Merton on the Media—Part 3

I wrote in the first blog of this series that Merton, after a couple of decades of deep devotion to the eremetic life at Gethsemani Abbey, increasingly became interested in world events. In order to inform himself and to understand what was happening in society, he became an avid reader of the news. He also developed an extremely busy correspondence with philosophers, religious figures, and scholars all over the world.

In the 1960s there was no internet that could be surfed to follow current events, and television was certainly not an authorized source of information in a monastery. Therefore, Merton read several daily newspapers and received numerous other periodicals and books in the mail. I am amazed at the volume of reading that he managed to do, while still participating in the monastic life. That said, as his reputation grew, he was increasingly relieved of daily monastery tasks, to allow him time to research and write.

Merton became very critical of America's mass media. He repeatedly described how poorly it informed people of current events, and that it often spread the propaganda of the country's rich and powerful. The media had become part of the corporate world and often served as the mouthpiece of corporate America. He described how the media diverted readers' attention with trivial pursuits and infatuation with celebrity affairs.

He wrote that “nine tenths of the news, as printed in the papers, is pseudo-news, manufactured events. Some days ten tenths.” He accused the media of being guilty of keeping violence, cruelty, and sadism ever present in society. He felt that this hyped-up information directly contributed to the public's tendency toward polarization and hatred.

Merton was especially troubled by America's violent culture. He had become an eloquent voice for the power of nonviolence, after becoming deeply devoted to Jesus' messages in the Sermon on the Mount. He also was inspired by Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, and Henry David Thoreau. He strongly supported the Civil Rights Movement that was unfolding at the time, and honored Martin Luther King, who also was strongly influenced by Gandhi. Both King and Merton vehemently opposed the Vietnam War—for which the media were complaisant, and they both became the target of hatred for doing so.

He wrote that, for most Americans the daily ritual of reading the newspaper was a form of “trance, in which one scans columns of newsprint, creates a peculiar form of generalized pseudo-attention to a pseudo-reality.” He went on to write “My own experience has been that renunciation of this self-hypnosis, of this participation in the unquiet universal trance, is no sacrifice to reality at all.”

I find it fascinating that Merton used the term “pseudo-reality” to describe the 1960s newspapers' content. I wonder what he would say about today's TV news, social media's outlandish postings, and fake news hype. I'm sure he would have something caustic to write about reality TV—quite likely dubbing it “pseudo-reality TV.”

Be No Threat

Our first impression at meeting another person plays a huge role in the nature of our subsequent relationship. How we initially come across to each other creates an immediate reaction that strongly influences what happens next. We have a deeply-ingrained propensity to quickly size up the potential safety or threat at the first instant of encounter and be ready to react.

It’s how our deep ancestors survived. Those who quickly and correctly sized up the situation did better than those who didn’t—particularly when the encounter might be threatening. Those of our hominid forebears who were quick to discern the threat and then quick to jump were more successful at avoiding being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger. Those who were a split second too slow became a meal. Their slower-reacting genes went extinct. The evolutionary result is that the human species tends to lean towards the suspicious side, to be very alert, when encountering someone new. Better to be safe than sorry, as the old saw goes. So we’re naturally on our toes when we first meet each other.

This inherited tendency has helped keep the human gene pool going, but it’s also been the cause of many a conflict between people. We can be so on the alert to possible signs of risk that we misunderstand and flinch and overreact to innocent gestures, body language, or unfamiliar words of a stranger. In contrast, we feel we can trust members of our own tribe—we know them, we have existing reasons to trust them, and we have faith that they’re not likely to do us damage. But a stranger is an unknown. And in these times when suspicion of the other gets hyped by panicky people and then promoted by the media, the opportunities for hostility are abundant.

Those who understand the power and principles of nonviolence are well equipped to do a good job of avoiding trouble during that first meeting. They know how to disarm or calm a potentially aggressive individual. Gandhi, Dr. King, Jesus, and others gave us invaluable lessons on how to avoid or resolve conflict. (“Turn the other cheek.”) They taught us that, rather than ramping up the aggression, we can effectively cool down a situation and avoid discord.

There is one simple method we can employ when we meet another person—even those of us who know little about the theory and practice of nonviolence. If we keep in mind the crucial importance of that first instant of meeting a stranger, we can see the wisdom of doing what we can at that moment to be no threat to the other. If we do what we can to make that initial impression as friendly as possible, as non-threatening as we can, we do our best to put the other person at ease. Getting off on a positive note can make all the difference in the world to what happens next. It is even better to take an insult and let it wash off, than to push back.

We have a culture that too often teaches us that to come on strong is the way to be safe. We are told that if we intimidate others, we will be more secure. It’s a tragic lesson that has caused uncountable harm in the world. It’s better that we do what we can to help the other person feel comfortable. We don’t have to like them or cower before them, just be friendly yet stand our ground. “Blessed be the peacemakers; they shall be called God’s children.”