This is Part 2 of my "Kill the Television" series. I'll be performing lectures and teaching workshops with a megaphone each weekend on the corner of East and 2nd.
"Television Is Bad Parenting"
If you found that title offensive, it's likely that you're a bad parent. So now that the offense is out of the way, we can move on.
If you're a parent, or might become one, please don't glaze over yet. Hear me out.
It all starts with evolution. Because of evolution, humans are social creatures - a necessity for survival when you don't have venomous fangs or claws. In order to work as teams, our ancestors were forced to develop a collective agreement on what's real, what is right and wrong, what's important in life, and what's best for mankind. Those agreements are, to some degree, built into our nature, but with development of technology there comes a time when we should stop and reassess the ways in which we've been programmed.
Consider the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a research psychologist, regarding what he refers to as "Flow". Flow is the same as what athletes would call being in the zone. You're facing a challenge, and although your skills are up to the job, it requires total and absolute concentration. Every ounce of your attention is on the task at hand, because distractions could mean failure. Csikszentmihalyi found that people feel best about themselves and most satisfied with their lives when they experience this state on a regular basis. Anyone who has ever achieved this state of mind (which is most of us) can attest to its effects, but most of us don't know how to achieve it at will.
Csikszentmihalyi's research has only uncovered one solid way to accomplish this, and that is to constantly challenge yourself, and to constantly improve.
So it seems that the optimal state of man occurs when he is constantly striving for improvement, as individuals and as a species . . . constantly pushing himself, constantly raising the bar, facing new challenges, accumulating knowledge and wisdom, and improving. A life of ease and comfort is probably what most people are aiming for, but studies have consistently shown that people are least content with their lives when they're doing passive activities, like watching the television. People enjoy life when they're doing something meaningful. You might enjoy watching your favorite shows, but when you weigh that against the things you could be achieving with the television off, the comparison is clear.
Here's my personal experience:
Several years ago, I moved into a new place and decided for the immediate future to forsake my cable television. It was supposed to be temporary. I had a lot to get done, and had to stay focused. I didn't want any distractions.
I assumed it would be tough and that I would be ordering cable in a matter of days, but I was wrong. For a day or so I wasn't sure what to do other than to make some music. So I sat in my home studio and worked for days straight. At first I would get tired after a while and want to take a break . . . and I had no idea what to do. I didn't want to stop the momentum; I just didn't have the energy left. So I stared at a wall until finally I got bored and went back in the studio. When I left the house, at least a small piece of my mind would always be looking for inspiration. I bought a digital voice recorder so that I could record ideas any time they came to me. Within a few weeks I had a collection of ideas so extensive that I'll never be able to finish them all.
This is my point: Removing the single largest offender of time waste creates a vacuum that has to be filled. You're not going to stare at the wall forever, and neither will your child. Your mind will get bored and look for ideas, and soon you'll be doing something different to fill your time. Whatever that thing is, surely it will be better for you than televegetating. If it happens to be something productive, that's even better.
Would anybody possibly disagree with the opinion that mankind would be better off if we lived our lives in this way, constantly learning and creating challenges rather than sitting in front of the television? If we agree on that much, then how can you possibly justify putting your child in front of a television set? Do you think that if your child has no television, he or she won't find something else to do? Maybe when deprived of television, children will go out and play with some friends. Maybe they'll get some exercise. Maybe children will begin reading books, like they used to do in ancient times. They may want to take some lessons in something. Maybe they'll do some thinking.
I'm not saying this is all without risk, though . . . it may force you to spend more time with them.