VSR: Slow Reading and Democracy
- VSR: Introduction
- VSR: Bibliophagy and Slow Reading in Religion
- VSR: Early References in Philosophy
- VSR: Close Reading in Literary Studies
- VSR: Slow Reading and Democracy
- VSR: Slow Reading in the Slow Movement
- VSR: Locality and Slow Reading
- VSR: Literary Reading
- VSR: Slow Reading in the Classroom
- VSR: Reading Rate and Comprehension
- VSR: Free Voluntary Reading and Avid Reading
- VSR: Media Studies and Slow Reading
- VSR: Explanations from Psychology and Neurophysiology
- VSR: Defintion and Future Research
Teaching slow reading is still important. Without it, “democracy does not long prevail but succumbs to propaganda and demagoguery” (Hartman, 1996, 386)
Slow reading and democracy have been associated by a number of thinkers.
Postman (1985) lamented the decline of the Age of Typography, which had its zenith it the 19th century. Postman linked it with the Age of Reason. He noted the character of mind of the ordinary citizen of the day, who could listen for hours on end to political orations clearly shaped by a culture favouring text. Speeches would be followed by equally literate and lengthy rebuttals. The citizens who took time for this process were the same ones working dawn to dusk farming the lands, yet squeezing in a little time to read after hours. These people read with purpose, and were well equipped to shape their nation. The Age of Television, on the other hand, is characterized by entertainment designed to please the eye. It requires no literacy and no reflective mental processing. We evaluate ourselves through the eye of television, and judge our politicians through their showmanship. As Postman warned, reading books is important for developing rational thinking, character of mind and political astuteness. From this view, what is good in modern politics is sustained by the citizenry with the patience for serious reading.
In Jihad vs. McWorld, a prescient Barber (1996) described two polarizing cultures, each a danger to democracy; at least part of their differences hinges on the attitude toward books. McWorld is the West and its culture of movie books that have no civic or literary torso. In contrast, Jihad is an Islamic culture in which religious texts are at the heart. Reclaiming book culture in the West is an important step toward ameliorating the conflict between the two worlds.
Pullman (2004) argued that slow reading is needed to reinforce democracy in America. Part of its democratic nature is that the manner of reading is not determined by someone else: “we can skim, or we can read it slowly.” And Hartman (1996) said, “Teaching slow reading is still important. Without it, ‘democracy does not long prevail but succumbs to propaganda and demagoguery’” (386).
References
Barber, Benjamin. (1996). Jihad vs. McWorld: How globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. NY: Ballatine.
Hartman, Geoffrey H. (1996). The Fate of Reading Once More. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 111(3), pp. 383-389.
Postman, Neil (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. NY: Penguin.
Pullman, P. (2004, November 6). The war on words. Guardian Review. Retrieved from http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1344082,00.html.
This is a fascinating post. It is also terse and cogent — consistent with your style.
Postman and I must be related or something. And Barber was prescient indeed. There is no conflict between Islamists and the West in one sense: if we live up to who we are, we can only help complete one another. But the world doesn’t work like that. If we — the West — fall as a culture, it will be because we walked away from ourselves.
That Hartman quote is what I fear is happening with our politics here in the states. It has gotten so bad that being photographed shaking the hands of an opponent can threaten one’s chances of being renominated. Part of this is from the demagoguery Hartman mentions. I think one source of the demagoguery is the lacek of slow reading. The other exacerbates it — the breakup of the media into ghettoes or echo chambers. (For instance, once used to be able to quote articles from the Washington Post or the NY Times to conservatives or articles from the Wall Street Journal to liberals. To do so now usually elicits something like an ad hominem response. The problem is worse with conservatives for reasons I blogged about recently.)
I don’t know which article or book I’d like to read first. Probably Pullman’s and Postman’s. Thanks.
Leave your response!