Language in America: A Report on Our Deteriorating Semantic Environment

by Neil Postman

Working from the premise that language is a key to human survival, these essays explore the ways in which this valuable tool is currently manipulated in various fields

Genres: Language, Nonfiction

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Neil Postman, an important American educator, media theorist and cultural critic was probably best known for his popular 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death. For more than four decades he was associated with New York University, where he created and led the Media Ecology program.

He is the author of more than thirty significant books on education, media criticism, and cultural change including Teaching as a Subversive Activity, The Disappearance of Childhood, Technopoly, and Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century.

Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), a historical narrative which warns of a decline in the ability of our mass communications media to share serious ideas. Since television images replace the written word, Postman argues that television confounds serious issues by demeaning and undermining political discourse and by turning real, complex issues into superficial images, less about ideas and thoughts and more about entertainment. He also argues that television is not an effective way of providing education, as it provides only top-down information transfer, rather than the interaction that he believes is necessary to maximize learning. He refers to the relationship between information and human response as the Information-action ratio.

Reviews

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

the report is bad. our language is failing us somehow. most of the people what wrote this are dead. what're we all gonna do dang it?

[Mariah · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I saw that “Language in America” was edited by Neil Postman, a pioneer of media ecology, I knew that it would be good. Although published in 1969 this book is eerily predictive of today’s state of media affairs. The first essay “Demeaning of Meaning,” by Postman (1969) himself, perfectly illustrates our current predicament with social media:

The invention of new and various media of communication has given a voice and an audience to many people whose opinions would otherwise not be solicited, and who, in fact, have little if anything to contribute to public issues (p.14)…Even smart people run out of smart things to say—in fact usually sooner than they anticipate. But if one must write a column every day, or an article every week, or answer complicated questions in thirty seconds, one is soon responsible for more nonsense than can be retracted in a lifetime (p.15).

I find it fascinating reflecting upon what theorists of the past regarded as issues. Much of what was described by Postman has become the standard in our huxleyan reality. Not only do we produce more media pollution through social media; the voices of our mainstream media have been narrowed through corporate ownership and opinion pieces lacking credible experts.

This book addresses a wide range of topics that are still relevant to contemporary understanding: technology, politics, the civil-rights movement, and the Vietnam war, amongst others. Each essay is written by a different expert. Some of the more recognizable authors are Neil Postman, communications theorist; James Lincoln Collier, American journalist and jazz commentator; Ossie Davis, American actor and activist; Pete Hamill, American journalist; Ashley Montagu, British-American anthropologist; but the list is extensive. There is even an excerpt from Lenny Bruce.

A few of my favourite essays, asides for Postman’s, are as follows: “The Language of New Politics” by Pete Hamill (p.40), “The Language of Racism” by Ossie Davis (p.73), “The Language of Education” by Terence P. Moran (.103), and “The Language of Computers” by Edward J. Lias (p.154). I will leave you with the following food for thought from Lias’s essay (1969):

“Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms? (p.171)

If the printing press encouraged people to treat other people like moveable type, eventually placing machines and bureaucracies between people (rather than speech and touch), will the electronic processing of our writings, machines, and bureaucracies encourage more distance or less distance between people? Nations? (p.172)

Does the fact that people are against computers when they have never used them, neutral when near them, and transfixed when operating them indicate a widespread human hypnosis under which gadgetry can alter beliefs more certainly than books, churches, lectures, schools, and blood relatives? (p.172)”