“A prophet is not without honor,” says the Bible, “save in his own country.” This was manifestly not true in the case of Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian cultural critic who was born 100 years ago on July 21, and was famous not only in his own country but also abroad. In fact, he’s the only public intellectual I can think of who played himself in a Woody Allen movie.
Film buffs will recall the wonderful sequence in Annie Hall, where Woody and Diane Keaton are lining up for a movie when a guy behind them starts opining pompously about McLuhan’s description of television as a “high intensity or hot medium.” Allen expresses to the camera a desire to have a large sock full of horse manure close to hand, whereupon the guy asserts his right to express his opinion on the grounds that he teaches a course at Columbia University on “TV, media and culture,” a fact that — he asserts — gives his views on McLuhan a great deal of validity.
“That’s funny,” replies Woody, “because I happen to have Mr McLuhan right here.” He goes over to a flipchart and pulls out the great man himself from behind it.
“I heard what you were saying,” says McLuhan to the Columbia man. “You know nothing of my work ... how you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.”
The scene closes with Woody saying to the camera: “Boy, if life were only like this.”
As it happens, there have been many times in the past few years when it would have been useful to have had McLuhan to hand because, in a strange way, his insights into media seem more relevant now than they were in the 1960s when he sprang into prominence. His big idea, encapsulated in the baffling aphorism: “The medium is the message,” was that the important thing about media is not the information they carry, but what they are doing to us in terms of shaping our behavior, the way we think and possibly also the way our brains are structured. McLuhan believed that this had been demonstrated by media that had dominated human society up to the 1960s — starting with print and culminating with broadcast television — and added the twist that TV was restoring the “sensory balance” that had been disrupted by print.
I never really understood McLuhan’s views about television, preferring the perspective of one of his disciples, Neil Postman, who argued that the essential thing about the medium was that it had an infantilizing effect, a view neatly encapsulated in the title of his wonderful book about the medium, Amusing Ourselves to Death.
However, McLuhan’s insight into the significance of dominant media, expressed in another aphorism — “We shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us” — always seemed profound and came to seem more and more so as television gave way to the Internet and the networked world that we now inhabit.
The past few years, for example, have seen a series of angry and sometimes anguished debates about what a comprehensively networked ecosystem is doing to our children, our politics, our economies and even our brains. We wonder whether social networking might be fuelling political revolution, for example. And we ask if Google is making us stupid — or at any rate whether networked technology is reducing attention spans, devaluing memory and blurring the line between making online connections and forming real relationships. Over all of these contemporary debates looms the shadow of McLuhan, who now seems more insightful than ever.
He retains, however, the capacity to polarize opinion that he always had. Mention his name in polite academic conversation and you invariably see scholarly noses wrinkle in distaste. In part, this is because — although he was an impeccable scholar schooled in a Cambridge University English faculty that included F.R. Leavis, I.A. Richards and Arthur Quiller-Couch — in his writings on media he affected an aloof, oracular, aphoristic style which enraged conventional academics. He always started his lectures with a joke and invited his students to ponder questions such as the semiotics of an advertisement for aspirin that featured a helmeted, jackbooted, scantily clad drum majorette. This is not the way to win friends and gain influence in academia.
McLuhan’s big idea was to spot that the word “medium” has distinctly different meanings. The conventional one is that a medium is a channel for communicating information — which is why much discussion about media up to his time focused on the content that was being conveyed by print, radio and television. But there is another, equally significant, interpretation. To a biologist, a medium is an environment containing the nutrients in which tissue cultures — organisms — grow. Change the medium and you change the organisms.
Our communications media likewise constitute the environment which sustains and nurtures — or constrains — our culture. If the medium changes, then so does the culture.
The medium is far more than the message, in other words. In fact, it’s all we’ve got.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations