Erich Fromm's Taxonomy of Bad Faith: Sartre & Character Types

This blog first appeared on October 23, 2011.

“In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead. In the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead.”

-Erich Fromm

I was recently asked to address a group of students on this question: what is the single most important issue facing America today? As expected my fellow guests, a philosopher, a sociologist, and a psychologist, seemed to situate themselves around a predictable hub of economic, ecological, and national security issues. Instead I proposed that the greatest threat to America today was the American attitude itself. It is not an external threat, but rather, an internal locus, a sort of pathological way of being that has come to be a hallmark of success. I want to outline what I had to say in that discussion. It centers on the ideas of two thinkers, Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, and is nicely articulated by a third, Erich Fromm.

Character and Styles of Being

There is a certain, rather pervasive, personality style that is encountered on a daily basis. This individual can be found in all walks of life, but is mostly encountered in what is called the professions. By professional  I mean those areas of practice in which one exercises the role of the expert, or plays the role of the authority on a certain topic or set of issues. These are the learned folks of our culture: the medical, scientific, academic, and business establishment. This is a tribe that often present not as practitioners of a profession, but rather, as the profession itself, not a person who does business as much as a businessperson.

Erich Fromm

There is a salient feature amongst professionals  in a certain way of being. This way of being is a sort of culturally expected personality style that one adopts, through their training, and then lives up to after graduation. This is the physician who plays the role of physician, the businessman who acts as one should act when one is a businessman, and the professor who becomes the expert  -presenting herself accordingly. Most often it is observed as affected or contrived. It can be experienced as professionalism, authority, arrogance, or inferiority depending on whom it is that is encountering it.

Jean-Paul Sartre described Heidegger's concept of falleness as bad faith.

There is something unconvincing about this style of being. Typically, those who do it cannot seem to be aware of it, seemingly it is only apparent to those outside of the performance. This performance is described by Jean-Paul Sartre as living in bad faith; when one hides from authenticity and instead chooses the safer position of a cultural role called facticity.

Facticity is like an object. One is not a person who is doctoring, but rather is a doctor. One is not someone who dwells with others in thought, but is a professor. Facticity is the objectification of a role; it is where an action becomes an object, almost like transposing a verb into a noun. One is no longer what one does, but rather, what one is titled. It is when one acts-out that title that we find a life in bad faith.

Jean Paul Sartre

Erich Fromm described personality styles that exemplified bad faith.

Erich Fromm described Sartre’s bad faith in five character types. These character types are not diagnosable personality disorders or even inherited personality structures. Fromm’s character types are adaptive ways of being in an evolutionary sense; they are methods of survival within an environment. Over a series of articles I am going to discuss these five character types, which I propose as Fromm’s taxonomy of bad faith. First, though, we must understand the function of personality and its operation in society and culture.

What Makes Human?

We begin from the position that it is society and culture that makes a person who they are and not biology. Although we are biological beings, a function of evolutionary unfolding, we are also transcended beings. Human Being is the activity of dealing with our biological drives in a social way. We are not primarily interested in physical survival, but rather in social survival. We do not strive for our life, but rather for living with others. Although biological drive is a part of being human it is not the dominant force. Homo sapien is influenced less by biological drives and more by cultural forces.

We call this cultural force desire. The social animal is a transcended Being that is not governed by cause-and-effect chains of logic, but rather, by an integrated being-in-the-world in which an individual’s environment is not an objective situation that they are in, but rather, an active interpretation that they are participating in making. We find here a main point in Fromm’s thinking, that we are not confronted with culture, but that we are a vital, shaping agent of culture. This is a sort of feedback-feedforward loop that is experienced as the world we live in. In fact, it is less a world we live in and more a world that lives within us.

Ways of Thinking: From Art to Social Science

This blog originally appeared on September 11, 2013.

The chromatic gradation effect.

I entered into psychology as many of us do; through the life-theorists. I call them life-theorist because they are not merely clinicians who treat the psychologically disturbed, but also, they think about our common experiences of living, and how to go about those experiences most effectively. They can also be called life philosophers because their interest is often less on acquiring facts and more on effective living. Most of us enter into psychology via our interest in Freud, Maslow, Jung, and others that have come to be called psychotherapists. For me psychology was never wholly about therapy and patients; it was more about living, life, and thinking; the psychology of the practitioner.

Once one is in it, one realizes that the field of study is not really a field at all, but rather, fields. We find psychologies rather than psychology. These psychologies each have a unique set of definitions, practices, and ideologies that defines their practices. We sometimes meet another "psychologist" who holds a view similar to ours, of what psychology is.

The first thing we learn about the psychologies is that there are two, distinct, practices. One psychology is that of the research psychologist. Primarily interested in the social, abnormal, personal, cognitive, emotional, perceptual, sensorial, or biological aspects of being human, these folks employ a variety of research methods to either explore, describe, or write the laws of human and nonhuman phenomenon. These psychologists spend their time researching; choosing and using various research methods (choosing the methods that best suit their beliefs about doing research) in order to test, develop, and work through their ideas.

The other side of the field, what we call clinical-counseling psychology, is comprised of individuals who think about, research, and impart strategies for living. This area of study and practice extends from helping the severely mentally ill, considering how to better communicate and interact with others, to exploring the very concept of the existence of the self. Practitioners of this kind of psychology work with others, using their one-on-one and group experiences as research information, to establish their ideas.

I entered psychology as a second profession. I had spent the first  decade of my adult life studying classical music in both European and American conservatories. An art school, music conservatory education is comprised of studio time (we use practice rooms, which are small closets with a piano and a music stand), one-on-one lessons with a master teacher, various classes in the practice, history, understanding, performing, and creation of music, as well as ensemble rehearsal (chamber music and symphony orchestra). There were distinct differences between my music education and my psychology education. Music school, like most art programs, is a unique experience which reminds me of an ancient master-apprentice model of learning. Contrastingly, the academic university system is mostly a classroom experience. In the conservatory we had to perform pieces for our "grade" (something most of my teachers rolled their eyes at), in this university we took tests, delivered and wrote papers for our grade.

Upon entering the university, I was immediately captivated by what was called the science of psychology; the use of the scientific method. I was taught that this is what made psychology a "science".

Not unlike music theory, in which each note is analyzed in the context of its harmony and progression, scientific psychology seemed to get to the foundation of what it was considering. I have always relied on analogical thinking to grasp new ideas. It seemed like an easy enough comparison; music had theorist who analyzed its form, harmony, progression, rhythm, and dynamics; we even referred to these as the elements of music. Like the ingredients of a recipe, things could be broken down and analyzed by the elements and procedures that brought them about. It is important to note that in conservatory we never assumed that these elements caused the music. We looked at analysis as a description, not as an ultimate explanation of music. We all understood the function of a V-chord in an I-IV-V progression, but we never felt that the progression (or the chord) caused the music. We simply understood the harmonic analysis as a symbolic representation of the music itself. I would say that, if asked what caused the music, most musicians would say that it was caused by the composer or the performer. As for the emotional aspect of music, that was enisled to our private conversations. Most of my professional musician colleagues were likely to discuss technical aspects of music rather than the emotional experience of the music. Even when emotion was discussed it was referred to as "interpretation" of the composer's intention.

It seems that music theory is the science of music. The observation, description, and even control (there are long-respected rules of composition that all conservatory students learn) of the musical elements is the mission of music theory. However, we never mistook the theory of music as the cause of the music. In this sense, musicians view analysis as description; not as cause and effect lawfulness.

In science, or more accurately in the philosophy of science, we discuss two different kinds of scientific lawfulness: causal laws and correlational laws. Causal laws describe how events are causally related. Correlational laws describe how a events reliably occur together, but do not necessarily have a causal relationship. In our thought experiment of music theory as a scientific method, we can understand harmonic analysis as a description of correlational laws; the harmonic or melodic progression is not seen as the cause of the phenomenon, but rather, a useful description of it. A graphic analysis of a piece of music might be similar to an fMRI image of the brain, in that it displays a symbolic representation of the elements of the phenomenon. Whereas my first thinking about psychological phenomenon was informed by musical art and the humanities, my second inquiry led me to the natural and social sciences. Each

Science, it has been said, is a method; a step-by-step procedure that, if followed, results in reliable models of the phenomenon being studied (Popper). It has also been argued that science is a social action, one that moves by economic, political, and social pressures (Kuhn). The natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, and some areas of psychology) study physical stuff. The scientific study of society, economy, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are called social sciences. Sometimes social scientists are dedicated to defending the status of their discipline as a science, against the natural scientists' criticism that it is a soft science. It has been my experience that a scientist's concern with being a scientist is one that is observed more amongst the social scientists than amongst the natural scientists.

