This story was initially printed in The Spotlight, Vox’s member-exclusive journal. To get early entry to member-exclusive tales each month, be part of the Vox Membership program at this time.
In case you aren’t feeling the itch but, you’ll quickly.
It might come by the top of this sentence or, on an excellent day, the fifth paragraph. However earlier than lengthy, a bit of voice in your head will whisper, “Click on away for only a second” — simply lengthy sufficient to take a fast look at your e mail or Instagram feed or group chat or 401(okay) or chatbot’s reply to “the best way to inform if a mole is cancerous” or Amazon outcomes for “joint-smoking backyard gnomes.”
At the least, this may occur should you’re something like myself. And I’m not alone.
People nonetheless eat loads of textual content. Social media platforms teem with phrases — even video-based apps like TikTok are replete with captions and feedback. And on common, we spend greater than two hours scrolling by means of such platforms every day.
However not all studying is created equal. The thoughts can skim over the floor of a sentence and swiftly decode its literal which means. However deep studying — sustained engagement with a longform textual content — is a definite endeavor. As neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf explains, while you give your full consideration to a stimulating ebook or longform article, you activate a wide selection of the mind’s linguistic and cognitive capacities. On this contemplative state, the reader quickly attracts connections between the textual content and their background data, producing unique ideas within the course of.
And this important type of studying is in sharp decline. In 2021, American adults learn fewer books on common than in any 12 months on file, in response to Gallup. Amongst younger People, the dwindling of deep studying is very stark. In 1984, some 35 p.c of 13-year-olds mentioned they learn for enjoyable “virtually day by day,” in response to the Nationwide Middle for Schooling Statistics (NCES). By 2012, that determine was 27 p.c. By 2023, it had fallen to 14 p.c. Comparable declines have transpired among the many nation’s 9-year-olds and late adolescents. In the meantime, each day display screen time amongst all age teams is surging to file highs.
Pew Analysis Middle
Even among the many rising generations’ educational elite, studying books is an more and more area of interest pastime. In accordance with a latest report from The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch, many college students at America’s most selective schools now lack the capability (or at the very least, the wherewithal) to learn a ebook cover-to-cover.
Within the view of some analysts, these developments don’t simply threaten to curtail bookworms’ literary lives or stunt younger People’ mental improvement. Moderately, digital media’s displacement of books is propelling our species again to an historic mode of cognition and communication: After a short dalliance with literacy, humanity is returning to its oral roots.
In accordance with such different commentators as media theorist Andrey Mir, Bloomberg reporter Joe Weisenthal, historian Adam Garfinkle, and tradition author Katherine Dee, the digital age’s modes of thought and discourse more and more resemble these of pre-literate oral cultures. In making this declare, these writers draw closely on the work of Walter Ong, a thinker who developed a deeply influential — however considerably controversial — principle of how the oral and literate minds diverge.
For Mir and Garfinkle, America’s reversion to “orality” underlies a lot of at this time’s political dysfunction. Of their telling, print media laid the foundations for liberal democracy. Now, as deep studying declines, the voters’s dedication to pluralism, objectivity, universalism, particular person rights, and the rule of regulation is swiftly receding.
The analogies between historic oral cultures, as described by Ong, and at this time’s digital one are putting. And it’s cheap to concern that scrolling TikTok doesn’t put together a voter for rational self-government in addition to studying the New York Instances does.
This mentioned, writers are liable to overestimate the social harms of our personal cultural marginalization. And I believe that Mir and Garfinkle are doing exactly that, after they blame the decay of American liberalism on the erosion of “deep literacy.”
The human thoughts earlier than literacy
For roughly 98 p.c of our species’ historical past, individuals might solely talk by means of the spoken phrase — and this constraint basically formed human thought and expression.
In his 1982 ebook Orality and Literacy, Ong detailed the attribute options of communication and cognition in oral societies. Ong famous that, in a world of “orality,” info have to be verbally repeated to outlive: If spoken discourse doesn’t hold the timing of the harvest in a society’s working reminiscence, farmers can’t fall again on an almanac or calendar. Subsequently, in an oral tradition, all vital concepts have to be expressed in a fashion that’s each memorable and simple to recite.
