Go back.
Read
Dĭ-vûr’zhən (n.) is defined as:
- The act or an instance of diverting or turning aside; deviation.
- Something that distracts the mind and relaxes or entertains.
- A maneuver that draws the attention of an opponent away from a planned point of action, especially as part of military strategy,
according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. It originated from the latin divertere (in different directions, turn aside, to turn) around 1590-1600. As a type of entertainment, it’s first use was in 1648.
Ěn’tər-tān’mənt (n.) is defined as:
- The act of entertaining.
- The art or field of entertaining.
- Something that amuses, pleases, or diverts, especially a performance or show.
- The pleasure afforded by being entertained; amusement: The comedian performed for our entertainment.
- {Archaic} Maintenance; support.
- {Obsolete} Employment,
also from the American Heritage Dictionary. This word dates to 1525–35 and the first use remains a mystery.
Society today contains numerous forms of entertainment. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Digg, YouTube, iPods, iPhones, SMS and MMS, the blogosphere, 24/7 news availability, television, video games, HuLu, Netflix, glossy magazines, pop literature, theaters, restaurants, theme parks, tourist traps, food, alcohol, drugs, friends (in the literal sense), BF/GF relationships, sports, &tc. Obviously an enormous amount of entertainment exists, and new forms constantly and consistently appear. What does all of this mean? Is it good? Is it bad? How should we respond? These are the questions that I would like to answer today.
It is my position that today’s gamut of “entertainment” ought to be treated more like the diversion of yesteryear, an activity out to distract us from the task at hand. This way of thinking provides a good context for navigating this circus we call life. I don’t mean that diversion is evil by nature. But I do mean that we should be intelligent in our approach to it, because it is very powerful and potentially very dangerous.
When we think of entertainment in the terms of the word diversion, it takes on a new light. Look at the definition of diversion again, what words strike you? Deviation, distraction, even a deceptive military tactic. These obviously denote a negative connotation to the simple and extremely common act of relaxing our minds. Entertainment does not seem so innocent now.
By going through several case studies I hope to elucidate some of the facets of this issue and come to a conclusion regarding the matter.
Case #1: Facebook (Social Media)
This is probably a pretty familiar “tool” to many of you. Facebook is one of the most-visited websites and among the fastest growing. According to “the social media guide” Mashable, users spent an average of 5 hours and 46 minutes on Facebook in August of this year, up from just 31 minutes in June of 2008 (see here and here). While this is only 1.2% of the time in one month, it can feel like more. For example, the Facebook group “I was doing homework, then I ended up on Facebook” has close to 1 million members. And certain user groups (such as students) probably spend far more time than the average user. More time on social media means less time on other pursuits; USA Today recently reported that students who spend more time on Facebook were more likely to have lower grades than those who spent less time (here).
Social networking media in general has gained more attention from society across the board; Nielsen found in August 2009 that out of all time spent on the internet, 17% is on social websites, triple the number of only one year ago (here). Clearly, social media is becoming more and more a priority throughout society. General internet usage continues to rise as well, with the average american devoting over 26 hours to it per month (here).
What does this accomplish though? Facebook’s homepage says that it “helps you connect and share with the people in your life”, but does that happen often? Facebook also makes it easy to glide through a network of friends, consuming the fruits of interaction without investing your own effort in cultivating relationships. Social parasitism is relatively difficult to quantify, but it isn’t too hard to believe that this occurs on a regular basis, especially given the narcissistic and hedonistic trends of our society.
Case #2: Television
TV has consumed more and more of the american life over the years, totaling over 127 hours per month in 2008 (here). This means that an average watcher spends roughly 25% of their waking hours in front of the telly. With the ever-increasing availability of TV shows and movies online, this number only stands to increase. Obviously, such a large amount of viewing implies a correspondingly large opportunity cost.
What does this faithful devotion gain for us? Well, the nation confronts an obesity epidemic for one thing. While television may not be a direct link to this problem, hours spent in a sedentary position can’t help the issue. These hours also don’t accomplish anything besides entertaining the consumer, in other words diverting them from productive tasks.
I could continue with these case studies, and maybe someday I will, but I think that these examples serve to prove the point
that society has become infatuated with entertainment. Now we need to decide whether this is a good thing.
Is it a good thing?
Before any of us can make a pronouncement about this we really need to answer the question: What is a good thing? After all, maybe entertainment is the ultimate moral good and preventing someone from entertainment should be considered a sin. But maybe it isn’t. Maybe it should be viewed as a distraction, a deception, a diversion, that prevents us from accomplishing what we ought.
To some extent this depends on individual choice. What kind of a life do you want to live? What kind of person do you want to be? If you so desire, you can make entertainment your god. In an increasingly hedonistic, “if it feels good, do it”, culture, that may be the right answer. After all, why shouldn’t we? But what if life has more to it? What if we have a purpose here, with things to do, places to go, and people to see? In that case, we may be “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” as the title of a book on television asserts.
Perhaps, however, we shouldn’t view entertainment as either a god or demon, but as an increasingly common side-affect of productivity. After all, productivity in the United States has risen parallel to TV usage. Output per hour in both Nonfarm Business and Manufacturing has grown consistently since the government began keeping records (1947 and 1987,
respectively, here). So perhaps our lives have become more and more black and white; we work hard when we work and then play hard when we finish for the day.
But are we as individuals becoming more advanced and productive, or do these number only reflect a more productive society as a whole? What gains do an individual receive from increased productivity? More capital with which he entertains himself. Additionally, better technology and new methods of production probably account for most of the increasing productivity, not a change in the personal productivity of individuals. So now we’re back to square one: Is entertainment good or bad?
Ultimately, this depends on your standards that determine good and bad. I will not address such a topic in this monograph, but you can look for a future publication on it. For now, I will just limit this discussion to an application of what I believe the standards in a Christian worldview are. Biblically speaking, we have a specific purpose here on earth: to love God and to love our neighbors. Entertainment doesn’t directly promote either of these objectives (I say directly because I think it’s possible for social entertainment to build up bonds between two or more people). Keep in mind, however, that Christ didn’t command us to become deprived masochists. We just need to keep entertainment in the correct context. It’s a distraction, a diversion from the task at hand.
Post Scriptum—Why do we distract?
Another interesting question poses itself once we’ve determined the relatively negative position held by diversion: Why do we do it? Dr. Armand Nicholi, Jr. presents a possible answer in his exceptional work The Question of God. He references Pascal, who wondered that “if our condition were truly happy we should not need to divert ourselves from thinking about it…the sole cause of our unhappiness is that we do not know how to sit quietly in our room.” Does our infatuation with diversion reflect on basic facts of human nature? Perhaps these distractions not only keep us from considering our unhappy condition but also keep us from considering how we can love those around us.
You should follow me on twitter here // Share