Max Wertheimer, originator of Gestalt theory.

One psychological tradition, in particular, has resonated with me both as a social scientist and as an artist. The Gestalt tradition, originating with Max Wertheimer, continues to bridge the two worlds of art and science for me. The Gestalt theorists were interested in how contextual structures determine meaning. In psychology we find the Gestaltists exploring the then new medium of motion pictures, Virtual Reality, art, and social meaning. Kurt Lewin, who is considered to be the founder of social psychology, was a Gestalt thinker. The essence of the Gestalt position is best expressed, I believe, in the chromatic gradation effect in the above graphic. We find here the phenomenon take on meaning in relation to their environment. The Gestalt (the grounding) is the empirical or rational background that the phenomenon emerges within. Like notes in a chord or melody, we manifest not from our environment but with it.

Ways of Thinking: From Art to Social Science

This blog originally appeared on September 11, 2013.

The chromatic gradation effect.

I entered into psychology as many of us do; through the life-theorists. I call them life-theorist because they are not merely clinicians who treat the psychologically disturbed, but also, they think about our common experiences of living, and how to go about those experiences most effectively. They can also be called life philosophers because their interest is often less on acquiring facts and more on effective living. Most of us enter into psychology via our interest in Freud, Maslow, Jung, and others that have come to be called psychotherapists. For me psychology was never wholly about therapy and patients; it was more about living, life, and thinking; the psychology of the practitioner.

Once one is in it, one realizes that the field of study is not really a field at all, but rather, fields. We find psychologies rather than psychology. These psychologies each have a unique set of definitions, practices, and ideologies that defines their practices. We sometimes meet another "psychologist" who holds a view similar to ours, of what psychology is.

The first thing we learn about the psychologies is that there are two, distinct, practices. One psychology is that of the research psychologist. Primarily interested in the social, abnormal, personal, cognitive, emotional, perceptual, sensorial, or biological aspects of being human, these folks employ a variety of research methods to either explore, describe, or write the laws of human and nonhuman phenomenon. These psychologists spend their time researching; choosing and using various research methods (choosing the methods that best suit their beliefs about doing research) in order to test, develop, and work through their ideas.

The other side of the field, what we call clinical-counseling psychology, is comprised of individuals who think about, research, and impart strategies for living. This area of study and practice extends from helping the severely mentally ill, considering how to better communicate and interact with others, to exploring the very concept of the existence of the self. Practitioners of this kind of psychology work with others, using their one-on-one and group experiences as research information, to establish their ideas.

I entered psychology as a second profession. I had spent the first  decade of my adult life studying classical music in both European and American conservatories. An art school, music conservatory education is comprised of studio time (we use practice rooms, which are small closets with a piano and a music stand), one-on-one lessons with a master teacher, various classes in the practice, history, understanding, performing, and creation of music, as well as ensemble rehearsal (chamber music and symphony orchestra). There were distinct differences between my music education and my psychology education. Music school, like most art programs, is a unique experience which reminds me of an ancient master-apprentice model of learning. Contrastingly, the academic university system is mostly a classroom experience. In the conservatory we had to perform pieces for our "grade" (something most of my teachers rolled their eyes at), in this university we took tests, delivered and wrote papers for our grade.

Upon entering the university, I was immediately captivated by what was called the science of psychology; the use of the scientific method. I was taught that his is what made psychology a "science".

