You are on page 1of 6

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First

irst Essay

Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

!"#$%&'"()*+,"!"

In this essay I will argue that while the concept of medium theory might provide us with a useful perspective from which to study the effects of the media on society, technological determinism - as one of its core components - is largely problematic. In order to do so I will first look at what medium theory is before briefly examining technological determinism as a broad notion. Following which, I shall consider technological determinism within the ambit of the media itself and specifically through the work of its most noted proponents (Garnham 2000: 67), Marshall McLuhan. After exploring some of the main criticisms of McLuhans position on technological determinism I shall precede my conclusion by reflecting on whether anything positive might be salvaged from McLuhans approach. Starting with the publication of Harold Innis's The Bias of Communication in 1951, a small number of scholars began to study the innate characteristics of the various media of communication. In contrast to the prevailing media scholarship which focussed on media content, the new theorists looked at the media not as mere channels for information to flow through but as environments in themselves. It was in order to distinguish this new research from traditional 'media theory' that Joshua Meyrowitz coined the term 'medium theory'. (1985: 16) The medium theorists focussed on different media and emphasised different aspects of their characteristics. Walter Ong, for example looked at the shift from orality to literacy (1982) while Elizabeth Eisenstein focussed on the changes brought by the printing press (1979). Harold Innis himself looked at how political and social control is affected when the same content is communicated through different media (1951). The common thread which runs through all medium theory is that the technological elements of the various media are, in one way or another, agents of change in the societies in which they operate (Meyrowitz 1985: 16). No-one focussed more specifically on this aspect than Marshall McLuhan who worked with, and was influenced by, Innis (Meyrowitz 1994: 52). In Understanding

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First Essay Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

Media, McLuhan (1964) gave birth to the aphorism, the medium is the message, which highlighted the prominence of technological determinism in medium theory. The roots of technological determinism lie outside medium theory and these we must now briefly explore in order to better navigate our way around the polemic associated with technological determinism within medium theory itself. In their introduction to Does Technology Change History? Leo Marx and Merritt Smith (1994: ix-xv) run through a mythological history of supposed historical changes driven entirely by the, usually assumed to be, sudden introduction of new technologies. Characteristic of these myths is the lack of place for human agency or process (ix-xi). One example is that of the invention of the compass and other navigational instruments not only being essential to the crossing of the Atlantic from Europe but also therefore being the enabler of the colonisation of the New World. Another mythical view, which does involve the media, sees the 'invention' of the printing press as the cause of the Reformation (x). A distinction is drawn between polar ends of hard and soft determinism (xii) where, in the former case, technology itself becomes an absolute determinant of society and, in the latter case, where it is but one aspect of a socio-political and historical culture which contributes to the changes within society. However, despite the less reductionist nature of 'soft' determinism, it is no less deterministic. Stephen Klein defines technology as 'sociotechnical systems' involving economic, technological and sociological infrastructures within which technological end-products are manufactured and similarly structured systems in which technology is used. The combination of these systems of manufacture and systems of use, for Klein, forms the "physical bases of all human societies". (2003: 211) As we move now from a broad understanding of technological determinism to its role specifically within medium theory we need to delve a little into McLuhan's notion of the medium being the message. On the face of it, it is simplistic, reductionist (Chandler 1995) and hard in the sense given by Marx and Smith above. But for Meyrowitz the medium theorists arguments amount to no more than the notion that the medium itself has its own effect beyond that of its content (1985: 19). Countering

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First Essay Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

