Loading ...
Okay, since I dedicated my last post talking about higher education, I thought with this one I’d bring my head out of the clouds and address something a little more banal, namely television. What do we think of television as a form of entertainment? How many of you have one in your houses?
For more than half of the last decade, I’ve had no regular access to television. This was more a product of circumstance than principle, but I never worried that I was missing much, because I believed — and I still do basically believe — that most television is quite boring. Even as a child I was of this opinion. My parents allowed us to watch some educational television (we particularly loved Square One and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?), but they didn’t let us watch cartoons. This rule was relaxed when I was visiting cousins or sleeping over at a friend’s house… but I found, on those occasions, that few things were more odious to me than spending four hours on a Saturday morning in front of the tube. The shows just seemed so dull and stupid. I’d ask my friends: couldn’t we go outside? Play a game? Disappointingly, they generally declined.
The adult equivalent to this is sitting in front of the TV for an entire evening, watching any and every show that comes on. This has always seemed to me to be a fairly mind-numbing way to spend an evening. When I was in Uzbekistan, I found that most families did this practically every day. Their television channels were, if possible, even more boring than ours (they especially loved Mexican soaps dubbed into Uzbek, and Russian game shows that were obvious knock-offs of American ones, with the only difference being that the prizes were much lamer.) Nobody seemed to have heard of cable, so Yoshlar (the Uzbek government’s channel) and Vremia (the main Russian channel) were the primary options. But my Uzbek families were utterly amazed to find me so averse to spending hours of each day watching TV with them. “What else are you going to do?” they asked with incredulity. Most of the time I spent my evenings reading. When guests would come, my family would sometimes introduce me with, “This is our American girl. Can you imagine it? She says TV is boring! And instead she reads!” And they would all laugh and laugh.
When I got my own apartment, I didn’t bother to get a TV. My Uzbek friends were always very concerned about this. Even just the idea of living alone seemed terrible to them, but living alone without even a TV sounded like torture. In reality, those were very happy times for me. When I wasn’t working, I did a lot of reading, wrote letters home, experimented with new recipes, and played my guitar. To be honest, I can scarcely remember a dull hour, and when I found myself in a mood for company, I had plenty of friends (both Uzbeks and fellow PCVs) that I could visit. I certainly never found myself pining for Yoshlar.
That was only a bit more than three years ago. I will confess, though, that the Doctor and I do now have a television, and a slate of regular shows that we watch together. (We have a cheap Tivo knockoff, so we can record all our favorite shows and watch them whenever is convenient for us.) We sometimes, like the Uzbeks, eat dinner in front of the tube. And I’ve even found myself asking, of people who don’t have television in their homes, “So, what do you do in the evenings?”
Have I been corrupted? Possibly. Of course, I was never in principle violently opposed to having a TV in my house. And I recognize the advantages. It’s nice to be able to watch my football games at home, rather than going to a sports bar like I used to do in Ithaca. But another thing I’ve come to realize about television is that it can be a nice social form of entertainment. I still virtually never watch it by myself (except when I’m eating a meal alone — it’s nicer than staring at the walls.) Why watch television alone, when reading is almost always more satisfying? But reading is a solitary activity. When I want to do something with another person (my husband, for example), it can sometimes be nice to have television.
I know what some of you will want to say. There are lots of other things to do with people! Play games! Make music! Take up birdwatching or glass blowing or tennis! And sure, there are lots of things to do with others. I’m fully in favor of seeking out some such things. At the same time, most of those activities come with certain built-in limitations. Outdoor activities must be done in appropriate weather, and most require daylight. Games tend to carry limitations as to the number of players (you can’t have either too many or too few), and in some cases it’s problematic if the players have drastically different ability levels. More elaborate activities tend to require both equipment and also some degree of skill, and in many cases they’re only worthwhile if a reasonable amount of time can be dedicated to them. Lastly, almost all of these activities require a fair expenditure of energy.
None of this should prevent us from looking for group activities that are doable for us, given our circumstances. Indeed, it may be that television has had the unfortunate effect of making us lazy about seeking such things out. Still, it’s hard to deny that television is one of the easiest and most accessible of family activities. It doesn’t depend on having a particular number of people. It requires no special skill. You can watch TV in any season, in any weather, or at any time of day. You can do it with a baby in your lap, or a toddler playing on the floor, or with your spouse or child cuddled up against you. It can take as little as half an hour, with no set-up and no clean-up afterwards. And (which can sometimes be important) it is genuinely relaxing; even when you’re very tired from a long workday, watching television should not be a strain.
