Mex Ex-Prexy Won’t Fade Away Thursday, Apr 16 2009 

Mex Ex-Prexy Won’t Fade Away

 

By Joseph P. Duggan

The American Spectator

April 16, 2009

 

(As President Obama meets with President Felipe Calderón in Mexico City today, Joseph Duggan recounts a recent visit with Calderón’s predecessor, Vicente Fox.)

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/16/mex-ex-prexy-wont-fade-away

 

SAN FRANCISCO DEL RINCÓN, Mexico – A sign of Mexico’s political evolution is the creation of its first presidential library and museum, in the fashion of the libraries archiving and commemorating the administrations of Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and other United States presidents.

 

Mexico was a one-party dicatorship of the statist bureaucrats of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) for 70 years before the upset victory of Catholic, conservative Partido Acción Nacional candidate Vicente Fox in 2000.  In a disheartening pattern, many if not most of Fox’s PRI predecessors became personae non gratae in their countries – nomads with bulging Swiss bank accounts — following their tenure in the presidency.   Presidential records, instead of being objects of reverent examination by historians, instead were kept – or often destroyed – as state’s evidence.

 

Like United States presidential libraries, Vicente Fox’s is in his native state – in this case, adjacent to his home and ranch near the postcard-perfect colonial university and vacation towns of Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende.  Centro Fox’s warm, dry, ranch-country setting and the high quality of its architecture and museum and research facilities are reminiscent of the Reagan Library in Simi Valley.  Fox and President George W. Bush made Fox’s Rancho San Cristóbal the site of their February 2001 summit meeting at a moment of optimism during their new presidencies.  

 

Fox is a man of action and is not bookish, but this rancher and corporate executive-turned-politician has a keen, Jesuit-trained mind that helped him overthrow the dictatorship of the PRI.  He also had good judgment in finding talented writers and editors to help him produce a highly readable and thought-provoking English-language memoir, Revolution of Hope.  The volume is informative and insightful about the achievements and disappointments of his administration and its relations with the United States.   More than a memoir, Fox’s book puts forward a bold proposal for deepening the North American Free Trade Agreement into a more cohesive economic community along the lines of the European Union.  In this regard, it is unfortunate that another politician already had used the title, The Audacity of Hope.

 

Fox speaks flawless English, learned during a year as an exchange student at a Jesuit boarding school in Wisconsin.  In his book Fox attaches importance to his formation in pre-Vatican II Jesuit education, at the prep school in León, the city near his native ranch, and at Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City.  Fox’s Guanajuato was a center of Catholic resistance to the atheistic and socialistic regime of Plutarco Elías Calles.  

 

During Fox’s childhood, as well as now, Mexican Catholics have venerated twentieth-century martyrs including the remarkable Jesuit, Father Miguel Pro.  The Jesuits who taught young Fox in the prep school and university were closer in mind and spirit to James Schall than to Robert Drinan.

 

Fox’s Mexican variety of conservatism is not the same stuff that is advertised as conservatism in the populist, and often nativist, echo chambers of talk radio north of the border.  Fox gets red in the face as he expresses his hot disdain for Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly – obstacles to Fox’s aims for closer economic and political relations between Mexico and the United States.  Fox and the PAN’s closest counterparts outside of Mexico are the European Christian Democrats.  Fox’s dream of North American economic integration may be overshadowed by the flaws of the European Union, but anyone who knows Fox’s stubbornly anti-bureaucratic temperament should recognize that he does not want to install a Brussels-style bureaucracy in the New World.

 

If there is a parallel to the Fox phenomenon, it might be Lech Walesa, the charismatic leader of a drive to end a dictatorship.  Once in the presidential office, Walesa, like Fox, had great difficulty administering a government that had been designed for the bureaucracy of the old regime. 

 

Fox’s impatience is legendary.  It drives him, and it inspired Mexicans in the 2000 election to make the extra effort to try to elect an opposition candidate.  The man’s carpe diem character is apparent in a conversation with him at Centro Fox.  When this interviewer had the temerity, or perhaps it was timidity, to suggest that Fox’s vision of a North American economic union was a good idea that might take a generation or more to come to fruition, Fox’s “NO!” shook the rafters.  “We can’t afford to wait!”

 

I don’t have the nerve or the bad philological taste to try to translate “misunderestimate” into Spanish.  But however one might say it, don’t try to do it to Vicente Fox. 

 

(Mr. Duggan, a former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, is a visiting professor in politics and communication at Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico City.)

 

New Media vs. Gnostic Bureaucracies Wednesday, Apr 8 2009 

New Media vs. Gnostic Bureaucracies

By Joseph Duggan

(published in RealClearMarkets, April 7, 2008)

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/new_media_vs_gnostic_bureaucra.html

 

Last week the Chicago Sun-Times became the second of the Second City’s dailies to go into bankruptcy, and the New York Times Company threatened to halt the presses forever for its Brahmin bible, the Boston Globe. A deathwatch is waiting to spot the first major metropolitan area to become bereft of even a single daily newspaper.

After department-store display advertising had shrunk in response to e-commerce and other structural changes in retailing, the surviving newspapers depended on classified advertising. Then along came a San Francisco software engineer, Craig Newmark. When his Craigslist for free classified ads ignited a conflagration that is engulfing the Chicago newspapers, he probably was no more aware of the consequences than Mrs. O’Leary’s cow when she kicked off the Great Chicago Fire of the 19th century.

The implications of the inundation of new media for political communication are huge. Up until recently, one of the doctrines of political communication and indeed most public relations was that “broadcast follows print.”

Political and corporate flacks (I was one of them) used to craft and pursue strategies like this: First, “message development,” then the “predicate” story or opinion column planted in a leading newspaper. Next, popular resonance of the message through radio and television – optimized by a strenuous effort to maintain “message control.” Finally, success (or sometimes disappointment) in the public policy contest.

Soon broadcast no longer will be able to follow print. And the broadcasting industry is not much healthier than the newspaper business. At the end of the 18th century, Edmund Burke, recalling the demise of France’s old regime and its “three estates,” is said to have coined the term “Fourth Estate” for the rising, independent power of the press. Today this Fourth Estate is being liquidated, not by Jacobins but by geeks.

Not too many years ago when I was a press secretary for a Member of Congress, on the evening of the State of the Union Address, my mission was to get coverage for my boss on network TV. In the lobby outside the House Chamber, I had to deal with reporters and producers and technicians who had sophisticated equipment connecting us with their networks, which employed thousands of people and billions of dollars in capital investment.

There was a surreal quality to President Obama’s first speech, just a few weeks ago, before a joint session of the United States Congress. While the President spoke from the podium, a number of Members of Congress employed their handheld devices to send Twitter messages to their constituents or anyone else out there in Tweetville who might have been tuning in. The commentary, whether irreverent or too reverent, was childish, undignified – to an old fuddy-duddy like me, absolutely appalling.

But as Ronald Reagan wrote in 1988 in his profoundly realistic National Security Strategy of the United States, we must “deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.”

Both the late Marshall McLuhan and his son and intellectual collaborator, Eric, saw James Joyce’s weird experimental book, Finnegans Wake, as insightful, visionary, and even prophetic as regards electronic communications media. The shadowy protagonist of the book is someone called “H.C.E.” – signifying, among other things, “Here Comes Everybody.”

The McLuhans say that electronic media dealt a devastating blow to the alphabetic, linear way of thinking and communicating that had dominated Western society since Gutenberg’s invention of moveable type and printing became a mass medium. For five centuries, the Gutenberg technology was turbo-charged by Descartes’ extreme rationalist ideology of being and knowing – what the 20th-century philosopher Frederick Wilhelmsen, McLuhan’s great friend, called “modern man’s myth of self-identity.”

Today, aural and even tactile ways of perception are regaining dominance, as had been the case before the visual age of print. Radio, as McLuhan said, is a “hot” medium. If you doubt this, consider how during the past two decades talk radio – mostly of the flavor of right-wing populism as distinct from intellectual conservatism — did its part to turn the calm, linear, rationalist politics of the United States of America envisioned by Jefferson and Madison into a hot cacophony of electronic pow-wows for distinct but allied tribes.

Newly ascendant left-wing Democrats are flirting with legislation to curb the free expression of right-wing radio. But broadcast radio’s days may be numbered anyway. Now all the hierarchies for the distribution of information are breaking down.

A year ago I attended a program at the National Press Club in Washington, celebrating the centennials of both the Press Club and the world’s first School of Journalism, that of the University of Missouri. The luncheon speaker was a very intelligent and accomplished man – formerly editor of the Wall Street Journal Online and director of Yahoo! News.

I anticipated his speech as a kind of revelation of a Holy Grail, tearing away the veil to signify how the online news media were going to operate profitably. But his speech failed to indicate anything – not one single thing — about a profitable or even coherent future for online news media. I had paid a princely sum of $28 to hear the speech and I wanted my money back. I do not mean in any way to belittle or criticize this man but instead to indicate the magnitude of the maelstrom all of us are in.

Clay Shirky of New York University, one of the keenest observers of the revolution in media, has a new book, called, wouldn’t you know, Here Comes Everybody. Last month on his blog, http://www.shirky.com, he noted:

When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

Eric McLuhan’s latest observations are similar to Shirky’s but with the hopeful note that the media revolution has elements of a renaissance – the sort of thing that recurs in Western Civilization, like one of those over-the-top Mississippi floods, every 400 or 500 years. In a speech in Rome last month, he described several characteristics of renaissances, all in operation today:

• A renaissance is always invisible to those living through it.

• A renaissance is always a side-effect of something else, some new medium that reshapes perception: in our case, we have the spectrum of electric technologies from the motor to the MP3, from the telegraph to the satellite, the radio to the Internet. The Grand Renaissance married the printing press and the alphabet.

• A renaissance is always accompanied by a revolution in sensibility.

• A renaissance is always accompanied by a major war. In our case, we have had World Wars One and Two and the Cold War (among other wars), and now we are embroiled in the first of the Terrorist Wars. At the speed of light, the front is gone, the battleground is the outward globe, and that (much larger) paysage intérieur.”

We are at one of those crossroads in human civilization where it is scarcely possible to see any road at all. Of all people, the über-optimist and risk-taker Rupert Murdoch, should know that corporate executives come and go. About a month ago, Murdoch’s deputy at his News Corporation resigned. The world will little note nor long remember who Murdoch’s Second Banana was or what he did, but it should take note of what Murdoch said.

Instead of treating the event as a routine transition, Murdoch spoke in almost apocalyptic terms. He said, “We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered. Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded.”

That sounds a lot more like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn than the Rupert Murdoch we all have known and loved – or, as the case may be, feared.

I am betting against the pessimists and for a renaissance. Rebirths, like births, always involve bleeding and pain, but afterwards the joy of new life.

The World Wide Web provides the world’s greatest library and the platform for the world’s most complex and far-reaching, yet potentially intimate, communications. These are resources for our renaissance. The new media can help free men and women consign bureaucratic statism to the ash-heap of history.

Sixty-five years ago Marshall McLuhan in his doctoral dissertation on the classical Trivium of grammar, dialectics, and rhetoric, deplored the Cartesian imbalance of overemphasizing dialectics to the neglect of “grammar.” McLuhan explained, “The grammarian is concerned with connections; the dialectician with divisions.” And he said, “Grammarians distrusted abstraction; dialecticians distrusted concrete modes of language.”

In terms of politics, McLuhan said Cicero – a proponent of the natural law — was perhaps the greatest grammarian. Machiavelli was a “consciously anti-Ciceronian” dialectician. In the intelligence profession, the grammar of the Trivium is known as pattern recognition.

News media enterprises today are subject to market forces and are facing consequences – the destruction of many recently prosperous enterprises and types of enterprises.

But the modern nation-states – and the supranational organizations like the United Nations — are stiflingly bureaucratic. They are less subject to market forces than are businesses, and in reaction to the current economic panic – a crisis of abundance, not of scarcity – the big governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies are opportunistically seizing more power.

The bureaucracies have a shifting parasite-host relationship with the social engineer, the “international development professional,” and the other types of soulless technocrat whom the late Samuel Huntington called “Davos Man” and Frederick Wilhelmsen called “the egomaniac, lusting gnostically to dominate all existence.” Just contemplate what has taken place in Washington the past two months, and at the Group of 20 Summit in London last week, where Chinese totalitarians, Russian authoritarians, cosmopolitan eugenicists, and Western “democratic” socialists strained to stitch together a Frankenstein monster from the jumble of formaldehyde jars holding the maimed remains of capitalism.

In 1945, C.S. Lewis wrote a novel envisioning the death-over-life power of today’s gnostic technocratic bureaucracy; he called it That Hideous Strength. It is the fictional companion to Lewis’s famous treatise, The Abolition of Man.

Marshall McLuhan’s very first published article appeared when he was a 25-year-old graduate student. The article was about a writer whom young McLuhan admired, G.K. Chesterton. The year was 1936, a moment when Big Government statism was in vogue from Washington to Berlin to Rome to London to Moscow. McLuhan praised Chesterton’s “inspiriting opposition to the spread of officialdom and bureaucracy.” He called Chesterton “a revolutionary, not because he finds everything equally detestable, but because he fears lest certain infinitely valuable things, such as the family and personal liberty, should vanish.”

The new media are on a collision course with Big Government. They are not immune from gnosticism, but they are inherently anti-bureaucratic. They will serve us and serve our freedom if we understand them, and if we understand ourselves. We can and should make the new media our instruments, our allies, in recovering and strengthening infinitely valuable things such as the family and personal liberty.

 

 

Mr. Duggan, a former United States State Department officer and speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, worked as a copyboy for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat and as an editorial writer for the Greensboro Record and Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The Evaporation of the American Newspaper Monday, Apr 6 2009 

The Evaporation of the American Newspaper

By Joseph Duggan

 

(first published in RealClearMarkets.com,

December 28, 2008)

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/the_evaporation_of_the_america.html

 

“The outstanding fact in any survey of the American press is the steady and alarming decrease in the number of dailies. Consolidation, suppression, and a strong drift toward monopoly are taking their toll.” – Oswald Garrison Villard,
The Disappearing Daily (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1944), p. 3)

As politicians in Washington debated the week before Christmas whether to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out the century-old smokestack industry of automobiles, another relic of America’s Gilded Age, the daily newspaper, lay in extremis without hope of a life-saving intervention from the government. Panic has suppressed the sense of irony, and legislators are unlikely to recall that the automobile and its chatty vade mecum, the radio, contributed to the obsolescence of the urban newspaper.

 The once mighty St. Louis Post-Dispatch, flagship of Joseph Pulitzer’s publishing fleet, announced in a small online posting December 17 a warning from its company’s accountant that it may no longer be, by the year’s end, a “going concern.” The value of stock in the Post-Dispatch’s publisher, Lee Enterprises, Inc., has dropped by about 97 percent since the beginning of the year. The company has lost more than 65 percent of its market value during the past 30 days alone. Lee Enterprises publishes more than 50 daily newspapers and more than 300 weekly newspapers and specialty publications.

Less than four years ago, Lee Enterprises purchased the entire Pulitzer company, then publishers of 14 daily newspapers, for $1.5 billion in cash. A share of Lee stock then sold for $45; today a share sells for 34 cents. (Note how prescient the Pulitzers were to sell for cash, not for stock.) With the parent company’s market capitalization now only $22 million, what might the Post-Dispatch be worth by itself — $200,000? Maybe $400,000 at most?

Michael Pulitzer, head of the family company and grandson of the founder, said at the time of the sale: “Lee and Pulitzer share similar cultures and values, beginning with our long history in, and passion for, the newspaper business. We both care deeply about our employees, communities and the public trust, and we manage our newspapers in the same devoted ways. In short, we couldn’t have found a better steward to continue Pulitzer’s 125-year legacy of journalistic excellence.” Mary Junck, Chairman and CEO of Lee Enterprises, hailed the acquisition of Pulitzer as “an exciting and logical next step” for her company.

That was then; this is now.

The Post-Dispatch announcement came a week after the privately held Tribune Company, publishers of such leading dailies as the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Baltimore Sun, filed for bankruptcy protection. E.W. Scripps Company, whose stock has fallen nearly 90 percent in 12 months, is trying to sell its Denver daily, the Rocky Mountain News. McClatchy, owner of the Miami Herald and other properties of the former Knight-Ridder chain, has seen its stock drop by more than 90 percent this year. The Herald reportedly also is for sale. This month the New York Times Company, owner of the eponymous Gotham daily as well as the patrician Boston Globe, sought to mortgage its new headquarters building and sell its partial stake in the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise to meet urgent cash needs. Detroit’s two newspapers announced they would curtail daily circulation of the print edition. One will cut back home delivery to three days a week, the other, only two days a week.

An institution, once grand and powerful, is vanishing into the ether, with no small assist from the Ethernet.

It may be that, as said the innovative political consultant and agitator of “Netroots,” Joe Trippi, “the revolution will not be televised.” But the newspaper business, notably the New York Times, is performing a valiant role for the moment at least in writing its own obituary. Nearly every day, the Times publishes one or more informative and mostly insightful reports on the demise of the newspaper medium. New York Times Company stock, one of the better (that is, less abysmal) performers among newspaper stocks, is down about 60 percent for the year.

The public philosophy behind government efforts to “preserve” – or more specifically, to prevent monopolies in — metropolitan daily newspapers was reflected 64 years ago in Oswald Garrison Villard’s book, The Disappearing Daily. Villard was editor of the liberal/progressive opinion magazine The Nation. The newspaper business, wrote Villard, “is unlike most others in that it is ‘affected by a public interest.’ It is a vital public need that the people in a democracy shall have the news and the opportunity to read all sides of political debates of the hour. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the best way to head off unsound opinion in a democracy is ‘to give them [the people] full information of their affairs thro’ [sic] the channels of the public papers and to contrive that these papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people.’ To establish a press monopoly in a locality is to restrict the field of public information or to narrow its vision, or even perhaps to put an end to the presentation in the remaining dailies of anything but a partisan aspect of the national political or economic situation – and this despite the coming of the radio.” (op. cit., pp. 4-5).

Villard’s view was not confined to liberals of the 1940s. United States Representative Kevin Brady, a conservative Republican from Texas, expressed a similar outlook in an interview in the December 18, 2008 New York Times concerning the shrinkage of Washington bureau staff of his hometown metropolitan daily, the Houston Chronicle, from nine to three people in two years. “From an informed public standpoint, it’s alarming…. They’re letting go those with the most institutional knowledge, which helps reporters hold elected officials accountable.”

The Illusion of Legislating ‘Newspaper Preservation’

The newspaper market in St. Louis, my native city, was central to the drama over the Newspaper Preservation Act. In 1959, a lengthy labor union strike by The Newspaper Guild, representing editors and writers at the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, crippled that enterprise financially. The paper’s owner, S.I. Newhouse, sold its relatively modern printing plant to its competitor, Pulitzer’s Post-Dispatch. The afternoon Post-Dispatch and the morning Globe-Democrat formed a “joint operating agreement” to print their papers in the same plant at different hours of the day while keeping separate ownership and distinct “editorial voices.” The Justice Department provisionally relaxed antitrust applications to allow this and some other metropolitan joint operating agreements.

The Newspaper Protection Act of 1970 gave the legal certainty of a Congressional act to publishers who wished to consummate arrangements such as the St. Louis joint operating agreement. Government’s remedy to “preserve” newspaper competition from monopoly was to exempt newspapers from anti-monopoly (antitrust) laws. This was the desperate, upside-down mentality of warfare: To save the village (or competition) we will have to destroy it.

Where other businesses were forbidden to conspire against customers to fix prices and otherwise circumvent competition, local newspapers were allowed, even encouraged, to do so. In St. Louis and dozens of other big American cities, the trend of the metropolitan newspaper market toward monopolies was arrested temporarily by imposition of government-arranged duopolies.

My involvement in the Newspaper Preservation Act and its predecessor arrangements, since I was a toddler not yet able to read, has been intimate: Martin Duggan, my father, worked for 44 years for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, as copy editor, news editor and editorial page editor. My family’s livelihood was artificially sustained – for a time – by the Newspaper Preservation Act. While I am appreciative of how this contributed to my family’s financial well-being and the fulfillment of my father’s vocation as a writer and editor, I still have to acknowledge that, in the long run, government “rescues” of industries tend to fail.

In St. Louis, the Newspaper Preservation Act simply postponed the monopoly for a number of years. In Miami, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and many other cities, the Newspaper Preservation Act also proved to be only a temporary life support. In 1983, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat gave way to a monopoly for Pulitzer’s Post-Dispatch. But much as my father and I and many others cherished the nocturnal roll of the presses and the warm smell and smudge of the greasy black ink on the cheap pulpy paper, there is life after the newspaper business: When the newspaper that employed him failed, my father started his own political discussion program on a local television station in St. Louis. Today, at 87 years of age, he still hosts the program every week. His program remains popular and consistently makes profits for the television station. It is a weird irony, but my father’s small and quixotic enterprise of an independent television program as something with which to busy himself instead of the boredom of premature retirement might outlive what once was the multimillion-dollar newspaper juggernaut of the monopoly Post-Dispatch. Such is the power of technological change.

Unremarked in much of the discussion of the newspaper industry’s woes is the powerful role of labor unions. The political economics of government attempts to “rescue” obsolescent industries usually involve a Faustian bargain involving corporate management and the unions. Government’s role is either direct taxation or the de facto taxation of government-imposed market distortions. The newspaper unions involved were those representing writers, typographers, pressmen, and delivery truck drivers. In like manner, a United States taxpayer bailout of the automobile factories of Detroit would involve a subsidy to the United Auto Workers Union at the expense of able, but less costly workers in Mexico and the Orient, not to mention workers in our less union friendly southern states. And what are the chances of Detroit’s automakers achieving any greater success against technological change and competition than did Detroit’s two formerly daily newspapers?

Major government “industrial policies” tend to have unintended consequences. Some, relevant to the communications media, have been beneficial. Cold War defense spending by the United States to create a communications system that could survive a nuclear war gave birth to ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), the precursor to the Internet. But everyone should stay mindful of negative unintended consequences – usually in respect to schemes designed to “save” jobs or industries from the logic of supply, demand, and technological development.

Mr. Duggan, a former United States State Department officer and speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush, worked as a copyboy for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat and as an editorial writer for the Greensboro Record and Richmond Times-Dispatch.  

Life after Liquidation of the Fourth Estate Sunday, Apr 5 2009 

Joseph P. Duggan

 

“Life after Liquidation of the Fourth Estate”

 

Lecture to students of communication and international relations at Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Estado de México

 

April 3, 2009

 

(Author’s note:  I am lecturing this semester in politics and communication at Tec de Monterrey in the Mexico City suburbs.  In the following lecture, delivered April 3, 2009, my audience included some of the brightest professors and students of communication in Mexico.  But they had never heard of Craigslist and were unaware that it had mortally wounded the United States newspaper industry.  A few hours after my lecture, the New York Times Company threatened to close the Boston Globe.) 

