When I was in graduate school in the 1980s students in all academic programs read the late physicist Thomas Kuhn's 1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In 2016 economist Elliott Green compiled data demonstrating that Kuhn's was the most widely cited book in the social sciences. Not a bad accomplishment for a guy who was actually denied tenure at Harvard University in the mid-1950s.
Kuhn's book remains popular among scholars for two main reasons. First, he demonstrates that progress in the sciences over time isn't the result of the application of "objective" methods carried out by always rational, emotionless Mr. Spock-like collegial scholars happy to admit error when new evidence challenges their preferred theories. Instead, scientific progress results from an often contentious, highly subjective clash among HUMAN BEINGS heavily invested in having their methods and findings perceived as authoritative and current for a variety of personal, social, and political reasons.
Second, Kuhn popularized the concept of "paradigm shift" to explain periods of time when the basic concepts of a scientific discipline undergo rigorous rethinking and ultimately get replaced by a new paradigm that becomes the dominant way of studying and talking about the subject matter of that discipline. What I have always found appealing about Kuhn's paradigm shift concept is its assertion that followers of the dying paradigm do not merely retreat in the face of new thinking. Rather, they often remain doggedly committed to a school of thought long after it has lost intellectual justification or practical use. In my field of Communication Studies for example, Kuhn's paradigm shift concept resonated in the 1970s and 1980s in part because our introductory course undergraduate textbooks at that time still featured "sender-receiver," one-way models of communication as respectable ways of talking about human interaction even though such models could not account for the ways in which dialogue makes meaningful interaction possible.
What has all of this got to do with Trumpism and modern mainstream media? Quite a bit, actually. Trumpism and mainstream media, which on the surface appear bitterly opposed, are actually wedded to the same dying paradigm. The adherents and practitioners of each, like the church fathers of the Dark Ages and Renaissance who persecuted anyone who dared challenge biblical accounts of creation and planetary movement, invest themselves in a view of reality that inflates their status as guardians of all that is good and true.
So how could we describe the dying paradigm that is as the root of Trumpism and modern mainstream media? The paradigm features three parts: (1) it accepts hierarchical forms of leadership as legitimate and even preferred, (2) it is profit-driven, (3) it is backward looking. Let's explain:
Hierarchy: If the 20th century taught us anything, it was that in any society, the drive to elect or appoint a "strong man" to fix problems that the unruly masses cannot was and is a blueprint for epic scale tragedy. Trumpism reinforces the strong man myth in dangerous ways, from members of his base mouthing nonsense like "only he can get things done," to members of congress suspending their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution in order to pledge allegiance to The Man.
Above Video: Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently called President Trump "the Chosen One." Perry's statement was just one more example of the president's followers falling prey to the "strong man" myth that continues to plague modern societies despite the devastating lessons of the 20th century.
Profit Driven: Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Donald Trump phenomenon is the manner in which the president has managed to make greed, naked self-interest, and lack of transparency about personal finances into minor infractions--at least among core parts of his base. Somehow a president who ran on a promise to "drain the swamp" has been able to surround himself with a guileful group of swampy sycophants. Writing in GQ, Jay Willis stated the case succinctly: "If the people in the Trump administration share one thing in common (other than the obvious), it is their inspiring passion for the art of the grift." Writing for Buzzfeed, Anne Helen Peterson argued that "Trump
is still an embodiment of the American dream, but of a particular version of it
that has far less to do with bootstraps and hard work and far more to do with
working the system." She argues further that for Trump's base, rejecting revelations about Trump's shady dealings has become a "point of pride," in part because such revelations come from "elite" journalists who've "rejected Trump all along."
Above Video: When in October acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney announced that the Trump Administration had decided to host next year's G-7 Summit at one of the president's privately owned resorts, it was an extraordinary display of the grifter values of the administration that even Republican elected officials in the House and Senate were forced to speak against. The administration finally relented and agreed to have the Summit somewhere else, but not before the president released some angry tweets blaming the media and his political opponents.
"On the news site Splinter, the writer Alex Pareene has characterized much of modern conservatism as a grift gone wrong — pulling from the historian Rick Perlstein’s 2012 Baffler article 'The Long Con,' which traces out just how much of the movement’s far-right fringe was born and nurtured in self-enriching direct-mail and media operations. The game here is simple: Persuade people that everything they value is under attack, and they can be soaked for donations; feed them conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and civil unrest, and they will become extraordinarily receptive to ads for bunker supplies and gold. A solid scheme, Pareene suggests, right up until you find that you’ve overagitated the marks, and they’ve started deciding party primaries."