This entailed, amongst different issues, the heavy use of repetition, formulaic strains, mnemonic units and epithets. For instance, in his oral epic, The Iliad, the Greek poet Homer persistently refers to Achilles as “swift-footed Achilles” — a phrase that helps the listener extra simply recall each the character’s title and his defining trait.
Oral cultures’ reliance on reminiscence additionally restricted their capability to generate complicated, logical arguments. The sophisticated sentences usually present in a philosophical treatise, authorized transient, or Vox article — with their prepositional phrases sandwiched between em-dashes — couldn’t plausibly perpetuate themselves within the absence of written textual content.
Individually, in an oral society, communication should all the time occur nose to nose, typically inside earshot of 1’s fellow villagers or clansmen. In accordance with Ong, this imbues discourse with a combative spirit, as statements are likely to double as bids for standing and social affirmation.
Maybe most significantly, these limitations of orality made it incapable of accommodating summary thought. In an oral tradition, individuals haven’t any technique of isolating concepts from their social context or subjective expertise, which makes it tough for them to formulate common ideas, summary classes, or guidelines of logic.
Ong illustrates this level close to the analysis of Soviet neuropsychologist A.R. Luria. Within the Nineteen Thirties, Luria studied the situation of illiterate peoples in distant areas of Uzbekistan, and located that their pondering was inflexibly concrete and tethered to non-public expertise.
For instance, Luria examined his topics’ deductive reasoning with a phrase downside: Within the Far North, the place there’s snow, all bears are white. Novaya Zembla is within the Far North and there’s all the time snow there. What colour are the bears? His illiterate respondents replied with variations on the sentiment, “I don’t know. I’ve seen a black bear. I’ve by no means seen any others. … Every locality has its personal animals.” Against this, the minority of the neighborhood that had attained literacy usually comprehended Luria’s syllogism and mentioned that the bears had been white.
That is your mind on books
In Ong’s account, the arrival of writing radically restructured thought. Language was liberated from the constraints of human reminiscence. By means of textual content, individuals might categorical concepts with an eye fixed to precision fairly than repeatability, whereas constructing upon the accrued data of all who got here earlier than.
Literacy didn’t simply allow summary thought however inherently impressed it, in response to Ong and his acolytes. The very act of studying trains the thoughts within the arts of abstraction: Textual content conjures a voice that speaks inside the reader’s head fairly than by means of her ears, prompting her to detach from sensory expertise and switch consideration inward. In so doing, literacy facilitated modes of thought that had been extra unbiased, rational, individualistic, and universalistic than these of oral societies.
Writing remoted concepts from social context — or, in Ong’s phrases, “the sector the place human beings wrestle with each other” — thereby enabling the reader to guage claims extra impartially, within the privateness of her personal thoughts. And when readers did this, textual content inspired them to prize logical coherence: Writing inherently promotes sequential reasoning as a result of it’s processed linearly, as the attention strikes throughout the web page.
By facilitating such introspection, literacy heightened self-consciousness, laying the muse for individualism. And by encouraging summary, systemic pondering — and enabling concepts to disseminate broadly throughout area and time — writing spurred the event of universalistic worldviews, by which common guidelines, rights, and ethical precepts apply to all peoples or contexts. Taken collectively, these options of writing made the arrival of science and liberal democracy doable.
How the web is (purportedly) reviving orality
Studying is a profoundly unnatural exercise. Our minds course of spoken phrases and shifting pictures way more readily than they decipher written language. Many individuals, due to this fact, discovered it tough to immerse themselves in literature as soon as TV grew to become obtainable. By the Nineteen Seventies, Walter Ong was already arguing that humanity had entered right into a second oral age.
And but, in comparison with at this time, the period of broadcast tv seems as boring and conducive to contemplation as a monastery. In 2025, everybody with a smartphone has on the spot entry to an successfully infinite provide of audiovisual leisure, whereas social media supplies an limitless stream of bite-sized video clips and snippets of textual content, every handpicked by an algorithm to immediate one’s private engagement.
This isn’t a pleasant setting for deep studying. And it’s also one which instantly revives a lot of orality’s defining options, in response to Ong’s disciples.
Not like historic oral peoples, People at this time have the capability to protect data by means of written information. The truth is, extra of our lives are immortalized in printed info than ever earlier than.