 

MEXICO CITY — Visiting Mexico these days gives me a feeling of being a time traveler, or one of those characters in science fiction who stumbles into a parallel universe.  Let me explain.

 

Last November I spent a very enjoyable week lecturing at another university in discussion with very bright young students in another part of Mexico – “en la provincia,” as I often hear Mexico City people describe any part of this great nation more than 50 kilometers from your viceregal, heliocentric metropolis.   I am not exaggerating.  When I talked with some academicians in Mexico City a few days later – none of these from Tec de Monterrey, by the way – I encountered these sorts of remarks: 

 

“Really?  You went there? In the provinces? What do they know?”

 

Well, like Henry Morton Stanley returning from the Congo, I can report to you breathlessly that the younger people in the provinces, availing themselves of the latest global electronic media, know more or less the same as do you young people in the capital, or as young people in countries far away.

 

But what about the grown-ups?

 

When I was in the smaller town, I had the honor of meeting the owner of a group of newspapers in that locality.  This man was very comfortable, wrapped up in his cloud of prosperity.  When I learned what his livelihood entailed I had an urgent impulse to warn him that printed newspapers were doomed as a profitable enterprise.  I felt like one of the weather forecasters who tried to sound the alarm for people to get out of New Orleans – whose tourism motto used to be “The City that Care Forgot” — before Hurricane Katrina hit, but the newspaper owner seemed to regard me as something like one of those long-bearded madmen roaming the streets and shouting that the Apocalypse is at hand.

 

I could understand why he was not worried. 

 

I was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri, on banks of the Mississippi River about 900 kilometers upstream from New Orleans.  Our civil engineers and politicians have fortified the city with levees and floodwalls.  The citizens are assured that they should consider themselves as good as invulnerable because the public works are designed to withstand anything short of what is known as a “500-year flood.” 

 

Well, in today’s media environment, we are awash in a 500-year flood.  If you read the novel, The Wild Palms, by William Faulkner, you’ll get some feel for a 500-year flood on the Mississippi.

 

My sense of being a time traveler that day in the smaller Mexican town was compounded by what was treated as the big news in the local paper.  Dominating both the “main” front page and the front of the local section was lavish coverage, in color photography and laudatory prose, of the opening of a grand new Liverpool department store.  The Governor of the State cut the ceremonial ribbon.  The wives of the wealthy were dressed to the nines. 

 

Have you ever had a very, very bad dream and wanted to scream in your sleep?   I had that same urgent sense that something was terribly wrong with this picture.  I had an intimation of the Father of Waters about to smash through the levee.  Except for the 21st century couture, the Liverpool opening was totally retro — like a scene from the 1950s.  That was when, in the United States, department stores dominated retail shopping, and department stores and daily newspapers were in a symbiosis – each depending on page after page of display advertising the stores paid for and the newspapers printed and delivered. 

 

Big general department stores like Liverpool are a vanishing species in the United States. There are specialized stores instead, and a growing market share for e-commerce.  In any case, daily newspapers are not the preferred advertising medium even for the remaining brick-and-mortar stores.  Web sites are the way to go.  

 

The last surviving generation of daily newspapers in the United States outlasted the disappearance of retail display advertising by squeezing as much profit as possible out of classified advertising.  The model of classified advertising perhaps induced many publishers to deceive themselves into thinking they could profit on the Internet through “micropayments.”

 

But along came a software engineer in San Francisco named Craig Newmark.  In 1993 he began a series of emails to friends and acquaintances to let them share information on things they wanted to buy or sell. He moved his “Craigslist” to the web in 1995. It is something of a cooperative, cost-free to the user.  Why pay a newspaper for a classified ad when you can get more effective results for free?  Craigslist knocked the last prop out from under the newspaper business.

 

I tried to warn the provincial newspaper owner that the End is Near, but he contentedly replied that the Internet doesn’t have much penetration in his market, yet. 

 

Yet. 

 

In December the Chicago Tribune – which in its glory days made governors and presidents tremble and called itself “The World’s Greatest Newspaper” — filed for bankruptcy.  This week the other Chicago daily, the Sun-Times, filed for bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, they are still publishing, but there is a death watch taking place in the United States, waiting to spot the first major metropolitan area to become bereft of even a single daily newspaper.  All of this is happening more by accident than by design.  When he ignited the conflagration that is engulfing the Chicago newspapers, Craig Newmark was no more aware of the consequences than Mrs. O’Leary’s cow when she kicked off the Great Chicago Fire of the 19th century.  

 

I went online today and noticed that Craigslist is now operating in Mexico.  It is not nearly as robust as it is in the United States – yet — but there is no reason to believe it will not have the same impact eventually here as it has north of the border.  

 

The implications of the inundation of new media for political communication are huge.  Up until recently, one of the doctrines of political communication and indeed most public relations was that “broadcast follows print.”

 

Ghostwriters and press secretaries like me, working for political leaders or corporate executives, endeavored to get definitive statements of their salient “messages” into the news or opinion columns of leading newspapers – for example, “the newspaper of record,” The New York Times, or the paper for national political junkies, The Washington Post.  I spent some of the most profitable years of my career trying to help clients or candidates by developing and executing strategies that were quite linear:  First, “message development,” then the “predicate” story or opinion column planted in a leading newspaper.  Next, popular resonance of the message through radio and television – optimized by a strenuous effort to maintain “message control.”  Finally (usually), victory in our legislative or electoral campaign.

 

Today even the once invincible Times and Post are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

 

With the disappearance of printed newspapers and their reporting and editorial functions, broadcasting no longer will be able to follow print.  If you follow fortunes of the media business you will know that broadcasting itself is not much healthier than the mortally ill newspaper business.  At the end of the 18th century, Edmund Burke, recalling the demise of France’s old regime and its “three estates,” is said to have coined the term “Fourth Estate” for the rising, independent power of the press.  Today this Fourth Estate we have known since Burke’s time is being liquidated, not by Jacobins but by geeks.

 

Not too many years ago when I was a press secretary for a Member of Congress, I helped my boss navigate through the maze of radio and television interviewers who crowded the hall outside the Chamber of the United States Capitol where President Bill Clinton had delivered one of his annual State of the Union addresses.  My job was to get my boss interviewed on camera by CBS and NBC and CNN and as many outlets as possible.  I had to deal with reporters and producers and technicians who had sophisticated equipment connecting us with their networks, which employed thousands of people and billions of dollars in capital investment.  Afterwards we went back to the office and I helped the Congressman make phone calls to print news reporters.  For circumstances that I think you can understand, the live, televised nature of this event reversed the usual pattern of “broadcast follows print.”

 

There was a surreal quality to President Barack Obama’s first speech, just a few weeks ago, before a joint session of the United States Congress.  While the President spoke from the podium, a number of Members of Congress employed their handheld devices to send Twitter messages to their constituents or anyone else out there in Tweetville who might have been tuning in.  The commentary, whether irreverent or too reverent, was childish, undignified – to an old fuddy-duddy like me, absolutely appalling. 

 

But as Ronald Reagan wrote in 1988 in his profoundly realistic National Security Strategy of the United States, we must “deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.” 

 

The genie is out of the bottle.  We have arrived at the moment of realization of the prophetic vision of James Joyce:  “Here Comes Everybody.”

 

Both the late Marshall McLuhan and his son Eric, who has lectured here a number of times at Tec de Monterrey, saw James Joyce’s weird experimental book, Finnegans Wake, as insightful, visionary, and even prophetic.  Most critics seem to agree that the book attempts to express the convoluted jumble of fact, feeling and fantasy that takes place at night in a person’s dreams.  The McLuhans, plausibly, also see in the book an exposition and projection of how changes in mass media are affecting the relationships in human society.  The shadowy protagonist of the book is someone called “H.C.E.” – signifying, among other things, “Here Comes Everybody.”

