I
am a great reader – and fairly prolific writer. Indeed at one point, my
secretary in the 1980s called me “paperback writer” in an
allusion to the Beatles song. And I have indeed tried my hand at various times
with (self-published) little books – one written in the 1970s around 30 or so
questions about a new system of local government (for community activists); the
second a more autobiographical piece drafted for more therapeutic purposes to
help me make sense of my life; and the last - In
Transit - a collection of papers I put together to give to people I was
working with in central Europe and Asia. This last I suppose was a calling card
of a sort.
Every
now and then I try to pull my thoughts and experience together – for example in
a paper such as The
Search for the Holy Grail – some reflections on 40 years of trying to make
government and its systems work for people but I lose patience too easily
and move on to other things – leaving this one unfinished. A presentation at a
prestigious Conference, however, does wonders for concentration and I therefore
had more success in 2011 with this paper about the deficiencies of the
capacity-building work in ex-communist countries - The
Long Game – not the log-frame
What
I don’t understand about most academic and bureaucratic writing is that it is
so lifeless….it seems designed to cast a disinfectant over our living souls and
kill the bugs of creativity and insight… I have been exceptionally lucky since
1970 - in holding first political positions (and then consultancy roles) which
allowed me to observe the processes of government at first hand; and then being
allowed the freedom to reflect quite openly about this to those who cared to
read such reflections…
I
have always found two collections of essays particularly inspiring – those of
the development writer Robert
Chambers and those of Roger
Harrison - the organizational development consultant.
Both
produced collections whose essays were preceded with detailed notes explaining
the conditions in which the essay was drafted and indicating how the writer had
adjusted his thinking…..
And
this morning, I stumbled across another name we should honour for the quality
and openness of his mind - and writing. Neil Postman died in 2003 but I
still remember him for his critique of television - Amusing Ourselves to Death.
It was actually a tribute I
came across
I sense a dwindling number of people in the academic world who are unclassifiable. Neil Postman, who died in 2003 was one, and now we can say he will always be one. Such figures—with reputation but no real discipline—have a tendency to make people think. Postman had that.He was expert in nothing. Therefore nothing was off limits. Therefore one’s mind was always at risk, from a joke, a headline, an idea, a person walking through the door. The only way to respond to such strange conditions was with ready humor. And humor would bring you more ideas.
Now what discipline, what department is that?Everyone who knew Postman—and I include perhaps a hundred thousand who only heard him speak—knew him first through humor, which was the reflection in person of the satire in most of his books, each of which is a pamphlet, an essay between covers: The Disappearance of Childhood (1982) was satire about the infantalization in American culture. Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) was satire about entertainment and what it was doing to us. Technopoly (1993) was satire on the “surrender of culture to technology.”
In
these days of grey specialisation, such qualities deserve celebration!
His,
of course, was not the only voice to warn against the new technology….
The
activist with the wonderful name of Jerry Mander had
wowed us a few years earlier with Four
Arguments for Getting Rid of Television and I was delighted to see, during
this morning’s surfing, that he is still going strong – with The
Capitalism Papers (2012) which got a nice
review in Dissident Voice
No comments:
Post a Comment