Finally, lest I forget, time in front of the TV isn’t necessarily completely unproductive. Though we probably don’t learn much from watching Monk or Dr. Who (two of our favorite shows), there are some programs with educational value. For example, the Doctor and I have recently been watching Ken Burns’ The War documentary series together. (It’s about WWII, if you haven’t heard of it.) We’ve found that to be very interesting and generally worthwhile. I love the Planet Earth nature series that has recently been released. Television also provides outlets for catechesis and spiritual food of various kinds. EWTN has obviously tried to take advantage of this, and most of us appreciate being able to watch certain important events, like the funeral of Pope John Paul II.
So I think there are good reasons to have it. Television often provides a nice way for my husband and me to spend a cozy hour together before retiring for bed, or a half-hour after dinner before we each go to our own desks to do other work. But of course, there are drawbacks. I think the main downsides to television are 1) many shows on TV are unwholesome, and 2) it’s quite possible to get addicted to TV, so that you waste all kinds of time that could be more productively spent. I think the answer to the first is that you need to be properly discerning about what you watch, or what you let your kids watch. Not all television is immoral, but an awful lot of it is. A lot of it is also just mindless junk that will fill up your head (or your kids’ heads) with shallow and trivial thoughts. Soap operas, for example, are junk. Avoid them.
The addiction problem is one that people worry about especially with children, and not without reason. There are children out there who will watch TV all afternoon and evening without a break. Some adults have this problem too, but I think most of the adults I know are too busy to make that a very serious concern. With kids it’s different, and I definitely believe in the importance of playing outside, reading children’s books, building pillow forts, and all those other delightful activities that I enjoyed in my childhood. It would be a terribly sad thing to have a childhood dominated by television.
Different parents have devised different rules for regulating television usage, and sometimes that’s a good way to do it. But I think this has to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. In my own family, actually, only one of the five of us was ever given an official “TV limit.” I don’t remember TV usage being a source of much contention in our household, because most of us really didn’t want to watch excessive amounts of TV. We would normally come home from school and watch a half-hour educational program together while eating our after-school snack. Then we were expected to do our homework and practice our musical instruments, and when we had finished with those, we would often play outside while there was still light. For years we watched a Get Smart rerun with my father in the half-hour before dinner. (It was his favorite show as a kid, and was then being replayed on Nick at Nite.)
That was often as much television as we watched in a day, or sometimes we would watch another program or two with the family later on in the evening. But we also played lots of family games, read books aloud, and made music together. On weekends we liked to hike in the mountains, and we’d take other family outings several times a year (to the zoo, a museum, the amusement park, etc.) Television played some role in our household, but it certainly wasn’t the end-all-and-be-all of family fun. It was especially used as a fallback when our parents were particularly tired, when someone was sick, when mom wanted to rock a baby to sleep while we watched, or when we couldn’t get together enough people to play a fun game. Without a TV we probably would have spent less time as a family, because, on those evenings when other family activities were impracticable, we probably would just have dispersed to our own private amusements. That would have been a shame, because I think it’s important to do things together as a family, several times a week if possible.
Interestingly enough, the philosophy of TV-watching that was instilled by my parents stays with me to this day. Watching TV on a sunny day depresses me — I’ll suggest taking a walk or throwing a ball around instead. With a few rare exceptions (i.e. if I’m sick or very exhausted) I get impatient with watching for more than an hour or two. And unless I’m eating a meal alone, or trapped in a hotel room without a book, I never “channel surf” for something to watch. If there’s nothing I specially want to watch, I’ll do something else.
Some people will decide that they’d rather not have a television in their homes at all. I guess my feeling is: that’s perfectly fine if you just don’t want one, but somewhat silly if you see it as a principled stand against the evils of the world. Television doesn’t need to be watched excessively, and having one around can increase the number of pleasant hours you spend with the family. The key to avoiding excess is, it seems to me, impressing on your children that television should be viewed as just an occasional form of light entertainment, and not as the default way to pass time. Your kids should know (as should you!) that there are many other worthwhile things to do in the world. Never instruct them to turn on the TV just because you want to keep them occupied, or because they’re whining that they’re bored. Don’t let them start thinking of TV-watching as an activity to be sought in itself, independently of any particular programs they might want to watch. And make sure that the things you do together are not limited to sitting in front of a flickering screen. Set limits on television watching if it becomes necessary, but don’t assume that it will be. Because, as I’ve said before, this is the bottom line: most television is boring. TV addicts are simply people who need to be given better things to do.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Good post. If I have an addiction that really distracts me, it is blogging, not TV. I am from that generation of people that can actually do things with a TV on, which apparently our folks could not. Blogging, on the other hand, completely absorbs one’s attention. Plus, you can always write a better response, or sit pensively waiting for someone to write back, clicking the refresh. With TV, there’s either something on or not.
