dramatic increase in formal schooling (p. 31-35). Postman uses these examples to argue early Americans’ critical-rational mindset developed because of the age of typography, yet they also reinforce early America as a bourgeois public sphere. 

Habermas argues that the bourgeois public sphere disintegrated as a result of increased inclusivity, the commodification of mass media and the blurring distinction between state and society (Donnelly). 

While Postman does not explicitly detail increased inclusivity in America, we can see it through the lens of the Age of Television nonetheless. Today, it’s difficult to find two people who have read the same book (present company excluded). However, it is very easy to find dozens of shows or movies two individuals have shared (every student in my ENG 103 placement has seen Lucifer – and rightfully so). In fact, it’s nearly impossible to consider the inaccessibility of television to Americans today. Even if you don’t have a particular platform subscription, you have your roommate’s ex-boyfriend's brother’s HBO Go account information to watch the series finale of Game of Thrones. While Postman does not explicitly detail television’s impact on increased inclusivity, it can be inferred by the sheer ubiquity of television in America, or at least by his description of the sheer ubiquity of American television abroad (p. 88).  

It is difficult to find a specific example to illustrate the Age of Television’s impact of the commodification of mass media, not because it’s elusive, but because you can’t choose just one. Mass media has commodified everything. Postman dedicates an entire chapter just to the commodification of religion through television as just one example (pp. 114-125).  

Finally, the blurring of the distinction between state and society can be attributed to the Age of Television through, well – let's just look at who was president of the United States when Amusing Ourselves to Death was written. Hint, it was an actor-turned-president.  

In an effort to reclaim this blog-turned-thesis-driven essay, I will leave you with this. Habermas and Postman should have collaborated (I checked, they were born 2 years apart). If only to have made Habermas a bit more palatable and Postman a bit less reliant on Huxley and Orwell to drive home his points.  

TL;DR - The Age of Typography created a bourgeois public sphere in early America that was destroyed by The Age of Television using means defined by Habermas. NP + JH.