Not unlike music theory, in which each note is analyzed in the context of its harmony and progression, scientific psychology seemed to get to the foundation of what it was considering. I have always relied on analogical thinking to grasp new ideas. It seemed like an easy enough comparison; music had theorist who analyzed its form, harmony, progression, rhythm, and dynamics; we even referred to these as the elements of music. Like the ingredients of a recipe, things could be broken down and analyzed by the elements and procedures that brought them about. It is important to note that in conservatory we never assumed that these elements caused the music. We looked at analysis as a description, not as an ultimate explanation of music. We all understood the function of a V-chord in an I-IV-V progression, but we never felt that the progression (or the chord) caused the music. We simply understood the harmonic analysis as a symbolic representation of the music itself. I would say that, if asked what caused the music, most musicians would say that it was caused by the composer or the performer. As for the emotional aspect of music, that was enisled to our private conversations. Most of my professional musician colleagues were likely to discuss technical aspects of music rather than the emotional experience of the music. Even when emotion was discussed it was referred to as "interpretation" of the composer's intention.

It seems that music theory is the science of music. The observation, description, and even control (there are long-respected rules of composition that all conservatory students learn) of the musical elements is the mission of music theory. However, we never mistook the theory of music as the cause of the music. In this sense, musicians view analysis as description; not as cause and effect lawfulness.

In science, or more accurately in the philosophy of science, we discuss two different kinds of scientific lawfulness: causal laws and correlational laws. Causal laws describe how events are causally related. Correlational laws describe how a events reliably occur together, but do not necessarily have a causal relationship. In our thought experiment of music theory as a scientific method, we can understand harmonic analysis as a description of correlational laws; the harmonic or melodic progression is not seen as the cause of the phenomenon, but rather, a useful description of it. A graphic analysis of a piece of music might be similar to an fMRI image of the brain, in that it displays a symbolic representation of the elements of the phenomenon. Whereas my first thinking about psychological phenomenon was informed by musical art and the humanities, my second inquiry led me to the natural and social sciences. Each

Science, it has been said, is a method; a step-by-step procedure that, if followed, results in reliable models of the phenomenon being studied (Popper). It has also been argued that science is a social action, one that moves by economic, political, and social pressures (Kuhn). The natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, and some areas of psychology) study physical stuff. The scientific study of society, economy, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are called social sciences. Sometimes social scientists are dedicated to defending the status of their discipline as a science, against the natural scientists' criticism that it is a soft science. It has been my experience that a scientist's concern with being a scientist is one that is observed more amongst the social scientists than amongst the natural scientists.

Max Wertheimer, originator of Gestalt theory.

One psychological tradition, in particular, has resonated with me both as a social scientist and as an artist. The Gestalt tradition, originating with Max Wertheimer, continues to bridge the two worlds of art and science for me. The Gestalt theorists were interested in how contextual structures determine meaning. In psychology we find the Gestaltists exploring the then new medium of motion pictures, Virtual Reality, art, and social meaning. Kurt Lewin, who is considered to be the founder of social psychology, was a Gestalt thinker. The essence of the Gestalt position is best expressed, I believe, in the chromatic gradation effect in the above graphic. We find here the phenomenon take on meaning in relation to their environment. The Gestalt (the grounding) is the empirical or rational background that the phenomenon emerges within. Like notes in a chord or melody, we manifest not from our environment but with it.

A Quality of Mercy: How we Resent the Other as we Resent Ourselves

Leonard Nimoy in A Quality of Mercy (1961).

In the third season of The Twilight Zone (1961), Leonard Nimoy played a minor role in a tale of personal transformation penned by Rod Serling and Sam Rolfe. Typical of Serling's Twilight Zone series, the episode deals with social issues of prejudice, hatred, and personal blindness to one's own true motives.

In A Quality of Mercy a young, gungho officer arrives on the Philippine Islands at the scene of an attack. It's the final days of World War II and the American G.I.s are battle worn and weary from years of death, destruction and hatred. The Americans have cornered a platoon of Japanese soldiers in cave, many of whom are worse for the wear than the Americans themselves. Starving, spent, and trapped they pose no real threat to the American soldiers.

The United States' atomic attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have crippled Japan and these are the final days of the war. With nothing left to be lost nor to be gained, the G.I.s hope to avoid killing the cave full of wounded Japanese men. They are resolute to wait out the final days of the war without further slaughter.

