2
   

Impact of media on society: retribalization of modern world?

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 07:10 am
Here is an old Marshall McLuhan's interview for the Playboy. It is long long long, but rarely do I read interviews with such interest. Interview was conducted in 1969 and is mostly about television's revolutionary impact on society. Many will probably remember this, but I have just encountered it in my email, forwarded to me by a friend from India. The man himself may have been an eccentric and slightly 'out there', but I loved many ideas in the interview, others stirred thoughts and questions.

Where have we moved since 1969? How does internet compare to TV? McLuhan would most likely agree that internet is inherently a 'cool' medium (one that requires active participation and imagination from its users as opposed to a 'hot' medium like print, which is highly specialized, leaves little to imagination and focuses on one sensory function) - does it contribute towards 'retribalization' of society, i.e., decentralization of information, ability to immerse image of the world into one's self according to own choices and conscience... growing independence and complexity of the 'little people'? Or are we not there yet, perhaps even degrading in some ways? I've my own thoughts, but am curious to see what jumps out at you from the interview, main impressions, parallels to today's world of media, thoughts...

WHOLE INTERVIEW HERE

Excerpts from the interview:
"If the phonetic alphabet fell like a bombshell on tribal man, the printing press hit him like a 100-megaton H-bomb. The printing press was the ultimate extension of phonetic literacy: Books could be reproduced in infinite numbers; universal literacy was at last fully possible, if gradually realized; and books became portable individual possessions. Type, the prototype of all machines, ensured the primacy of the visual bias and finally sealed the doom of tribal man. The new medium of linear, uniform, repeatable type reproduced information in unlimited quantities and at hitherto-impossible speeds, thus assuring the eye a position of total predominance in man's sensorium. As a drastic extension of man, it shaped and transformed his entire environment, psychic and social, and was directly responsible for the rise of such disparate phenomena as nationalism, the Reformation, the assembly line and its offspring, the Industrial Revolution, the whole concept of causality, Cartesian and Newtonian concepts of the universe, perspective in art, narrative chronology in literature and a psychological mode of introspection or inner direction that greatly intensified the tendencies toward individualism and specialization engendered 2000 years before by phonetic literacy. The schism between thought and action was institutionalized, and fragmented man, first sundered by the alphabet, was at last diced into bite-sized tidbits. From that point on, Western man was Gutenberg man.

PLAYBOY: Even accepting the principle that technological innovations generate far-reaching environmental changes, many of your readers find it difficult to understand how you can hold the development of printing responsible for such apparently unrelated phenomena as nationalism and industrialism.

McLUHAN: The key word is "apparently." Look a bit closer at both nationalism and industrialism and you'll see that both derived directly from the explosion of print technology in the 16th Century. Nationalism didn't exist in Europe until the Renaissance, when typography enabled every literate man to see his mother tongue analytically as a uniform entity. The printing press, by spreading mass-produced books and printed matter across Europe, turned the vernacular regional languages of the day into uniform closed systems of national languages -- just another variant of what we call mass media -- and gave birth to the entire concept of nationalism.

The individual newly homogenized by print saw the nation concept as an intense and beguiling image of group destiny and status. With print, the homogeneity of money, markets and transport also became possible for the first time, thus creating economic as well as political unity and triggering all the dynamic centralizing energies of contemporary nationalism. By creating a speed of information movement unthinkable before printing, the Gutenberg revolution thus produced a new type of visual centralized national entity that was gradually merged with commercial expansion until Europe was a network of states.

By fostering continuity and competition within homogeneous and contiguous territory, nationalism not only forged new nations but sealed the doom of the old corporate, noncompetitive and discontinuous medieval order of guilds and family-structured social organization; print demanded both personal fragmentation and social uniformity, the natural expression of which was the nation-state. Literate nationalism's tremendous speed-up of information movement accelerated the specialist function that was nurtured by phonetic literacy and nourished by Gutenberg, and rendered obsolete such generalist encyclopedic figures as Benvenuto Cellini, the goldsmith-cum-condottiere-cum-painter-cum-sculptor-cum-writer; it was the Renaissance that destroyed Renaissance Man."

<snip>

PLAYBOY: Would you describe this retribalizing process in more detail?

