January 2010 Print


Television: The Soul at Risk

PART 2

Isabelle Doré

This is the second installment of a series on television. It was originally published as a book by Clovis in France (Clovis is the publishing house of the French district of the SSPX). The series will continue every month in The Angelus.

Television and the Intellect

The intellect is the faculty by which we apprehend truth. Does television enable us to apprehend truth in the same way that reading or real-life action does? First we must consider how we watch television and what we see.

Television and Brain Function

Television mainly works the right side of the brain and induces a relaxed state of vigilance. The television viewer looks at a screen and a light source; he sees moving images and hears sounds.

 

I. The Screen and the Light

The “average” television viewer looks at a lighted screen in a particular way that differs from the normal way of looking at things. When passing through a waiting room or hospital corridor, it is easy to tell who is watching television even if you cannot see the screen. The television viewers’ eyes are fixated. In real life, people generally do not stare; their eyes are constantly in motion, switching from the overview to the details, from things close to things at a distance, and breaking away.

By focusing the eyes on the screen, not only is peripheral vision blotted out to the advantage of foveal vision, focused on the entire screen (indeed, the viewers always seem to open their eyes wide), but the eyes also become slightly defocused. In effect, [because of “the visual activity at the contour of the image”1] it is difficult for the eyes to focus on details, a state which can even cause nausea, and so the eyes settle into a defocused fixation on the screen. The eyes cease their normal movement and autonomy. The camera can change the perspective from close-up to distance or change the field of vision or show something else, but it isn’t the viewer who chooses these shifts, their frequency or pace.

What’s more, the television viewer is watching a flickering light source; he is staring at a light. But looking at a light can induce sleep. Researchers speak about television viewers’ “hypnotic” state. Sometimes they speak of a “semi-hypnotic” state because there is not actual slumber.

We should point out that the cinema does not present quite the same danger: the light source is not the screen–it is behind the spectator; the danger of falling into a hypnotic or quasi-hypnotic state at the movies is perhaps reduced. And LCD screens, which have begun to replace cathode ray tubes, do not project the same kind of emanations. Even though the soft light they radiate reduces the hypnotic effect, it does not suppress the other perceptual anomalies.

Defocused fixation on a constantly moving image and a light source present two audiovisual aspects that explain why the television viewer’s brain emits alpha waves (the brain wave pattern typical of an intermediary state between waking and sleep: for some television viewers, after the first few minutes they drift into sleep; others are less susceptible), whereas the brain of an alert person emits beta waves.

Of course, one can always try to remain vigilant, to retain one’s lucidity, to escape hypnosis, to pause an image (something possible with VCRs and DVDs), to take notes for reviewing the film or program, to reflect, memorize, break away from the screen to comment or critique, but this is not the way television is usually watched, and it certainly isn’t the way children watch it: they enter directly into the particular universe of the television, consisting of rapid succession of images. Even after they have reached the age of reason, children do not have a rational relationship with the screen. Even most adults thus lose their rationality and vigilance while viewing television, especially those who watch it a great deal.

 

II. Images and Sounds

What do we see on television? We see images and hear the accompanying sounds.

Images

On television or in movies, the images move at a quick pace; that is the nature of the audio-visual: they only show things that move, and when they don’t move enough, very short clips are shown. One summer, my children found a wounded great-horned owl in a barn: they spent a good half hour watching it. During these 30 minutes, the animal blinked its eyes three or four times; it turned about four or five times, and stretched its wings five or six times. The spectacle was clearly fascinating and rather impressive. The same half hour watching the great-horned owl broadcast on television would be deathly boring; for a program, a report or a documentary, they would have kept but two minutes of the wing flapping, the eye blinking, and its moving around.

We all have memories of our having taken pleasure in the contemplation of an ordinary scene of everyday life: children playing in a park, domestic animals frolicking in a yard, a music or dance rehearsal, a fire on the hearth, a game of table football, chess or other board games. The same scenes in real time shown on a television screen quickly become boring. There are multiple reasons for this: in real life, the eyes move, the other senses are engaged (for a fire in the fireplace there is the smell, the sight of the flames, the sensation of heat, which attract us), the mind and the memory function.