Things change when Second Lieutenant Katell arrives. Fresh out of officer's training school and thirsty for Japanese blood, Katell is hankering for his piece of the action before the war ends. Although Sgt. Causarano and his men explain the senselessness of further bloodshed to the Lieutenant, he is unmoved. The officer reminds the soldiers who is in control and how he intends to have his men attack the cave. Leonard Nimoy, playing a private, adds (in a very Spock-like tone) "This one is bloodthirsty". Sgt. Causarano doesn't back down. He tells the Lieutenant,

"We've seen enough dead men to last the rest of our lives. The rest of our lives, lieutenant,  and then some. Now you've got a big yen to do some killing? Okay, we'll do some killing for you. But don't ask us to stand up and cheer."

As the lieutenant is preparing for battle, he chastises the sergeant for being "either battle fatigued or chicken." The sergeant attempts to introduce the lieutenant to himself,

"You're a pea-green, shaved hair, and just fresh from some campus. Afraid you won't bag your limit, or worse all shook-up because somebody might spot you as a "Johnny come lately" instead of a killer of men... You want to prove your manhood, but it's a little late in the day, there aren't many choices left as to how to do it. It all boils down to that cave full of sick, pitiful, half-dead losers and a platoon of dirty, tired men who've had a craw-full of this war."

The lieutenant is livid and barks back,

"You're a lousy soldier, and that goes for the rest of these poor, sick boys that you want me to bottle-feed. When you fight a war, you fight a war, and you kill until you're ordered to stop... No matter who they are or what they are, if they're the enemy they get it! First day of the war or last day of the war, they get it!"

This is where things become interesting. In his rage Lieutenant Katell drops his binoculars. When he reaches down to get them he is suddenly Lieutenant Yamuri, an officer in the Japanese army. He is startled to realize that he is leading an attack against a group of wounded Americans in a cave. He has entered, as Serling tells us, "into The Twilight Zone".

The remainder of the film describes the change of heart that the officer undergoes when he is in the position of the other. No longer trapped in his own malignant narcissism, the lieutenant is able to empathetically identify with the other, and this change of heart necessarily results in a change of his actions. The episode concludes with words from William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:

"The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain of the heaven upon the place beneath. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

We all have been Lieutenant Katell at certain times in our lives. While dealing with others on the highway, in the supermarket, or online, we tend to project the worst fears we have of ourselves onto others. Fleshing out assumptions about sex, gender, skin, body shape, ethnicity, wealth, poverty, and much more, we come to resent the other as a generalized amalgamation of all of our resentments.

It is easy to do this from a distance, because from afar we can only see the generalizations of our assumptions. As we get closer to the other, just as Lieutenant Katell becomes closer to Lieutenant Yamuri, we begin to see the other as a person, rather than as a conglomeration of that which we resent in ourselves. This is the entrance into empathy. Sigmund Freud tells us in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego that empathy begins with identification. It is not until Lt. Katell identifies with  the other, literally seeing the world from their eyes, that he develops a sense of himself in relation with the other.  In this way, it is only through empathy, or mercy as Shakespeare puts it, that one can take away the self-hatred that one acts upon others. 

The Blue Dress: On The Phenomenology of Color Perception

In the first psychology class, taught by William James at Harvard in 1872, the psychological perception of reality was demonstrated with a fascinating experiment. James arranged three buckets of water on a table; one hot, one room temperature, and one ice-cold. He then asked a student to hold their left hand in the hot water while holding their right hand in the ice-cold water. After a few minutes, James instructed the student to place both hands in the room-temperature bucket. What the student felt was astounding, to the left hand the water felt ice-cold, and to the right hand the water felt hot. Although both hands were in the same bucket of water, each hand experienced something entirely different.

This experiment in perception illustrates the precedence of context in our experience of reality. Every quality that we experience, be it temperature, color, flavor, odor, or tone, is a result of the contrast between it and what precedes it, or what it is enframed in. Take for example the traditional rules of wine tasting. When we are tasting wines, it is customary to begin with dry wines and then proceed to sweet wines. The result in violating this rule is that a dry wine tastes extremely dry if preceded by a sweet wine. It is also convention to "cleanse the palate" between tasting different wines with water or bread, which acts to establish the same contextual transition between wines. In other words the new wine is always introduced with the same flavor (water or bread). This prohibits the wines from interfering with each other.

