If McLuhan considered media low in participation “hot” and media that are high in participation “cool”, I wonder what he’d call social media? Freezing? If only he knew what was coming when he did this interview.
Sophia Uhl I have a question about McLuhan's idea that "all technology becomes part of shared ritual that the tribe desperately strives to keep stabilized and permanent" (Playboy Interview, 16). I was under the impression that a society is continually searching for new technology and often abandons the obsolete technologies which are rendered inferior. What did McLuhan mean when he presented this assertion?
I believe what McLuhan is referring to here is the hypothetical situation in which the electric media 'retribalizes' human society. He says "by its very nature, an oral-tribal society-such as Pharaonic Egypt- is far more stable and enduring than any fragmented visual society." I think the reason being is that the 'literate' society is caught up over a misconception that there is a linear order of the universe in which we must progress. He says "The instant involvement that accompanies instant technologies triggers a conservative, stabilizing, gyroscopic function in man;" this sort of behavior is "an integral collective awareness that transcends conventional boundaries of time and space."(17) Basically there will be a point wherein which our current mode of society will advance the technology to the point where we will no longer need to create new modes of communication/technology and simply preserve the extensions that stabilize the tribe. The difference between the literate society and the tribal society is that the tribal society will function more harmoniously with the laws of nature than the literate society can, due to the linear nature of the communication in the visual/literate society. In other words, a tribal society does not have the goal of abandoning or creating new technologies because they are whole in and of themselves, while the literate society is always striving for completeness.
"An environment becomes fully visible only when it has been superseded by a new one." We will not know the effects technology has on the world until we get newer technology. Making us slaves to the new creation. Mcluhan's suggestion is to learn to anticipate and control them before that can happen. The access to unlimited information makes humans less curious about the wonders of the natural world. They have become content with looking at the world through a "black mirror" rather than experiencing life with questions that don't get answered right away, but that leave us refreshed. Will we have an information overload? Where everyone knows all of the same information and nothing leaves any further questions to be asked and no one is curious any longer.
I thought the part of this interview that caught my eye is when McLuhan is discussing the impact that television has with politics. He states that “TV is revolutionizing every political system in the Western world. For one thing, it’s creating a totally new type of national leader, a man who is much more of a tribal chieftain than a politician.”
This is a good point by McLuhan as the emergence of TV had a great impact on politics. I immediately thought of the 1960 political debates with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon that were the first debates to be broadcasted on television. These debates helped JFK get elected as it showed how well prepared he was for the debate. On the flip side, one can see watching on television that Nixon was unprepared just by looking at his body language.
Whenever new technology is unveiled people are either amazed by the new possibilities or scared for what the future holds. A good example is the self-driving car. Some people think it’s cool that we have advanced as a society to the point where we can create intelligence that is smart enough to not only perform its duty, but cognizant of the environment around it. Others are outraged that these new forms of technology could bring us closer to some sort of dystopic terminator future. One of the comments McLuhan made during the interview in response “I see no possibility of a worldwide Luddite rebellion… so we might as well sit back and see what is happening. I thought about that comment afterwards and noticed that apart from a couple of tweets or comments on an article, nothing ever seems to be done by groups who oppose the new technology. It made me curious about the future and whether or not there will be more vocal groups opposed to the new capabilities once artificial intelligence becomes common.
The part of the interview that stuck out to me was the part where he said the medium is the message, not the content. I have heard the phrase "the message is the medium" that was coined by McLuhan so I was interested when it came up in the interview. This is a very different way of thinking and it took me a while to understand what he was saying. What he is saying is that the medium is influenced by how the message is perceived. He says the "content of any medium is always another medium," meaning that the content of writing is speech, print is that of writing and print itself is the content of the telegraph. When I thought about this concept I thought about how the effects of news have on society. For example, when 911 happened, the public outcry and effects it had on America- more national security,etc- was moreof the message than the content. It is more about the effect that the message has on the people instead of the actual content of the message.
I think it's pretty amazing that McLuhan's theories and philosophies in this interview are still relevant to today's media. McLuhan says at one point, "By placing all the stress on content and practically none on the medium, we lose all chance of perceiving and influencing the impact of new technologies on man, and thus we are always dumfounded by — and unprepared for — the revolutionary environmental transformations induced by new media."
I think this quote speaks volumes about how technology is rapidly advancing, and as media advances along with it, it becomes more difficult to comprehend. We've become so fixated on the kinds of content that can be produced, but not the actually technologies that produce it that we often take it for granted. It showed a great deal of concern for the future, and it continues to be as concerning as it was decades ago.
"The primary medium of communication was speech, and thus no man knew appreciably more or less than any other — which meant that there was little individualism and specialization, the hallmarks of “civilized” Western man. Tribal cultures even today simply cannot comprehend the concept of the individual or of the separate and independent citizen."
Its interesting when McLuhan examines the social environment of primitive cultures before written language. He asserts that with the absence of technology and a written alphabet there is an absence of individualism or the self. I disagree with this statement and retort with the notion that language is in fact a derivative of experiential stimuli and that those stimuli and their adverse effects on the individual still exists even in the absence of an alphabet. The process of personal experience and experimentation based on individual impulse drives individual innovation and enhanced knowledge of their environment. A curious and active elder in the tribe would possess unique advantages within the social unit. That is why there were different roles within the tribe, experience crafts the individual while langue allows for the inscription of experience laying a legacy and birthing identity. As the individual advances so does the culture, the lack of an expressed ego is in place because of the lack of ability to vocalize and romance the idea of the self. The identity of the individual is just internalized and might never be realized by the other tribe members but just because it doesn't exist socially doesn't mean that people didn’t had their own idea of self. Technology has now surpassed individualism, the internet has hyper individualized us into a perpetual digital fit of anxiety where everything is recorded and used to quantize identity.
"The primary medium of communication was speech, and thus no man knew appreciably more or less than any other — which meant that there was little individualism and specialization, the hallmarks of “civilized” Western man. Tribal cultures even today simply cannot comprehend the concept of the individual or of the separate and independent citizen."
Its interesting when McLuhan examines the social environment of primitive cultures before written language. He asserts that with the absence of technology and a written alphabet there is an absence of individualism or the self. I disagree with this statement and retort with the notion that language is in fact a derivative of experiential stimuli and that those stimuli and their adverse effects on the individual still exists even in the absence of an alphabet. The process of personal experience and experimentation based on individual impulse drives individual innovation and enhanced knowledge of their environment. A curious and active elder in the tribe would possess unique advantages within the social unit. That is why there were different roles within the tribe, experience crafts the individual while langue allows for the inscription of experience laying a legacy and birthing identity. As the individual advances so does the culture, the lack of an expressed ego is in place because of the lack of ability to vocalize and romance the idea of the self. The identity of the individual is just internalized and might never be realized by the other tribe members but just because it doesn't exist socially doesn't mean that people didn’t had their own idea of self. Technology has now surpassed individualism, the internet has hyper individualized us into a perpetual digital fit of anxiety where everything is recorded and used to quantize identity.
If McLuhan was alive today, he would say that we are sheep, that are being controlled by the media. It almost seems as if the world would end, if suddenly technology wasn't here anymore. In his interview, McLuhan says that individuals have become cold and aloof due to the use of technology. I agree with him. We have become desensitized to graphic violence in video games, TV shows and movies. The only time I've been truly disturbed by a tv show, was the scene with the Red Wedding on Game of Thrones.
Individuals in western society, have lost their sense of cultural identity. Who are we without technology? What culture do we have to fall back on without it?
Its interesting to read how McLuhan is able to connect events in history to the detachment of man. In the interview McLuhan held the printing press responsible for the rise of nationalism and industrialism. He goes onto explain that the addition of printing technology in the 16th century enabled man. By having printed information and data so readily available it enabled companies to inform and advertise. This also brought up the need for a national language to distribute mass media because it required social uniformity. According to McLuhan “Every aspect of Western mechanical culture was shaped by print technology”.
The part of the McLuhan article that grabbed my attention is about TV being a great aspect in politics nowadays. I want to compare this to what is currently going on in the media - the 2016 Presidential election. After reviewing week after week of these different political debates and rallies, media gives way for people to see the difference in leaders over time. Throughout the different media, you can see the lies that these candidates bring forth to society, whether going back on their plans or proposing something irrational and then saying they never said that - when clearly there is record of it.
If McLuhan considered media low in participation “hot” and media that are high in participation “cool”, I wonder what he’d call social media? Freezing? If only he knew what was coming when he did this interview.
ReplyDeleteSophia Uhl
ReplyDeleteI have a question about McLuhan's idea that "all technology becomes part of shared ritual that the tribe desperately strives to keep stabilized and permanent" (Playboy Interview, 16). I was under the impression that a society is continually searching for new technology and often abandons the obsolete technologies which are rendered inferior. What did McLuhan mean when he presented this assertion?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe what McLuhan is referring to here is the hypothetical situation in which the electric media 'retribalizes' human society. He says "by its very nature, an oral-tribal society-such as Pharaonic Egypt- is far more stable and enduring than any fragmented visual society." I think the reason being is that the 'literate' society is caught up over a misconception that there is a linear order of the universe in which we must progress. He says "The instant involvement that accompanies instant technologies triggers a conservative, stabilizing, gyroscopic function in man;" this sort of behavior is "an integral collective awareness that transcends conventional boundaries of time and space."(17) Basically there will be a point wherein which our current mode of society will advance the technology to the point where we will no longer need to create new modes of communication/technology and simply preserve the extensions that stabilize the tribe.
DeleteThe difference between the literate society and the tribal society is that the tribal society will function more harmoniously with the laws of nature than the literate society can, due to the linear nature of the communication in the visual/literate society. In other words, a tribal society does not have the goal of abandoning or creating new technologies because they are whole in and of themselves, while the literate society is always striving for completeness.
Hopefully this helps.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"An environment becomes fully visible only when it has been superseded by a new one." We will not know the effects technology has on the world until we get newer technology. Making us slaves to the new creation. Mcluhan's suggestion is to learn to anticipate and control them before that can happen.
ReplyDeleteThe access to unlimited information makes humans less curious about the wonders of the natural world. They have become content with looking at the world through a "black mirror" rather than experiencing life with questions that don't get answered right away, but that leave us refreshed. Will we have an information overload? Where everyone knows all of the same information and nothing leaves any further questions to be asked and no one is curious any longer.
Matt Ferremi
ReplyDeleteI thought the part of this interview that caught my eye is when McLuhan is discussing the impact that television has with politics. He states that “TV is revolutionizing every political system in the Western world. For one thing, it’s creating a totally new type of national leader, a man who is much more of a tribal chieftain than a politician.”
This is a good point by McLuhan as the emergence of TV had a great impact on politics. I immediately thought of the 1960 political debates with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon that were the first debates to be broadcasted on television. These debates helped JFK get elected as it showed how well prepared he was for the debate. On the flip side, one can see watching on television that Nixon was unprepared just by looking at his body language.
Connor Hynes
ReplyDeleteWhenever new technology is unveiled people are either amazed by the new possibilities or scared for what the future holds. A good example is the self-driving car. Some people think it’s cool that we have advanced as a society to the point where we can create intelligence that is smart enough to not only perform its duty, but cognizant of the environment around it. Others are outraged that these new forms of technology could bring us closer to some sort of dystopic terminator future. One of the comments McLuhan made during the interview in response “I see no possibility of a worldwide Luddite rebellion… so we might as well sit back and see what is happening. I thought about that comment afterwards and noticed that apart from a couple of tweets or comments on an article, nothing ever seems to be done by groups who oppose the new technology. It made me curious about the future and whether or not there will be more vocal groups opposed to the new capabilities once artificial intelligence becomes common.
Kelly Burke
ReplyDeleteThe part of the interview that stuck out to me was the part where he said the medium is the message, not the content. I have heard the phrase "the message is the medium" that was coined by McLuhan so I was interested when it came up in the interview. This is a very different way of thinking and it took me a while to understand what he was saying. What he is saying is that the medium is influenced by how the message is perceived. He says the "content of any medium is always another medium," meaning that the content of writing is speech, print is that of writing and print itself is the content of the telegraph. When I thought about this concept I thought about how the effects of news have on society. For example, when 911 happened, the public outcry and effects it had on America- more national security,etc- was moreof the message than the content. It is more about the effect that the message has on the people instead of the actual content of the message.
I think it's pretty amazing that McLuhan's theories and philosophies in this interview are still relevant to today's media. McLuhan says at one point, "By placing all the stress on content and practically none on the medium, we lose all chance of perceiving and influencing the impact of new technologies on man, and thus we are always dumfounded by — and unprepared for — the revolutionary environmental transformations induced by new media."
ReplyDeleteI think this quote speaks volumes about how technology is rapidly advancing, and as media advances along with it, it becomes more difficult to comprehend. We've become so fixated on the kinds of content that can be produced, but not the actually technologies that produce it that we often take it for granted. It showed a great deal of concern for the future, and it continues to be as concerning as it was decades ago.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/4099898.jpg
ReplyDelete"The primary medium of communication was speech, and thus no man knew appreciably more or less than any other — which meant that there was little individualism and specialization, the hallmarks of “civilized” Western man. Tribal cultures even today simply cannot comprehend the concept of the individual or of the separate and independent citizen."
ReplyDeleteIts interesting when McLuhan examines the social environment of primitive cultures before written language. He asserts that with the absence of technology and a written alphabet there is an absence of individualism or the self. I disagree with this statement and retort with the notion that language is in fact a derivative of experiential stimuli and that those stimuli and their adverse effects on the individual still exists even in the absence of an alphabet. The process of personal experience and experimentation based on individual impulse drives individual innovation and enhanced knowledge of their environment. A curious and active elder in the tribe would possess unique advantages within the social unit. That is why there were different roles within the tribe, experience crafts the individual while langue allows for the inscription of experience laying a legacy and birthing identity. As the individual advances so does the culture, the lack of an expressed ego is in place because of the lack of ability to vocalize and romance the idea of the self. The identity of the individual is just internalized and might never be realized by the other tribe members but just because it doesn't exist socially doesn't mean that people didn’t had their own idea of self. Technology has now surpassed individualism, the internet has hyper individualized us into a perpetual digital fit of anxiety where everything is recorded and used to quantize identity.
"The primary medium of communication was speech, and thus no man knew appreciably more or less than any other — which meant that there was little individualism and specialization, the hallmarks of “civilized” Western man. Tribal cultures even today simply cannot comprehend the concept of the individual or of the separate and independent citizen."
ReplyDeleteIts interesting when McLuhan examines the social environment of primitive cultures before written language. He asserts that with the absence of technology and a written alphabet there is an absence of individualism or the self. I disagree with this statement and retort with the notion that language is in fact a derivative of experiential stimuli and that those stimuli and their adverse effects on the individual still exists even in the absence of an alphabet. The process of personal experience and experimentation based on individual impulse drives individual innovation and enhanced knowledge of their environment. A curious and active elder in the tribe would possess unique advantages within the social unit. That is why there were different roles within the tribe, experience crafts the individual while langue allows for the inscription of experience laying a legacy and birthing identity. As the individual advances so does the culture, the lack of an expressed ego is in place because of the lack of ability to vocalize and romance the idea of the self. The identity of the individual is just internalized and might never be realized by the other tribe members but just because it doesn't exist socially doesn't mean that people didn’t had their own idea of self. Technology has now surpassed individualism, the internet has hyper individualized us into a perpetual digital fit of anxiety where everything is recorded and used to quantize identity.
If McLuhan was alive today, he would say that we are sheep, that are being controlled by the media. It almost seems as if the world would end, if suddenly technology wasn't here anymore. In his interview, McLuhan says that individuals have become cold and aloof due to the use of technology. I agree with him. We have become desensitized to graphic violence in video games, TV shows and movies. The only time I've been truly disturbed by a tv show, was the scene with the Red Wedding on Game of Thrones.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals in western society, have lost their sense of cultural identity. Who are we without technology? What culture do we have to fall back on without it?
https://imgflip.com/i/yi25e
ReplyDeleteMy meme...
McLuhan Meme:
ReplyDeletehttp://media.makeameme.org/created/so-youre-telling-bzs633.jpg
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan Meme:
ReplyDeletehttps://imgflip.com/i/yk34k
http://makeameme.org/meme/no-i-neither
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan Meme
http://memegenerator.net/instance2/4140551
ReplyDeleteIts interesting to read how McLuhan is able to connect events in history to the detachment of man. In the interview McLuhan held the printing press responsible for the rise of nationalism and industrialism. He goes onto explain that the addition of printing technology in the 16th century enabled man. By having printed information and data so readily available it enabled companies to inform and advertise. This also brought up the need for a national language to distribute mass media because it required social uniformity. According to McLuhan “Every aspect of Western mechanical culture was shaped by print technology”.
ReplyDeleteThe part of the McLuhan article that grabbed my attention is about TV being a great aspect in politics nowadays. I want to compare this to what is currently going on in the media - the 2016 Presidential election. After reviewing week after week of these different political debates and rallies, media gives way for people to see the difference in leaders over time. Throughout the different media, you can see the lies that these candidates bring forth to society, whether going back on their plans or proposing something irrational and then saying they never said that - when clearly there is record of it.
ReplyDelete