Neil Postman, argues in his book “The Disappearance of Childhood” that the idea of childhood as a separate, innocent time for play and learning is very much a recent invention.

In hunter gatherer societies children have plenty of time to play and also to learn naturally from older children and adults going about their business.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iii-the-wisdom-hunter-gatherers

But, as Postman convincingly argues, the Middles Ages (or the Dark Ages) was a very harsh time for children. Children were expected to work from a very early age, and work hard, and parents were free to do with them as they like. At age 7, they were considered to have reached the age of reason and were given the same sentence for any crime as adults (including hanging for theft).

It wasn’t until the 1600s that the modern conception of childhood started to come about. Parents and community groups and churches opened schools and eventually playgrounds. During the Victorian Era especially, Children’s Literature thrived along with the concept of childhood as an innocent time for play and learning, to be protected from adult concerns. School nevertheless was often harsh, but was a huge step up from factory work and mining and the many other forms of child labor.

H.G. Wells, very much in the spirit of the times, published, in 1911, “Floor Games“, a book extolling the delights of play. Wells describes in loving detail the creative play of his two sons as they used their imaginations to create towns, and towers, railways and islands, etc. This was exactly the sort of play he had enjoyed immensely growing up, and that he wanted to share with his two boys.

Later on, his book became the inspiration of Sandplay Therapy. The idea being that children, allowed to play, in a creative, non-structured fashion are able to work out their emotional traumas. Sandplay is a form of Play Therapy which has been extensively studied and found to be effective at improving the emotional life of children.

According to the Scientific American article on Play, “Research suggests that play is also critical for emotional health, possibly because it helps kids work through anxiety and stress.” …

“Afterward, the kids’ levels of distress were assessed again. The anxiety levels of the anxious kids who had played had dropped by more than twice as much as compared with the anxious kids who had listened to the story. (The kids who were not anxious to begin with stayed about the same.) Interestingly, those who played alone calmed down more than the ones who played with peers. The researchers speculate that through imaginative play, which is most easily initiated alone, children build fantasies that help them cope with difficult situations.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-serious-need-for-play&page=3

For most of human history and prehistory, children spent most of their time playing. Then the Dark Ages arrived which was a grim time for children, who were forced to work long hours just to survive. From the time of the Enlightenment, child labor was gradually outlawed, allowing more time for playing and learning. Now, that TV (and other electronica) has replaced play, too many children are being treated as residents of a “Home for the Infirm”: little play, but lots of TV, lots of prescription drugs, and constant hovering supervision.

For quite a while I had been uneasy with the huge amount of TV I was watching (no more than the American average, which of course is quite a bit). And, for quite a while I had been meaning to read “Bowling Alone”.

Finally, I managed to slog my way through the book. “Bowling Alone” is filled with fascinating ideas, but the writing is pretty dry. At that point I didn’t stop watching TV, but I did come to the decision that I wanted to radically cut back.

I excitedly told my hubby about my momentous decision and argued that he too should give up TV. Anyway, his response was basically “yes dear, good thinking, wonderful idea, you go ahead”. In other words, he wasn’t convinced.

Over the next year or two, I read a number of anti-TV books and described them, in detail, to my long-suffering husband. The upshot, is that he still watches TV, but very little, and a lot less than he used to.

So, if you want to learn more, or are just curious as to why anyone would be so crazy as to reject the wonderful invention that is TV, here is my list of excellent anti-TV books.

Note: of all the anti-TV books, by far my favorite is “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” by Neil Postman.

Anyone out there have a favorite anti-TV book you would recommend?

Click on image for list (Amazon Listmania):

Thanks to Chris for recommending this fascinating book.

Why are American’s so obsessed with Fame and celebrities? Jake Halpern, in his book Fame Junkies does an excellent job explaining this mystery. To do so, he gets to know a number of people who are either obsessed with becoming famous or are obsessed with celebrities.

It would be easy to be scornful of obsessed fans and celebrity slaves, but Halpern is instead very sympathetic. As a child he was obsessed with the TV show “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”. To the point where his parents became so alarmed that they threw out the TV. He continues to be non TV-watching, which he feels, gives him a useful outsider perspective.