However the results of superabundance can generally approximate these of complete shortage: Devoid of all information storage, people in oral cultures needed to talk in statements that had been simple to recollect and gratifying to repeat, lest their concepts swiftly cross from collective consciousness. Drowning in an ever-rising tide of knowledge, individuals in digital cultures should successfully do the identical. As Katherine Dee argues, on the web, “Data doesn’t stick when it’s saved; it sticks when it circulates.”
The canonical “fact” for a whole lot of tens of millions of individuals at this time is no matter will get repeated incessantly on their social feeds. And what goes viral in 2025 bears a resemblance to what obtained recited in 10,000 BCE — pithy, formulaic strains (equivalent to people who comply with meme templates) and memorable epithets. As Joe Weisenthal notes, one among our period’s best communicators, Donald Trump, emulates Homer in his method to referencing individuals (the latter celebrated “swift-footed Achilles” and “wily Odysseus” whereas the previous scorned “Lyin’ Ted” and “Crooked Hillary.”)
In the meantime, social media re-embeds discourse in “the sector the place human beings wrestle with each other.” Communication takes on a combative and preening tone. Concepts are tethered to personas and social contexts. Folks usually apprehend the factional valence of an argument — which teams endorse it and which don’t — earlier than they ever give it unbiased consideration. And since each web person is confronted with extra info than they’ll critically course of, they’ve a powerful incentive to interpret an concept’s social desirability (which will be shortly ascertained) as indicative of its empirical validity (which takes time to evaluate). This temptation to outsource your important judgment is all of the stronger, when your each utterance receives a quantifiable quantity of communal affirmation or repudiation.
Extra straightforwardly, digital media revives oral tradition by enabling people to speak by means of speech and facial expressions — and thru real-time textual exchanges that resemble oral conversations (together with their nonverbal elements, that are conveyed through emoji) — albeit at an unprecedented scale.
Put all of digital media’s results collectively and you’ve got a recipe for reversing a lot of literacy’s impacts on consciousness and tradition: Our pondering is turning into much less summary and extra narrowly sensible; much less rational and extra emotive; much less universalistic and extra tribal; much less individualistic and extra conformist. And this mental regression is driving our nation’s democratic decline.
Or at the very least, that is what some critics of “digital orality” allege.
Does post-literacy result in post-liberalism?
In his ebook Digital Future within the Rearview Mirror, the media theorist Andrey Mir argues that “digital orality” has plunged many conservatives and progressives into the abyss of Plato’s cave — the allegorical realm the place subjective intuitions are mistaken for goal truths. The correct subordinates motive to Trump’s cult of character, whereas the left values empiricism lower than “intersectionality.” The result’s “identitarian tribalism,” polarization, and a disaster of consultant democracy.
Neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf, in the meantime, fears that the general public’s fading deep literacy is main “ineluctably to a vulnerability to demagoguery, the place falsely raised hopes and falsely raised fears trump motive and the capability for reflective pondering recedes, together with its affect on rational, empathic choice making.”
The historian Adam Garfinkle provides extra pointed expression to Mir and Wolf’s issues. He contends that summary reasoning is “integral to liberal-democratic politics.” In any case, “the idea of a depersonalized constitutional order” and “the virtues of doubt, dissent, and humility” are “very summary concepts.” As deep literacy declines, the general public possesses much less reverence for — and even, comprehension of — such rational abstractions.
As a substitute, like historic peoples who had been harmless of the written phrase, post-literate voters’ understanding of politics is bifurcated between concrete issues (egg costs) and mythic beliefs (QAnon). What exists is the instantly observable and the phantasmagoric, grocery payments and conspiracy theories. And because of this, in Garfinkle’s account, so many citizens “cared extra about inflation than Trump’s authoritarianism: the latter is an abstraction that occupies “a foggy zone between the eggs and the conspiracy theories. One has to truly take into consideration them, even possibly learn one thing about them, to know them.”
Garfinkle believes that this aversion to the pains of summary thought underlies the left’s intolerant dogmatism, and the best’s xenophobic populism. Certainly, he goes as far as to enterprise that “populism of the intolerant nationalist sort” is, by definition, “what occurs in a mass-electoral democracy when a decisive share of mobilized voters drops under a deep-literacy customary.”
Is social media killing democracy — or do I simply need the children off my garden?
The speculation that humanity is returning to a second oral age has some attraction.
Walter Ong died one 12 months earlier than Fb was based. When he printed his account of orality in 1982, he couldn’t presumably have been projecting the dynamics of social media tradition onto oral societies. It’s due to this fact putting that his portrait of pre-literate communication so typically calls to thoughts the digital selection.
This mentioned, Ong’s account of the distinctions between oral and literate consciousness isn’t universally accepted throughout the academy. And a few empirical analysis suggests that the hyperlink between literacy and summary thought or analytical reasoning just isn’t as computerized as Ong supposed.
Additional, even when Ong’s principle of orality had been undoubtedly appropriate, its applicability to our current second can be debatable. Historic analogies typically obscure greater than they reveal. And this can be true of the notion that we’re dwelling in a second oral age. Most People at this time know the best way to learn, have prepared entry to nearly all human data, can immediately talk with individuals all internationally, and revel in better materials consolation than nobles did for many of human historical past. These situations absolutely generate types of consciousness and tradition which might be radically distinct from these of historic oral peoples.
However, the idea of “digital orality” does highlight a fact that’s simple to miss: Lots of our society’s foundational establishments had been formulated in a extremely uncommon period of human historical past — the brief window between the arrival of literacy and improvement of digital media.
For a lot of that interval, books loved a cultural relevance that they presently lack. And generative AI seems to be accelerating deep literacy’s marginalization, enabling even humanities majors to eschew the cognitive burdens of studying and writing. It’s cheap to fret that the psychological habits instilled by TikTok and ChatGPT may show much less conducive to liberal democracy than these promoted by the written phrase. Particularly, Garfinkle and Mir’s issues about social media’s corrosive affect on unbiased thought, and tendency to advertise polarization, appear well-founded.
And but, at the same time as Mir and Garfinkle lament the post-literate tendency to substitute “lived expertise” for goal proof, they themselves typically make very robust claims on the premise of little greater than instinct.
It’s tough for writers to investigate the decline of deep literacy objectively. By disposition and occupation, we’re predisposed to suppose that studying is virtuous and important. It’s inevitably tempting to imagine that the marginalization of our craft isn’t simply unhealthy for us, however for all of society. That doesn’t essentially imply we’re unsuitable to argue the latter. But it surely does imply that we should always topic our assumptions to heightened scrutiny when doing so.
And that is one thing that Mir and Garfinkle typically fail to do.
Mir’s ebook has its insights. However it’s also riddled with odd, unsubstantiated assertions. For instance, to help the declare that literacy promotes a dedication to goal fact, he argues that literate athletes have a tendency to simply accept unfavorable — however correct — rulings by referees, whereas illiterate gamers typically get into altercations “with the referee after the choice has been made as if the applying of the principles is a matter of persuasion or, much more surprisingly (for the literate thoughts), a matter of post-factum persuasion.”
No information in any way is cited to again up this little bit of armchair anthropology. And anybody who has watched a Knicks recreation with bookish Brooklynites is aware of that deep literacy isn’t any impediment to raging towards the refs.
Equally, Garfinkle’s assertions about “display screen addled” Trump voters’ internal lives lack proof. Did some People prioritize issues about discontent with Biden-era inflation final November as a result of they may not comprehend the very idea of authoritarianism? Or did they merely doubt that Trump was an authoritarian? Garfinkle is for certain of the previous, nevertheless it’s unclear how he arrived at that conclusion.
In any case, there are a number of causes to query the broader premise that declining deep literacy is the driving drive behind intolerant politics in America at this time.
For one, studying doesn’t reliably induce a dedication to (small-l) liberalism, which is to say, to pluralism, toleration, universalism, and particular person rights. It’s true that college-educated voters within the US are extra possible than non-college-educated ones to prioritize democracy and dislike Donald Trump. But lots of the foremost proponents of right-wing authoritarianism in america — from Peter Thiel to Curtis Yarvin to JD Vance — are well-read males.