 

The world of H.C.E. is comedy and nightmare rolled into one.

 

The McLuhans say that electronic media dealt a devastating blow to the alphabetic, linear way of thinking and communicating that had dominated Western society since Gutenberg’s invention of moveable type and printing became a mass medium.  For five centuries, the Gutenberg technology was turbo-charged by Descartes’ extreme rationalist ideology of being and knowing – what the 20th-century philosopher Frederick Wilhelmsen, McLuhan’s great friend, called “modern man’s myth of self-identity.” 

 

Today, aural and even tactile ways of perception are regaining dominance, as had been the case before the visual age of print.  Radio, as McLuhan said, is a “hot” medium.  If you doubt this, consider how during the past two decades talk radio – mostly of the flavor of right-wing populism as distinct from intellectual conservatism — did its part to turn the calm, linear, rationalist politics of the United States of America envisioned by Jefferson and Madison into something hot and tribal – a cacophony of electronic pow-wows for distinct but allied right-wing tribes. 

 

The new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, recently said something not sufficiently flattering about the Princeps and Shaman of Right-Wing Radio, Rush Limbaugh.  This was an unequal contest, and the dust-up between Steele and Limbaugh left the Republican Party organization weaker with its basic constituency and carried Limbaugh’s political power to greater heights.

 

“Conservative,” or as I prefer to call it, right-wing talk radio is so powerful a political force in the United States that some left-wing Democrats in Congress are considering legislation to curb its freedom.  They want to revive a former policy that inhibited free speech in broadcasting by requiring the allocation of “equal time” for opposing views.  Such policies to inhibit the printed word always have been judged unconstitutional in the United States. 

 

(Let me just note that Steele and Limbaugh both call themselves “conservative” – and so do I.  I share positions with both men on many political issues.  I am very uncomfortable with the hot, populist style – but for the moment this is a corner of world as it is, not as I would wish it to be. Or to paraphrase Voltaire, I may not like their style but I’ll defend to the death their right to employ it.)    

 

Broadcast radio’s days may be numbered anyway.  Now all the hierarchies for the distribution of information are breaking down – including radio and television stations and networks — bringing to fulfillment James Joyce’s vision.

 

Clay Shirky, who studied art at Yale and now is a media consultant and professor at New York University, has a new book on this very phenomenon, called – wouldn’t you know — Here Comes Everybody.

 

I heartily recommend the writings of the McLuhans and Shirky (and another writer with similar antennae, Nicholas Carr).  Much of this work is available online for no cost.  I put great stock in what Shirky says because he has predicted the collapse of newspapers and other big media enterprises with great prescience, defying and prevailing against conventional wisdom.  Shirky says that all paper-and-ink publishing, as we have known it as a big profitable industry, a mass medium, is doomed.  Marshall McLuhan predicted this too, but noted that products of the printing press, like medieval manuscripts, will survive as art forms.   In this regard, I might mention that recently the Benedictine monks of St. John’s University of Minnesota commissioned the production of a Bible made all by hand, on vellum and in calligraphy and the gold and powdered lapis and egg tempera of illuminated manuscripts.   McLuhan liked to say regarding any technology, “if it works, it’s obsolete.”  But the corollary to this, which he also accepted, is that even if something is obsolete, it still can work.

 

A year ago I attended a program at the National Press Club in Washington, celebrating the centennials of both the Press Club and the world’s first School of Journalism, that of the University of Missouri.  One of the morning panel’s speakers was Liss Jeffrey of Toronto, who knew Marshall McLuhan and is a careful student of his work.  She gave a good exposition of his work, as I know that your professors here at Tec do as well.  The luncheon speaker was a very intelligent and accomplished man.  He formerly had been the founding editor of the Wall Street Journal Online.  After that, he had been the director of Yahoo! News.  Now he was about to launch a new venture.

 

I anticipated his speech as a kind of revelation of a Holy Grail, tearing away the veil to signify how the online news media were going to operate profitably.  I am certain that speaker is a better man than I am, and I mean him no disrespect whatever.  But his speech failed to indicate anything – not one single thing — about a profitable or even coherent future for online news media.  I had paid a princely sum of $28 to hear the speech and I wanted my money back.   I do not mean in any way to belittle or criticize this man but instead to indicate the magnitude of the maelstrom all of us are in.

 

Just three weeks ago, on March 13, 2009, Clay Shirky posted a piece on his blog, www.shirky.com, called “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable.”  He wrote that in revolutions,

 

The old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place. The importance of any given experiment isn’t apparent at the moment it appears; big changes stall, small changes spread. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen.

 

Shirky also said:

 

When someone demands to know how we are going to replace newspapers, they are really demanding to be told that we are not living through a revolution. They are demanding to be told that old systems won’t break before new systems are in place. They are demanding to be told that ancient social bargains aren’t in peril, that core institutions will be spared, that new methods of spreading information will improve previous practice rather than upending it. They are demanding to be lied to.

 

As Mexicans who will commemorate next year the centennial of the first gunfire of your Revolution, I am sure you can relate to Shirky’s remark that “the old stuff gets broken faster than the new stuff is put in its place.”

 

On March 12, Eric McLuhan gave a speech at the Campidoglio in Rome at a program sponsored by the Diocese of Rome, whose bishop, you may know, is better known by his global title, Il Papa, The Pope.

 

Eric McLuhan sent me his text, which I have given to your professors and asked that they circulate to you.  His remarks are quite consistent with Shirky’s about our being amid a revolution.  But Eric McLuhan adds the hopeful note that this revolution is also a renaissance – the sort of thing that recurs in Western Civilization, like one of those over-the-top Mississippi floods, every four hundred or five hundred years. 

 

Eric McLuhan told his audience, which included the papal Secretary of State, who I hope was listening, this:

 

Let me suggest that the following six traits characterize renaissances. All can be seen in operation today.

 

  • A renaissance is always invisible to those living through it.

 

  • A renaissance is always a side-effect of something else, some new medium that reshapes perception: in our case, we have the spectrum of electric technologies from the motor to the MP3, from the telegraph to the satellite, the radio to the Internet. The Grand Renaissance married the printing press and the alphabet.

 

  • A renaissance is always accompanied by a revolution in sensibility.

 

  • A renaissance is always announced in and by the arts; artists function as “the antennae of the race.”

 

  • A renaissance always serves as the advance phase of a new mode of culture and society, new-fashioned identities all ’round.

 

  • A renaissance is always accompanied by a major war. In our case, we have had World Wars One and Two and the Cold War (among other wars), and now we are embroiled in the first of the Terrorist Wars. At the speed of light, the front is gone, the battleground is the outward globe, and that (much larger) paysage intérieur.

 

 

We are at one of those crossroads in human civilization where it is scarcely possible to see any road at all.  Everyone knows that corporate executives come and go.  Those who know anything about Rupert Murdoch should know he did not get where he is by being a pessimist.  Murdoch has been a quintessential, entrepreneurial optimist.  About a month ago, the second-in-command of Murdoch’s News Corporation announced his voluntary resignation.  The world will little note nor long remember who Murdoch’s Second Banana was or what he did, but it should take note of what Murdoch said.

 

Instead of treating the event as a routine transition, Murdoch spoke in almost apocalyptic terms.  He said, “We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered. Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded.”

 

That sounds a lot more like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn than the Rupert Murdoch we all have known and loved – or, as the case may be, feared.

 

Thomas Merton was a very good literary critic and poet in the United States in the middle of the 20th century.  As a young man for a time he wrote daily book reviews of the highest quality for the New York Times and the now-extinct New York Herald-Tribune.  Later he became a Trappist monk and continued writing prolifically after his entry into the silent cloister.  Merton composed a prayer that describes the situation of those of us in politics and communication who are aware of our chaotic new environment.

