Silent movies - a thing of the past, or an entertainment trend of the future. This summer, while watching the movie “Frost/Nixon,” (part of my and Chuck’s attempt to catch up on grown up movies while the girls were at overnight camp) this perplexing image of the future of silent movies ran through my mind. It came during the scene where that life altering telephone call made by an apparently inebriated Richard Nixon to media personality David Frost on the eve of his final day of interviewing was played out for the movie goer. I couldn’t help but question and imagine how that critical scene would play out today.
This pivotal telephone scene had little if any action - it relied almost exclusively on spoken dialogue for its drama. The verbal interaction coupled with expressive body language and facial expressions made this scene effective. Like this scene, “Talkies”, as modern sound movies were originally called, are, in general, dependent on just that - talk! In the absence of talk, of dialogue, we are left with action, but no speech. Action accompanied by music and text messaging, well they weren’t called that in their day but in essence that is what those snipets of framed text were: abbreviated dialogue - just enough to get the basic plot across to the viewer. The Silent Movie.
Parents, particularly of teens, among us know that our youth are talking far less than in previous generations; instead, they’re busy exercising their thumbs in that newest form of non-verbal communication called ‘texting’. And let us be honest with ourselves, it is not just our youth who are joining the thumb aerobics craze. We can try to dismiss the replacement of voice communication with text as part of the recurrent generation gap between parents and their children, yet I sense a far larger revolution taking place in how we speak to and how we interact with one another. One with profound implications yet to be fully understood: sound is no longer the primary vehicle for human speech and dialogue.
Humans have always had the capacity to communicate without sound; and thankfully when our ears our incapacitated, our brains can adapt fairly easily enabling us to rely solely on visual as opposed to auditory cues for communication. But, given a choice, scientists remind us that the human brain reflexively counts on hearing, on sound, for the development and expression of language. Language experts go as far as to tribute the origin of language to physiological developments in the early human ear. Our distinctly human capacity to organize noise into meaningful acoustical patterns apparently gives us an edge over the rest of the animal kingdom in the capacity to develop language.
Yet, imagine our lives without sound - some of us have to live without sound, few of us would choose to do so entirely. Silent movies became obsolete because of the very richness and depth of human characterization that ‘talkies’ - that spoken language - gave to creative hands of the movie industry.
Today we are more often than not choosing to give up sound/spoken language as our primary means of talking: instead of voice to voice phone calls, let alone face to face conversation, text-ing, Facebook statuses, and Tweets have become normative vehicles for communication. And, again - not only among our youth. Many of us, of all ages, perhaps due in large part to the influence of the young people in our lives, are relying increasingly on these non-verbal methods of speaking, even when within ear shot of each other, even in the privacy of our own homes [perhaps I should be texting this sermon – I think I spotted a few Blackberries and Iphones on the way in].
We can only imagine the ultimate impact of these new faceless, voiceless, and public forms of communication on our society. While I imagine silent movies, columnist and Public Radio personality Garrison Keillor is convinced there wouldn’t even have been a Watergate to dramatize in film in this new media age where virtually all communication is written, digitized, and made publicly accessible.
Like these Yamim No’raim, technology is awesome: both in terms of what it can do for us as well as the responsibility it demands of us. Indeed, our increasing dependance on written dialogue as a replacement for human interaction can be greatly attributed to the prevalence of the Internet and the advances of the digital age. The Internet has the potential to transform our lives exponentially, and for many it has already done so. It has redefined the ‘convenience store.’ Not only in terms of shopping - for sure, at the stroke of a cursor (perhaps too easy a stroke), we have a virtual shopping mall of options far more expansive than a trip to our local mall centers, -- but more importantly, in terms of information: the Internet has the capacity to put incredible amounts of information into our hands at incredible speed. Imagine back to the days when bound, now seemingly cumbersome encyclopedia volumes were our primary resources for information. Perhaps as cumbersome to us now as scrolls became to those in the Middle Ages. When Encyclopedia Brittanica lined our bookshelves and even the coveted Jr. version was a valued possession. When research on any topic beyond that encyclopedic entry actually required a trip to the library and a conversation with a librarian. Today a Google, or if Microsoft has their way a Bing, search puts a vast, often overwhelming, amount of information in our hands in a virtual instant, and it is our responsibility to discern what is useful and useless without the help of a trained expert at our side. Google books, a highly accessible and vast digital library puts resources from collections around the world onto each of our individual desk and laptops within seconds, and despite what Google says - with no human intermediary. Email, though increasingly archaic now that texting is so prevelant, enables us to communicate with colleagues, friends, and family located throughout the world easily and inexpensively. The Internet enables us to reach and communicate with those who in previous generations may have been unreachable, left out on the margins of society. The Internet has given voice to those unable to speak or at the very least those in the past who were unable to be heard. Remarkably, earlier this year, for instance, we watched, we read - as the Internet give voice to those underlying democratic tendencies in Iran following their controversial election, tendencies that in the past would have been left buried and largely unnoticed.