Along with his fascinating portraits, Halpern also delves deeply into the scientific literature.  Peppered throughout the book are studies and theories to explain the sometimes strange behavior of his sources.

For example, Belongingness Theory, which posits that the need to belong (as in have friends and loved ones) is a basic human need.

Another example is Parasocial interaction.  Before the advent of mass-communication, people made friends and formed relationships with actual real-life people. But now, especially with TV and movies (because they are so life-like), people are forming para-social relationships.  That is, one-sided friendships with either TV characters who don’t even exist, or with celebrities who are barely aware that the fan exists.

Halpern also points to a number of studies showing that the more lonely and shy someone is the more likely they are to obsessed over celebrities. For example:

The combination of loneliness and our innate desire to belong may be fueling our interest in celebrities and our tendency to form para-social relationships with them… McCutcheon and Ashe compared results from 150 subjects who had taken three personality tests – one measuring shyness, one measuring loneliness, and one measuring celebrity obsession, on something called the Celebrity Attitude Scale, or CAS. The CAS asks subjects to rate the veracity of statements such as “I am obsessed by details of my favorite celebrity’s life” and “If I were lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity, and he/she asked me to do something illegal as a favor, I would probably do it.” McCutcheon and Ashe found a correlation among scores on loneliness, shyness, and the CAS. Their results led McCutcheon to observe in a subsequent paper, “Perhaps one of the ways [we] cope with shyness and loneliness is to cultivate a ’safe,’ non-threatening relationship with a celebrity.”

Para-social relationships are a huge benefit to the celebrities. All those fans watching their shows, buying their clothing lines, etc make the celebrities rich. Meanwhile, the fans don’t get anything tangible in return. Because the para-relationship is purely one-way, the fan still feels lonely. As for getting the celebrity to help with a move, advice or last-minute babysitting, forget it! 

Update:  WordPress added an automatically generated link to a Time Magazine article “Celebrity Worship: Good for Your Health?” that argues that while extreme Celebrity Worship is unhealthy, that it (in moderate amounts) can be a positive influence. Namely that “the act of celebrity worship may be a boon to some people’s self-esteem”.

Happiness research has become a whole industry. Not surprisingly, researchers have found that people doing things that they enjoy, is important to their happiness level. But they’ve also found that doing some things that are enjoyable can actually lead to less happiness.

For example, an alcoholic would find drinking enjoyable, but all that alcohol would actually make them less happy in the long-run.

Another example is TV watching:

IF YOU really want to be happy, throw away your television set. That’s the bizarre finding of new economic research completely at odds with traditional assumptions. It has traditionally been assumed that people who choose to do a lot of something must enjoy it. And we certainly choose to watch a lot of TV.

TV watching is very much intertwined with celebrity worship. TV shows & movies add to a celebrity’s glamour, while popular celebrities boost ticket sales / viewership.

Unfortunately celebrities worship, and TV watching, and other addictions don’t lead to long-term happiness and a satisfying life.

I wish I had a long list of Anti-TV novels to review. Unfortunately, I could only find four:

 “Feed”

 “The TV Kid”

 “Fahrenheit 451″

 “Television”

Also, honorable mention to “The Traveler“, a thriller which mentions TV as a form of social control to be rejected by those in the know.

If you know of any others, please let me know!

- “Feed” by  M.T. Anderson   -  As a Science-Fiction aficionado, my favorite was “Feed”. This novel takes place in the future when TV and the internet have combined and are fed directly into the minds of the characters. This technological advance was supposed to make everyone smarter, but instead the most popular show is “Oh? Wow! Thing!”

- “The TV Kid” by Betsy Byars  -  is a much more gentle and light-hearted book than Feed. The main character Lennie loves TV. It takes an adventure for Lennie to learn the importance of life and friendship outside of TV.

- “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury  -  is another novel set in the future. This book is often studied in high school and is usually described as a cautionary tale about censorship. But Ray Bradbury himself …says the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state — it is the people. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, in which the government uses television screens to indoctrinate citizens, Bradbury envisioned television as an opiate.