 

Merton wrote:  My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end.”

 

Let me remind you that a renaissance is a rebirth, and that birth always involves bleeding and pain, but afterwards the joy of new life. 

 

The World Wide Web provides the world’s greatest library and the platform for the world’s most complex and far-reaching, yet potentially intimate, communications.  These are resources for our renaissance.  That is why I join the McLuhans in urging that you – that we – as seekers and learners go back to the classical tradition of understanding as “grammarians.”  Sixty-five years ago Marshall McLuhan in his doctoral dissertation on the classical Trivium of grammar, dialectics, and rhetoric, deplored the Cartesian imbalance of overemphasizing dialectics to the neglect of “grammar.”  McLuhan explained, “The grammarian is concerned with connections; the dialectician with divisions.” And he said, “Grammarians distrusted abstraction; dialecticians distrusted concrete modes of language.” 

 

What does this mean in terms of politics and international relations?  Of these grammarians and dialecticians, did McLuhan name names?  Yes.  He said Cicero – a proponent of the natural law — was perhaps the greatest grammarian.   Machiavelli was a “consciously anti-Ciceronian” dialectician.  In the intelligence profession, the grammar of the Trivium is known as pattern recognition.  The great book by Adda B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History, is used extensively by the more intelligent intelligence professionals and other adherents of realism in world politics.  The book is a grand quest for understanding; it is the work of an encyclopedic grammarian.

 

News media enterprises today are subject to market forces and are facing consequences – the destruction of many recently prosperous enterprises and types of enterprises. 

 

If I had a dollar for every time I have heard politicians – usually naïve Republicans running unsuccessful campaigns – vow to “run government like a business,” I could afford to buy a big gas-guzzling SUV, or maybe a newspaper publishing corporation.  If governments were run like businesses they’d all be in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

 

In reality, the modern nation-states – and the supranational organizations like the United Nations — are stiflingly bureaucratic.  They are less subject to market forces than are businesses, and in reaction to the current economic panic – a crisis of abundance, not of scarcity – the big governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies are opportunistically seizing more power. The bureaucracies have a shifting parasite-host relationship with the social engineer, the “international development professional,” and the other types of soulless technocrat whom the late Samuel Huntington called “Davos Man” and Frederick Wilhelmsen called “the egomaniac, lusting gnostically to dominate all existence.” Just contemplate what has been taking place in Washington the past two months, and at the Group of 20 Summit in London this week, where Chinese totalitarians, Russian authoritarians, cosmopolitan eugenicists, and Western “democratic” socialists are straining to stitch together a Frankenstein monster from the jumble of formaldehyde jars holding the maimed remains of capitalism.  In 1945, C.S. Lewis wrote a novel envisioning the death-over-life power of today’s gnostic technocratic bureaucracy; he called it That Hideous Strength.  It is the fictional companion to Lewis’s famous treatise, The Abolition of Man.

 

Marshall McLuhan’s very first published article appeared when he was a 25-year-old graduate student.  The article was about a writer whom young McLuhan admired, G.K. Chesterton.  The year was 1936, a moment when Big Government statism was in vogue from Washington to Berlin to Rome to London to Moscow.  McLuhan praised Chesterton’s “inspiriting opposition to the spread of officialdom and bureaucracy.”  He called Chesterton “a revolutionary, not because he finds everything equally detestable, but because he fears lest certain infinitely valuable things, such as the family and personal liberty, should vanish.”

 

The new media are on a collision course with Big Government.  They are not immune from gnosticism, but they are inherently anti-bureaucratic.  They will serve us and serve our freedom if we understand them, and if we understand ourselves.  We can and should make the new media our instruments, our allies, in recovering and strengthening infinitely valuable things such as the family and personal liberty.   

 

I am sure that Marshall McLuhan, a man of deep faith as well as insight into our human and earthly ecology, would have shared the sentiment of the conclusion of Merton’s prayer:

 

“I will not fear, for You are ever with me, and You will never leave me to face my perils alone.”

 

(Mr. Duggan is a former journalist, Reagan appointee in the State Department, and White House speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush.)

Eric McLuhan: Media Revolution Points to a Renaissance Sunday, Apr 5 2009 

Speech on the occasion of

St. Paul’s Jubilee of University Students

 

Dr. Eric McLuhan

 

Campidoglio

March 12, 2009

 

Let me offer a few thoughts about the environmental conditions in which we find ourselves immersed today.

 

New circumstances call for new approaches to adjusting the relation between Gospel and culture. How does the Rock relate to the shifting sands of popular culture?

 

          Our world is clearly in turmoil, a recent development being economic woes. But these global economic ills illustrate the state of our interconnectedness in the electric age. All of the established patterns of culture are being modified, even discarded. Everything current is “old”; everything old is new. There are few if any standards upon which one can rely. The roles of men and women, and those of children, are shifting weekly, it seems. Even Literacy[1] has lost its central place in culture and everyday affairs. These and a host of other confusions are not isolated incidents but developments spun off by the renaissance surging in our environment. This renaissance has been with us since the time of the telegraph. Where other renaissances have been confined to a couple or a handful of cultures at a time, this renaissance involves the entire world simultaneously. An immense renaissance calls for the reappearance of Renaissance Man, skilled in reading all literacies and able to con the language of environmental forms.

The renaissance that envelops us in this new millennium is the greatest of all in part because it subsumes all prior times and all prior forms of awareness. In the West we are recycling and revisiting not only our own culture but we are also exploring all the others—every form of experience that humans have ever created or indulged. The content, then, of the renaissance raging about us is the entire Neolithic era. The Neolithic age, which is now over, had used the pastoral hunter as its content and in recent times has been using pastoralism as its esthetic. The environment is no longer constituted of specialized hardware tools; now, it is made of information and software.

The Orient is undergoing the same retrievals, of Western culture as well as its own, in the same measure and degree that we are rediscovering the East. Similarly, this is the new rise of Islam. And we are just launching another phase of this rolling renaissance on the Internet and the World-Wide Web. These new technologies demand participation and are by their very nature inclusive and encyclopedic. The Internet is now busy forming a deposit of all human knowledge: it presents us with the spectre of the old preliterate oral encyclopedia, the egkuklios paideia, albeit cast in a radically new electronic form.

The Grand Renaissance of the 16th century is aptly named not only because it was the grandest and most comprehensive renaissance in human experience, but also because it involved the entire of the Western world. Certainly, the renaissance of the 12th century seemed to the participants grand and extensive, yet to us it still pales by comparison with the events of the 15th and 16th centuries. But we should notice that both of these cultural effervescences were outward movements, expansions; our present renaissance, powered by electricity and vastly more eclectic than any prior renaissance, is implosive inasmuch as it involves the entire globe at once. Once the entire world is involved, no further expansion—or expansionism—is possible. This condition raises the prospect that, unlike any previous time, this 20th-century renaissance will simply continue without surcease, that renaissance will become our permanent address.

All oral and tribal peoples regard present and past and future as a single multidimensional event or set of cycles, a vortex of cultural energies that charges them with being and cosmic significance and destiny. In our postliterate time, we echo this sense of things. In a variety of ways, for example in popular ideas about reincarnation, even in the saying, “what goes around comes around.” In the electric age, all times come around, simultaneously present and accessible, not hypothetically but as real, available experience. Cyclicity implies dynamism and compactness, a means to charge and re-charge the cultural batteries. The alternative, the familiar rational line of history, presents instead a single prolonged discharge. Today we live in “post-history” in the sense that all pasts that ever were are now present to our consciousness and that all the futures that will be are here now. To live today is to live mythically in many cultures and times at once. If there is a future to history, it resides, as the Italian rhetorician Giambattista Vico tried to indicate, in the hands of poets and artists. As the unity of the modern world becomes increasingly a technological rather than a social affair, the techniques of the arts provide the most valuable means of insight into the real direction of our own collective purposes.

