Does Modern Orthodoxy Not Believe in Fun? A Response to Rabbi Yitzhak Blau, Part II

Is TV Really So Bad?

Before we continue, let’s make something clear. Even the most ardent defender of television will admit that it is full of garbage, filler and useless information. The time spent on it is often far beyond what could be called necessary or even fun. Too often, our addiction to the “boob tube” will result in flipping channels aimlessly for hours, not even gaining the enjoyment television is supposed to provide.

My argument against Rabbi Blau in the post below is not to argue that TV is flawless. Rather, its purpose is to point out that it TV is a tool of communication, one of many, which can greatly contribute to knowledge and moral understanding as well “corrupt youth” if misused. In this post, I will deal directly with Rav Blau’s primary arguments against television, organized according to category. Each accusation of Rav Blau will appear with my verdict regarding the charge. The verdict will then be explained.

Accusation #1: TV Dumbs Down Content

Verdict: Not applicable

As I said above, television is nothing more than a form of communication – no different from the oral communication of conversation, the textual communication of print and writing, or the oral and visual communication of plays. It contains both fiction and non-fiction, high-level and low-brow. Like any form of communication, it has its own grammar, vocabulary and rules of presentation.

To say that TV “dumbs down” content presumes that oral communication must follow the rules of print communication. Anyone who has ever held a conversation will know that what can be tolerated in print will never work in speech. Even in universities, no-one would tolerate the oral presentation of an argument in the same form as the long, tedious and often convoluted and esoteric technique used in academic writing. It may sound distinguished, but the point would never get across.

In order to get points across orally, TV must resort to different methods, which include making the message as simple or at least as concise as possible. At most, TV can use visual aids, backgrounds, music and human expression to add resonance to the concise message.

As an educational tool, TV can work wonders in making complex subjects written in often unreadable or at least specialized tomes accessible to ordinary humans. Channels like National Geographic and the History Channel, the great documentaries like Ken Burns’ Civil War and Jazz and so on are all products made for TV. Not only do they often explain issues better, they make them relatable in ways very few books can.

I also find myself puzzled by Rav Blau’s attack on TV news programs. Yes, it’s true – TV news shows and political programs, even the more sophisticated ones, cannot, by definition, reach the level of detail of a printed argument. Yet what they lack in this department, they more than make up for in relative clarity. Not everyone has the time to read magazine-level analyses of issues on a daily basis, and many aren’t interested in the first place, for reasons that have nothing to do with TV.

I also have to wonder – what possible interest or understanding could an 8-year old, or even a 13 year old, have of the budget debates or deep moral quandaries that Rav Blau is so desperate to have them be engrossed in them? Why is there a need for them to do so?

I realize I have left out the issue of fictional shows, and this omission is deliberate – I will deal with that with accusation #3.

Accusation #2: TV destroys critical faculties

Verdict: Partially Guilty

Another accusation Rabbi Blau levels against TV is that its emphasis on sound bytes and visual means makes it a useful tool for emotional manipulation. The images on TV are irresistible and brook no rational argument. If you want proof for how destructive this can be, look no further than the Al-Dura blood libel, where a single picture of a frightened child mixed with false accusations led to mass demonization of Israel.

There is some truth to this charge, but I believe it Rav Blau is exaggerating this issue, for two reasons:

While it is true that images and TV can lie and manipulate, they can also inspire and enrich. The sight of the Israeli soldier in the river in the Six Day War, the landing of Man on the Moon and other images lead to positive, not negative results. Furthermore, there are many alternative sources of information available for your average person, including other news channels with different political slants and most importantly, the internet. In a world where TV is the only means of communication, or when the audience is totally ignorant on the issue, TV can sway them in the manner R. Blau mentions. Otherwise, it adds little.

More importantly, the idea that any particular segment on TV is irresistible and not subject to criticism is belied by the fact that people have different taste in TV shows – they avoid shows they don’t like, drop shows that change not to their liking. Indeed, the very phenomenon of “channel surfing” would seem to refute the idea that whatever’s on TV will suck you in.

