The Issue: What Lippmann describes can be summarized as mass generalization and stereotyping due to a lack of information, creating inaccurate presentations within the mind. These ideas deal with things that take place out of constant sight, so people often have to stretch perception to complete an idea or thought.
Major Strength: Lippmann attributes this ignorance to a larger process of individuals learning from those around them, who most of the time also lack the information necessary to be completely aware of others’ cultures and lifestyles, etc. He makes the strong example of General Joffre’s popularity. Though merited by his victorious efforts, it struck me as odd that this “hero-worship” grew so rapidly, though only a small portion of its practitioners shared any kind of direct, personal association with their idol. This, of course, forced me to compare and call into question the way we scrutinize/defend/admire/etc. public and popular figures today, though one could argue that celebrity and civilian and currently closer than ever, given the impact of social media. Other than time revealing the truth, how are we supposed to know whether our broad associations are correct? As Lippmann writes, “By the same mechanism through which heroes are incarnated, devils are made.”
Major Weakness: As is the case with many similarly critical works, Lippmann doesn’t seem to have a specific proposition for correcting the lazy, associative cognition he points out. Though, in his defense, perhaps a simple awareness was as close to a solution as one could get in 1922. The problem seems to be worsening with the growing access to information and constant connection across the world.
Underlying Assumption: Lippmann believes individuals need to be more skeptical of what they are told by their environments concerning ideas with which they have no direct source of information. This, of course, can be interpreted through the scope of modern media as a warning that not all of what we see and hear on television, the Internet, etc. should be given the benefit of the doubt as being truth.
Provocative Questions: How is Lippmann’s ideal society created? Information is accessible, but not all are willing to search for it. Can these incorrect, preconceived notions of culture be eliminated from the thought process? How? Like with General Joffre, we often discover our perceptions of environment are incorrect. How difficult is it to shake one “truth” after we realize that it is quite the opposite? Did Lippmann have broader issues with trust, human nature, government, and authority? I wonder what he would think of Neuman’s competing theories from the other reading.