Evgeny Morozov heavily criticizes the TED genre – including its talks, books, etc. – claiming that it allows for a “level of generality” within analysis at which “every fool can sound brilliant.” He argues that the TED medium takes ideas, innovations, and calls for change that, rationally, require an immense amount of thought and examination on the viewer’s end to be evaluated and understood, and dumbs those concepts down. To add to this belief, Morozov states that “brevity may be the soul of wit…but it is not the soul of analysis,” demonstrating his distaste for the TED tendency to simplify matters that cannot be simplified, for once they are they lose their real-world practicality. He also contends that the TED genre adheres to a “decidedly non-political attitude,” and in doing so they present “tech entrepreneurs… with the business of solving the world’s most pressing problems,” which “makes [TED’s] intellectual performances increasingly irrelevant to genuine thought and serious action.” The TED genre often presents its solutions to societal problems as technological advancements, while ignoring any and all political involvement. Without acknowledging the influence politics has on the way the world works, many of the ideas raised in TED talks or books are irrelevant for they have no connection to any sphere of government, and, in turn, have no ability to stimulate official societal change. In the words of Morozov, the “TED elite… with its aversion to conventional instruments of power and its inebriated can-do attitude” do not want to hear that “solving any of their favorite global problems would require political solutions—if only to ensure that nobody’s rights and interests are violated or overlooked in the process.” Rather, the “techno-humanitarian mentality” allow problems of a political matter, like climate change, for example, to “become problems of making production more efficient or finding ways to colonize other planets—not of reaching political agreement on how to limit production or consume in a more sustainable fashion.” This is just one example of how Morozov presents that within the TED genre, all roads often lead back to technology, no matter how far of a stretch or how ineffective that argument is in regards to the idea up for discussion.
Morozov is right to criticize the TED genre’s tendency to simplify ideas that should not (and rationally, cannot) be simplified. Ultimately, it does dumb down complexities that require much more analysis than they are given in a TED talk, however, this does not mean the TED genre, and the way that it presents information, is a bad thing. TED talks increase the viewing population’s accessibility to information once only understood by the brightest scholars, and in doing so increases their awareness of current societal and cultural issues. While the solutions presented by TED are not always the most effective, they are solutions none the less, and by providing the viewer with something to challenge or agree with, the TED genre fuels discussion between conflicting opinions. When a solution to the problem is talked about, the problem will inevitably be discussed at a greater length, further increasing awareness and opening the otherwise uninformed public’s eyes to possible societal and cultural changes at play. In my opinion, the purpose of a TED talk is to spark discussion and raise awareness about issues and ideas, not analyze in depth entire problems and their solutions. If the TED genre was meant to educate viewers, the talks would be longer than 3-7 minutes, and the books would divulge the issues in greater detail than they presently do. Since this is not the case, TED talks and books serve as initiators of discussion rather than a complete analysis of an issue or idea.
In the TED talk titled Vicki Arroyo: Let’s prepare for our new climate, Arroyo talks about the damage that natural disasters can cause to cities and nations that are not prepared for it. From the very beginning, Arroyo makes personal connections to her topic, engaging her audience, and shows actual photographs of damage done to her family’s home by recent Hurricane Katrina, displaying why her topic is relevant right now. In doing this, Arroyo raises awareness about her issue while sparking discussion among viewers about whether or not they believe preparedness for natural disasters is an issue. At 1:14, Arroyo states that “climate change is affecting our homes, our communities, our way of life. We should be preparing at every scale and at every opportunity,” revealing the main focus of her talk will be why and how we should prepare for climate change, as opposed to how we can reverse its progression. Over the course of the next few minutes, Arroyo uses PowerPoint slides to display more areas ravaged by natural disasters, including hurricanes, tropical storms, and drought, as well as what will happen if no changes are made and the sea level rises a mere 1-2 meters in certain areas like San Francisco and Vietnam. These examples help add to the kairos of her topic, and incite further discussion while informing viewers about the consequences associated with unpreparedness. From here, Arroyo shows “how communities can accommodate change.” At 8:04, Arroyo, with the assistance of a visual, proposes that government leaders make decisions about what areas they want to protect from disaster, what areas they can alter to accommodate the results of climate change, and what areas they can retreat from “to allow the migration of important natural systems such as wetlands or beaches.” Her proposal does seem like a simple solution to a complex issue, reflecting Morozov’s argument that the TED genre simplifies issues that realistically are not simple, though it triggers a conversation among viewers about whether her suggestions are effective and what can be done to improve upon those suggestions and make them more relevant to today’s society. At 10:00, Arroyo mentions that “it’s up to us to plan and to prepare, and to call upon our government leaders and require them to do the same even while they address the underlying causes of climate change,” displaying her recognition that this problem cannot be solved by the individual alone, that you need government intervention to get things done. This recognition goes against Morozov’s claim that the TED genre has an “aversion to conventional instruments of power,” for even in this instance where Arroyo proposes technological innovations that could possibly solve the problem discussed, she acknowledges that it cannot be accomplished without a supportive government. In doing so, Arroyo establishes a stronger credibility and concludes her talk with another point for viewers to debate and investigate further, serving the purpose of the TED genre.
In order to create the most productive TED talk, I need to make suggestions about the cultural and societal implications of my topic that incite discussion rather than have what Morozov refers to as an “inebriated can-do attitude.” I need to recognize that my audience does not know everything about my topic, and that I need to find ways to present background information in an engaging manner, whether that means making personal connections or displaying real-life examples. I also need to present my information in a persuasive manner but without sounding extremely biased to increase my credibility. I can do this by sounding off a few facts and figures that support my argument while also drawing logical connections between my paradigm shift and the way the world works today.
