Monday, October 20, 2008

media ecology

Although you might think that Marshall McLuhan was a communication studies professor, he was an English professor at the University of Toronto. You probably know him best for his pronouncement that "The medium is the message," which suggests that the channel is more influential than the content it carries. McLuhan argued that media environments are invisible to communicators because these environments are so ordinary to us. According to McLuhan, accounting for the complexity of the media environment means considering both incremental and sudden changes.

McLuhan proposed that changes in media technology determine the course of human history. The figure on page 315 is helpful in understanding how McLuhan viewed the media map of history—the four ages he identified (tribal, literate, print, and electronic) and the technological development and the dominant sense receptor associated with each age. For example, the dominant sense receptor associated with the literate age was the eye and those associated with the electronic age are the ear and hand. As another example, the invention of the phonetic alphabet was the catalyst for the literate age and also led to a linear approach to thinking.

McLuhan described people of the tribal age as having more passion and spontaneity than we have today. The literate age was when human beings developed a civilized private detachment from each other. Although the printing press brought with it the ability to widely distribute written materials, McLuhan argued it also led to a sense of separation and aloneness for people of that era. More recent scholars have suggested we’re now in the digital age, the next epoch in human history.

Neil Postman, founder of NYU’s media ecology program, continued McLuhan’s work, although not always in the same trajectory. For example, Postman argues that any new technology always presents a Faustian bargain and the primary task of media ecology is to make moral judgments.

~ Professor Cyborg

1 comment:

Maly from Cali said...

I think the fact that these environments are invisible, is what makes them so powerful. A lack of awareness is what makes us fall prey to just accepting content instead of questioning its validity first. These ordinary things that go on in the background of our daily lives, are somewhat like white noise. White noise is always there, but being subject to it for a prolonged period, we get so used to it that we hardly acknowledge or even notice its existence. McLuhan's famous statement, “the medium is the message,” is a great catalyst for critical thinking regarding media as environment. I agree that the ways in which you get “the message,” drastically affect what school of thought you are subscribing to. McLuhan goes as far as saying the content is pretty irrelevant. I think the juxtaposition of the content and the medium is what makes the message. So if this is true, what message am I getting when I listen to a book on tape? Am I not getting the content? Or is my perception of the content dramatically different than someone who reads the book? I think my perception on the content is going to be different from anyone else simply because it is MY perception, and the medium may affect this in some way. Maybe my perception is what makes me buy it on tape instead of reading it, thus perpetuating the messages I already hold to be true. I don't know if this makes any sense to anyone else, but I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this.