In color perception the case is similar. The color that we perceive is always dependent on the context within which that color exists. Take for example these three images. The color in the center (we call this the figure) seems to change depending on the context which surrounds it (called the ground). Although in isolation the center color is stable, in the framed with a different context, the color itself changes. In psychology we call this enframing gestalt.

In music a tone takes on meaning depending on the key in which it played. For example, the tone "C" (do) takes on different perceptual meanings in the key of C major than in the key of F major. The tone itself takes on meaning in the context of the key in within which it exists. In this way, we come to understand that the perceptual meaning of a stimulus is always enframed and never in isolation. Even in isolation, the note is preceded by silence, which is the context. Perception and meaning is always contextual.

Screenshot from wired.com.

This week's Internet craze is the "blue" dress. Debates are taking place as to whether the dress in the picture is really blue or gold. Taking the Gestalt principle of enframing into consideration, we understand that the color of the dress is a perceptual phenomenon dependent on the context within which it exists.

Beyond the question of the dress color is a deeply rooted debate in the philosophy of science. It is the debate between the views of universalism and relativism in human experience.

The belief that we see the world as it is, and that we can arrive at some objective, quantitative, categorization of stimulus is called naive realism. This is the view of empirical science, which holds that all stimulus can be measured and categorized.

The opposing view is that of phenomenalism. This view holds that experience might be quantifiably measurable in isolation, but its meaning is always dependent on the context within which it exist (time context and space context), as well as the context of the biology and life experience (history) of the viewer. For the phenomenologically oriented, reality is always a participatory experience of a perceiver and the perceived. 

Immanuel Kant made the distinction this way: The thing as it exist in itself he called the noumenon. The perceptual experience that we have of the thing he called the phenomenon. For universalists the noumenon is studied empirically through measurement. For phenomenologists the important thing to study is the phenomenon.

Sir Isaac Newton laid out an objective theory of color which most research in psychophysics is based on. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe disagreed with Newton and proposed a theory of contextual experience, which is often favored by phenomenologists.

Take for example the experience of temperature. Two people are in the same room, but one is cold and the other is warm. The empirical or quantitative researcher would be interested in the quantitative temperature of the room; what the thermometer says. The deference to measurement, the empiricist says, will tell us what the "objective" reality of the room temperature is.

The phenomenologist points out that regardless of the quantitative measurement of temperature, what is truly important is each individual's experience of the room, it is a qualitative (comfortable or uncomfortable) experience that matters most. 

The same experience holds true for time. Depending on what we are focusing on (our intentionality) we experience time differently. This is why "time flies when we're are having fun," the phenomenological perception of time is dependent on the context of the individual's intention.

The ancient Greeks made a distinction between chronos time and kairos time. Chronos time is the time on your watch; the quantitative measurement of time. Kairos is time as experienced. If you are dating someone new and wondering how many dates should pass before you have your first kiss, you are thinking in chronos time. If you just allow the kiss take place at the "right time," you are living in kairos time.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger pointed out that to fully embrace the world, we must consider both the objective view (he called this ontic) as well as the phenomenological view (he called this ontological). Those who prefer to view perceptual experience as something objective to measure typically embrace the quantitative, scientific view. Others, who prefer to understand the world phenomenologically, become artists, poets, and writers--Sometimes psychologists.

And then there is the question of language and culture. It turns out that "blue" is just a signifier for a signified. But we will save that for another day. In the final analysis we accept the wisdom of the Surangama Sutra, "Things are not what they appear to be, nor are they otherwise."

The Social Responsibility of the Press: Lessons From the 1947 Hutchins Commission

Journalists and the media platforms that broadcast their work play an essential role in the American version of democracy. Those who write the news, produce, and distribute it act as an unofficial fourth estate of government. Founders including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson felt that the press should act as a watchdog that keeps-in-check the actions of the executive, legislative, and judicial estates of government.

