I don't think we should confuse escapism and infantilism. Though they may overlap at times, they are not at all the same thing.
Agree.
For instance, in the case of an authoritarian government (or religion, or any other authoritarian institution) they would no doubt love to infantilize their citizens or followers, to the extent that they look up to their leaders as the wise all-knowing parents who will always tell them the truth, so that they need only to follow what they are told and do no thinking for themselves.
Interestingly, the opposite turns out to be the case in most Authoritarian regimes - mainly because they tend to see everything through a totalising lens, so every aspect of society is in service of the regime. They don't want divergent thought, but they also don't want infants.
In China, for example, manga and anime - perceived to be infantile in China - are very much frowned on by the CPC, so much so that they are in the basket of goods that can penalise your social credit score if you buy them, or share them on social media.
China is going out of its way to fund and promote hypermasculinity through state funded movies which is, in part, a reaction to the idea that Chinese men have become effeminate, and partly as preparation for war. There was a spate of videos going round of an MMA fighter challenging tai-chi masters to fights and exposing them as fakes. The guy was "silenced" by the CPC who regarded this as a national embarrassment.
Chinese media, save literature, tends to be much less sophisticated than, say, Korea or the USA. Chinese audiences are also much less sophisticated in their tastes.
I think Nazi Germany was very much of the mind to promote outdoor activities and discourage escapist activities which were thought to be decadent.
Soviet literature was heavily scrutinized by state censors, so I think they were hot on the socially transformative potential of literature, and so required authors to adhere to party lines which were to direct the development of their minds. This wasn't towards an infantile state, but towards unquestioning obedience.
Soviet policies on the role of literature as raising revolutionary consciousness were highly influential on China's league of left wing writers:
League of Left-Wing Writers - Wikipedia
Mao in his talks at Yan'an builds on Lenin's concept of the unity of art and politics by setting out how he saw the role of art and literature:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_08.htm
Overall, I think Huxley's prediction of a future obsessed with sensation, spectacle and triviality is more accurate of the worst aspects of liberal societies. I think Chomsky elaborated on that in
Manufacturing Consent.
Also, most fantasy and science fiction is about the challenges of individual responsibility. Not just doing what you are told, or letting other people do all the doing, but making up your own mind and then shouldering what needs to be done.
I think this is true of western sci-fi and fantasy - I'm not sure this is true of Eastern. Things like the wu xia novels of Jin Rong are fantasy novels set in Chinese antiquity so tend to focus on social responsibility, fighting greedy barbarians and so on. I think the Chinese model of a hero achieves his skills not from being feted or godlike but from their humility, a great teacher and perseverance (Monkey King, aside).
What I find worrying is that things like 'flagship' science programmes like Horizon seem to be aimed at nine year olds with short attention spans and everything, but everything now has to be turned into a competition with ADHD cutting. The days when AP Taylor could talk for half an hour, direct to camera, giving a history lecture (without notes) and get massive ratings is way past. Don't get me wrong - I think Horrible Histories is fun. I have learned stuff. But when that's ALL that's on the menu...
Really agree with this. The quality of educational programming has really floundered. I really love the 70'a John Berger's BBC series "
Ways of Seeing" which uses Walter Benjamin's "
Art in the age of Mechanical reproduction" as a basis.
Overall though, I think there is a strange contradiction. Media is becoming more childish - from the way people behave on social media, to how people discuss issues. The kinds of topics and the presentation has also become more childish. The affectation of people more narcissistic. The overall tone of culture is infantile and the average of people invested in franchises created to sell toys, and leaving home and engaging in adult stuff is older.
It's fascinating to watch interviews from the 60's and 70's and see how the quality of discourse has plummeted. Whatever you think of William F Buckley's politics, his interviews with Noam Chomsky or Groucho Marx - the way people comport themselves, the standards of questions asked is far more revealing than the kinds of interviews we get today.
You could call sci-fi of the 50's and 60's escapist, sure, but I don't think it's on the whole, infantile.
But then, we have media today that is far more technically sophisticated than media from the same time period. The sopranos, The Wire, Better call Saul, etc - even superhero shows like Legion have a level of sophistication in writing, characterisation, filming and acting we never saw decades earlier except in, maybe, the best cinema.
)