Yes, I have cable. I find that some sitcoms from the recent past and present have writing every bit as comedic and witty as Plautus and Menander. Usually this is the result of well-defined characters, so the humor may not be apparent to someone who has not seen the series before. They aren’t many, but they’re there. Admittedly, sometimes even the better shows have material that is questionable — and the word “bowdlerization” came from the name of a guy who edited out the naughty bits in *Shakespeare,* so even he had risque parts. So beware what edition of Shakespeare your kids read in your TV-free house, or he might corrupt them too! I won’t even mention Catullus or Aristophanes . . .
CORRECTION, 12-7-07: By writing the preceding, I minimized the real problem with smutty stuff on TV, for which I am sorry. I now quote from “Chastity: A Guide for Teens and Young Adults” (Gerald Kelly, S.J., available from Roman Catholic Books): “Even mere entertainment justifies one in ignoring occasional slight motions of passion caused perhaps by a few suggestive pictures or passages in books or magazines that are otherwise decent. But mere enterntainment is not usually a complete justification for reading things that one finds strongly stimulating, even in an otherwise decent book or magazine” (p. 87). I think that this rule holds as true for TV as for books. The section on the morality of sexual humor is also good (p. 88-9).
Additionally, so much of the news is broadcasted this way. I frequently have “Hardball with Chris Matthews” playing as I fold laundry or wash dishes or cook dinner. So I learn about politics and current events as I perform some some mundane task. The Weather Channel is very useful, and I check on it everyday, sometimes several times per day.
Also, something can be said for a modicum of knowledge about popular culture. Granted, the “world” is united with the flesh and the devil, but it can be profitable to know what’s going on. Some major articles on torture have focused on the TV series “24,” for instance. If you’re teaching a class about ethics, it might be worthwhile to present a situation to your students based on some episode of “Law and Order.” That show frequently presents moral issues, frequently in an admittedly lame, superficial, heavy-handed, and liberal way, but sometimes with a degree of sophistication and insight as well. Students have generally seen “Law and Order” or one of its spin-offs (several TV networks literally do NOTHING but air reruns of these shows).
Also, in apologetic exercises or evangelization, it is good to have a stock example to fall back on, one that is transparent to the audience. For instance, in the realm of religion, Ned Flanders on the Simpsons presents a perfectly and immediately identifiable caricature (and sometimes a frighteningly realistic depiction!) of a “pious Protestant.” You will encounter Ned Flanders types in the world, and people may stereotype you as that. Or a “Ned Flanders stereotype” may be someone’s excuse for not going to church. Watching the show would provide you an insight into one of the dominant stereotypes in modern American culture. The same can be said for Mayor Quimby, Rev. Lovejoy, Homer Simpson, Lisa, etc., etc. If you came to your audience expecting them to know Shakespeare, sorry, they wouldn’t. And I bet Shakespeare, were he alive today, would watch the Simpsons (or at least reruns from the better years).
Much of what I know about the world I originally watched on TV: the History Channel, The Learning and Discovery Channels, even the educational shows on PBS and Saturday mornings. So I can’t really complain on that score. Of course I’ve wasted HUGE amounts of my life watching boring or inappropriate television; that just doesn’t negate past and present benefits I’ve gained thereby.
And by watching TV in my free time, as opposed to blogging, I avoid a near occasion for the sins of anger, quibbling, rashness, know-it-all-ism, petty bickering, rudeness, etc. I can shout at the idiots on the idiot box all I want without having to apologize to them later.
Lastly, if you’re planning to play games instead of watching TV, don’t pick Trivial Pursuit, as TV trivia is a major part of the Entertainment category. Yet another reason to watch Jeopardy . . .
Many good points here from Tobias Petrus. You bring out some benefits that I had missed. You’re quite right, for example, that one benefit of TV is that it leaves your hands free… and doesn’t require intense concentration. So it can be good background for an otherwise dull task. I also use audiobooks for that purpose, but I’ll sometimes put on the news or a ball game when I’m washing dishes or cooking.
Cultural knowledge can certainly be useful for a teacher. I, for example, have often found my knowledge of football to come in handy in the classroom. (They don’t know a lot about Aristotle, but they do know Peyton Manning, Adrian Peterson or Vince Young!) But it’s funny that you mention The Simpsons, because I can also think of at least two occasions when I’ve used Simpsons examples to illustrate points in class.
