Some Thoughts on Hedges

I have to admit, I enjoyed how provocative Hedges’s column proved to be. I especially liked the discussions it prompted in class and on the blog comment threads. I know the column tested the generosity of some readers, which is a good test. I also know the column is not without significant faults. I think it was useful, however, in raising some important questions about literacy and in serving as a comparison to other perspectives and authors we have read so far this semester.

The primary point of contention for many was Hedges’s tone. He came off as obstinate and elitist. Part of that may be due to how strongly he advocates for his position. There isn’t much ambiguity in Hedges’s piece, which is a little surprising seeing that a loss of ambiguity is one of the symptoms he associates with an image-based society. People contrasted Hedges to Carr for Carr’s recognition of other views and inclusion of ambiguity. Rhetorical strategies vary depending upon context and purpose. But if you gained an appreciation for Carr’s approach, that may be something to keep in mind for your own writing. Sometimes pushing an argument too hard can force readers to push back in ways you don’t want.

Another significant issue raised in response to Hedges’s piece was his positioning relative those he described as illiterate. These seemed overly deterministic to some, as if these people cannot think for themselves and act upon their own interests. Hedges writes that they are “powerless.” An important distinction to make here, and one that Hedges makes better in other areas of his work, is that between people and systems. I don’t think Hedges is targeting the people as much as he is the social and political systems that he views as fostering and benefiting from a shift to an “image-based society.” In the second-to-last paragraph he writes of the “tens of millions of Americans who will be ruthlessly thrust aside” and that “They will be led toward glittering and self-destructive illusions by our modern Pied Pipers—our corporate advertisers, our charlatan preachers, our television news celebrities, our self-help gurus, our entertainment industry and our political ideologues.” I think his anger is directed primarily at those he considers Pied Pipers, the ones doing the ruthless thrusting, more so than at those who are being trust aside. At the same time, describing people as though they are lemmings is not so charitable. And Hedges does not here offer solutions. I don’t think a better Pied Piper would be satisfactory.

The important questions I see Hedges raising have to do with people, systems of power, and the very idea of literacy. What are the differences between what he calls “text-based” and “image-based” societies? Do we agree with him, what are the uses and limits of these ideas, what value do they have? I was glad to see the reading provoked people to think about some of these questions, even if in strong disagreement with what Hedges wrote or how he wrote it.

Hedges is not a scholar of literacy, and he uses the term in ways that others might not. Literacy is a much discussed topic in an array of academic disciplines. Sylvia Scribner wrote an important article titled “Literacy in Three Metaphors.” I’ve posted it on Blackboard in the Readings section in a folder title Elective. You are not required or expected to read it (at least not yet). But for those of you interested in the idea, it may prove interesting discussion and of use for your essay at the end of this unit. We’ll talk more about these questions in class.

Keep up the good work.