By Saurabh Bhattacharya September 1999 Swept off its feet by television and the Internet, humanity today is on the brink of an evolutionary leap. Now is the time to apply brakes and confront the true implications of hi-tech I am a self-confessed TV addict rapidly moving towards Net addiction. I am not alone. My 60 plus dentist admits tuning in to spiritual discourses on the telly every morning. My 30-plus journalist buddy is so caught up in the Net that he intends to retire to a hill-station from where he swears to exist solely as an e-mail alias. My colleague’s family (15-plus to 50-plus) has three TV sets for an equal number of members. The last time they met as a family was at the dinner table, back in the 1980s. Nobody’s complaining. Life has never been smoother in my colleague’s family—everybody has his/her private space. My journalist buddy is ecstatic at the idea of ‘being there’ without the hassle of socializing. My dentist is enjoying every minute of his televised spiritual guide. And I am writing this article. Television and the Internet: not since the wheel has any human invention shown such a phenomenal potential of changing the course of evolution. From the mundane to the mystical, every aspect of modern life is being transmuted every second on billions of computer and TV screens. More often than not, techno-manic humanity is accepting images at face value. This is the era of TV.com, an era that promises to transform you into the Millennial Human. But is humanity aware of what such a transformation implies? Do we know our responsibility vis-à-vis the responsibility of cutting-edge technology? THE WORLD ACCORDING TO YOUR TV In his cult sci-fi novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? later made into the movie Blade Runner, author Philip K. Dick envisions a future where large-scale nuclear warfare has almost decimated humanity. The sole source of interaction for the few who remain is the ‘empathy box’. A gadget closely modeled on today’s television, the empathy box shows only one program—the torturous climb of Mercer, a prophet-like figure, up a mountain. Whenever Mercer climbs a bit higher, he is assaulted by stones and rocks. By gripping a handlebar attached to the box, the viewer feels the agony of Mercer’s martyrdom as his own. This pain unites the viewer with humanity at large, blissfully ignorant of the fact that the ‘prophet’ is just a two-bit drunkard actor and the ‘mountain’ a tacky studio set. It is comfortable to write off the empathy box as a figment from a fantastic future. We all know it for a fact today that the images on our tame telly are artificially generated. We can’t possibly be affected by play-acting! After all, television is just a machine—a remarkable one, true, but definitely controllable. During TV’s heyday, maverick Canadian social scientist Marshall McLuhan, one of the earliest champions of TV culture, had contended that television, being a technological extension of the human eye, was revolutionary in its own stead. In other, more popular, words: ‘the medium is the message’. Times have changed. The medium’s technology has more or less lost its novel sheen. What remains attractive, however, is the content, primarily because it gives you a slice of life. The operative word here is ‘slice’—a fragment, dressed to look like life itself. ‘Television virtually shows life onscreen,’ says Bhaskar Ghosh, former director-general of the Indian national television channel Doordarshan. ‘You participate in your favorite character’s life, watch events unfold, without getting involved directly. It gives you the opportunity to experience life vicariously.’ The fact that television images can—and often do—manipulate reality to give an exaggerated version of life has been a potent argument against the medium. Although cinema has been doing the same thing with impunity all these years, what makes television arguably more effective is its easy accessibility—and its professed intent to show things ‘true to life’. ‘Television,’ says Pavan Varma, Indian bureaucrat and author of The Great Indian Middle Class, ‘is not a neutral gadget. Those who control it, control your thought. It is not an extension of your eye; it is an extension of somebody else’s eye through which you are forced to view the world, even if that demands a drastic adjustment of your sight.’ In its April 1975 issue, The American Psychology Today magazine reported a study done by Drs George Gerbner and Larry Gross, University of Pennsylvania, on the effects of television content. They discovered that ‘although critics complain about the stereotyped characters and plots of TV dramas, many viewers look on them as representatives of the real world’. The researchers also found distortions of reality in at least three areas: 1. Heavy viewers of television were more likely to overestimate the percentage of world population that lives in America; 2. They seriously overestimated the percentage of people professionally employed; 3. They drastically overestimated the number of police in the USA and the amount of violence. In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, media commentator Jerry Mander takes this argument to a disturbing conclusion: ‘You see the Waltons (American TV characters) solve a family problem. You find yourself in a family situation that is not dissimilar. The image flashes past. If that’s the only imagined instance you have available to call upon, you are more likely to be influenced by it. You don’t interrupt your behavior to say: ‘Wait a minute; I’ve got to keep straight my bank of television imagery from my bank of real-world imagery.’ The mind doesn’t work that way.’ The neutrality of any technology, however, finally depends upon the user. Says P.N. Vasanti, project coordinator at the New Delhi-based Center for Media Studies: ‘The introduction of any new technology always brings in its wake a morality panic. But what critics seem to forget is that the technology has entered your life because you were somehow prepared for it.’ 57 CHANNELS AND NOTHING ON? The average television set today is capable of showing 99 channels and is actually showing nothing less than 30. At least two new channels enter the fray every six months or so, resulting in an incessant shower of infotainment—a term coined by TV professionals of the ’80s to describe their blend of information and entertainment. There is no doubting the benefits of choice. Sitting in the comfort of your sofa, you can savor the nuances of Italian opera, admire the texture of French haute couture, have a face-to-screen darshan of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or Sathya Sai Baba or even the Pope—all in 30 minutes flat. The only physical exertion is the movement of your thumb over the remote. The power to choose also fine-tunes the senses. Every individual in a household has a separate taste. Ergo, every individual in a household gets his/her separate TV set. On the face of it, this might look like a further breakup of an already nuclear family, but that may not be the case. ‘Today, I have four TV sets in my house-one for my mother, one for my son, one for my daughter and one for myself,’ says Varma. ‘This should have put a strain on family ties. But it has not and it probably never will. Families retain unity if everyone has maximization of private space.’ Varma points out that one of the greatest benefits of television is more autonomy for the individual. ‘At the extreme end of this,’ he concedes, ‘is a certain severance from reality and a breakdown of normal interpersonal relationships. But largely, the range of autonomy gives you immense flexibility and convenience.’ Describing the effects of an exploding ‘information bomb’ in his 1980 best-selling book The Third Wave, futurist Alvin Toffler wrote: ‘New information reaches us and we are forced to revise our image-file continuously at a faster rate. Older images based on past reality must be replaced, for, unless we update them, our actions become divorced from reality and we become progressively less competent. This speedup of image processing means that images grow more temporary… Ideas, beliefs and attitudes skyrocket into consciousness, are challenged, defied, and suddenly fade into nowhere-ness.’ Focused viewership is a rarity nowadays: even a minute of boredom is unacceptable. So, you surf channels. In a mad rush to keep viewers from switching, every producer tries to give something striking, something ‘different’. But the minute one producer succeeds with a bizarre formula, others follow suit. Tedium returns and surfing begins anew. According to Jerry Mander, the basic technology of television cannot display anything but the grossest of emotions, the most superficial of information. ‘Compare the image of your television screen with any other image in your room,’ he says. ‘Obviously, the actual object is vivid in comparison with the television image.’ Mander argues that this difference is due to the fact that images on television must stand out significantly from their background to create any impact. To make this happen, producers tend to concentrate more on images that offer more scope for ‘playing up’. Hence the emphasis on high-strung melodrama, violence and, of course, sex. Hence the greater viewer interest in these programs. TV, says Mander, can only stimulate. That may be too extreme a stance to take. For, as Toffler pointed out, the generation brought up on info-glut may employ a
Life Positive follows a stringent review publishing mechanism. Every review received undergoes -
Only after we're satisfied about the authenticity of a review is it allowed to go live on our website
Our award winning customer care team is available from 9 a.m to 9 p.m everyday
All our healers and therapists undergo training and/or certification from authorized bodies before becoming professionals. They have a minimum professional experience of one year
All our healers and therapists are genuinely passionate about doing service. They do their very best to help seekers (patients) live better lives.
All payments made to our healers are secure up to the point wherein if any session is paid for, it will be honoured dutifully and delivered promptly
Every seekers (patients) details will always remain 100% confidential and will never be disclosed