McLUHAN: The electronically induced technological extensions of our central nervous systems, which I spoke of earlier, are immersing us in a world-pool of information movement and are thus enabling man to incorporate within himself the whole of mankind. The aloof and dissociated role of the literate man of the Western world is succumbing to the new, intense depth participation engendered by the electronic media and bringing us back in touch with ourselves as well as with one another. But the instant nature of electric-information movement is decentralizing -- rather than enlarging -- the family of man into a new state of multitudinous tribal existences. Particularly in countries where literate values are deeply institutionalized, this is a highly traumatic process, since the clash of the old segmented visual culture and the new integral electronic culture creates a crisis of identity, a vacuum of the self, which generates tremendous violence -- violence that is simply an identity quest, private or corporate, social or commercial.

PLAYBOY: Do you relate this identity crisis to the current social unrest and violence in the United States?

McLUHAN: Yes, and to the booming business psychiatrists are doing. All our alienation and atomization are reflected in the crumbling of such time-honored social values as the right of privacy and the sanctity of the individual; as they yield to the intensities of the new technology's electric circus, it seems to the average citizen that the sky is falling in. As man is tribally metamorphosed by the electric media, we all become Chicken Littles, scurrying around frantically in search of our former identities, and in the process unleash tremendous violence. As the preliterate confronts the literate in the postliterate arena, as new information patterns inundate and uproot the old, mental breakdowns of varying degrees -- including the collective nervous breakdowns of whole societies unable to resolve their crises of identity -- will become very common."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 18,838 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 12:48 pm
Just coming from Theda Skocpol's lecture on civic culture and its shifts in America, which had a lot to do with topics raised in the above interview. Among the questions she (and Robert Putnam) asks is the impact of internet on civic participation (primarily, but not only) in America, as well as impact of globalization, changing structure of employment (outsourcing, contracting, increasing vulnerability of social welfare guarantees...).
Any takes on these from the Americans on board on these? Or impacts of the shifts happening in American society on the rest of the world?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 01:05 pm
Back later...
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 01:25 pm
OK, i guess I need to do the first serving if i want a smash back (as in tennis, you know. another of slovakism in my artillery).

The general Putnamian and Skocpolian argument goes that while the civic participation itself isn't declining in numbers, its nature is changing severely ever since the 60s, 70s. There are less and less membership and fellowship organizations, and more and more specialized, professional and interest groups. People today are more likely to give money, but much less become members in an organizations, or hold public offices.
Reasons are multitude - from changes in technology, through disilusionment after Vietnam, civic rights movement and a following more active role that government took (creating more opportunities for people to participate through the government and through lobbying, than from the 'outside'), etc.
Two of the hot topics that are on my mind currently in connection with this are
1) shifts in employment structures that came along with globalization and policies as NAFTA - contracting, outsourcing, temp jobs, declines in benefits.... How does this increased flexibility and decreased security translate into civic life of American society? What does it do to the most vulnerable populations and why is their participation in civic life declining in numbers? Why the passivity and acceptance of values pushed by the upper and middle class when the lower class has been vibrantly present in civic life say, half a century ago?
and 2) Internet, and groups like ours -a2k - do they contribute towards civic culture, or contrary, take away from it. We do learn a lot about different parts of the world, we get to know each other, often even personally - which is the plus side -- but for most of us it doesn't translate into being more part of the community where we live. We withdraw into our homes and spend time with people from the opposite side of the planet and create meaningful bonds while we don't know who our neighbor is. Not that that's inherently bad. I'm here every day and love the diversity. I'm just wondering, if this is a spreading phenomenon, what is the impact on grassroots activism and communal life, especially 10-20 years from now when our kids will start becoming adult citizens and these routes of connecting will be second if not first nature for them...
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:05 pm
somebody once said, "i would never belong to any organization that would have somebody like me as a member"

as for community, i live in a rural/urban setting, no sidewalks, no subdivisions just homes along a mian road, in the last twenty years the number of homes has doubled, filling in almost all the space between two small towns, as a child i knew most people in a bout a five mile stretch because of school, but now, with no real social hub (strip mall, coffee shop etc) i know basically only my immediate neighbours
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 03:32 pm
Hm. The interview does sound interesting. But I have to admit that while McLuhan's rhetoric is dazzling, I don't understand what his arguments are. After finishing reading it, I'm impressed, but I couldn't say by what.

Not a very insightful reaction on my part, sorry.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 03:35 pm
oh, she said one thing that i found interesting: right wing, or conservative membership associations survived well. some are religious-based: especially all sorts of evangelic organizations are going through a boom, others are just, well, conservative. now, political affiliations aside, why is that? is it a lagged reaction to the civil rights movements, that was mostly leftist? some other reasons i can't think of at the moment?

dj, maybe the lack of social hubs has something to do with that. also the mad mobility rate in america - most likely the highest in the world. people resettle very easily, for school, work, just for kicks... when i come back home in slovakia, i still know every single person on our street and many on neighboring streets. people stay. in somerville, i didn't even know my upstairs neighbors.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 03:40 pm
thomas :-)
he is confusing. and probably confused, too. that's why it was bits and pieces that jumped out at me. no general idea, if there even is one...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 03:47 pm
djjd62 wrote:
somebody once said, "i would never belong to any organization that would have somebody like me as a member"


That was Groucho Marx
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 04:46 pm
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 04:46 pm
Marshall McLuhan, what are you doing? or, The Medium is the Massage.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 04:59 pm
say more, dys. i've not come across him (well, i heard the name) until i got the link to the interview in my email today. you know, us furreners. i'm sure you came across aplenty of him, heck, you probably knew the man personally. but he's not important, i'm just blabbering about all those things that relate to civic participation, grassroots activism, and the future of mankind.... simple.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:05 pm
Actually I did meet him once, kinda reminded me of an academic Rod McKuen, I talked a nice hello and he talked an ever better goodbye. Interesting bloke though, I give him that. He was quite trendy til the medium passed him by.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:14 pm
haha. how could the medium pass him by? everything is a medium, it seems. everything that's an extension of my senses is a medium. my clothes, my computer, a2k, even dyslexia out there. well, maybe not. sounds like a perfect tautology, but what do i know...
but again, that's not what caught my eye.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:29 pm
Ok getting cereal here for a moment, as I see him
Marshall McLuhan started out as a sociologist and turned into a mystic fascinated by techology and kinda went over the edge thinking that technology supplanted content. I guess in terms of entertainment arenas as well as "popular" culture he was probably correct but I think he greatly over-reached his conclusions. The totem pole still exists albeit it stands beside the t.v. atenna.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:33 pm
no sure, sure.... i got that much from the interview, not even knowing him


but still, i find it interesting that he (anyone) would see TV as a good medium for (towards) civic participation and press bad. i don't care about mcluhan himself. it just got me thinking about diffenrences between internet and tv, and future media and its relation to civic culture.... that sort of a thing.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:43 pm
fair enough, I would, however, distinguish between the "users" of the varous media. eloctronic media ie t.v. is going to reach deeper into the mental jello of the masses than is the press thereby reaping a larger harvest (just an example) this might go far in explaning the depth of "talk radio" in reaching the right-wing reactionary bible-thumpers who yearn for simplicity of ideas as well as "concreteness" whereas mentally involved media (the press) tends to offer more difficult vagueness of realities making the user "work."
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 05:59 pm
'the users' also change. less folks listen to radio these days and more watch tv...
next generation will maybe be more hooked online for news than on tv and radio... but who knows, maybe not. maybe there will be a whole new radio generation glued to simplistic bile-spewing broadcasting. not unlikely. progress, after all, doesn't happen en masse. rather, it happens in the heads of 'enlightened few' who see themselves as part of this progress, if not its leaders. the common folks still mostly care about what to put on the dinner table tonight and if chicken is cheaper at Star Market or at the Stop and Shop.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 06:06 pm
bookmark - a while back I was trying to make a post and lost access to a2k here for some reason now I forgot. LOL
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 06:09 pm
I read recently, can't remember where, about the post USA WW II folks having spent decades with their noses against the dining room windows watching the "elites" having dinner, being served was prime rib, roast beef, crownrib and honey baked ham. At last they smashed in the windows and ordered tons of fried chicken, chicken fried steak, creamed corn and alka seltzer and became embittered at how the elites had given them tummy aches.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Impact of media on society: retribalization of modern world?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:58:45