 

 

I do not know of any study that has ever been made of renaissances in general. Every study that I have seen concerns this particular renaissance or that renaissance specifically; occasionally, two are looked at for comparison’s sake. These studies are well focused and impeccably scholarly. And there is, besides, the profusion of books about this or that renaissance. But there are no book-length studies, nor is there even a single article, concerning renaissances as a phenomenon. Our present-day Phoenix Playhouse has heretofore been operating behind closed doors. Let me suggest that the following six traits characterize renaissances. All can be seen in operation today.

 

  • A renaissance is always invisible to those living through it.
  • A renaissance is always a side-effect of something else, some new medium that reshapes perception: in our case, we have the spectrum of electric technologies from the motor to the MP3, from the telegraph to the satellite, the radio to the Internet. The Grand Renaissance married the printing press and the alphabet.
  • A renaissance is always accompanied by a revolution in sensibility.
  • A renaissance is always announced in and by the arts; artists function as “the antennae of the race.”
  • A renaissance always serves as the advance phase of a new mode of culture and society, new-fashioned identities all ’round.
  • A renaissance is always accompanied by a major war. In our case, we have had World Wars One and Two and the Cold War (among other wars), and now we are embroiled in the first of the Terrorist Wars. At the speed of light, the front is gone, the battleground is the outward globe, and that (much larger) paysage intérieur.

 

 

In the global information age both the nature and the meaning of war are recast. The “global village” of the radio era has been replaced by the Global Theatre of the satellite age. All of us now have corporate masks and roles and new group identities to replace the old job patterns and detached individuals that were the legacy of the alphabet and the printing press.

For many centuries Christianity has relied on a ground of Literacy as a medium for transmitting the Gospel. Now that that ground has been supplanted by an environment of electric information, we find ourselves in a culture increasingly without ties to Literacy. The phonetic alphabet gave us for the first time the experience of separation and detachment: separation of sound from sense, the abstract, meaningless phoneme and the abstract, meaningless letter, and Euclidean abstract space. From the alphabet we learned separation of thought and feeling, of action and reaction, and of knower from known. Detachment of the knower breaks the tribal bond and allows the individual person to emerge from the group and to flourish. Print vastly accelerated these processes and produced the Grand Renaissance of recent memory. The renaissance today features instead a hunger for ever more involvement in every phase of social and cultural life and entertainment. Mimesis,[2] not objectivity, fuels this hunger. Our ways of knowing have already shifted to the ancient pattern without our having noticed it.

Just look at the present form of advertisements and video games, and the array of masks and icons and participatory roles that we shoulder when we venture onto the Internet. Mimesis means that the mode of the new culture is put on, in much the same manner as St Paul spoke of “putting on” the armor and weaponry of Heaven to combat temptations. It is much more than simple imitation. When Aristotle observed that mimesis is the process by which all men learn, he was simply acknowledging the put-on as a (then-conventional) way of knowing. We put on these new media whenever we extend ourselves into the global environment. Plato declared war, in Republic, on the poetic establishment of his time over their use of mimesis: today it seems the global information environment has declared war on Plato. Since Cézanne and the Symbolist poets in the XIX Century, our arts have insisted we “put on” our “beholder’s share” of participation. Modern ads (lifestyle ads and others), equally, serve up not products but styles and group images and “corporate cultures” for us to participate. Role playing and participation in video games and fantasy worlds is the main fount of user satisfactions. Group culture features some curious manifestations, including no-fault divorce and no-fault auto insurance. Traditional Catholic culture, on the other hand, emphasizes Literacy both directly, for reading Scripture and commentary, and indirectly, through its insistence on an individual private identity and an individual private soul, individual private responsibility and individual private salvation. Consequently, traditional Catholic culture, no longer mainstream, finds itself playing the role of counter-culture everywhere in the electric world.

          We brought an end to Literacy when we killed that Hydra, the reading public. In its place have sprung up dozens of eager little baby literacies. The old reading public has reverted to the earlier stage of small groups of readers, “reading clubs.” Those who read now do so in an atmosphere of post-Literacy: we are surrounded by people who know how to read but on the whole prefer not to. The new literacies appear in every area imaginable, from various media literacies (film literacy, television literacy, computer literacy), to the arts (art literacy); there are also cultural literacy, numeracy[3], environmental literacy, and so on, by the hundred.

          But we are immersed in a renaissance, a global renaissance, for the first time in human experience, and one which is still gathering momentum. Most of our past renaissances have after a century or so subsided into the new culture that they imparted; the renaissance that envelops us today receives fresh impetus from each new technology that bursts upon the scene. Now, a renaissance is particularly a time of revival and retrieval and up-dating. The time is ripe to revive those aspects of Catholic culture consonant with the new sensibilities and the new demand for mimetic involvement. The time is ripe for updating all the meditative modes of prayer and liturgy; for retrieving manifold interpretation of Scripture; for reviving Catholic mysticism; for revivifying the fullness of our learnèd tradition, the translatio studii, as a simultaneous event.

          The current decline of alphabetic Literacy and its supplanting with all those little literacies actually constitutes another revival, one familiar throughout the Middle Ages. The schoolboys’ rhyme sums it up:

Omnis mundi creatura

Quasi liber et pictura

Nobis est, et speculum …

It was ever held that God Himself speaks to man in two ways, through Scripture and through that great speech called the Work of the Six Days. So there arose the trope of the Two Books which were set before man to read and to interpret, the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. And of course the two were in complete harmony, though the two texts be writ in entirely separate languages, one in a language of words and one in a language of forms. You might even say that the language of the one is software (information) and that of the other is hardware (things). From the first, the Two Books meant the existence of at least two literacies, each offering simultaneous levels of meaning. For the one, the familiar four levels of interpretation (literal, allegorical, tropological, anagogical); for the other, the corresponding four causes (formal, efficient, material, final).

 

He who would read both books, the Grammarian, had to be versed in the arts and the sciences, had to be able to work with any language that came his way: he learned to read the language of forms. The grammaticus or man of letters could read and decode any literacy. Our contemporary environment of multiple literacies is a sure sign that the Two Books are reasserting themselves. Modern education must include training in reading both Books, the Divine and the human, Gospel and culture. The Book of the World today includes the “literacy” of environmental ecology and that of cultural ecology, and now also all the new literacies (additional literacies come to light every few weeks)—all in all a multitude of forms as yet lacking coordination. New media are new languages of perception, their grammars and syntaxes—their “literacies”—yet to be ascertained. The reappearance of the Two Books will soon be followed by the appearance of their reader and interpreter, the Grammarian, in suitably updated form. His training is going to be oriented towards encyclopedism instead of specialism. He must also be a reader of languages. He will be rather like the celebrated Renaissance Man. This is absolutely fitting inasmuch as we are in the throes of a renaissance.

          I do not propose this as an idea or an epitome of the kind of education we need today but as the norm. Our survival, individual and cultural, depends on our ability to read and interpret what our man-made environments are saying to us and doing to us. Our electric information environment calls for the skills of the explorer and the navigator instead of the student and the aesthete. We are drowning in information; we are deluged with answers: only the probe, the question can guide the explorer and the navigator.  An education system built on formal analysis and concepts must give place to one focused on training of critical awareness and training of perception. Though it resembles a “triumph of style over substance,” the shift is actually deeper and more fundamental than that. It represents a lessening of emphasis on ideological content and a revival of the study of environmental form and formal causality.

 

I have tried to suggest a few considerations to keep in mind during your deliberations these next few days on the Gospel and culture. For we change culture every time we change media, and we are changing media—introducing new media—at a furious rate just now. Each new environment means a completely new way to see and imagine the world and opens a new act on centre stage of the Global Theatre.

