I do not like to read books or newspapers. I think they are a form of intellectual cheating. I like to solve my own problems and pull myself up by my own mental bootstraps, but when I read magazines or newspapers, they swipe the pleasure of solving problems from my grasp.
For instance, in one particular magazine from 1981 I found the words to express a general distaste I have been feeling. For several years now, my main pet peeves have been ideas like: "It all comes down to the individual," or "It depends on the situation," or "Your ideas are not better than mine -- I can choose what to believe." There is not truth but only truth as the individual perceives it, and a tree falling in the unpopulated forest makes no sound.
That old magazine made the cause of this pet peeve clear to me. It is the "popularizing" effect of pop culture. Far from making ideas more accessible, the media makes each idea seem to be simply another choice. One idea, or religion, or "life-style" is not better than another, even if a discussion of its merits proves it to be. In this country, every individual has a "right" to be a fool.
The mostly visual media has been successful, not in educating or enlightening large masses of people, but in creating a nation of people who only know how to make cost/benefit choices which are relevant to themselves. A nation of moral people? No. A nation of mall-goers.
What today passes for individualistic thinking puts the intellectual prowess and moral conviction of thinkers like W.E.B. DuBois on the same level as the moral depravity and intellectual apathy of the average member of the Democratic party. The media (the primary tool of advertising for big business) puts ideas on the shelf right next to each other so the shopper in the famous "marketplace of ideas" is not inconvenienced by having to think for himself. Thus my apprehensions about reading. To hell with the First Amendment!
In The Dartmouth Review pick-up controversy, I became some sort of a leader. I did not quite realize at the time what was happening, but now it is somewhat clearer (damn those books!) to me.
From the first time I appeared in The Review in a blurred action picture that made me look like a thief running away from the site of a crime, I began to be packaged; I played the role of the "fiery, young angry Black male" who was fed up. That description should be reminiscent of another Black leader.
The role of the "fiery, young, angry Black male" is a very useful one. It is a prospect that strikes fear into the hearts of many Americans, black and white. This pigeonholing of potential leaders (packaging of products for mass consumption) minimizes the possibility of their words being heard.
If all we see is the picture of Malcolm X holding the rifle, we know what he is all about. Violence.
Media attention given to individual members of movements co-opts the movement in the worst way possible by putting it on the shelf right next to the other life-styles, opinions and Democrats. This is Andy Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame," and only 15 minutes, come to life.
Another way I was almost packaged was as a member of the shameful "liberal elite." On the radio, one question was asked of me: "Do you think you are so smart you can decide what everybody else can read?" Regardless of my honest answer, it is clear where the question leads. If I say "Yes," or in any way attempt to justify my actions, I am labeled "elitist." Of course, I would have already attained the label of "liberal" because of whom I was aligned with in the Dartmouth Review pick-up.
The "liberal elite" label has been used quite effectively by our past two Presidents, and it works. Quite clever, but fortunately I avoided this label by strenuously denying that I was a liberal and by maintaining that the pick-up was not an attempt to deny the right to read, but to protest the content of the publication (I guess it all comes down to how you look at it).
At first I was eager to attain the attention of the media because I believed it was an effective tool for reaching large masses of people. All press was good press. Now I see the focus given by the media to any movement or activity which is anti-status quo cannot be beneficial. It can only dilute the movement's effectiveness by watering it down, categorizing it or labeling it. If the popular notion is that there is one bottle of aspirin with cyanide in it, who is going to buy aspirin? If the popular notion is that Malcolm X is violent, who is going to read the "Autobiography?" The "marketplace of ideas" both produces the products and directs the consumer's decisions through advertising -- packaging and labeling.
So much for reading and writing. I am going to make a consumer's choice not to patronize Mill's Mall. I advise you to do the same. No more editorials, books, newspapers or Dartmouth Reviews (for me, not you. My censorship days are over). I shouldn't have even written this -- people will read it and they might label me a conservative.
Am I a hypocrite, a wise shopper, or both?