Likewise, intolerant leftists — equivalent to those that authored apologias for the October 7 bloodbath — will not be usually distinguished by their lack of literary erudition (and far the identical will be mentioned of liberal intellectuals who’ve rationalized Israeli battle crimes in Gaza). Nor had been the Stalinists of yesteryear particularly unacquainted with libraries.
And such scholarly dogmatists aren’t essentially exceptions to the final rule. Deep literacy encourages summary thought. However abstractions will be morally beneficent or abominable, illuminating or obfuscatory. As George Orwell argued, euphemism is usually the handmaiden of atrocity. Those that want to insulate their ideologies from the protests of empathy can conceal mass murders beneath foggy abstractions like “pacification.” Typically, a bent to suppose in concrete phrases isn’t the worst factor on the planet.
And there’s one other downside with blaming America’s intolerant drift on the marginalization of literary life: The timeline doesn’t actually work. It isn’t the case that American liberalism reached its zenith earlier than tv diverted common consideration away from print (which, in Garfinkle’s account, marked the start of deep literacy’s decline). On the contrary, America solely grew to become a liberal democracy for all its residents within the Nineteen Sixties. And digital media is broadly credited with aiding the Civil Rights Motion’s triumphs, as tv protection of Bloody Sunday galvanized public help for the Voting Rights Act.
It’s additionally removed from clear that at this time’s digital media have rendered the American individuals much less liberal or universalistic.
Trump’s conquest of US politics is usually ascribed to a reactionary flip in public opinion. However this isn’t essentially the case. Think about one component of Trump’s illiberalism: his xenophobic nationalism. When he was first elected in 2016, help for slashing immigration had been steadily declining for greater than twenty years, in response to Gallup. People didn’t elect a rabidly restrictionist president in 2016 as a result of they’d change into extra nativist however fairly, as a result of the nativist phase of the American public had secured management over a significant political get together. What modified was the workings of a key democratic establishment, not the attitudes of voters.
To make certain, digital media was not irrelevant to the GOP’s transformation. The web eroded the capability of the Republican Get together’s comparatively cosmopolitan elite to gatekeep conservative discourse and thus set the phrases of intra-right debate.
It is a extra common phenomenon: Throughout the political spectrum, educated elites have misplaced affect over the contours of public debate. The Democratic pollster David Shor argues that this has enabled the unfold of intolerant ideologies, since writerly varieties have traditionally been extra dedicated to liberal universalism than the general public as a complete. That is an attention-grabbing speculation. However to say that digital media has unmuzzled intolerant People — and to say that such media has multiplied their quantity by reviving oral consciousness — are two completely different claims.
And there’s some motive to doubt the latter one. In any case, by some markers, the American public is as dedicated to particular person rights, toleration, and human equality because it has ever been. For the reason that rollout of the iPhone in 2007, approval for interracial marriage has risen by greater than 15 factors in America to a virtually unanimous 94 p.c, whereas help for same-sex marriage has jumped by 23 factors to 69 p.c.
Granted, one can discover indicators of digitally induced illiberalism if one seems for them. Some surveys of school college students present a flagging dedication to free speech. Younger males in a giant quantity of Western democracies look like souring on gender equality. And a few polling means that TikTok could possibly be turning its customers extra reactionary.
Maybe, these are portents of the place “digital orality” is taking us. As America’s check scores fall and its display screen time rises, narratives of cultural decline change into onerous to dismiss outright.
But it’s value remembering the perennial attraction of such pessimism. Greater than 2,000 years in the past, Socrates decried the novel media know-how of his day — the written phrase — in a lot the identical phrases that many condemn social media and AI in 2025. Addressing himself to the inventor of writing, the Greek thinker declared, “You haven’t found a potion for remembering, however for reminding; you present your college students with the looks of knowledge, not with its actuality. Your invention will allow them to listen to many issues with out being correctly taught, and they’ll think about that they’ve come to know a lot whereas for probably the most half they may know nothing.”
I don’t like what trendy media is doing to my mind, nor what intolerant dogmatists are doing to my nation. And like Mir and Garfinkle, I’m tempted to attract a line between the 2. It feels true to me that know-how is coarsening America’s tradition and poisoning its politics. And that sentiment might nicely mirror actuality. But when I want to be goal, it may additionally mirror the very fact I’m a Twitter-obsessed, millennial author who’s beginning to get previous.
