(A reflection on John Peters' "Dialogue and Dissemination")
Perhaps it is true, as Peters implies, that the distaste for media began with Socrates who condemned it even before it was born. The great thinker hailed dialogue as an integral aspect of human relationships, equating its reciprocity with respect for the individual—the message is lovingly intended for a particular, and the receiver is entitled to respond. In contrast, writing- and, subsequently, media- is impersonal and has no regard for the receiver’s individuality. The message is simply thrown into the abyss, without care for what the receiver feels and thinks.
Perhaps it is true, as Peters implies, that the distaste for media began with Socrates who condemned it even before it was born. The great thinker hailed dialogue as an integral aspect of human relationships, equating its reciprocity with respect for the individual—the message is lovingly intended for a particular, and the receiver is entitled to respond. In contrast, writing- and, subsequently, media- is impersonal and has no regard for the receiver’s individuality. The message is simply thrown into the abyss, without care for what the receiver feels and thinks.
When an idea is proffered by a man of Socrates’ stature and so
precociously, it is difficult not to grant it legitimacy. Through the years, society
has learned to approach media with caution. While Socrates’ dialogue is seen as
the intimate meeting of souls, media is regarded as dehumanizing. It brings to
mind dreadful images of men passive in front of the TV, helpless captives of
the inundation of hyper-reality—men who, despite their physical togetherness,
are violently detached from society. What Peters does most effectively is to
create an alternate and less bleak history of media by drawing from the wisdom
of another great thinker in human history—Jesus.
By utilizing the evangelical work of Jesus, the quintessential man, to
explain dissemination, Peters has humanized media. He pulled Socrates’ dialogue
down to earth, exposing the superficiality of its reciprocity and intimacy. Dialogue
may result into an imposition of the sender’s idea onto the receiver. The
receiver may respond but only so that the sender may ascertain that his message
is clearly understood. He may respond only so that he may be realigned to the
sender’s ideals. His views do not matter. It is dissemination that truly
respects the individual. Here, the message is not imposed on the receiver but
is simply thrown “out there” like the seeds in the parable. The sender does not
address a particular receiver because he acknowledges that he cannot know the
receiver’s particularities. He respects the individual’s uniqueness and so,
instead of imposing the message, he allows the receiver to accept and interpret
it in light of his personal context. The men in front of the TV are not passive
spectators. They are free to accept and understand as they wish. They are not
detached from society but are in fact communing with it. Perhaps it is here,
more than in exclusive tête-à-têtes, that the true meeting of souls occurs.