Backward Looking: While arguments equating Trumpism with fascism often seem overly partisan and overblown, for me the two ideologies are similar in one critical respect; the longing for a return to some golden era of "greatness" that was somehow lost because of some scapegoat(s). Yale philosopher Jason Stanley puts it this way: "The story is typically that a once-great society has been destroyed by liberalism or feminism or cultural Marxism or whatever, and you make the dominant group feel angry and resentful about the loss of their status and power. Almost every manifestation of fascism mirrors this general narrative."
Trumpism's rise was facilitated in part by a backward looking mainstream media stuck in the past. Then CBS Chairman Les Moonves justifiably took a lot of flak in 2016 when he declared that Trump's candidacy "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." But if you think about it, Moonves was merely expressing the value system of the 20th century American mainstream media that survived into the new millennium: a phenomenon is "good" if it keeps eyes glued to content and thus generates more advertising revenue. When in 2016 the corporate media covered virtually every MAGA rally and ended up giving Mr. Trump nearly $5 billion in free advertising, they were simply acting on a more extreme version of the old time doctrine of "if it bleeds, it leads." Guess what: they are poised to do it again in 2020.
Conclusion: Do we have the courage to advocate for a paradigm shift?
In this post I've tried to show how Trumpism and modern media--on the surface in opposition to each other--each operate according to the dictates of a dying paradigm rooted in hierarchy, profit-motive, and looking backward. It is important to keep in mind that dying paradigms--whether in the sciences or in politics/media as I've described here--do NOT just go away. From a Thomas Kuhn perspective, dying paradigms can dominate for a heck of a long time; when adherents feel under threat, they double down and struggle to retain status.
The dying paradigm of hierarchy, profit motive, and looking backward has been questioned for many years by a new paradigm rooted in an opposite set of values. Hierarchy has long faced the challenge of small-d democracy, those motivated by profit have had to contend with those who want to see decisions made on the basis of principle, and it's been clear for a long time that survival of the planet requires a critical mass of people to be forward looking instead of obsess over the past.
Will there be a time when democracy, principle, and looking forward are the values that dominate politics and media? Will there actually be a recognized paradigm shift in the way we do politics and media? Maybe, but only if enough of us have the courage, in both word and deed, to advocate for it. Here are some questions you should try to answer to determine your level of readiness to advocate for the new paradigm:
*Are you willing to support and become part of small-d democratic movements that abhor top-down, strong man approaches to problem solving, even when other participants might not look like you, sound like you, or agree with you on EVERY issue?
*Are you willing to refrain from supporting a mainstream media that enables and by design profits from top-down, strong man political movements? Will you support independent media that search for truth?
*Are you willing to defend people, in politics and media, who make principled judgments and decisions not just when doing so supports their political/professional agenda, but especially when doing so does not? Are you yourself principled in that way?
*Are you willing to support forward looking policies and media outfits even it if might require you to make some personal sacrifices to benefit the future?
When a clear majority of us say "yes" to those questions, AND back up what we say with visible actions, we will accelerate the demise of the dying paradigm and help bring about a paradigm shift that might leave behind a livable planet for future generations.
_________________________________________________________________
Modern mainstream media has its own hierarchy issues, most notably in the way it largely serves and is controlled by elite commercial interests. As once noted by Ben Bagdikian, the late Dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and author of the classic The Media Monopoly: "With the country's widest disseminators of news, commentary and ideas firmly entrenched among a small number of the world's wealthiest corporations, it may not be surprising that their news and commentary is limited to an unrepresentative narrow spectrum of politics." |
| Originally released in 1983, Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly remains an indispensable work on the corporate domination of news media. |
________________________________________________________________________________
Modern mainstream media cannot credibly expose grift and greed because its own bottom line, profit-driven orientation oozes hypocrisy. Professor Victor Pickard of the Annenberg School For Communication astutely connected the dots linking Trumpism and commercial media: "Much of
what ails our media system stems from its extreme commercialism. The
always-controversial Trump was irresistible
for ratings-driven news outlets, and their
endless profit-seeking helped legitimize a dangerous politics. While it’s
tempting to blame audiences for lapping this up, this coverage didn’t just
reflect popular demand. Media are beholden to their owners and to the
advertisers who pay them."