At the same time as the Internet and the capacity for non-verbal written communication has opened up the world and provided an enormous freedom of expression, it has as equal if not greater capacity to shut us in. We could in the foreseeable future have no pressing reason to leave the comfort of our homes. We can work, shop, interact socially, find entertainment, keep up with the news, all from in front of a small screen. [Anyone see the movie “Wall-e”?]
As early as 1998, sociological studies reported on the detrimental effect of Internet usage on society. Despite the incredible advances and the enrichment the Internet can bring into our lives, the reality remains that the more time one spends in front of this interactive screen the less time one is engaged with real live human beings: our friends, our neighbors, even our family members. Norman Nie, a Stanford researcher, argued close to a decade ago (long before any of us were ‘Linked In’), that “the Internet could be the ultimate isolating technology” further distancing us from participation in our communities. The Internet, Professor Nie presciently claimed would make a far greater impact on society than the television or the automobile ever did. I wonder - it may compete or even surpass the revolutionary impact of the printing press.
The Internet gives us a certain degree of independence in its ability to put everything in our hands without intermediaries. And we like that as Americans, don’t we - we value independence and the ability to accomplish tasks without help. Yet, independence at the expense of social interconnectedness not only impedes our ability to succeed but dehumanizes us and is ultimately detrimental to our over all well-being. We humans are social creatures; we thrive on relationships, yes on being dependent on one another. Ben Sherwood, the author of The Survivor’s Club, a book on the personality characteristics of those able to survive challenge and trauma, notes that social connections between humans are vital to our survival. Sherwood argues that isolation not only leads to the emotional strains of loneliness, but can more often than not lead to physiological distress. Quoting various scientific studies, he draws attention to data that indicate that social isolation - such an extreme independence where one has no support - is as great a risk factor, if not greater, for physical illness and death than smoking or high cholesterol.
Our American media does well at highlighting - glorifying - the success of the individual, but more often than not those individuals in our society who are most successful are those who allow themselves to be connected with and dependent on others for support. David Frost may have succeeded in capturing that critical and memorable moment of regret and defeat in the life of Richard Nixon, yet Frost’s ability to succeed at his task was fully dependent on the lesser known work of his researchers, financial backers, and producer not to mention, as the movie tells it, Nixon’s own foibles.
Don’t get me wrong, I am, frankly, in awe of the advances of the Internet and the new forms of digitized communication it provides. Perhaps in my role as a student I feel its impact the greatest. That I can easily access academic articles published in Israel or communicate with students and scholars around the world instantly from the comfort of my home office in Pikesville astounds me and makes my task easier. I certainly couldn’t do that the first time I was a graduate student. As a parent, that I can order my kids’ piano books, school supplies, and even their school uniforms (let alone my own clothes, and shoes!) all quickly and easily from home is an enormous time, gas, and hassle saver. As responsible adults, that Chuck and I can track and pay all of our bills (okay, its primarily Chuck, he is the accountant) without ever having to stamp an envelope or wait in line at the bank. And like so many, I admit to enjoying and perhaps sharing too much information keeping in touch with new friends while getting reacquainted with old through e-based social networks. Yet as much as I gladly depend on the Internet, its convenience, and its vast offerings, I remain acutely aware of what is missing.
Face to face human interaction.
And despite my frequent visits and activity, or its deceiving name, I don’t mean the Facebook variety.
So how do we overcome this incredible challenge? We need technology. We want our technology. Facebook, Twitter, instant text messaging - for all the challenges they raise, they have transformed our lives in positive ways; and few if any of us really want to turn the clock back. Let not our hindsight be clouded by those all too easy to wear rose colored glasses. Sure, we may grow misty eyed at the end of face-face personal service, yet be clear that what makes us misty eyed has nothing to do with the practical commercial aspects of this change (the Internet can often do that better in many cases), rather it is the human aspects that we mourn. The recollection, for instance in my case, of walking into Padelson’s that glorious, full service music store in Manhattan (one that my own internet shopping habits helped to close) and being waited on by a human being as equally interested in music as I; being greeted with a friendly and sincere shanah tovah while picking up a deli order at Edmart in Pikesville -- that is at the heart of what we glamorize about the past. Face to face human interaction and dialogue! We miss the people, not the product.