Not long ago there was an educational television program scheduled on the public broadcasting channel, and I remember watching a program on the raising and milking of goats. This type of programming was so unsuccessful among students and teachers that this type of educational television disappeared.

A lot of sports are broadcast on television, but not just any sport: one sees very little golf or badminton, little fencing or ping pong; and when they are broadcast, they don’t show long tournaments. They only broadcast the spectacular sports: tennis, football, rugby.

Music has a place on television, but not just any kind of music. They broadcast variety shows, rap concerts, all kinds of musical events that I cannot begin to identify, but they rarely show, so far as I know, classical music concerts. Classical music is not spectacular, excepting ballets and operas. Occasionally, you may come across a medley of selected pieces. Rarely is an entire classical work offered: the television viewer who watches music on television needs noise, excitement, movement, fast-paced sequences, or scenes of audience hysteria. Classical music only comes across in snippets, serving as background for a film or advertisement.

Sounds

The images moving across the screen are accompanied by sounds: music, noise, or words. The words naturally follow the pace of the images, that is to say, the sentences are short and rapid.

The truly discursive style rarely appears on television (the President’s annual State of the Union address). Even in cultural or political broadcasts, which are normally aimed at intelligent people, the speeches do not last long. In advertisements or children’s programming, everything moves a lot, and the music is fast-paced and rhythmic.

As for advertisements, their goal is to prevent the spectator from thinking. The creators of advertising clips put their knowledge of human psychology at the service of “hidden persuasion” (Vance Packard2). By means of the discontinuity of the images and the rapid rhythm, they dispose the spectator to a state analogous to daydreaming.

Programming for children also presents rapidly paced sequences. It seems that to keep children in front of the screen, a rapid pace is required, with lots of action and movement and dramatic content that provokes strong emotions. When watching children’s programs in which the images change rapidly, the young child has difficulty coordinating vision and hearing. He stares at the screen, content to watch the images without really paying attention to the words, retaining only snatches. The image outweighs the sound.

Growing up, the children manage to combine the two senses better, but do they really have the time and the habit of grasping and memorizing the words?

In real life, a child can easily manage sight and hearing simultaneously. The images are not constantly parading before his eyes; he lives in a rather static universe; he can readily pay attention to the words spoken to him; he even listens to them with great attention when they are addressed to him personally. He can take the time to repeat them, memorize them, and reflect.

My experience has taught me that it is very difficult to retain the attention of a child accustomed to watching television images; not only does he only listen intermittently, but he has a very hard time repeating and retaining simple expressions.

Another example of the secondary place of sound in relation to sight: children living abroad or watching a movie in the original language are not bothered by the foreign language. One family that lived for several years in Japan relates that the youngest child spent a lot of time watching Japanese cartoons in the original language even though he did not speak the language at all. What mattered to him was watching the images, not understanding the words!

I’ve verified this with other children: whether the sound track is inaudible or the film is in a foreign language or they cannot read the subtitles, they still want to watch.

If the discursive style is rare and if speech is secondary to the image, it will not be surprising that television especially stimulates the right side of the brain, the hemisphere governing non-verbal thought, analogy, and the recognition of forms.

The damage is undoubtedly less for a child who is used to conversing at home, speaking, listening, asking questions, reasoning, reflecting, and analyzing. But this is not the case for all. Nor does the global method [of teaching reading], with its system of learning by the recognition of forms, help the child to develop the left side of the brain, the seat of logic, analysis, and reasoning.

Is it possible to watch television and stay alert, to make the effort to grasp the words, to retain them, to critique them, to think over what has been seen? It is certainly easier for a cultivated adult to maintain such vigilance: he can integrate what he hears and sees into his reflections and his store of knowledge. But such is not the usual way television is watched. Infrequent viewers retain the capacity to memorize, critique, and analyze. But the more people watch, the less of an effort they make to cultivate themselves or to think over what they have seen. They let themselves be “inundated” by the images and the background music. Vigilance is only maintained in the hypothetical cases in which instruction is the goal, which is not often.