The history of journalism is necessarily entangled with the history of technology. With each technological revolution, the fourth estate has undergone considerable transformations. In its earliest appearance town criers would read the news aloud to a largely illiterate citizenry. The press came to refer to the news when figures such as  John Campbell, John Peter Zenger, and Benjamin Franklin established press-printed news broadsheets; early forms of print newspapers. The technological transition passed from an oral, to print, to electronic, and currently to digital medium which has been described as a networked fourth estate or a fifth estate. Marshall McLuhan's (now banal) declaration that, "the medium is the message," points to the fact that technology influences how we receive, process, and react to information.

Print magazines tell us what happened last week. Print newspapers tell us what happened yesterday. Facebook tells us what just happened, and Twitter tells us what is about to happen. With the transition from print to digital media, we encountered a compressing of time between when something happened and when it was reported. With each technological shift we find a decrease in time between event and reporting. This necessarily means that information being reported will change.

We find that a weekly news magazines, either in print or digital format will be longer, more in-depth, and presented in a way that is necessarily distant from the event itself. The time available to the journalist for research, thinking, and writing lends itself to a more deliberate style of reporting. At the opposite end of this spectrum is the Twitter-like, 24/7 news flow that was introduced by CNN in 1980. News that is reported live is necessarily less deliberate, less thoughtful, and less researched than is weekly or even daily news. It is intrinsically more reactive than other forms of news.

There is a direct relationship between the time taken to report and the accuracy, depth, understanding, and ethicality of that which is reported. We find that the more time between the event and the reporting on it, the more deliberate and credible the reporting is. With the as-it-happens presentation of the news comes a certain rumorous buzz that appeals the most base aspects of our species. Being in the know is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past.

During World War II the publisher of both Time and Life magazines, Henry Luce, became increasingly aware of the important role that the media played in modern democracy. Luce was one of the most influential Americans of the mid-twentieth century, and Life magazine was a dominant weekly, photojournal that shaped the public's opinion of the war. In 1943 Luce approached the president of the University of Chicago, Robert Hutchins to lead a Commission on Freedom of the Press to scientifically evaluate the impact of media on American democracy.

The findings of the Hutchins Commission were published in 1947. The 140 page report described the influence of mass media on society and its implications for a healthful democracy. Of particular interest is the final section of the last chapter entitled, What can be Done by the Public. The suggestions by the commission of university academics are relevant to us today and essential to building a media literate citizenry in the age of media saturation.

The Hutchins Commission concluded that journalists needed to take more social responsibility in their reporting of the news. The commission established five requirements for members of the press:

1. The media should provide a truthful, comprehensive and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning.
2. The media should serve as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism.
3. The media should project a representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.
4. The media should present and clarify the goals and values of the society.
5. The media should provide full access to the day's intelligence.

At the heart of the concluding chapter of the report, we find an emphatic message to the government and to the American people: the real power of the media is in the hands of the people. Despite the overwhelming nature of the news media shower, we alone have the choice to engage or disengage the media. The potency of our vote through our consumption practices exceeds the potency of our vote at the polling station. The report describes:

"The people of this country are the purchasers of the products of the press. The effectiveness of buyers' boycotts, even of very little ones, has been amply demonstrated. Many of these boycotts are the wrong kind for the purposes; they are the work of pressure groups seeking to protect themselves from justifiable criticism or to gain some special advantage. The success of their efforts indicates what a revolt of the American people against the service given them by the press might accomplish." (Pg. 96)

The report continues, 

"What is needed, first of all, is recognition by the American people of the vital importance of the press in the present world crisis. We have the impression that the American people do not realize what has happened to them. They are not aware that the communications revolution has occurred. They do not appreciate the tremendous power which the new instruments and the new organizations of the press place in the hands of a few men. They have not yet understood how far the performance of the press falls short the requirements of a free society in the world today. The principal object our report is to make these points clear."

What we find here is a direct message from academics to the American people. The true power in matters legislative, judicial, and executive lies in the individual choice to engage with media. In other words the choice to subscribe, to support advertisers, to "like," and to share --or not to-- wields more influence than any other factor in our media landscape.

Revisiting the Hutchins Report repays dividends ten-fold. In it we not only find advice relevant to us today, but also an example of the vital role that our intellectuals and academics play in democracy today.

Direct comments, questions, & corrections to Matthew Giobbi.