People on the internet often seem unable to focus on the big picture. Someone writes an article arguing that ADHD should be treated more holistically, and happens to mention that the young Michael Phelps used exercise to cope with his ADHD. Someone else immediately rants, “I exercise and I still have ADHD! You are a horrible person for suggesting that I shouldn’t take meds!” as if this invalidates the article.
In fact, we seem as a culture to be obsessed with trivia. We know the names of celebrities’ dogs and the color of their shoes (both the celebrities’ shoes and the dogs’ shoes) but not, say, the history of drama. We make lists of things that students ought to memorize and provide bullet points of qualities that they should acquire, but we provide no overarching intellectual or moral framework (even proponents of classical education can fall into the error of thinking that students are classical just because they can provide a lot of details about Latin grammar or ancient Greek armor).
G.K. Chesterton saw this phenomenon in his own day.
Perhaps this focus on details is not surprising. After all, details about the ball game or the weather (or even Botticelli) are the kinds of things that people typically discuss with strangers and acquaintances. Arguments over details are safe enough for public consumption because they touch on nothing fundamental. They will not anger, inspire, move, or challenge anyone. We focus on details in the modern world because even on the internet, we are a nation of strangers.
In fact, we seem as a culture to be obsessed with trivia. We know the names of celebrities’ dogs and the color of their shoes (both the celebrities’ shoes and the dogs’ shoes) but not, say, the history of drama. We make lists of things that students ought to memorize and provide bullet points of qualities that they should acquire, but we provide no overarching intellectual or moral framework (even proponents of classical education can fall into the error of thinking that students are classical just because they can provide a lot of details about Latin grammar or ancient Greek armor).
G.K. Chesterton saw this phenomenon in his own day.
“We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man’s opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters—except everything.” From Heretics.
Perhaps this focus on details is not surprising. After all, details about the ball game or the weather (or even Botticelli) are the kinds of things that people typically discuss with strangers and acquaintances. Arguments over details are safe enough for public consumption because they touch on nothing fundamental. They will not anger, inspire, move, or challenge anyone. We focus on details in the modern world because even on the internet, we are a nation of strangers.
May I link this post to Weekends With Chesterton?
ReplyDeleteThat would be here: http://www.amongstlovelythings.com
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link! I was actually planning to link it up myself this weekend. :-)
DeleteThis makes me think of academia--particularly the liberal arts--at the higher levels: Those working at the graduate level must research topics that no one has written on before; since the broader topics have been the subject of much study already, they are glossed over in favor of niche studies. This produces instructors who are most knowledgeable about obscure slivers of information in their field. There is no time to procure or pass on the broad foundation of liberal studies. Then again, as you observe, it may be that it is safer not to offer such foundational breadth, since doing so would require at least the tacit declaration of certain topics being more worthy of study than others. This our pluralistic society is most loath to do.
ReplyDeleteYes, I definitely see this trend in how history is studied. On of my history professors once said that another part of the problem is the constant push to publish, publish, publish. Academics used to be able to spend a lifetime of study and then publish one or two books that were the accumulation of years of thought and knowledge. Now they must pump out materials that can't possibly be as good, or display as much breadth of knowledge, as the work of the older generation.
DeleteRichard Weaver also says something similar in Ideas Have Consequences and it stuck with me for this very reason.
ReplyDelete"Arguments over details are safe enough for public consumption because they touch on nothing fundamental. They will not anger, inspire, move, or challenge anyone."
ReplyDeleteWow. And yes! Details also require much less complete thinking. To tackle a detail is one thing- to tackle an idea is another thing entirely.
I'm so glad you linked up- I'm having fun poking around your blog!
Thanks for hosting the linkup! I'm enjoying following your blog.
Delete