More than that, though – unless people live entirely alone, they will often discuss TV shows with their friend or at least family, and disagreements on characters and plots are often inevitable. TV is certainly often a time-waster and can be manipulative if one is not careful or knowledgeable, but the idea that TV watchers lose all or even the majority of their critical faculties in selecting and approving of TV content just doesn’t seem to ring true to me.

Accusation #3: TV contributes nothing of moral value

Verdict: Not Guilty

The best expression of Rav Blau’s contempt for television and movies is his statement that while he can recommend hundreds of worthwhile books, he can recommend maybe 30 movies of intrinsic worth (likely about as many TV shows). The message inherent in these words is obvious – very, very little of visual media provides material of value.

Perhaps it is because I have always had a penchant for cop and law shows, but my experience has generally been the exact opposite of Rav Blau’s. No-one, in my opinion, can watch shows like Homicide: Life on the Street or Hill Street Blues, or even Law and Order and say that these shows do not discuss issues of value, in a powerful and generally balanced manner. The plethora of ethical, legal and psychological issues brought up in these shows is breathtaking. In fact, I would argue that Rav Blau would benefit from using them as great examples for a discussion of sachar va’onesh, or the debate between objective individual justice and maintaining the integrity of the justice system at large (“technicalities” &c).

Even putting aside cop shows, though, good science fiction shows can bring up issues of what it means to be human; a well-made drama can demonstrate the complications of human relationships. Show of hands, who has watched House, or lehavdil Scrubs, and not been fascinated by the many ethical and emotional issues of practicing medicine? My point is that the discerning TV viewer can gain much of value – if they learn, or are taught, how to look for it.

Rav Blau knows only 30 worthwhile movies? I can name at least a hundred off the top of my head, only a small number of which I will mention here: Citizen Kane. Casablanca. The Shawshank Redemption. The Truman Show. Judgment at Nuremberg. The Dark Knight. Cast Away. Se7en. Up. Beauty and the Beast. Toy Story (1, 2 and 3). American History X. When Harry Met Sally. Defiance. The Godfather, I and II. Tootsie. Kramer Vs. Kramer. To Kill A Mockingbird. Wall Street. Terminator II. Saving Private Ryan. Marvin’s Room. And so on and so forth.

Notice that I restricted myself largely to the uber-serious movies and largely avoided comedies and dramas. If I had included them (and there are many that are worthwhile), the list would have been even longer. I believe, however, that my point has been made. There is much value in visual fiction both on TV and in movies – the trick is to lean or be taught how to tell the good stuff from the trash.

Accusation #4: TV Endorses Sexual Promiscuity

Verdict: Guilty – With A Caveat

Finally, Rabbi Blau refers to an argument that is often the clincher in these discussions – the open endorsement or toleration of frequent and open sexual relations on TV. Programs talk about sex, hint at sex and sometimes obliquely film sex. Girls especially are sent the message that they must do nothing but focus on their looks and do everything to “get physical” with boys.

There is no point in denying the above-described phenomenon; I personally received my sexual education from Beverly Hills 90210. TV programs, especially those aimed at teenagers and young adults, are generally contemptuous of abstinence, especially the kind endorsed by religious groups. If anything, many of them do everything possible to entice the viewer sexually to the point of outright vouyerism, whether it’s watching a hot guy or girl or waiting for them to kiss or get down and dirty. It is only natural, then, that many impressionable girls, already naturally raging with hormones, would be affected.

All this is true, but it is not the whole story. The other side of the coin is the complete failure of Orthodoxy in general, and Modern Orthodoxy in particular, to deal with sex except as a complete taboo. Indeed, until very recently, the policy of most Religious Zionist high schools was little different from their Charedi counterparts. Sex is not discussed, except to scream and yell about the evils of masturbation and run private inquiries about student’s virginity or lack thereof, or go on patrol to expel girls who hang out with boys and/or wear attractive clothing. Even pre-marital sex education focuses almost exclusively on prohibitions, and very little about not only the positive aspects of sex, but also its crucial nature as a means of pleasure and marital physical communication.

