|
At the risk of seeming somewhat churlish, I have to say I have a real problem with the Greek philosopher Socrates. My problem goes beyond my struggle to translate his Apologia during my junior year of high school. It also goes beyond his alleged misogyny, however politically incorrect it might be in these enlightened times. No, what I really cannot abide on the part of the famous Athenian curmudgeon is his condescending attitude towards a segment of the population that is very near and dear to me, to wit the alert readers (ARs) of this column.
I must admit that I did not detect this attitude when I plodded through the Apologia more than 45 years ago. I only learned of it recently, thanks to a book by William Powers titled Hamlet’s Blackberry. According to Powers, Socrates strongly disapproved of communicating by means of a written language based on an alphabet He apparently thought that scrolls would lead to a watering down of the thought process. No longer would people really have to learn something, given that they could easily look up whatever they might forget. Even more damning, ideas could not be exchanged and developed through writing as they are through the give and take of oral conversation in real time.
Powers also cites a 15th century Italian scholar who saw a potential for great evil in Gutenberg’s printing press, claiming that society would be better off without the books that would inevitably be printed and circulated as a result. Three centuries later a New England clergyman named Enos Hitchcock wrote that free access to books “has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth.”
More than 2300 years after the death of Socrates, alarmists continued to denounce new media of communications. In 1910 cinema was deplored as “an evil, pure and simple.” A century later Hillary Clinton attacked video games for “stealing the innocence of our children.” Last May, in a speech to students at Hampton University, President Obama railed against “iPods and iPads and Xboxes and Playstations, none of which I know how to work.” Welcome to the club, Mr. President.
In one sense I take comfort in knowing that a very techno-savvy president, who’s considerably younger than I am, finds himself flummoxed by certain gadgets and gizmos, the mastery of which also eludes me. At the same time, I’m reminded of King Canute, whom I discussed in this space last month. Just as Canute was unable to prevent the tide from coming in, those of us who are sometimes derided as technological Luddites can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Moreover, while I might join William Powers in lamenting many aspects of the so-called “digital age,” I’m also mindful of P. J. O’Rourke’s observation, “Civilization is an enormous improvement on the lack thereof.”
 On that point, some ARs may recall my writing in this space a few months ago that civilization began with fermentation. The technology that allowed our ancestors to harness the power of yeast in order to make beer represented a great advance for the human race. Among the many benefits of this development was the Socratic exchange of wisdom and ideas that surely occurred at those early, prehistoric beer parties.
Not surprisingly, some of the most spiteful enemies of beer have also been enemies of civilization as we know it. How else can one explain the mean spiritedness of Carrie Nation, who destroyed saloons with a hatchet and applauded the assassination of President William McKinley? In a civilized society discussing differences of opinion over a beer is far preferable to addressing grievances with wanton vandalism and the murder of political opponents.
Given my inability to resist the advance of the digital age, I might as well embrace it. In that spirit, I note that this is my last column in the current format of The Growler. While it will no longer be part of a four-page publication, it will be a more dominant feature of the new one-page Mini-Growler. It will also continue on line, meaning ARs in areas not served by the United States Postal Service will have full access to my sundry ruminations.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to bring ARs up to date on the succession planning I mentioned last month. I have been greatly encouraged by the interest that many potential investors have shown in continuing the mission of Schlafly Beer while respecting the interests of three important groups of stakeholders: employees, customers and the community. My hope is that we will be able to identify some qualified investors by the end of 2010. In the ideal world we would be able to finalize some kind of agreement in the first half of 2011. In the meantime, the process so far has consisted of informal conversations, primarily involving James Ottolini (Otto), the head of brewing operations at Bottleworks and a 2010 graduate of the executive MBA program at Washington University. There has been a free-flowing exchange and some great ideas have surfaced. Socrates would have approved.
|
