I would like to continue the discussion on whether reading makes us unhappy. After much thought on the matter, I have come to the conclusion that reading does not, in fact, make us unhappy. It makes us discontent.
Two questions quickly arise from this assertion. First, what in the world is the difference between unhappiness and discontentment? Second, what if I read a lot and am perfectly content with my life?
Unhappiness is a strong emotion. It is usually overpowering and fleeting. Television, for example, excels at making us unhappy or provoking other strong emotions. A liberal watching an entire hour of Glen Beck is going to be extremely unhappy or angry by the end of the show. However, the liberal in question can easily remedy this emotional state by turning on MSNBC. Discontentment, on the other hand, doesn’t go away this easily and requires thought and contemplation to manifest in a person. Frederick Douglass is a perfect example of this point. The more he read, the more discontent he became with his position in society. Discontentment soon grew to define him, until the only action he could take to relieve his troubled soul was to escape to freedom. Discontentment is subtle, but once it latches to your soul it never lets go.
As for the second question, discontentment arises from reading only when it applies to you. For example, I could read Uncle Tom’s Cabin and only suffer from a small amount of sadness at the end. After all, slavery has long been abolished in the Western World, so the story no longer directly applies to me. However, for someone living under an oppressive regime, this story resonates.
The most compelling example of the unique ability of reading to spark discontentment comes (ironically) from recent events in the Middle East. Despite all the hype about Facebook causing the revolutions, closer analysis shows that it, at most, poured gasoline on an already raging fire. The intellectuals and students who are the first to take to the streets in protest of the regimes have one major commonality: reading. Reading sparks the realization of their condition and causes a discontentment so deep that they are willing to face insurmountable odds and death to achieve liberty. Only reading has this power.
Devin
I disagree that only reading can cause discontentment. An image can be worth a thousand words. Before electronic media, paintings served this role. In France during the 1800s, one painting in particular was so powerful that the government attempted to hide it for several years.
ReplyDeleteAfter painting came pictures. It was not articles about atrocities such as the Holocaust that caused discontentment in the Western world. It was, rather, photographs taken in the camps by liberating troops that created the feeling of never again.
After photography came video. The power of video doomed our military involvment in Vietnam. For the first time, war was brought to the living room, and that caused unease and discontentment.
After video came youtube. The most powerful symbol of the failed Iranian protests in 2009 was the video of the young lady being shot and killed. Although this did create a lot of anger, it created discontentment as well. This video is not one that Iranians will forget.
Finally, it is important to not underestimate the power of Facebook. Egyptians were carrying signs with Facebook on them, not the title of some book. Egyptians understood what helped bring them to the square.
Both image based and print or reading based media cause discontent, but which is more likely to help generate resolutions to conflict that come from discontent? Can Facebook set up a government? Can video write a constitution?
ReplyDeleteImages, undoubtedly, pack a greater emotional power, but the stability of the printed word seems equally vital. And if the printed word mutes the emotion--from unhappiness or anger to discontent--isn't that a quality we should hold on to if we want a peaceful world? In such an argument, it seems Facebook is much different than videos of war and protest because it is more text based--but it's text moving around really fast. And that raises some new questions . . .
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI think your argument mistakes the gasoline for the fire. I would disagree that images can cause discontentment as I defined it. Lets use your examples to begin with.
The French painting in question (Liberty leading the People, for those who are curious) is certainly powerful. But powerful to whom? Intellectuals and students who can understand the magnitude of the artwork are once again the answer. Another French example is Les Miserables. The students were the first to the barricades (and the last ones standing). Once again, discontentment was a small fire waiting for gasoline (some outside event) to spark revolution.
Moving on to pictures, they provoke strong emotional responses, not discontentment. I have watched some of the Holocaust videos (close enough to pictures), which provoked anger, disgust, sadness, and shock, but no discontentment. They did not leave me troubled about my role in society for months on end.
On the question of the Vietnam War, who were the war protestors that marched on Washington and had massive college protests? Once again, the videos created anger, which an underlying discontentment manifested itself through.
In Iran, the discontentment was already there. For years, the Iranians (especially women and intellectuals) have been intellectually stifled. Although the video may never be forgotten, it only serves as a symbol and reminder of a feeling that was already there.
Facebook only served as a way to communicate and organize among mostly intellectuals and students.
Learning and books are at the heart of discontentment. This is why regimes throughout history have attempted to squelch the free flow of ideas. These regimes understand that although the tides of strong emotion can ebb and flow, discontentment does not die.
Devin
I would agree that learning and books can cause discontentment but you make it sound like that's all they can do. I for one, love to read and I find a lot of enlightenment in it, I just think you can qualify your stance more.
ReplyDelete