Armchair Anthropology

A close friend of mine has the dubious pleasure of working with the general public. Although this vocation causes great frustrastions , he believes that it bestows on him a level of authority when generalising about people or pondering the lot of humankind. He does this quite a lot and the verdicts reached are always less then flattering to their subject. Any appeals to the defence of the species are always met by the rebuttal: "I work with these people, I should know".

In the following blog I will attempt to examine the credentials of my friend's expertise by asking a different but (I hope), parallel question: Would I consider someone who watches a lot of programmes to be an expert on the medium of television? If not, what knowledge would he be required to demonstrate before I could confer this status upon him?

For the purposes of this analogy I shall assume that, aside from size and design, all televisions are technically identical - predating not only plasma screens but also the advent of the colour set.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us begin by assuming that the 'expert' in question has a detailed knowledge of the programmes being broadcast. These would include not just the popular, ratings leaders like the soap-opera or sitcom, but also familiarity with the more obscure cable channels and cult viewings. In this respect my friend is very qualified. Standing on a busy street in any major city for a single day, one is likely to view a broad cross section of society; do that job for four years and you would experience this variety in all it's weird and wonderful forms.

However, I would also expect my expert to be aware not just of this season's scheduling but also the shows of yesteryear, even those predating his viewing years - perhaps as far back as the dawn of the medium. Armed with this working knowledge of the history of broadcasting , my expert would be able to recount for me not just the development of the genre, in terms such as the quantity, variety and complexity of the shows, but also to identify landmarks shows and their effect.

My friend is well informed and has a good grasp of human history though, naturally, nothing approaching the complexity described above - I doubt even the most widely-read anthropologist does. Therefore, by this measure, the duration of his current employment serve as the limits to his expertise.

But what of our telly-addict? If he could demonstrate an encyclopaedic knowledge of the small screen, it's scope and span - from American Idol to Z-cars, would we consider it appropriate for him to comment on all matters relating to TV? In my opinion, the answer is no. To qualify as a true 'TV expert', as opposed to a mere cultural authority, we should demand much more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, the expert should have an understanding of the hardware of the television equipment, the transmitting apparatus itself. This would include not only the many influences on it's design but also it's function - it's raison d'etre. ( In this analogy, though we cannot state with certainty that John Logie Baird does not exist, his status as creator is left unproven).

My expert would be able to tell me of the technologies that predate the television and how these tools embodied problem solving techniques that the TV would incorporate and expand upon. How, for example, the invention of the radio 'solved the problem' of being unable to communicate with someone when outside of their auditory range.

I would also want an account pf the context of it's creation and the influence on it's design. This would include not only the immediate circumstances but also a description of how social factors, such as the increases in leisure time and disposable income, created a market for it's existence.

Finally, while I would stop short of asking my expert to list the individual pieces of apparatus needed to assemble a working television, I might ask for an explanation of how these components and their specific arrangement within the box provide the parameters of the technology and, consequently, the limits of what is broadcast. TVs can, for example, only broadcast images in two-dimensions.

In the same way that my lamenting about the loss of the 'golden age of television' might lead the expert to seek parallels in today's more varied schedule; so too, if I complained about the lack of interactive programmes, might he point on how technological boundaries make these impractical (though, in the digital age, they are becoming less so).

However, just as our square-eyed friend cannot, in any Gestaltian sense, be declared an expert, neither can the repairman who hates all shows. He would need to meet all the criterion above demonstrating an appropriate breadth of knowledge.

With regard to television, I have no doubt that there are some people who would meet these requirements (though they might not be great fun on a night out). However, when we approach a subject as complex as human behaviour, this becomes a lot to ask of one person. So, just as I question my friend's authority on the subject of human nature, so too would I be dubious about the psychologist with poor social skills or the hermetic neurologist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My standards have been set high for a reason. Most of us make no such claim to a unique insight into the human heart and mind, our wisdom is these matters ispurely practical – allowing us to get on in life and select only our favourite shows. However, dangers occur when we allow the credentials of the self-proclaimed expert to go unchallenged.

The scientist who identifies the expression of a gene is not necessarily in a position to use his findings to make policy recommendations to government. If I did my own screwdriver-research on the set in my living room and discovered the relationship between the cathode ray tube and the pictures on my screen, I don’t think this would this give me authority to say what makes the best viewing.

However, this is not meant to lend weight to those who, in denying the realities of human nature, call for unrealistic solutions to social problems. The utopias they hope to broadcast are essentially untransmitable; their failures testify to this. Denying a TV is flat screened does not alter the range of images that can be displayed on it.

In conclusion, my view of humanity is one of a capacious species; it's history forming a long and complex tapestry. It is this perspective that forms the hypothetical job description of my expert. Those that see the their fellow beings in more discriminate terms might expect considerably less.