The result is a split population – a highly devout, but extremely neurotic group that thinks they’ll go to hell every time they masturbate or kiss a girl, and the other group that does it anyway and just doesn’t care.

My point in all this rambling is that TV is not the cause of all this, but merely a symptom. It wins the day not just because TV is so bad, but because Orthodoxy doesn’t offer anything else, and if it does, it doesn’t mention it. The almost paranoid fear of people committing sexual aveirot of various kinds is at the root of the hafrada craze, and MO has yet to come up with a more rational way of coping.

Of course, MO could always learn to teach kids (and adults, esp. Rabbis, educators and communities) to have a sense of proportion. They could knock it off with the “masturbation/sex=damnation” rhetoric and emphasize the always present possibility of teshuva. They could also spend much more time on sex as a positive, and far less obsession with whether or not someone accidentally miscounts one of R. Zeira’ seven nekiyim. But go ahead, blame TV. It’s much easier.

[Note: I am aware that I did not address Rabbi Blau’s comment about TV as a cause of social isolation. Rest assured it will be dealt with later in the essay – AIWAC]

Next: Modern Orthodoxy VS. Fun, or “Why So Serious”

Advertisements

About AIWAC

Hi, my name is Avi Woolf. I'm an American-Israeli MO Jew living in Israel. I have a background in Israeli (as in Land of Israel) and Jewish History and an insatiable need for knowledge. I also have professional experience as an editor, translator and indexer. Enjoy the ride! If you are interested in using my services or just want to drop me a line, contact me at: opdycke1861NOSPAM@yahoo.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Does Modern Orthodoxy Not Believe in Fun? A Response to Rabbi Yitzhak Blau, Part II

  1. fred says:

    oy.
    first off, you are avoiding the issue, instead going for your old soapbox about sex in the mo world. in fact tv lionizes free sex. this is a problem.
    second: masturbation, by most counts, is a biblical prohibition. for those things you go to hell. also, i doubt many are 1-time offenders, and probably most are repeat offenders; would this put them in the category of mumar le-teiavon?

    • AIWAC says:

      fred,

      …and knowing as you do that a huge chunk of people will be repeat offenders regardless – do you talk about tshuva and tell people not to be obsessed about it, or do you make it worse by increasing anxiety about something they’ll do anyway? Your call. My Rabbi (in post-high school yeshiva) did the former.

      I didn’t avoid anything; I specifically said that the TV issue is a problem in this area, I just don’t think it’s the whole problem. I think a more compassionate attitude that allows for the reality that many will falter in this area is more appropriate. We can agree to disagree, but I certainly did not take the first opportunity to get back on the soap box – the sexual issue is at the end of the post בכלל.

  2. I’m going to have to disagree with your arguments but not the conclusion. TV is a neutral tool – without programming it is completly useless. To put it bluntly, there is no point in arguing whether TV is good or bad – just arguing about whether there are good shows or not.
    Secondly – and this is where I hoped you were going – Our yeshivah years have taught us to classify everything as “good” or “bad”. This is especially true with usage of time – anything not torah is bitul torah etc. In truth much of TV does not enter either category – it may not be educational, but neither is it sending you to hell.
    Thirdly – if you are grown up and mature you can avoid the really bad shows. Exactly like you can avoid the really bad books. TV is not an all or nothing deal.
    As to sex on TV – I’m not sure if its the chicken or the egg.

    And finally – how did “The Dark Knight” make your list?

    • AIWAC says:

      You asked about the Dark Knight and not Terminator II :)?

      I chose it because it challenges the very concept of one of the classic “invincible” childhood heroes (Batman is often unsuccessful in the movie in saving people), and there’s a great deal to think about concerning how far do you go to protect yourself – even against someone like the Joker who cannot be explained away like many try to do with Al-Qaeda. But you’re free to disagree.

      Re: Continuation. I did not think about that (“good and “bad”). I think I will incorporate that in the last section. Thanks for reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s