As for children, they watch for the sake of watching: one teacher explained that sometimes she used to watch films with her high school students. She would prepare the screening ahead of time by explaining to them what they were going to see and providing a worksheet. Without this preliminary work, the students would have learned nothing from the film. This teacher eventually gave up using slides: “they’re too slow” and the students act up.

 

III. A Powerful Learning Tool?

Even though it is rarely the goal and even though it would be difficult, is it possible to become an educated person by watching television?

If you ask a television viewer to assess what he has learned during his years of television consumption, there will be few precise answers. He knows the names and faces of actors, show-business stars, and football players. He knows that there are wars, in the Middle East, for instance, but without knowing why. He knows the name of the president and the secretary of state and his representative. He has a vague recollection of some murderous affairs or serious crises in domains that affect him personally: health, security, the economy.

Firefighters watch films during their training, but is this how they learn to be firefighters? No, the film is an aid that, when commented on and viewed with pauses on different images, can help them to reflect and anticipate situations they may not necessarily have experienced. But it is not by watching Backdraft that you learn to be a firefighter; it is not by watching Emergency that you learn to be a doctor or an E.M.T., no more than you can become a good player by watching a football game. Filmed scenes can be used to complete training, but only insofar as one is able to watch with a critical mind.

A child, who has neither experience nor training nor maturity, needs to live in the real world, not only in order to become educated, but simply to learn how to live, to live in accordance with reality. Television only engages the long-range senses: sight and hearing; and even then, image dominates speech. But the child needs to touch, to feel (the fire’s heat, the cold’s bite). He needs to have all these experiences of real life that television cannot occasion: he needs to experience the dizziness of danger, the anguish of being wrong, the painfulness of waiting, leniency, pardon, mercy, sorrow, fatigue, the anguish of responsibility; he needs to overcome difficulties and failures, and to solve problems.

The director of Science City, interviewed on the radio, justified her refusal to introduce audio-visual animations into the children’s pavilion: “We mustn’t settle for what’s easy; what is important for a little child is to shape himself by interaction with reality.”

A recent event, but one that recurs often enough in different forms, happened: two young reckless drivers fled the scene after running down six pedestrians, killing three. This is behavior typical of the television viewer who has never really been confronted with real life: driving at an irresponsible speed in a small town (60 mph) and flight from a difficulty. Even the second driver, who was following and had no part in the accident, preferred to spare himself rather than to help the wounded or report the accident. These youngsters, typical of their generation, had to have seen car accidents. But on television, nothing is demanded of them. Everything is handled without them. Someone takes care of the wounded, or else the action continues and the victims are left to their fate.

In psycho-pedagogical medical centers, the psychologists have to re-educate children having difficulties adjusting to reality and experiencing learning difficulties. The children have to be taught to utilize their senses, to speak, to act on things, to interact with people. “Practice makes perfect,” and parents are very naïve to think that watching something on television can replace the experiences of real life.

An accident in the mountains prompted the following observation by the inhabitants: “The young people live in a virtual world and don’t realize that nature is dangerous.”

A young woman recently confided how happy she was to be working: “I need to prove myself.” This is a sign of maturity, but the children of this generation often do not have a chance to prove themselves. They live in a diminished, artificial universe: school, computer games, television. There is not much room left for real life.

Are not the young people who adopt crazy and destructive behaviors (speed, drugs, alcohol) trying to prove something to themselves? Aren’t they trying to experience some of the sensations of real life of which they have always been defrauded? They are trying to experience fear, anguish, overcoming obstacles, and the excitation of the senses, but in keeping with the logic of a consumer society: “everything–right now.”

