Posts
You might have noticed I don’t have a large online presence.
I don’t have a podcast. You don’t hear about me. No one makes reaction videos
to my material. I’ve simply operated a blog since 2009, which in itself is a
bit of a time capsule from the late 2000s.
With this background you might think I’m simply a dinosaur
that can’t adapt to new technology. But I’ve seen the new landscape, and
deliberately said no. The current podcast environment is reactive, inferior to
writing, and backwards looking. To illustrate those points we might consider
the controversy of the day (at least it was when I wrote this). A youtube
personality, Jacob Hansen recently discussed Mormonism with a prominent
atheist, Alex O’Conner. I didn’t watch the interview, but since then I have encountered
half a dozen posts, reaction videos, and memes across the internet that in turn
generated hundreds of comments. This includes the Mormon and ex-Mormon reddit,
several facebook groups, Mormon Book Review podcast, and the ex-Mormon called Cultch
(formerly cultural hall.) I’m sure there are more out there I haven’t seen but
I only lurk around a few corners of the internet. (I only like Cultch for
example, because he hate watches Jacob Hansen and that’s entertaining.) This controversy
of the day crystallizes everything I hate about the podcast and reaction video
culture.
The discussion is incredibly reactive to the point
that if I did start a podcast I’d probably call it the reaction, to the
reaction, to the reaction video. (Or I’d just call it Podcast.) Jacob’s single
conversation video has inspired countless hours of commentary and hundreds of
comments. But there is nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the
original item to begin with. The major takeaway is that he wasn’t an effective
apologist, and he’s an intellectual light weight. That isn’t news. He didn’t make
my list of overrated
scholars for example, because I’ve never considered him a scholar. I’m not
sure I’ve ever mentioned him on this blog before.
You take an original copy that isn’t very informative, and every
reaction video is simply a copy of a copy with the resulting loss in quality. So
the hours of content, especially for the podcasts, seems like little more than
a shiny new object to debate and way to vent negative emotions. They react,
react to the reaction, and react to the reaction of a reaction, to the point
that they it’s the definition of a tempest in a teapot. That is how someone
writing a good, but relatively unimportant blog about Heartland theories can be
transformed into the definition of Mormon
perfidy.
In the process of reacting and doing so quickly enough to
have their reaction matter, it is often thoughtless. In many cases it
takes me longer to read and reflect on a single book about the topic in
question than it takes them to make a video. I prefer texts because I can read
about 60-100 pages an hour of dense academic text, while I’ve seen podcasts
where I can summarize the first 20 minutes with a single sentence. Then I have
to consider the question or idea carefully, and then it takes many more hours of
writing and revisions, peer revisions, and publication schedule to have the
piece published. That’s why I expect the online world to be arguing about
something different by the time I publish this piece. I’m not writing this
piece to gain clicks by commenting on a hot topic, so I don’t care about its
timing.
Podcasts have the advantage of being faster, but I have yet
to see a video that provides the knowledge gained from a thoughtful article or
book. Even when they say something approaching academic insight, like a recent
podcast from Cultch which discussed divine
command theory, they remain relatively superficial in their points and they
spent a significant amount of time discussing a particularly petty tweet from
Hansen. Their discussion mostly talked in generalities that didn’t include
specific verses, philosophers that explained the concept, or careful revisions
to hone their points. These are all features of a paper I wrote which addressed
how the scriptures seem to have both deontological and utilitarian systems and
discussed the safeguards in scripture that restrain divine command theory. The
podcast was so long, two hours, that I could rewrite that paper or reread most
of the academic sources in the time it took them to make a few hasty
generalizations.
Speaking of my academic work, reaction video culture looks backwards.
It not only goes back in time to the most recent “event,” like Jacob’s
video, a news article, a prominent excommunication, etc. But it argues about
the same things over and over again. Various YouTube personalities and
podcasters give their zingers and catch phrases. Then the various ex and
anti-Mormons give theirs. They go on like this is a perpetually breathless
cycle of action and reaction that doesn’t provoke any new, substantive ideas.
When not discussing people, the content is only arguing about stale issues like
changes to the temple ceremony, the necessity of tithing, or differences in
first vision accounts. These are all issues I first encountered decades ago. I
remember reading an article about the differing first vision accounts on my
mission in 2002. Some people might think those issues are a silver bullet for
or against the church, and they might like deeply polemic arguing. But I find
it all so pedestrian.
My favorite part of being a scholar is looking to the
future. When I applied to grad school, I had to show schools that I could make
the transition from simply being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of
knowledge. Reactive culture doesn’t produce anything. I’ve never seen a podcast
that approached the quality of an academic text, let alone one that blows my
mind. The reaction video crowd simply consume knowledge that already exists,
and then like carrion birds they fight over the carcass of that knowledge with
other consumers. I’ve never seen anything new or original from them except
increasingly click bait worthy hot takes. That is how you get videos
with two buffoons discussing how ex Mormons are morons that the church couldn’t
work for because they wanted to do drugs and have orgies. That is outrageous
enough that it drives clicks, and even I heard about it, yet that doesn’t
produce new insights or knowledge. Like an overworked ad executive, they simply
came up with a new gimmick to drive engagement.
At best they have an author on their show that discusses
their book. But even then it’s still reactive because the content is being
driven by a semi substantive academic work. (Not every book is created equal.)
So even at their best and most substantive, they are dependent on the work of
academics to generate their content.
In short, I might be relatively unknown, even after all
of these years. I’m not the target of reaction videos. But I’m also not the
subject of dramatic personal attacks. I may do some interviews based on my
academic expertise and books because I’m happy to talk about my work, even if I
don’t like the medium.
Mostly, I spend my time writing to produce new insights with an eye for the future. I just released a book on Just War in the Book of Mormon that represents the first attempt to systematize Mormon thought on the subject. During that process, I found a master’s thesis from over 100 years ago.[1] I imagine that the author was less popular than the authors of dime novels and the hosts of radio programs. He might have even sighed a few times, sitting alone in the library, sad that his hard work seemed to be ignored. But a century later, his insights aided my analysis, enhanced my thinking, and produced new understanding that I shared to a world that also doesn’t seem to care that much. In as little as a few weeks from now, no one will remember the controversy of the week from a random youtube personality. In contrast, my books will influence writers for years and hopefully like the writer I found during my research, scholars in the centuries to come will find and appreciate mine. When you measure success by insights gained from decades of studying which can then be studied centuries from now, a podcast and podcasters that generates buzz for a few days or weeks just don’t seem attractive.
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or buy one of my books in the top left.
*********
[1] Chen
Queh King, Doctrine of Military Necessity, master’s Thesis, University
of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1918.
