Is the Medium Really the Message?

"The medium is the message" was one of the many points made by Canadian media scholar Marshall McLuhan. But what does it really mean? McLuhan argues that it is not the content of the message that influences the actions of an audience, but the way the message is communicated. McLuhan's ideas link him to the theory of Technological Determinism, which claims that technology shapes social change and determines society's future.

Building on the idea that forms of communication are linked to structures in society (known as biases of communication, which was coined by his mentor Harold Innis), McLuhan claimed that media technologies affect the patterns of human thinking and the way people interact with the world around them. We can see evidence of this in the various ways people use their smartphones and engage with others on social media platforms. Most people cannot walk out the door without their phones, and social media has become not only a way to keep in touch with friends and acquaintances, but a way to gather and share information. There are many valid points that can be gleaned from McLuhan's studies; in fact, some scholars claim that McLuhan's studies predicted the inception of the Internet. However, there were also limitations to his ideas that could be considered misleading.

Strengths and Limitations of McLuhan's Ideas

McLuhan's work was a clear breakaway from the traditional paradigms of communication studies; it can also be said that his ideas had a great deal in common with both the development of modernity and the rise of post-modernism. Some of the main strengths of McLuhan's research include:

• The idea that the social structures of each historical era were the product of the dominant communication method.
• The observation that there are different levels of audience engagement (hot and cold) in media.
• The claim that mass media technologies facilitate cultural transmission within the larger society.

McLuhan claimed that as communication methods and technologies change over time, social organization changes as well. He further illustrated this point by categorizing the different eras into three different paradigms: tribal, print, and electronic. The tribal paradigm was dominated by real-time oral transmission. People were only able to obtain information by talking to other people. This made the culture relational and communal. In contrast, the print paradigm, which fostered linear thinking, created a need for order and structure in written messages while eliminating the need for chronological communication. In this era, recorded information could be communicated hours, days, or even years later. This undermined the relational and communal characteristics of the tribal era. Lastly, the electronic era allows people to communicate in 'real-time' regardless of geography or whether the transmission was live or pre-recorded. This society differed from the print era because it enabled people to use their senses to interact with the world around them. In addition, media technologies like the radio, television, and Internet acted as extensions of human capacities and senses. These extensions changed the way people relate to their environment and each other, which in turn altered the social structure.

When we talk about hot and cold media, we are referring to the different levels of user interaction that comes from different forms of media. If the audience has little say as to the content of the media, and acts as passive participants then the media is considered hot (e.g., film, radio, and print). If the audience is able to give feedback and/or interact with the content in some way then the media is considered cool (e.g., telephones, computers, and early television). The hot and cold category is not static, with each era technologies may become more interactive or, in the case of radio and television, it can go the other way around. One of the modern examples of cool media would be the variety of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.

When mass media faciliates a cultural transmission, McLuhan claimed that it would create a 'global village'. While observing early methods of generating live broadcasts via satellite technology, McLuhan elaborated that if this technology enabled people to interact in ways similar to the pre-print tribal era, without being limited by geography, then a new social order could emerge that would connect the entire world. In a sense, he successfully predicted how our current society would function. We now live in a society that that instantaneously shares information and ideas through various channels, as McLuhan predicted.

Christian Research Institute, 2014

Although, McLuhan was able to accurately predict what our society would be like, his ideas still had weaknesses. These limitations include:

• The fact that technology never forces itself on society.
• McLuhan's ideas tend to generalize mass media.
• Statements such as "global village" and "medium is the message" can be seen as reductive.

The idea that technology has an all-encompassing influential effect on society simplifies the human factor. Technology never forces itself onto people, instead people develop technology and it's up to consumers to choose whether or not to use it. In fact, according to the Diffusion Theory of Innovation, adoption of a new innovation does not happen instantly. The decision to adopt a new innovation often goes through a series of stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. The idea that the introduction of new technologies leads to inevitable social change is a simplistic generalization.

McLuhan's ideas also generalize mass media to the point that it disregards the structures of various media organizations. In other words, his work fails to take into account why some media outlets transmit messages in certain ways, for instance, the fact that some news organizations have a clear political bias. Instead, McLuhan's ideas opt to look at how the technology the information is channeled through influences the audience. This dismissive attitude towards the message could conflate attempts to sow disinformation and a legitimate efforts to keep the public informed. It also places blame on the technology itself rather than human actions.

The prophesied "global village" fails to take into consideration of the ownership, regulation, and control of said village. In addition, "global village" is not reflective of today's society, particularly with people forming their own digital cliques on social media platforms. Perhaps the better phrase to describe this phenomenon would be "digital household", since people tend to gravitate towards others who share similar values and beliefs. "The medium is the message" claim also does not consider the content of the message itself. In summary, McLuhan's claims ignore the social, political, and economic factors that influence human behaviors, making his ideas almost one-sided.

Conclusion

Like other alternative communication paradigms, McLuhan's ideas offered a different way of looking at the relationship between society and the media. His research placed great emphasis on how messages are channeled rather than why they were transmitted in the first place, which was an interesting divergence from traditional paradigms. His observations on how different forms of communication influenced societies in different eras and predictions on how mass communications technologies would influence society years later are widely embraced by scholars today. However, his ideas were also quite reductive and one-sided. They do not take into account the fact that people have the power of personal choice. For example, they can choose whether or not to adopt certain technologies into their everyday lives. His ideas also generalize mass media to the point that they ignore the inner workings of media outlets. McLuhan's research also fail to acknowledge outside factors that influence people's behaviors and contribute to the formation of various ideologies. Even McLuhan's famous quotes are misleading as the "global village" does reflect our society, and "the medium is the message" disregards the content of the message. Basically, while his ideas present eye-opening insights into the relationship between humans and various forms of technology, McLuhan's research ultimately ignores the human factor in mass communications issues.

What do you think? Do you think McLuhan's research is valid? Do you have some additional critiques on his work? Did McLuhan really predict the Internet? Leave a comment!