- “Television” by Jean-Philippe Toussaint  -  is an extremely well-written book that unfortunately doesn’t have much of a plot. Basically this novel is about a writer who spends the summer putting off writing a historical book & instead explores life without TV. (Hmm, wonder how this book came about…)

Novels, even though they are fictional can convey powerful political messages (for both good and evil).

Traditionally the power of fiction was understood, this was partly why Literature used to be considered an essential subject for the well-educated scholar.

This was also why book-banning was not unheard of. People understood that books (even, or especially fictional books) could challenge the established order. And could also encourage and glorify people’s worst vices.

What a contrast to TV & movies.

Pointing out a moral failing of a TV/movie is dismissed as hopelessly old fashioned. Shows like “24” and “Dexter” are defended as “just fiction”. Meanwhile these same critics are happy to point out where a TV/movie promotes women’s rights and racial harmony and happily speculate on their benign effects on society.

Examples of influential Novels:

- “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was the best-selling novel of the 19th century (according to Wikipedia) and helped convince a huge number of Americans that slavery is wrong. This book became very important to the abolitionist movement.

- The novels of Ayn Rand became bibles of the Objectivist Movement.

- “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” illustrated the cruel conditions in the Soviet Union.

- “The Turner Diaries” became a bible of the white supremacists and an inspiration to Timothy McVeigh

- The novels of Jean-Paul Sartre became essential reading for Existentialists.

- “Left Behind Series“ is a very popular and influential series of novels that make theological arguments about the nature of God.

And as a Science Fiction Fan, I’d like to point out:

- Feminist Science Fiction

- Libertarian Science Fiction

- Social Science Fiction

Update: Intestesting article in Scientific American Mind:

Our love for telling tales reveals the workings of the mind 

Update: Intestesting article in Psychology Today:

Happily Ever After. Fictional tales that surround a “just world” may influence belief in the fairness of the real world.

Update: Intestesting article in SixWise

Those Who Read Fiction Better at Reading People

Update: Intestesting Study

Fiction Improves ‘Social Intelligence’

Update: Intestesting article in Psychology Today Blog:

  Why Don’t We Doubt Spider-Man’s Existence?

Update: Abraham Lincoln was a big fan of Aesop’s Fables. He retold them often to illustrate various political points. 

Read & Grow Rich: How the Hidden Power of Reading Can Make You Richer in All Areas of Your Life by Burke Hedges

Despite the kind of cheesy title, I actually really liked this book. The Author, Mr. Hedges was not a big reader, but reluctantly decided to read a self-help book that his sister-in-law had recommended. This book not only inspired him to read more books, it actually inspired him to change his life, to make the changes necessary for him to grow rich, both materially and spiritually.

Reading self-help books, although very helpful for many people, is also considered kind of déclassé. This is ironic since traditionally, studying the humanities (including Literature) was considered a form of self-help, a respected way to understand humanity and oneself.

This is something Mr. Hedges touches upon when he lists a number of historical self-help books such as Pilgrims Progress and Walden. Both are popular self-help books, that are also considered Literature.

The author also stresses the importance of self-education through reading, and gives some historical examples, including:

- Abraham Lincoln who went to school a couple of times a week when he was 7 years old (a total of 18 months according to Wikipedia), and that was it. The rest of his education he got from reading widely.

- Frederick Douglas, a slave with no formal education, who learned to read by listening while the wife of his owner taught her children to read. He was self-taught through reading, and became a major force in the abolitionist movement.

What I particularly liked about this book was the author’s sincerity in wanting to spread the word on the benefits of reading, which he does is a very lively way.

Where the book lacked, was that the author neglected the importance of reading for enjoyment. After all, the more you “read for pleasure”, the easier reading becomes (practice makes perfect). And the easier reading becomes, the more likely the reader will stick with and comprehend more instructional books.

I also really enjoyed the historical references that Mr. Hedges makes. It’s obvious he did his research, and I definitely learned a lot!