I wanted to do my presentation on McLuhan’s “The Message is the Medium” because he is one of the founding father of media criticism. I wanted to see consider how his meta theory “The Medium is the Message” about technology (and big business) control would play out in today’s all-access, anyone-can-be-a-journalist Internet and I wanted to be challenged in my thought process.
McLuhan’s theory is difficult to both to interpret and explain. It is a big paradigm shift for these MCDM students, who are used to thinking that today’s media is automatically a good thing. It was fascinating to watch people’s eyes widen and brows furrow when they considered how technology might be controlling them and not the other way around.
Each group I presented had a different idea on McLuhan’s contemporary applicability — the first one thought McLuhan’s theory still had some relevance, the second one not at all, and the third thought it had as much relevance today as it did in the 60-70′s! I enjoyed the questions that came up — how related is his theory to Neil Postman’s? does the type of media also change the message? — and learned a few things from a couple of the other students. Also, I think everyone enjoyed the clip from “Annie Hall.”
“The Message is the Medium” is one of the seminal works in media theory. McLuhan defined the electric light as “pure information”, being that nothing else is conveyed in this exchange. All other ways of media to convey information change the message. The medium, then becomes the message. And that message becomes a business and a commodity.
Allmedia are extensions of some human faculty. For example, clothes is an extension of the skin, wheel is an extension of the foot, and computer circuitry is an extension of the human central nervous system. What other media extensions can you think of?
McLuhan is interested in the effect of technology on society and how the message is controlled. Technology demands that people to perform in uniform and continuous patterns (typing on a keyboard, for example.) It is dehumanizing.
McLuhan’s concern is that accelerated media change will lead to a sort of ‘massacre of the innocents.” Everyone has access to technology and they will be immediately put under its “spell” on contact. “Any media has the power of imposing its own assumption on the unwary.” In addition, technology, especially being on the edge of technology, is terrifying.
Bower & Christensen’s “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”
Catching the wave
Their article is about how companies can invest in future business with new technologies. Many companies’ spend too much effort on existing products, channels, customers and their organization’s process. They, consciously or not, ignore new ‘disruptive’ technologies. Disruptive technologies are usually also big business. Examples the author’s list include: Seagate with smaller hard drives, IBM with the personal computer, and Apple with the Newton PDA.
To avoid this, the authors have several recommendations for companies: 1) Let start-ups conduct the experiments with new technology, 2) be the second (not the first) company to invest in the new technology in a start-up, 3) if developed in-company, then isolate the development of a new product to a group away from the main office, and 4) keep it independent and do not bring it in-house.
Contrasting Christensen & Bower’s gung-ho attitude toward new technology with McLuhan who points out that it is terrifying for anyone (including businesses) to live on the edge of technology.
My research topic is on health and science non-profits and their involvement with social media. Scientific research, which is the bread & butter of these organizations, relies heavily on technology. McLuhan’s theory is that this level of technology will turn science into business.
Rogers’ “The Innovation-Decision Process”
The Innovation-Decision Making Process
Rogers has a five-step process (with multiple side and sub-steps) for innovative decision-making – knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation . This theory seems to work well with consumer choice. I wonder about how well it can be applied to innovation that does not involve purchasing anything. Would these steps work with a happy accident in innovation itself?
He has some interesting arguments about how innovation information is distributed to adoptees. Interpersonal and mass communication channels influence innovation adoptees. Rogers argues that Internet can replace the interpersonal communication channel.
Contrast this very compartmentalized and constructed business theory with McLuhan’s meta-theory. I would guess that McLuhan would say that e-mail is not interpersonal, but mass communication.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Cave paintings and story-telling also can be said that the medium was the message. All information has always been conveyed depending on the medium AND the individual. How was it different in the modern world?
McLuhan’s theory was also about how the message is controlled. Today, with everyone able to report ‘news’, is this theory still relevant?
What would McLuhan’s view be of the Internet or social media?
Specifically, what would he think of Facebook? Flickr? YouTube? Online pornography?
References:
Bower, J. & Christensen, C. (Jan/Feb. 1995). “Disruptive Technologies: Catching The Wave,” Harvard Business Review, pp. 43-53.
Digitalecologist. “The Message is the Medium.” [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from Slide Share Web site: http://www.slideshare.net/digitalecologist/mcluhan-review
Kenrg. (2006, Oct. 26). “Marshall McLuhan & YouTube?” [Film]. Video posted to YouTube Web site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7GvQdDQv8g
McLuhan, M. (1962) “The Medium Is The Message” from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. In Ed. Wardip-Fruin, N. and Moatfort, N. The New Media Reader: MIT Press. (pp. 205-209)
Rogers, E. (2003). “Chapter 5 The Innovation-Decision Process”. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Yiasamatha, N. “Marshall McLuhan & the Internet.” Retrieved from Slide Share Web site: http://www.slideshare.net/ninanyc/marshall-mcluhan-the-internet-presentation
And now, for a little on the lighter side:
And a poll, for the opinionated cinemaphiles and filmgoers:
