Public Discourse

There are two ways by which the spirit of a culture may be shriveled. In the first—the Orwellian—culture becomes a prison. In the second—the Huxleyan—culture becomes a burlesque. No one needs to be reminded that our world [has been] marred by many prison cultures whose structure Orwell described accurately in his parables. If one were to read both 1984 and Animal Farm . . . one would have a fairly precise blueprint of the machinery of thought control as it [recently operated] in scores of countries and on millions of people. . . .

What Huxley teaches [in his novel Brave New World] is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. . . . When, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture death is a clear possibility.

In [the United States], Orwell’s prophecies are of small relevance, but Huxley’s are well under way toward being realized. For [the U.S.] is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug. This is an experiment that . . . [has] reached a perverse maturity in America’s consuming love affair with television. . . . By ushering in the Age of Television, America has given the world the clearest available glimpse of the Huxleyan future.

Those who speak about this matter must often raise their voices to a near-hysterical pitch, inviting the charge that they are everything from wimps to public nuisances to Jeremiahs. But they do so because what they want others to see appears benign, when it is not invisible altogether. An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan. Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us. . . . [But] to whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter?

. . . What is happening in America is not the design of an articulated ideology. . . . But it is an ideology nonetheless, for it imposes a way of life, a set of relations among people and ideas, about which there has been no consensus, no discussion, and no opposition—only compliance. Public consciousness has not yet assimilated the point that technology is ideology. . . .

To be unaware that a technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is, at this late hour, stupidity plain and simple. . . . Introduce the alphabet to a culture and you change its cognitive habits, its social relations, its notions of community, history, and religion. Introduce the printing press with movable type and you do the same. Introduce speed-of-light transmission of images and you make a cultural revolution. Without a vote; without polemics; without guerilla resistance—here is ideology, pure if not serene. Here is ideology without words, and all the more powerful for their absence. All that is required to make it stick is a population that devoutly believes in the inevitability of progress. . . .

[Huxley] believed . . . that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media. For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.

The assertion that the introduction of an alphabet changes cognitive habits is:

• a. true, on the basis of the low literacy rate in the U.S.

• b. supported by objective data in the passage.

• c. perhaps true but not explicitly supported by passage information.

• d. contradicted by the assertion that television watching is pervasive in the U.S.

Answer explanation

Solution: The correct answer is C.

The author makes no reference to the literacy rate in the U.S. or whether it is low or high, so no determination on whether this is true can be made here. This assertion is made in one sentence without elaboration or objective data. The main body of the passage is devoted to the impact of technology, in particular, television, on culture and does not further discuss the impact of introducing the alphabet. This assertion is introduced in the context of the larger point being made in the paragraph about television’s revolutionary impact on society, which was as great, perhaps even greater than introduction of the alphabet. The assertion functions to set up a comparison, so the author’s assertion must be assumed to be perhaps true in order for the point made about television’s revolutionary impact to be convincing. The assertion contrasts with, but is not contradicted by the passage assertion about the pervasiveness and cultural impact of television watching in the U.S. See rationale C.

Which of the following findings would most weaken the author’s argument about the extent to which U.S. society has fulfilled the Huxleyan prophecy?

• a. A high percentage of the U.S. adults who watch television regularly have a good understanding of the politics and validity of the media.

• b. A high percentage of the U.S. adults who watch television regularly failed to vote in the last presidential election.

• c. More U.S. adults are able to name the judge on the television show “The People’s Court” than are able to name the U.S. chief justice.

• d. More U.S. adults have read 1984 than have read Brave New World.

Answer explanation

Solution: The correct answer is A.

The author makes a large point about how the television revolution occurred without resistance from a population that unthinkingly believes in technological progress as inevitable. The author underscores this point about the unthinking acceptance of television by the people in the final paragraph: “Huxley believed that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media . . . he was trying to tell us that what afflicted people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.” It stands to reason, then, that the existence of a U.S. television audience that was sophisticated and understood the politics and validity of the media would most challenge and weaken the passage argument. This would not necessarily weaken the argument since this could arguably underscore the author’s point about how television has enforced compliance from the people without discussion, opposition, or a vote. It would only follow that, if it were true that television-watching adults were be less inclined to vote, then this would be another instance in which television removed the critical discernment and motivation to engage actively in politics, or even create opposition. This would prove, not weaken, the author’s point about how pervasively television is able to mediate the reality of television-watching adults and remove them from participation in public life. See rationale A. Even if this were true, this would have little effect on the author’s conclusions, especially since, unlike the author, U.S. readers would likely not see television culture in light of 1984 or Brave New World. In addition, nothing is said about how many people have read 1984 or Brave New World relative to how many watch television. If the number of readers of these books was much smaller than the number of television watchers, then, even if some of these readers reached the same conclusions as the author, this would have little influence on the culture as a whole.

The passage suggests that if a news commentator presented an editorial agreeing with the Huxleyan warning, many viewers would:

• a. take whatever action was necessary to combat the danger.

• b. listen carefully to the commentator and then explain the ideas to others.

• c. charge that the commentator was irrational or needlessly alarming viewers.

• d. be receptive to learning more about the danger.

Answer explanation

Solution: The correct answer is C.

This response would be more likely in the case of an Orwellian culture, which the author states is like “a prison” and “much easier to recognize, and oppose than a Huxleyan [world].” The passage suggests the opposite response: “Huxley believed that we are in a race between education and disaster, and he wrote continuously about the necessity of our understanding the politics and epistemology of media . . . he was trying to tell us that what afflicted people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.” See rationale C. The passage suggests that the commentator would invite this charge: “Those who speak about this matter must often raise their voices to a near hysterical pitch, inviting the charge that they are everything from wimps to public nuisances to Jeremiahs.” The author goes on to explain that the reason television critics are compelled to go to such extremes is to call attention to how the Huxleyan world of television culture appears benign—this commentator might be “the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter.” The viewers would be unreceptive to learning about the danger, because, according to the author, this world would appear benign. See rationale C.

One can justifiably infer from the author’s argument that if a presidential election campaign in the U.S. involved trivial candidates and discussion, the public would:

• a. vote for the candidates they found to be most trivial.

• b. vote for the candidates they found to be least trivial.

• c. denounce the entire campaign.

• d. not even notice the triviality.

Answer explanation

Solution: The correct answer is D.

The public would not be drawn to the most trivial candidate because they would not even notice which one was the most trivial. See rationale D. According to the author, the public would not be able to discern which candidate was the least trivial. See rationale D. In a Huxleyan world, the public would not even be discerning enough to denounce the campaign, which would be a greater likelihood in an Orwellian world. The most justifiable inference is that the public would not even notice based on the author’s discussion of how television culture took over without even a pretense of a debate. This also can be inferred from the author’s discussion of Brave New World in relation to the Huxleyan world of television culture in the final paragraph: “ . . . he was trying to tell us that what afflicted people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.”

The author sees the U.S. “consuming love affair” with television as relevant to Huxley’s warning because:

I. television discusses vital matters.

II. television is changing people’s way of thinking.

III. technology can cause negative social changes.

• a. I only

• b. II only

• I and II only

• II and III only

Answer explanation

Solution: The correct answer is D.

References to “public business [becoming] a vaudeville act,” “serious discourse [dissolving] into giggles,” and “a culture’s being drained by laughter” suggest that television either does not discuss vital matters or, at best, trivializes them. Option III is also correct. See rationale D. Option I is incorrect. See rationale A. The author points out how Huxley warns of the negative social consequences of technology: “What Huxley teaches . . . is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate.” This is then reinforced by a reference to “technological distractions.” The author later makes an even stronger statement concerning technology and negative social change: “To be unaware that technology comes equipped with a program for social change, to maintain that technology is neutral, to make the assumption that technology is always a friend to culture is . . . stupidity plain and simple.” The author also underscores the idea that technology is changing the way people think: “for it imposes a way of life, a set of relations among people and ideas, about which there has been no consensus, no discussion, and no opposition, only compliance. Public consciousness has not yet assimilated the point that technology is ideology.”