Postman makes an interesting observation around the way political consciousness changed with the tv.

“In the television age, political judgement is transformed from an intellectual assessment of propositions to an intuitive and emotional response to the totality of an image. In the television age, people do not so much as agree or disagree with politicians as like or dislike them.”

He then makes this suggestion that the democratic system was built around the idea that political judgement was something that was learned over time. This is why voting was restricted to a certain age. Political engagement also existed in the world of print—in newspapers, pamphlets, and books. Then tv came and flattened it and then everyone had access to the same political process and in doing so our judgement of political figures was reduced to image.

It's a bit of a cynical take, and perhaps a bit idealistic in its conception of the past, but I think it fits. I remember talking to a former MPP turned campaign manager on the political process and they more or less confirmed that voting comes down how likeable people feel the candidates are. And with tv, the likeability of politicians became the main point.

Of course, I'm always fascinated to consider how this trajectory has continued into the digital age.

In The Disappearance of Childhood, Postman discusses the emergence of childhood as a legally protected class in England in the late 18th C and into the 19th. He notes that up until 1780, children could still be prosecuted for over 200 crimes where the punishment was a public hanging, including stealing a coat and participating in a riot. Laws were soon passed that prohibited such extreme offences against children as well as protecting them from crimes committed against them. For example, in 1814 a law was passed that made it a criminal offence to steal a child. For the first time.

The idea here is that up until this point, there was no government protection on kids. They were left to the responsibility of whatever adult they were in the care of. As capitalism and industrialization emerged, kids being raised in lower classes were basically just cheap labour. However, as the government began to step in, the rights of children began to matter. Postman writes,

"In the 18th C, the idea that the state had the right to act as a protector of children was both novel and radical. Nonetheless, gradually the total authority of parents was humanely modified so that all social classes were forced into partnership with government in taking responsibility for child nurturing."

Here's what I find interesting. Today there is a growing sentiment, particularly among more conservative families, that the government should be hands off when it comes to the raising of kids. And this is why a broader view of history matters. When kids were left to the sole protection of parents and caregivers, they were frequently exploited, abused, and generally seen as property for them to do with as they pleased.

It's just important to remember that the things we often think of as constant, the rights of children for example, are not as immutable as might think.

Reading Neil Postman's The Disappearance of Childhood and part of his argument is how the invention of the printing press created a new form of adulthood, one that had to be earned through learning and engagement with printed words. He quotes Lewis Mumford in talking about how print shifted people's focus away from what was right in front of them,

"More than any other device, the printed book released people from the domination of the immediate and the local… print made a greater impression than actual events… To exist was to exist in print: the rest of the world tended gradually to become more shadowy.

I find it interesting how when you compare this with today, obviously the digital world now dominates our focus. The immediate is what is happening online. It's become a new social existence that has pulled people's attention away from both deeper learning through written material and local things. We have become less engaged with what's going on right around us and the needs of our own community.

I assume the overall point of this book is going to be about establishing how the distinction between childhood and adulthood that was created with the advent of the printed word has disappeared as a result of new media (TV in this case). It's worth noting that childhood, in this understanding, would have been hyper-local. Kids were somewhat forced to be in place and interact with what was immediately happening around them. Now, the digital world has coopted that and we are seeing the negative effects playing out all over the world.

I just finished the final book in Tana French's body of work (so far) and I don't think I've ever so voraciously enjoyed a bunch of novels before.

If you haven't read (or heard of) Tana French, she writes murder mysteries set in Ireland. At times they even flirt with horror. The mysteries are compelling, but her character writing is even better. She writes in the first person and is particularly skilled at writing an unreliable narrator. The book I saved for last, the Witch Elm, did this in a way I will be thinking about for a while. It was a takedown of white, male privilege that unfolds in a slow burn throughout the book. It had me questioning my own life at times in some real introspective ways.

The book confronts you with questions of whether or not you can trust your own memory on how certain events played out, especially when it comes to assumptions of how those events may have affected other people. My own adolescence is somewhat wrapped up in a haze of generalizations and a certain degree of distance or detachment. Like the narrator, at times a lot of my memories feel unmemorable. This book challenges the assumption that others, particularly people less inoculated by privilege, experienced things the same way.

"When my body feels good, my life feels good, and I want to keep going, and fight for my right to exist and love and grow and evolve." (Brown, Pleasure Activism)

This is something that I think about a fair bit. As someone who suffers with a degree of chronic pain/discomfort and anxiety, I find it to be a rare time that my body actually feels like it's in a good place. What I have found, however, is how to pursue those few times that it does. Walking, for instance makes me feel good. Being outside in the fresh air, moving at a brisk pace, puts both my body and mind at ease. Pain is reduced, my anxious thoughts are calmed, and life feels good. I'm more energized for relationships or creative things. Conversely, when I go for long periods of time without walking, my body and mood deteriorate. I become irritable and just want to lie down and be left alone. I'm a worse person all around when I'm not walking.