Who's Online
We have 43 guests online
|
|
|
Common Sense - Our Digital Waterloo |
|
Written by Kevin Hanley
|
A careful reader can recognize the words of surrender and clearly see the large white flag flapping atop a besieged and battered castle. The article “How Many Blogs Equal Reading a Book?” Sacramento Bee (July 27, 2008), starts off describing how 15-year-old Nadia Konyk from Cleveland spends six hours or more every day on the Internet. Nadia e-mails her friends, logs into myyearbook.com (a social networking site), looks at music videos on YouTube and plays on Gaia Online, a role-playing site where users assume alternate identities as cartoon characters. Nadia’s mother, Mrs. Deborah Konyk, shrugs and says, “I’m just pleased that she reads something anymore.”
Will Nadia and other teenagers like her around the country be ready for adulthood and the rough and tumble of the real world? Are we disarming the next generation and weakening the Republic?
A modernist arrogance – the attitude that we have nothing to learn from the literary giants of the past – and a glib attachment to the shallowness of cultural relativism has now opened the door to an unbelievable “debate” about the value of reading great books. The Bee article cited above reports that there is a debate between those literary experts who cite declining reading comprehension test scores and say that teenagers who spend too much time on the Internet have diminished literacy, shortened attention spans and a weakened attachment to a common culture and other literary experts who say that spending time on the Web, “whether it is looking up something on Google or even britneyspears.org, entails some engagement with text.” The latter set of so-called “literary experts” say that it is “unrealistic” to expect all children to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Pride and Prejudice” for fun. Rand J. Spiro, a professor of educational psychology at Michigan State University, says, “It takes a long time to read a 400-page book.” “In a tenth of the time,” he says, the Internet allows a reader to “cover more of the topic from different points of view.” This is absurd.
The Internet is a great tool for rapid communication and research. It is particularly useful for people who are already educated. But it is not a substitute for the hard work and concentration required to gain real understanding and wisdom. The Bee article cites a study by researchers at the University of Connecticut who asked 48 students to view a spoof website about a mythical species known as the “Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus.” Nearly 90% of the students missed the joke and thought that the website was a reliable source of information.
The view that it is presumptuous for teachers, parents and other adults to insist that the next generation put their nose to the grindstone and do something that doesn’t result in instant gratification and is not perceived to be “fun” will inevitably lead to the “dumbing-down” of the next generation. Apparently, Professor Spiro and his elitist pals think that a teenager can learn just as much about racism, ignorance, and courage from quickly perusing various website comments about the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” rather than the book itself. The drama of the riveting courtroom scenes adds nothing to our understanding about life. This is institutional child neglect. It is unfair to school children and teenagers to assume that reading and thinking about a great book won’t be “fun” in the larger sense of experiencing new thoughts and a new world. The “if it feels good, do it” view of life will only result in an increase of cultural illiteracy and less capable citizens. If we allow this viewpoint to win the debate, it will be our Waterloo.
James Madison said, “The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” It is imperative that citizens, in order to maintain and strengthen our Republic, insist that adults cultivate and pass on to the next generation the rich literary legacy of our past. While the Internet is a useful and fascinating new tool to help us communicate and gain knowledge, we should vigorously debate those elitist thinkers who want to use this technology to diminish the value of reading great books that some people think are too “long.” It is a debate that we cannot afford to lose.
Kevin Hanley serves on the Auburn City Council and as Chief Consultant on health and insurance legislation with the California Legislature. Send your comments to Kevin at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
 |
|
|
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed