Anti-intellectualism may be proof that Heisenberg was wrong: observing the phenomenon, as we have for so many years, does nothing whatsoever to change either its state or its vector.

I used to think blogs were the answer: the ability to write long pieces; the degree to which bloggers often do better when they specialize, develop a solid niche expertise; the conversation between related (and sometimes unrelated) blogs, and the value of an active, interested commentariat; the fast nature of the conversation combined with the ability of a blog post to sit there attracting readers and search results in perpetuity.

Sturgeon's Law, though, and academic inertia have dulled my enthusiasm. They are a new publishing platform, it's true, but like television -- which Pete Seeger thought would be a revolutionary cultural tool -- it's a vast wasteland with oases of quality (and large stretches of banality of interest only to small social networks).

"Wasteland" is a good choice.

The internet is full of words, words, words, but it's increasingly obvious to me that not everyone who can type has anything to say worth reading.

What's more, I'm starting to distrust everything I read online. When there are no checks and balances, when anyone with a keyboard can call themselves an expert, who decides what is true?

Precisely, Jonathan. Our country has absorbed the distrust of and contempt for intelligence so thoroughly that even trying to discuss the value of education/intelligent thought is enough to get you branded as part of the "intellectual elite." Most people no longer even question the assumption--they've easily come to believe that smart=dangerous/delusional. (And then an "Aha!" moment. Is that how the Shrub got the votes? People figured he was so stupid he couldn't be dangerous?)

I, too, used to think blogging was the (maybe "an") answer and it still might be--I continue to read a couple of dozen blogs written by intelligent (or at least willing to be informed) people who aren't afraid to write in complete sentences and have original thoughts. The conversations that take place encourage me.

Yesterday's mood of disgust aside, I do realize that the entire span of human existence has consisted of a few people with active brain cells surrounded by a horde of ignorant sheep. I need to come to terms with the fact that contemporary mass media--from television to the internet--has given the sheep a "voice" they never had before.

I haven't given up the idea that the world of the internet and instantaneous global communication can be a powerful force for good. I'm just frustrated when I realize how few people take advantage of the opportunity. And, even worse, I'm beyond frustrated--I'm enraged when people glory in their ignorance.

I don't suppose the divide between those who pay attention and understand the problems our world faces and those who just want to make it through the day so they can hit the bar at 5:00 is any larger than it was a hundred or two hundred years ago.

Sorry--I'm sort of incoherent before coffee.

I dunno, Bettie. I think people of intelligence decide what's true the same way they always have. They dig into the facts, compare and contrast interpretations, and figure out what makes the most sense.

And, obviously, some online sources (like offline sources) are more reliable when it comes to "the facts" than others.

I do realize that the entire span of human existence has consisted of a few people with active brain cells surrounded by a horde of ignorant sheep.

"ignorant," but self-serving, "sheep."

Well, so much for my World History surveys. Do you know how hard it's going to be for me to not quote this in class?

Yes, self-serving. But, really, what the sheep want is very simple. Food, shelter, entertainment (see today's rant), and the illusion of some control. (Just the illusion. Real control, real personal responsibility, is a burden.)

P.S. Just being thought quote-worthy has made my day. :) Help yourself.

P.P.S. Really. Help yourself.

Because it occurs to me that if you offend just a handful of students and inspire them to go out and prove you wrong--prove that they aren't sheep, then I have not blogged in vain.

LOL

OK, you're in my quote file. It would make a great final exam essay prompt: "Do you agree? Discuss concretely."

the illusion of some control.

That's a lot harder than it used to be, I think. The tension between the rhetoric of freedom/individuality/independence and the structural boundaries created by family, state and corporation is more obvious, I think, than it used to be.

I could make a case that civilization closing in around people makes it easier.

I think, as the world grows smaller around them, most people's personal focus narrows as well. I think people in contemporary society are willing to accept smaller freedoms--control over increasingly minor issues. We have willingly given up some broader freedoms for the safety gained from knowing that others around us are subject to the same prohibitions. I could argue that that makes our remaining freedoms, the remaining areas where we possess control, more important to us.

Where the freedom, the remaining flexibility in our society comes from is the fact that we don't all agree on which freedoms are necessary to us. We won't all eat the same bread or cheer the same circus. :) Consequently, leaving the majority of us even the "illusion" of control is no simple matter--even for the vast federal government whose job would be made easier by a more homogeneous population.

Amusing digressions into paranoia aside, I think that's where a lot of resistance on things like automobile seat belt laws and mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles originates. That's a loss of control--freedom--that interferes with the motorcycle rider's perception of his/her "image" or the car driver's perception of the inside of their car as a "personal space" that isn't subject to public control.

And my point is, because I haven't actually forgotten where the conversation started, is that by letting these largely unimportant (to society as a whole) issues remain a matter of "personal choice," you let people focus on the illusion that they control their own lives.

Speaking of vast wastelands, I ran across this discussion of global television this morning. I'm not sure I agree with the tone, and the causality is suspect, but the discussion is interesting.

Okay. I agree with you. It was an interesting discussion, but I find the causality more than "suspect." Maybe they were trying to boil 500 pages of research and data down to a mass-market audience, but I'd personally like to see some kind of evidence to back up their assertions.

On the other hand, I don't doubt that exposure to other ways of life can be of benefit to an entire culture. I'd even suggest that the world needs a lot more of it--I'd like to see more global offerings on US television. I don't say that with an eye to blurring the distinctions between cultures, but because I honestly think that television CAN be a bridge to understanding.