“Blogging, on the other hand, completely absorbs one’s attention. Plus, you can always write a better response, or sit pensively waiting for someone to write back, clicking the refresh.”
Mmm, yes. Sadly, I sympathize all too much with that!
It’s nice to know that there are others who cared little for tv in childhood (‘and turned out ok’). Why not a parenting book, ‘What to do if your child dislikes television’. My child reaches out and on his own, turns it off. He just does not like it. Parents ought to be on the look-out for these ‘signals’, hints, and respond accordingly. It might come as a shock to the tv and video game establishments, but, humans are not naturally attuned to it. We’re neither ‘hard’ nor ‘softwired’ for any of it, in fact. Some kids react to it sort of the way of the main character (subject) in the Monty Python sketch, confuse your cat. I advocate celebrating this temperament and not forcing someone who is just not interested to ingest/imbibe/hallucinate…regards, k
This post gives me a hankering for the SSPX. Watching television while eating dinner is totally uncivilized, and making a habit of watching television every day corrupts your mind and morals. Blogging is also a dangerous waste of time (which I am doing at the moment), but nowhere near as bad as TV – at least it involves some activity (like writing this post) and is not totally passive.
Not all television is totally passive. Those shows that are, are of course bad. Listening to music is not “passive” just because you’re not playing the instrument. It depends on what the show is and why you’re watching it. A mystery show, like the BBC series Poirot, is highly engaging and stimulating.
Furthermore, I cannot see what is intrinsically “uncivilized” about eating while watching TV. You’ve heard of dinner theater, right? Granted, I wouldn’t move a TV into a dining room. And if you always have “sit-down” dinners at the dining-room table, more power to you. When you have a large family, you should all sit at the table without a TV. But when you’re a young couple, you’ve ordered Chinese food or a pizza, and the game’s on, what’s the harm? You’d eat if you were at the game, right? Or are concession stands uncivilized?
“making a habit of watching television every day corrupts your mind and morals.”
Depends on what you watch, why, and how much. Reading everyday *can* corrupt your mind and morals. I don’t know what harm watching the Weather Channel or Jeopardy or the Food Network everyday would do. If it became something you couldn’t live without, that would be a bad thing. TV is such a thing, and contributes to materialism in this respect. So as people lose interest in the world, many of these attachments will fall away. But that is true of lots of things, including reading the newspaper everyday. Does reading the newspaper every morning corrupt your mind and morals?
Ha! I was counting on somebody having that reaction, so thanks for not letting me down! And yeah, someday when we (God willing) have several children, I think I’ll insist on sitting around the table most nights, with maybe the occasional Friday night pizza-and-movie sort of thing as a treat. That ensures that you see one another face-to-face sometimes, and that the children learn some table manners. But when there are just two of you, and you see each other constantly, you needn’t spend all your time together worrying about what’s most “civilized.” If I’ve just cooked a nice meal and my husband’s just walked in the door after a full day in the office, then sure, we’ll sit down at the table. Other times we feel more like some low-key relaxation. Watching football, for example, is something we both enjoy (and when you’re both interested, this can be quite a communal activity, between cheering, groaning, debating the wisdom of coaching or referee calls, etc.) I really don’t see what’s so awful about combining food and a fun activity.
It’s the passivity, but more than that, the way people tend to be absorbed into their televisions, like zombies, that bothers me about television.
Clara,
Will you be eating pepperoni on your Friday night pizzas or just cheese and the occasionally veggie?
On Sunday mornings we let the kids watch “Davie and Goliath” – it teaches decent moral values and the children are respectful to the adults. However, I just had to explain to my 6-year-old daughter recently that although Davie was for the most part a good boy, he is probably burning in Claymation Hell right now because he wasn’t Catholic.
MRS JSP says:
Yet JSP fails to mention that he turns the TV on 1st thing in the morning for them like pretty near everyday and anytime he’s watching them and they will spend hours and hours in front of the TV which drives me insanely crazy because I make a concerted effort NOT to let them watch TV that much, and they play just fine when he’s at work…other than the periodic fights that break out. Point being it’s easier and more convenient for him to let their minds rot for hours while he’s doing such important things like contributing to this blog and drinking coffee.
(I told him I was going to rat him out to this society!) :)
Regarding his last post on Friday night cheese or veggie pizza – hah. He is the first to cave in on the Friday year round abstinence when it’s inconvenient…and I don’t know, but I don’t think he does much in the way of a substitute penance either.
Points for you for posting that, JSP. Perhaps that counts as a substitute penance this week? :)