Michael Tolkin's 1991 essay, "Entertainment," presents a bleak vision of modern society, one increasingly consumed and ultimately degraded by its insatiable appetite for passive amusement. Tolkin contends that entertainment, in its relentless pursuit of superficial pleasure and instant gratification, erodes critical thinking, fosters apathy, and diminishes our capacity for genuine human connection and meaningful experience. He paints a picture of a populace willingly trading intellectual depth for shallow diversions, a trend he argues is not merely a symptom but a fundamental cause of societal decay. While Tolkin's observations about the pervasive nature of entertainment and its potential to numb are certainly resonant, his argument suffers from an oversimplification of human agency and a deterministic view of cultural change. Entertainment, rather than solely ruining society, also reflects and shapes it in complex ways, offering avenues for connection, critique, and even social change.
Tolkin's central claim rests on the idea that entertainment functions as a narcotic, dulling the senses and pacifying the mind. He suggests that the constant bombardment of easily digestible content—from television and movies to advertising—trains individuals to expect constant stimulation with minimal effort. This, in turn, makes engagement with more demanding forms of culture or intellectual pursuit seem arduous and unappealing. He notes, for instance, how the "quick cut" editing style prevalent in early television and film conditioned audiences to expect rapid scene changes, mirroring the fleeting nature of attention spans. This conditioning, Tolkin argues, makes sustained attention on complex issues—like political discourse or scientific inquiry—increasingly difficult, leading to an electorate easily swayed by simplistic slogans and emotional appeals rather than reasoned debate. The passive consumption of entertainment, in this view, leaves individuals ill-equipped to confront the challenges of a complex world.
However, this perspective overlooks the active role individuals play in consuming and interpreting media. The same television shows that Tolkin might have seen as mind-numbing can also serve as communal experiences, fostering discussion and shared cultural reference points. Consider the widespread phenomenon of popular television series like I Love Lucy in the 1950s or later, Seinfeld in the 1990s. These programs, while undeniably entertainment, also provided a common ground for millions, sparking conversations and reflecting aspects of American life and humor. Furthermore, the rise of the internet and social media, while amplifying passive consumption, has also democratized content creation and critical commentary. Blogs, podcasts, and online forums allow for widespread discussion and critique of media, demonstrating that audiences are not merely passive recipients but active participants who can use entertainment as a springboard for further engagement, not just escapism.
Moreover, Tolkin's argument tends to treat "entertainment" as a monolithic entity with a singular, destructive effect. He fails to acknowledge the vast diversity within entertainment itself and its potential for positive social impact. Documentaries, for example, often aim to inform and provoke thought, using engaging narrative techniques to bring complex issues to a wider audience. Films and literature, even those primarily intended for amusement, can explore profound human themes, challenge societal norms, and foster empathy. Think of how films like Schindler's List (1993) used the medium of cinema to educate and evoke deep emotional responses regarding historical atrocities, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and remembrance. Similarly, satirical comedy can serve as a powerful tool for social critique, using humor to expose hypocrisy and provoke reflection, as seen in the work of comedians like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Entertainment, in these instances, actively engages rather than passively numbs.
In conclusion, while Michael Tolkin's essay raises important questions about the potential downsides of a society saturated with entertainment, his thesis that entertainment inherently ruins society is overly deterministic. It undervalues the capacity of individuals to engage critically with media and ignores the multifaceted nature of entertainment itself, which can, and often does, serve as a catalyst for dialogue, critical thinking, and even social progress. Society's relationship with entertainment is a dynamic interplay, not a one-way street to degradation.