We must work to nurture our capacity for dialogue and human relationship in this Internet age in order to balance the potentially isolating effects of living in a society where everything and everyone is conveniently reachable through a square box that sits either on a desk or more likely these days in the palm of one’s hand. This requires a concerted effort. An effort that previous generations could not even have imagined, and one that perhaps we have yet to fully imagine ourselves. We just may have to figure it out as we go along.
One thing is for sure, the synagogue can and must be a haven for human dialogue and social support. I admit, a shameless plug - one, though, you must have seen coming. Even in our attempts to keep Temple Emanuel current by having an interactive website, e-newsletters, and a tech committee that explores other ways in which we can use technology to make our congregation not only greener, but more vibrant, educationally relevant, and user-friendly, we must at the same time remain committed to being a Beit Keneset - a place, a home where people gather face to face, not just on line, not just through Facebook, but in person.
Perhaps the dilemma is not new. In the later half of the 18th century, Enlightened German philosopher, Moses Mendelssohn cautioned against giving too much weight to the written word. Recalling the ancient prohibition of fixing the oral law into writing, Mendelssohn argured that Jewish life - as he conceived of it through law and action - thrived in human debate. In his treastise, Jerusalem (published in 1783), Mendelssohn wrote, commenting specifically on the impact of printing,
“The diffusion of writings and books...has entirely transformed man. [causing a] great upheaval in the whole system of human knowledge and convictions ...” (p. 103, Jerusalem).” “Everything is dead letter; the spirit of living conversation has vanished.”
Though admitting that the “bygone days of ancient times” were not necessarily better than his own era, recall Mendelssohn was a passionate advocate of modernity, he did argue that in the era where oral transmission was primary, “Man was more necessary to man; teaching was more closely connected with life, contemplation more intimately bound up with action.”
Judaism has historically looked almost exclusively to the past in its effort to carry its values and wisdom forward as it faced the future, notes Rabbi Harold Schulweiss, the editor of the book, Jews and Judaism in the 21st Century. A model that Mendelssohn too seemed to understand may be untenable in our modern world. His 18th century remarks compel us not to look solely to the past - to what is fixed in writing - for truth, put instead to reaffirm the centrality of human responsibility and human debate in the continual flourishing of Jewish life. He saw books as inadequate replacements for Jewish life and learning, so too the computer, the internet, are inadequate replacements today. Necessary and vital tools - yes, no question. Replacements - absolutely not.
Our movement’s magazine, Reform Judaism’s summer issue, entitled, “CyberSanctuary” explored and documented the myriad of ways in which congregations throughout the country are taking advantage of technology in order to enrich worship and enhance education. It had great and exciting ideas from which we can learn: Internet based Hebrew and B’nai Mitzvah tutoring, on-line streaming of worship services, sermon podcasts instead of written posts, projected visual worship.... At the same time, while not considered the lead story, this issue also had a substantial section on “Hardship and Hope” where human relationships were featured as the antidote to despair. A paradox? Certainly not.
Maybe not conscious on the agenda of the editors, but a clear message that the heart of a synagogue remains always the people - it is the human relationships that are central: not the space, not the classroom, not the technology, no matter how necessary that technology is to the functioning of a 21st century synagogue, but the ‘minyan.’
The synagogue must continue to remain viable places for face-to-face dialogue through the pursuit of Torah, study in the form of chevruta, partnered, respectful dialogue and debate; the pursuit of Avodah, worship that requires a communal gathering to engage in responsive prayer; and the pursuit of g’milut chasadim, just acts that we do along with and for others. All of this must continue to happen here, and all of this requires a human presence.
Perhaps our earliest sages understood that it is the human need for community and interconnectedness that makes these tasks, Torah, Avodah, and G’milut Chasadim, “Al Shelosha d’varim ha-olam omeid” the 3 pillars upon which our world stands. More than anything else, it is the minyan that defines the synagogue - that gathering of people who come together to bring Torah to life: to worship, to study, to support one another through the mess of life.
Our involvement in Jewish life, in the life of our Temple Emanuel community, this offers the vital foundation of social support in our modern, text based world. Let us all work together to make it so - to continue to make Temple Emanuel such a gathering place, a Beit Knesset in this upcoming year of 5770. Ken y’hi ratzon.
No comments:
Post a Comment