I'm not going to commit a lot of time expounding on each individual article, but I'll offer a few thoughts about the state of adulthood in general. My goal is to write about how these two ideas may be pointing to the same hypothesis and ancient proverb- "the more things change, the more they stay the same". That is to say; we're always ready to criticize change and "progress", no matter the shape it takes.
This article was all the rage a few weeks back when it was published. I spent quite a bit of my free time first reading the article, and subsequently listening to analysis of it on podcasts, and then reading (indirect) responses to the original.
One of the large premises made by the author is that adulthood may be dying due to the loss of patriarchal leading roles on popular tv shows. While I agree with the overall premise, I don't know about the thesis. There seems to be a conflation of adulthood with parenthood... of which I do not agree. Our current culture certainly can point to cases of adults who are childless and parents who are certainly not considered adults...
The observation relies on the assertion that Tony Soprano et al are long gone and no male character is readily filling their shoes. If the assertion relies on a "larger than life" character portraying violence, chaos, mystery, and/ or misogyny then it may be correct. However, what about leading males like Frank Reagan (Blue Bloods) who portrays a strong family based role model, or Eric Taylor (Friday Night Lights) who encompasses the same role yet also becomes a mentor to adolescent football players and young men. (To quibble about a small point, Friday Night Lights is no longer on TV, having ended in 2011, but the point remains the same.) These roles are almost by definition more "adult" than either Tony Soprano, Walter White, or Don Draper. What do either of those three do other than cheat, kill, evade, and promote immaturity? Shouldn't "adulthood" be the promotion of compassion, responsibility, community, and empathy? Shouldn't we then- by that definition- be stepping into a "more adult" era? I don't get the premise, especially when considered against this line from the article:
"A society that was exclusive and repressive is now freer and more open". This, to me, represents that we're closer to an adult based society, albeit with severe caveats and contradictions and a long way to go before we're firmly into adulthood.
What saved this article for me is certainly the overt self-awareness, made obvious by the last line. Well done there! Though I largely agree with this premise overall, I feel the thesis was lost somewhere between comparing "yesteryear", patriarchs, the current slate of "bro comedies" and also by inserting the sexist bent... all of which Scott delves into with his paragraph which includes a comparison of Lenny Bruce and Adam Sandler. To me, the reason for the loss of adulthood is the propensity to revel in gutter humor, silly amateur sexism/ misogyny, and the basic apathy for world at large, not because we've lost patriarchal heads of (TV) state. These days, there is a cultural ambivalence for anything outside of ones own sphere, and a casual dismissal of intellect as nerdy, geeky, and loser-ish. This is what pains me and makes me think we've lost our adulthood as a society and culture, not the loss of mob boss fathers and secret drug lord science teachers.
The point about women playing prominent roles also loses me for this reason- they're simply playing the same roles that men have inhabited for years now. They're debased, they're goofy, they're overly sexualized, they're crude, they're immature, they're stupid.... dealing with the same sophomoric and topical subjects the bros are lamented for. If women were stepping up (we may be seeing this with "Madame Secretary") and playing strong, responsible, caring, deep characters like Reagan and Taylor mentioned above, then I'd agree that women were beginning to assert themselves. But when it's the same ol' romantic comedy and same ol' nasty comedy skit, I just can't believe that there's much different going on. All of this is exemplified in the line, "Maybe nobody grows up anymore, but everyone grows older."
The author also asserts that the rise of young adult novels and reading material are responsible for the loss of adulthood in our culture, which in some ways is a tenuous point. So what if writers are writing material that is of a superficial, supernatural, or immature nature? We've always lamented that kids should read more, right? We've always wanted our children to engage in something other than tv, pop music, or fashion, right? I'm not saying that reading, especially if it is primarily of the Twilight, Harry Potter, or Hunger Games variety will cure all that ails, but I'm saying it's a start. My only caveat here is that if these subjects are to pervade then what are we left with? What will come of deeper, truer, more realistic tales and novels... will they be left for another segment of the population entirely? Maybe this stuff will be left for "true adults", those that are wearing gray hair and living in empty nests. If so, it's sad because actual adulthood comes at us so much more quickly in these times, I'd had to see most of our young adults wasting away their early adult years consuming the same old trite fiction which focuses on hotness, vampires, magic, and irresponsibility. (Note- blanket statements aside, some of the stuff they're reading now is certainly quite complex, and stuff I find myself drawn to as well!)
There is a certainly conversation to be had that urges all of us to foster a depth and breadth of conversation, reading, and media consumption that goes beyond the "bro comedies", "hot or not", and "slapstick humor" that pervades the national cultural landscape. That is probably never more true than it is today, and in that sense adulthood may be extinct. However, I don't assert that the loss of Soprano, Draper, et al are the sole determining reason for this. I hazard a guess that it has more to do with the "stupification" of our culture in general, not necessarily the entertainment zeitgeist that has lost its way. As a general rule, we're a more immature society now than ever before. Yes, we need to grow up, but not because we're enjoying the things we identify with as pleasurable, but because we need to pay attention to more of the world at large. Weather it's wars, politics, ecology, history, or science and math, our current crop of young adults simply care less about what's happening in the world around them. They're tied intimately into youtube, their iphones, snapchat, facebook, instagram, twitter, ESPN, etc, but they've got even less perspective than ever before. Jon Stewart is trying, but there's just too much titillation elsewhere for any of them to bother...
As I said, just a few words here haha! At the end of the day I agree with Scott's assertion, however I disagree with his reasoning. Yep, we're Soprano-less and Draper-less today, but they were never the arbiters of adulthood anyway... they inhabited a fantasy land that we lost ourselves inside of. As for today, be it male or female, there are no takers for the throne of adult role model- period.
------
What Happens to Literacy When the Internet Turns Into a Giant TV Station?
This one is less a cultural touchstone and more a one-off take from a tech perspective- almost too heavy from the tech angle.
My inclination is to agree that the web is turning us into more voracious "viewers" than "readers"... I know that I sometimes gravitate to videos over articles, especially when researching a product, game, or theory. However, I still enjoy the pull of a great web-based written article that takes its topic seriously. This idea is reflected in this line from the article, "communication in the 21st century has become increasingly multimodal". I certainly can attest to that- as asserted above- but is this notion positive or negative overall? I don't think the article does a great job of proving or disproving the idea, but it's a conversation starter for sure. It also plays into the theme of this blog post- change.
Change is evident in all our lives. As discussed above, change comes in the form of our media consumption as a culture. The first article/ topic makes a more direct assault on maturity as it relates to media consumption and our personal foundations, and the second posits more a "topic to discuss" about the specific means with which we consume that media.
While I agree that our culture has become a bit more immature and less "adult-like" in many ways, I don't agree with many of Scott's reasons for it. My observations indicate that we're simply less concerned with larger matters at hand and would rather concern ourselves with our own sphere as much as possible. In relation to that note, I think we also seek out media that is "easy" and entertaining, rather than information that begets deep thinking, conversation, and/or self evaluation.
Life, society, culture, and media are evolving and dynamic.... I'm sure we will get there. However, just as potholes litter a the literal road on a physical adventure, the theoretical potholes of media rabbit holes are still obstacles to maneuver within and around.
Seeya,
AM Son
[/caption]
[/caption]
[/caption]
[/caption]
[/caption]
[/caption]
