Two Cultures? Why not both?

Assignment: Who won you over in “Two Cultures”? Engage the discussion of Postman and Paglia and state your own perspective. Comment on specific points that the author’s make in developing your perspective on the issues at hand.

First, some context, for my theoretically-ignorant audience. "Two Cultures - Television versus Print" records a dialogue between two scholars: Camielle Paglia, who argues for the side of television, and Neil Postman, who argues for the side of print. The dialogue debates the significance and power of each, their effects on our present culture, and how education should work with each (primarily with television). The dialogue is structured such that the reader is weighing the pros and cons of print and television, and while the dialogue ends with no clear "victor," the two scholars appear to both agree that 1) both print and television are powerful influences on our culture (though it is not agreed on whether television is a good or bad influence) and 2) that "print" and the philosophies that arise from it should be reinforced in our culture's education (though it is not agreed upon whether this need is to resist or compliment television and its philosophies).

At first, I might have said that Paglia won me over. From what I read, she is born in a generation closer to my own, and consequentially shares a perception on print and television more similar to my own than Postman. With every argument that Postman raises, she appears to agree with his strengths and then raises other perspectives that uncover the apparent flaws in Postman's perceptions. However, I am also a writer, and sympathize with who I perceive to be the "bad guy" -- Postman. I'm not ignorant to the unfair advantages that Paglia has in both opening and closing the dialogue, in standing for the underdog side of the "unacademic" medium of television, the "defensive" rebel figure against the established "offensive" norm (the David and Goliath structure), and that, at the end, she comes to the same conclusion as Postman, even if her premises in constructing her arguments are different. However, the structure of the conflicting viewpoints is misleading, and I am forced to say that neither Paglia nor Postman ultimately have the more compelling argument as they are structured in this debate.

...what?

If you examine the arguments that are being made, print and television are not the root of their debate, but of the philosophies that they encourage. Paglia states "The history of Western civilization has been a constant struggle between these two impulses [Apollonian and Dionysian], an unending tennis match between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos," and while she had said that in regards to the suppression and recent return of "paganism" through television, I see it as a summary of their dialogue. The two do a very thorough job of clarifying the Apollonian nature of print and the Dionysian nature of television. They start with the Judeo-Christian roots in God as a "word-only" God, forbidding images so as to discourage the Dionysian paganism, which is a cornerstone of Western civilization, defining literacy (and Apollonian philosophy) as a technological and not "natural" philosophy ("Humans are not biologically programmed to be literate"). They then continue that visuals -- and television by default -- are Dionysian, as they encourage instinct over thinking, of "rapidly losing any sense of sacrality" (losing the Apollonian element). The argument, then, is Apollonian versus Dionysian -- the ego versus the id. To argue that one side is more right than the other would be to argue whether ying or yang is more right. The truth is, you need both.

In Paglia's defense, I do not think she is arguing against print, but the structure of this debate attempts to lure the reader into thinking that they should believe in one side or the other. I'm fairly certain that she actually understand this necessary balance, if only because of her conclusion. Postman's main concern is that television (and the visual-Dionysian philosophy) will overpower culture, to which Paglia ultimately agrees needs to be checked with "logocentric" education. While there are a few instances Postman appears to erroneously argue his points (his correlation with "sacred" as Apollonian and "secular" with Dionysian, mostly), I feel those moments are not truly erroneous, but merely incorrect labels of an otherwise correct perception of the two philosophies.

So I wasn't entirely truthful -- I feel Paglia made the better argument. I just think my assessment isn't made on "content," but instead, on the medium itself, and my preconceived perceptions that I share with Paglia.

Due to how I tackled this assignment, I feel I wasn't able to tackle some of the specifics the two mentioned: how the Judeo-Christian religions (and Western civilization by consequence) are Apollonian, what exactly Apollonian and Dionysian philosophies consist of in this context, philosophical detachment, etc. If necessary, I will write another post tackling these specifics.