But, to get back to the question, can one acquire valuable and useful knowledge thanks to television? The example of the teacher quoted above shows that just watching a program is not enough to benefit from it. Another teacher lost her patience with her students one day. She had advised the seniors to watch televised news in order to keep abreast of what is happening in the world. While studying the battles of World War II in North Africa, she observed that the students knew nothing about Libya, its geographical situation or its capital, even though the TV news had been talking about nothing but Kaddafi for several weeks.

The reason is that an educated adult is able to link information about Libya to knowledge he already possesses and to his worldview, while a child or adolescent only remembers a few snatches that have no meaning for him and to which he will never assign any meaning. In the best of cases, he will have a spontaneous reaction to the information: Kaddafi is a bad guy; he sent bombers somewhere. The adolescent is then ripe for being manipulated: he absorbs information without thought, without analysis, without understanding. In real life, one also absorbs information, but one understands the ins and outs of a situation; reality dominates. A simple tourist residing in Libya would have a better understanding of the event.

A teacher visiting a commercial farm quickly comprehends that a bull is a dangerous animal, that a storm can cause irreparable damage, that a single tractor tire costs a fortune, that work is tiring, that real life on a farm has nothing to do with the unreal considerations that can be found in textbooks on the need for the farmers to restructure their operations, to adapt to the market, to invest in more profitable techniques…

One day I watched a documentary on the Caucasus produced by Knowledge of the World in a movie theater. I was very interested in the subject and had gone to the show intending to learn. During the film I took notes, and a few months later when I reread them I was surprised to see that I had completely forgotten some astonishing scenes. I had notably forgotten a scene in which a priest of the Armenian Orthodox Church was sacrificing birds: he decapitated the birds brought to him by the faithful and stacked them in a pile next to him. From this I concluded that a television viewer, despite the best of intentions, could only grasp and retain information with difficulty. With a DVD or video, he can pause at an image, go backwards, rewatch the film or program and notice and remember what had escaped him the first time. Television and the cinema do not allow this kind of review.

What should we think of parents who say that their child learned to read by watching television? I was able to ascertain that the claim was false in the cases announced in my circle. Either the parents deliberately lie, or else they are mistaken.

During the sixties, the program Sesame Street was very successful in the United States. It was both an educational and fun program whose purpose was to help the children of less-advantaged backgrounds fill in their gaps before going to school.

In spite of Sesame Street’s success with the children, the school teachers did not discern any notable progress among their pupils. While the children may have happened to pick up some elements of knowledge, the teachers noticed that for all classes there were increasing difficulties in expression, memorization, concentration, and voluntary attention.

Yet, studies seemed to show progress among children who watched Sesame Street. One review of the study showed that the children involved had been taken in hand by the adults in charge of them, who had prepared them, had watched the program with them, and had checked their learning before the coming of the researchers. It was the adult intervention and not the program itself that had enabled these children to learn something.

A study by Professor Marcel Rufo established a link between children’s hyperactivity and television: when the results were graphed, an almost perfect correlation was found between an increase in hyperactivity and time spent watching television. Professor Rufo teaches Child Psychology at the University of Marseille, and his test involved hundreds of children, evaluating their ability to memorize and to associate images, ideas and words (the Ruz test). This study showed a diminution of the intellectual faculties of the children and adolescents questioned, linked to time spent in front of the little screen.

An American study informs us that 15 million American children are taking high dosages of drugs prescribed for neuropsychiatric disorders: stimulants to combat difficulty concentrating (“attention deficit”) and antidepressants to combat manic depression. The study did not bear upon the causes of these disorders, but on parents’ rights to refuse the medications; it is highly likely that these disorders have a direct link with television as direct cause or as an aggravating factor.

 

 

1 A fuller explanation of the physical causes for this “defocused fixation” is found in one of the books referenced by the author: Marie Winn’s The Plug-in Drug (1977; Penguin Books, 2002), p.27.–Tr.

2 American social critic, lecturer, and author, who wrote several best-selling non-fiction works, including The Hidden Persuaders (1957).–Tr.