 

 

 


I use capital-L-Literacy to denote reading and writing with the phonetic alphabet used first by Greece and Rome, as distinct from other forms of writing. 

[1]

Under the spell of mimesis, the knower (hearer of a recitation) loses all relation to merely present persona, person, and place, and is transformed by and into what he perceives. It is not simply a matter of representation but rather one of putting on a completely new mode of being, whereby all possibility of objectivity and detachment of figure from ground is set aside. Eric Havelock devotes a considerable portion of Preface to Plato to this problem. He discovered that mimesis was the oral bond by which the tribe cohered: “You threw yourself into the situation of Achilles, you identified with his grief or his anger. You yourself became Achilles and so did the reciter to whom you listened. Thirty years later you could automatically quote what Achilles had said or what the poet had said about him. Such enormous powers of poetic memorization could be purchased only at the cost of total loss of objectivity. Plato’s target was indeed an educational procedure and a whole way of life.” (Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), page 45. 

David Booth shows the same mimetic process at work as educational procedure in the world of new literacies: “When students are inside the experience, needing to read and write in order to come to grips with the issues and concerns being discussed or examined, when texts are being interpreted or constructed as part of the learning process, then I can sense that a literacy event is happening. The young person needs not only to inhabit the words and images, but to see herself as a performer of what she has learned, representing and owning the learning. In effect, she herself becomes the literacy. And she reads and writes with her whole self, with her body, with her emotions, with her background as a daughter and student and citizen; she sits in school beside her family members, and she reads every text she meets alongside them, inside her cultural surround. Literacy is constructed through identity.” [Op. Cit., page 53. An autistic reveals the same process: “My language is not about designing words or even visual symbols for people to interpret. It is about being in constant conversation with every aspect of my environment. Reacting to all parts of my surroundings.”  (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jny1M1hI2jc)] Booth is describing a culture of children fully immersed in their sensory word, one that adults may find foreign but which is increasingly a normal state for our children. [See David Booth, Reading Doesn’t Matter Anymore: Shattering the Myths of Literacy (Markham, Ont.: Pembroke Publishers Limited, 2006; Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers, 2006).]

[2]

Numerical literacy. 

[3]

 

Give Paz a Chance: Understanding Mexico and Ourselves Sunday, Apr 5 2009 

Give Paz a Chance: Understanding Mexico and Ourselves
 
By Joseph P. Duggan
 
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, Nov. 22, 2008
 
 
MEXICO CITY – This and every other Mexican city has a street named 20 de Noviembre for the national holiday marking the first fusillades of the Revolution of 1910. Here, where there is often a yawning gap between what is said and what is done, the nation this week celebrated20 de Noviembre on November 17. As their northern neighbors have bent history and tradition to make Washington’s Birthday a moveable feast, Mexicans too have opted for the Monday holiday and the three-day weekend. 
 
Globalization and embourgeoisement have air-conditioned the once torrid rites of the quintessentially Mexican myths of Madero, Villa, and Zapata into another day for affluent teens to prowl the shopping mall, perhaps to ingest a Big Mac and see the third incarnation of “High School Musical.” Instead of celebrating valiant adelitas, adolescents celebrate themselves, enthroned as Consumerism’s new Bourbons who have “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
 
This bewitching country, a font of “magical realism,” is at risk of becoming like us: stranded on an existential reef, neither feeling magic nor knowing realism.
 
Civilization in Mexico today still faces mortal threats from bullets and bombs–the narcotraffickers’ war against law enforcement. But the greater threat may come from the death inherent in never having lived–that is, never having used the creative and critical faculties God gave us, uniquely, as human beings. The greater threat is in the self-amputation that Cicero warned against 2,000 years ago: that he who fails to learn the history of events before he was born will never grow out of childhood.
 
In this same sense, Mexico is wandering in the same desert as the United States and most other countries that have reached, or are striving to reach, secularistic scientism’s El Dorado of “development” or “modernization.”

Is there a voice in this wilderness? The writings of the Mexican Octavio Paz (1914-98) provide a perennial wake-up call for drowsy intellects.
 
Critic-poet
 
Poet, critic, and diplomat, Paz won the 1990 Nobel Prize for Literature. His best-known work, “The Labyrinth of Solitude,” composed with the mind of a critic and the heart of a poet, sorts through the tangle of myth and history forming (and many times deforming) the Mexican soul.  English translations of the book usually include his essays, “The Other Mexico” (1969) and  ”Mexico and the United States” (1979).
 
“To avoid new disasters,” Paz said in the latter essay, “we Mexicans must reconcile ourselves with our past: only in this way shall we succeed in finding a route to modernity. The search for our own model of modernization is a theme directly linked with another: Today we know that modernity, both the capitalist and the pseudo-socialist versions of the totalitarian bureaucracies, is mortally wounded in its very core–the idea of continuous, unlimited progress. The nations that inspired our 19th-century liberals–England, France, and especially the United States–are doubting, vacillating, and cannot find their way. They have ceased to be universal examples.”
 
This was written in 1979, during the “malaise” of Jimmy Carter. But its critique of the myth of progress, and its demand that we search for understanding deep below the surface of things, could apply just as well to today’s Wall Street meltdown and its strange relationship with the economic power and leverage of China–perhaps the perfect combination of “both the capitalist and pseudo-socialist versions of the totalitarian bureaucracies.”
 
In the same essay, Paz said that the self-evident disparities of wealth and poverty, of power and weakness, do not make the fundamental difference between the United States and Mexico. Not these, but this: “We are two distinct versions of Western civilization.” Among the divides that Paz does not minimize are those of religion and language.  Culturally, Mexico is Hispano-Catholic; the United States, Anglo-Protestant. 
 
Mexico classically looks backward. Even the revolutionists who rejected Catholicism looked to a Golden Age in the pre-Columbian past: “Utopia for them was not the construction of a future but a return to the source, to the beginning.”
 
America’s Power Source
 
On the other hand, the United States “lives on the very edge of the now, always ready to leap toward the future….  The act of its founding was a promise of the future, and each time the United States returns to its source, to its past, it rediscovers its future.”
 
Paz, who embraced Marxism in his youth but later denounced Soviet tyranny, never was a conventional Christian. Yet he observed that “the sickness of the West is moral rather than social and economic. The hedonism of the West is the other face of its desperation; its skepticism is not wisdom but desperation. The empty place left by Christianity in the modern soul is filled not by philosophy but by the crudest superstitions.”
 
Paz’s criticism of the “perfect dictatorship” of the Mexican Partido Revolucionario Institucional very much resembled Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s challenge to the Soviet regime. So, too, Paz’s sadness at the state of the West resembles that of Solzhenitsyn’s “Warning to the West.”
 
“Faithful to its origins,” Paz wrote in 1979, “the United States has always ignored the ‘others.’ Today, the United States faces very powerful enemies, but the mortal danger comes from within: not from Moscow but from that mixture of arrogance and opportunism, blindness and short-term Machiavellianism, volubility and stubbornness which has characterized its foreign policies during recent years.”
 
Substitute “al-Qaida” or “Tehran” for “Moscow,” and Paz’s challenge that the United States carry out a rigorous moral and intellectual self-examination would seem more relevant than ever during the dying days of 2008.
 
Contemplating Paz’s work can establish a solid basis for critical thinking and true dialog among and between the still- or yet-to-be-conscious citizens of both Mexico and the United States.
 
“Criticism,” Paz wrote in 1969, “is the imagination’s apprenticeship in its second turn, the imagination cured of fantasies and determined to face the world’s realities.”
 
(Joseph Duggan, a former editorial writer for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, worked in the State Department for President Reagan and as a speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush. He is now [November 2008] a visiting professor at Universidad de Celaya in Mexico.)