The extreme commercialism of corporate media has even filtered down to smaller, independent outlets. As noted by journalist Nitsuh Abebe, a form of media con with origins in the far-right fringe is now also part of a neo-leftist "resistance grift" that exploits anti-Trump sentiment for profit:
"On the news site Splinter, the writer Alex Pareene has characterized much of modern conservatism as a grift gone wrong — pulling from the historian Rick Perlstein’s 2012 Baffler article 'The Long Con,' which traces out just how much of the movement’s far-right fringe was born and nurtured in self-enriching direct-mail and media operations. The game here is simple: Persuade people that everything they value is under attack, and they can be soaked for donations; feed them conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve and civil unrest, and they will become extraordinarily receptive to ads for bunker supplies and gold. A solid scheme, Pareene suggests, right up until you find that you’ve overagitated the marks, and they’ve started deciding party primaries."
"The personality type that responds to this sort of thing is, naturally,
not restricted to the right. Trump’s election opened the field for a parallel
play among liberals, spurring the rise of the 'Resistance grifter' — a type of
social-media personality who shovels forth alarmist news and wild speculation
about the president’s perfidy, posing as a lonely hero standing against it and
raking in donations or subscription money along the way. Telling people what
they wanted to hear used to be part of the average grift; lately, thanks to
social media and crowdfunding, it works beautifully as a grift in itself."
Backward Looking: While arguments equating Trumpism with fascism often seem overly partisan and overblown, for me the two ideologies are similar in one critical respect; the longing for a return to some golden era of "greatness" that was somehow lost because of some scapegoat(s). Yale philosopher Jason Stanley puts it this way: "The story is typically that a once-great society has been destroyed by liberalism or feminism or cultural Marxism or whatever, and you make the dominant group feel angry and resentful about the loss of their status and power. Almost every manifestation of fascism mirrors this general narrative."
Trumpism's rise was facilitated in part by a backward looking mainstream media stuck in the past. Then CBS Chairman Les Moonves justifiably took a lot of flak in 2016 when he declared that Trump's candidacy "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." But if you think about it, Moonves was merely expressing the value system of the 20th century American mainstream media that survived into the new millennium: a phenomenon is "good" if it keeps eyes glued to content and thus generates more advertising revenue. When in 2016 the corporate media covered virtually every MAGA rally and ended up giving Mr. Trump nearly $5 billion in free advertising, they were simply acting on a more extreme version of the old time doctrine of "if it bleeds, it leads." Guess what: they are poised to do it again in 2020.
Conclusion: Do we have the courage to advocate for a paradigm shift?
In this post I've tried to show how Trumpism and modern media--on the surface in opposition to each other--each operate according to the dictates of a dying paradigm rooted in hierarchy, profit-motive, and looking backward. It is important to keep in mind that dying paradigms--whether in the sciences or in politics/media as I've described here--do NOT just go away. From a Thomas Kuhn perspective, dying paradigms can dominate for a heck of a long time; when adherents feel under threat, they double down and struggle to retain status.
The dying paradigm of hierarchy, profit motive, and looking backward has been questioned for many years by a new paradigm rooted in an opposite set of values. Hierarchy has long faced the challenge of small-d democracy, those motivated by profit have had to contend with those who want to see decisions made on the basis of principle, and it's been clear for a long time that survival of the planet requires a critical mass of people to be forward looking instead of obsess over the past.
Will there be a time when democracy, principle, and looking forward are the values that dominate politics and media? Will there actually be a recognized paradigm shift in the way we do politics and media? Maybe, but only if enough of us have the courage, in both word and deed, to advocate for it. Here are some questions you should try to answer to determine your level of readiness to advocate for the new paradigm:
*Are you willing to support and become part of small-d democratic movements that abhor top-down, strong man approaches to problem solving, even when other participants might not look like you, sound like you, or agree with you on EVERY issue?
*Are you willing to refrain from supporting a mainstream media that enables and by design profits from top-down, strong man political movements? Will you support independent media that search for truth?
*Are you willing to defend people, in politics and media, who make principled judgments and decisions not just when doing so supports their political/professional agenda, but especially when doing so does not? Are you yourself principled in that way?
*Are you willing to support forward looking policies and media outfits even it if might require you to make some personal sacrifices to benefit the future?
When a clear majority of us say "yes" to those questions, AND back up what we say with visible actions, we will accelerate the demise of the dying paradigm and help bring about a paradigm shift that might leave behind a livable planet for future generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment