Mike Khalili's Essay: The Need for Social Context

In my opinion McLuhan's theories are fundamentally flawed.

The main problem with McLuhan's theories are that he largely ignores the societal context in which new technologies emerge. His famous saying that "The Medium is the Message" ignores the fact that the medium normally arises only in the context of the need to communicate new messages.

Let's take a simple example: the film. In the last session we looked at a clip from the film "Battleship Potemkin". It was argued that this is what the film as a form of media allowed. The film allowed for the telling an emotional story in a visually engaging fashion. This is a true but vacuous statement, for it misses the societal context which drove the media in this direction. Film as a technology emerged around the turn of the century. This corresponds roughly to the rise of the labour union, the emergence of the 40 hour work week and other such reforms to a labour market. Suddenly people had free time to enjoy the film. Given that people still tended to work grueling jobs, passive entertainment was desired. Film filled this need and thus was successful. It is hardly surprising that this film emerged from the Soviet Union only years after the bolshevik revolution, the most extreme move towards the working class attempting self-emancipation.

McCluhan pokes fun at this contextual view of technology by joking "'Firearms are neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.' That is if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good." However, this shows how McLuhan overly narrowly contrues what constitutes a technology. Firearms are not really a basic technology, gunpowder is. Gunpowder was developed first in China. However, given that China was at this time a large empire with no serious challenger, the application chosen, the "message" was celebratory. People developed fireworks for use on various holidays. However, Europe later developed the technology at a time when various European kingdoms were engaged in protruded conflicts. They thus applied the technology to weapons. The "medium" was the same but given the different societal context the "message" was very different--in China "Happy New Year" and in Europe "Die. Die. Die!"

McLuhan's inability to grasp contextual influences on media can at times be stunning. He wrote: “TV will not work as background. It engages you. You have to be with it” (McLuhan, 1964, p.312). Needless to say, most people today would laugh at such a statement. People watch TV passively all the time. Why did McLuhan get this so wrong? It is not difficult to determine this. He wrote this statement in 1964. In 1964 most women did not work outside the home in Western society. Automation at the same time had greatly simplified housework. Thus, daytime soap operas offered women who had more free time engaging storylines lasting over years. A woman could then cook dinner in time for her husband and children to arrive home, and allow for dedicated evening TV time. Just as the movie offered relaxation for those who were exhausted, TV offered engaging entertainment for those who were bored.

Needless to say, we don't live this way anymore. Just years after McLuhan wrote this, the women's lib movement changed society. Women worked outside the home. People were not bored anymore. In fact not only did they not have huge amounts of extra time, they had time constrainsts. The pace of life picked up steam. People cooked, cleaned, ate and watched TV at the same time. The nature of TV radically changed with society. Thus McLuhan's view quickly seemed dated and obsolete.

So what does this say of the future of the internet? It indicates that in the future, technology in and of itself will mean nothing. What is important is the societal context. How our society changes will define how the medium will evolve. If society continues to get faster pace, globalization continues, and work hours increase, speed and efficiency will remain key to the internet. If society slows down, there is a major rebellion against current values or other such changes the results will be different. McLuhan shows how difficult this is to predict. He obviously did not see the women's liberation movement coming in 1964. While we may be able to predict evolutionary changes, the real revolutionary changes to society emerge quickly and are missed by nearly everyone. They are very difficult events about which to have foresight.