Is the medium *really* more important than the message?
Marshall McLuhan is a 1960s Canadian philosopher whose central belief is that the medium in which a message is delivered is more important than the message itself. For instance, the primary communication medium in prehistoric times was oral communication, which forced us to rely on our sense of hearing. Oral communication was followed by written communication, which relies on our sense of vision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko6J9v1C9zE
McLuhan makes a salient point about the evolution of media and communication throughout history. However, humanity has reached a point in its evolution where we use all our senses to experience media through video, audio, and the written word. We visually consume media through screens and on paper.
Today, our immediate access to media weakens this primary argument as we can learn about a supreme court ruling in our Instagram feed but read the same text in a physical newspaper. In this case, the medium doesn’t affect the readers’ understanding, which is why this essential element of McLuhan’s thinking does not hold up.
McLuhan also asserts that the dominant media defines the society in which it exists, which is somewhat true. We communicate using smartphones and email — not snail mail and landlines. We primarily access media using “smart” devices, which increasingly define our society. Though expensive, smartphones are becoming cheaper alternatives to investing in a home computer.
However, this concept is not all-encompassing. Many people choose to incorporate legacy media into their routines. We are not defined by our cellphones and streaming devices. My partner and I often listen to records and read paperback books even though we have Spotify and e-readers at our fingertips.
McLuhan is also known for coining the phrase “global village.” He claims that the immediacy of media will contribute to a culture that transcends boundaries and create a worldwide community. The internet helps break down these barriers, and individuals worldwide get the opportunity to engage with people and understand cultures without being immersed in them.
However, I live in the United States and don’t engage with other cultures as often as I should. I watch the BBC on social media sometimes, I love Australian humor, and Asian cultures captivate me, but I’m not immersed in these traditions, and I know I will never understand the subtext behind their media because I have different learned experiences. This is where McLuhan’s global village falls short. When I listen to Radio Garden, I hear American musicians worldwide, which makes me believe that the global village exists, but not in the way McLuhan suggested. McLuhan’s global village implies a homogenous worldwide experience because of the introduction of media. Today’s global village encourages individualism and promotes individual cultures that relate to geography, tradition, and hereditary values.
McLuhan had great ideas. However, these ideas have not translated well over time. It feels like he predicted the internet with the concept of the global village, but he missed the mark on the follow-through. He believed that the dominant media defines a society, yet legacy media is still prevalent. Similarly, he emphasizes the medium rather than the message. Still, as we get used to the media and the message, the medium ceases to be important, especially in the digital age when I can receive the same information from a newspaper as I can from a social media site.