《娱乐至死》在图像和碎片里迷失.doc

《娱乐至死》在图像和碎片里迷失尼尔?波兹曼 尼尔?波兹曼（Neil Postman， 1931～2003） ，美国作家、教育家、媒介理论家、文化批评家波兹曼出生于纽约，并在此度过一生中的大部分时光1953 年，波兹曼毕业于纽约州立大学弗里多尼亚分校，1955 年获得哥伦比亚大学教育学院硕士学位，1958 年获得该学院教育博士学位自 1959年起，波兹曼在纽约大学开始了长达40多年的教职生涯1971 年，波兹曼在纽约大学斯坦哈特文化、教育与人类发展学院创立媒体生态学他为人所熟知的代表作包括1982年出版的《童年的消逝》 （The Disappearance of Childhood） 、1985年出版的《娱乐至死》 （Amusing Ourselves to Death）和1992年出版的《技术垄断：文化向技术投降》 （Technopoly： The Surrender of Culture to Technology） 2003 年，波兹曼因肺癌去世 The problem， in any case， does not reside in what people watch. The problem is in that we watch. The solution must be found in how we watch. For I believe it may fairly be said that we have yet to learn what television is. And the reason is that there has been no worthwhile discussion， let alone widespread public understanding， of what information is and how it gives direction to a culture. There is a certain poignancy2） in this， since there are no people who more frequently and enthusiastically use such phrases as “the information age， ” “the information explosion， ” and “the information society.” We have apparently advanced to the point where we have grasped the idea that a change in the forms， volume， speed and context of information means something， but we have not got any further. What is information？ Or more precisely， what are information？ What are its various forms？ What conceptions of intelligence， wisdom and learning does each form insist upon？ What conceptions does each form neglect or mock？ What are the main psychic effects of each form？ What is the relation between information and reason？ What is the kind of information that best facilitates thinking？ Is there a moral bias to each information form？ What does it mean to say that there is too much information？ How would one know？ What redefinitions of important cultural meanings do new sources， speeds， contexts and forms of information require？ Does television， for example， give a new meaning to “piety， ” to “patriotism， ” to “privacy”？ Does television give a new meaning to “judgment” or to “understanding”？ How do different forms of information persuade？ Is a newspaper’s “public” different from television’s “public”？ How do different information forms dictate the type of content that is expressed？ These questions， and dozens more like them， are the means through which it might be possible for Americans to begin talking back to their television sets， to use Nicholas Johnson3） ’s phrase. For no medium is excessively dangerous if its users understand what its dangers are. It is not important that those who ask the questions arrive at my answers or Marshall McLuhan4） ’s （quite different answers， by the way）. This is an instance in which the asking of the questions is sufficient. To ask is to break the spell. To which I might add that questions about the psychic， political and social effects of information are as applicable to the computer as to television. Although I believe the computer to be a vastly overrated technology， I mention it here because， clearly， Americans have accorded it their customary mindless inattention； which means they will use it as they are told， without a whimper. Thus， a central thesis of computer technology―that the principal difficulty we have in solving problems stems from insufficient data―will go unexamined. Until， years from now， when it will be noticed that the massive collection and speed-of-light retrieval of data have been of great value to large-scale organizations but have solved very little of importance to most people and have created at least as many problems for them as they may have solved. 　　In any case， the point I am trying to make is that only through a deep and unfailing awareness of the structure and effects of information， through a demystification5） of media， is there any hope of our gaining some measure of control over television， or the computer， or any other medium. How is such media consciousness to be achieved？ There are only two answers that come to mind， one of which is nonsense and can be dismissed almost at once； the other is desperate but it is all we have. *英国作家乔治?奥威尔在其代表作《1984》 （1984）中描绘了未来社会独裁统治下的恐怖情景。

他警告人们将会受到外来压迫的奴役而英国作家阿道司?赫胥黎在其代表作《美丽新世界》 （Brave New World）中描写了在机械文明下的未来社会，人们失去了思考的权利，失去了创造力他认为人们失去自由、成功和历史并不是独裁者之过在他看来，人们会渐渐爱上压迫，崇拜那些使他们失去思考能力的工业技术 1. 节选部分讲述的是人们需要深刻而持久地意识到信息的结构和效应，消除对媒介的神秘感 2. poignancy [?p??nj?nsi] n. 辛辣；尖锐 3. Nicholas Johnson：尼古拉斯?约翰逊（1934～） ，曾为美国联邦通讯委员会委员，出版过图书《如何与你的电视机对话》 （How to Talk Back to Your Television Set） 4. Marshall McLuhan：马歇尔?麦克卢汉（1911～1980） ，加拿大原创媒介理论家、思想家他认为计算机、电视等传播手段对社会及艺术、科学、宗教等产生强烈影响，主要著作有《机器新娘》（The Mechanical Bride）和《理解媒介》 （Understanding Media） 5. demystification [di??m?st?f??ke??（?）n] n. 启发，启蒙，开导；非神秘化 正如书名所传达的那样， 《娱乐至死》是一本忧心忡忡的书。

它的创作契机始于 1984年在这个因英国作家乔治?奥威尔的小说《1984》而变得饱含象征意义的年份里，尼尔?波兹曼受邀出席法兰克福书展，参加了一个关于“《1984》与当代世界”的研讨会而波兹曼的发言主旨正是他后来在《娱乐至死》的前言里所写到的：“这本书想告诉大家的是，可能成为现实的，是赫胥黎的预言，而不是奥威尔的预言* ”换而言之，这个世界并没有陷入独裁统治者的外来压迫和奴役，但是由于人们自发地爱上了无休无止的娱乐，在电视所带来的图像和片段中迷失了方向，所以人们可能毁于自己所热爱的东西 为什么随着电视机进入千。