the notion that McLuhans technological determinism is simplistic, Meyrowitz states that McLuhan provides numerous examples, in Understanding Media, of the interaction between the media and different cultural patterns and the intricate relation among the various media (Meyrowitz 2003: 199). One such constituent notion of McLuhans technological determinism is that of media technology being extensions of the human senses (Meyrowitz 2003: 197) which act as agents of change that alter [] our relationship to ourselves (Carey 1998). Other concepts which Meyrowitz cite as evidence of a nuanced form of technological determinism, include McLuhan's idea of 'hot' versus 'cool' media (Meyrowitz 2003: 198) and the observation that almost all media content consists of other media (199). On the other hand, Raymond Williams regards McLuhan's technological determinism as a reduction of all nontechnological causes of socio-historical change to mere effects of the technology (Williams 2003: 130) - Williams makes no distinction between hard and soft determinism as he rejects, explicitly and absolutely, all forms of technological determinism (133). It is to Williams's very different view of technological determinism from McLuhan's that we must now turn. For Williams, sociological and cultural research had already been fraught with difficulty because the prevailing orthodoxy in methodology did not, and often could not, look at the intentions which caused effects in society (2003: 123-124). When it comes to the study of television (the medium on which McLuhan's work largely focussed) the problem is exacerbated because the associated research tended to be, not of television as an element forming part of, and being subject to, the total social practice (my italics) but as a distinct element with its own internal laws of cause and effect (again, my italics) competing with other social institutions such as the home or school (Williams 2003: 128). The problem becomes critical when into this flawed area of scholarship, as Williams would have it, is added the notion of technological determinism for if technology, instead of human intentions, cause the effects in society then all other causes become effects (2003: 130). As we have seen, for Williams, McLuhans technological determinism makes human agency irrelevant as far as effects in society, culture and history are concerned and replaces it with its own psychic effect (Williams 2003: 130). When McLuhan states that the medium is the message, human intent, of which an important

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First Essay Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

manifestation here is media content, becomes irrelevant. Williams states that it is impossible to truly study effects without looking at intentions, which requires the involvement of human agency, and that technological determinism is therefore incompatible with such study (2003: 124). In short, Williams regards McLuhan's work in the area of technological determinism in the media as unscientific (Williams 2003: 124) and ideological (2003: 129) and therefore fatally flawed (2003: 131). But while Williamss analysis of McLuhans technological determinism effectively locates it firmly at the 'hard end of the spectrum, McLuhan himself makes a more modest claim, at least overtly, about the effects of technological determinism. Despite the absolutist nature of his phrase the medium is the message (my italics) McLuhan states that the medium shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. (1964: 9) 'Human association and action' are but two aspects of human society. Despite McLuhans assertive writing style (Meyrowitz 2003: 192) which might suggest otherwise, he does not go as far as to claim that 'the medium shapes and controls' human thought itself. Neither does McLuhan consider, in his view of technological determinism, some of the great issues concerning humankind such as peoples relations of domination over one another (Stevenson 2002: 130). These are the omissions in McLuhans work which, for Meyrowitz, relegates his work from the level of theory to that of perspective (1985: 22). What is remarkable about McLuhan's perspective is that it has allowed him to be famously prescient about to the direction of the development of media technology as we know it today (McLuhan & Zingrone 1995: 296). Nevertheless, the value of such perspicacity lie elsewhere than in the area of technological determinism. Williams, in conclusion, was right in not drawing a distinction between hard and soft determinism. His point that either variant ignores human agency means that any work based on technological determinism, no matter how alluringly put, causes a wilful blindness on what is crucial in communication - content. If we abandon any notion of being able to influence or be influenced by mediated content, by messages rather than by the media that convey them, we end up no wiser than the one whose gaze remains fixed on the finger that points at the moon.

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First Essay Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

Bibliography

Carey, J. (1998) Marshall McLuhan: Genealogy and Legacy in Canadian Journal Of Communication, 23(3) <http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1045/951> [accessed 16/05/2013] Chandler, D. (1995) 'Technological or media determinism' in www.aber.ac.uk <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.html> [accessed 27/05/2013] Eisenstein, E. L. (1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Garnham, N. (2000). Emancipation, the Media, and Modernity: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory. OUP Oxford Innis, H. A. (1951) The Bias of Communication, Toronto: University of Toronto Press Kline, S.J. (2003) What is technology in Philosophy of technology: the technological condition an anthology, ed. by R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 210-212 McLuhan, E., & ed Zingrone, F. (1995) Essential McLuhan. House of Anansi Press McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding media; the extensions of man New York: McGraw-Hill Marx, L. and Smith, M.R. (1994) Introduction in Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, Smith, M.R. and Marx, L., (eds) the MIT Press, ix-xv Meyrowitz, J. (1994) 'Medium Theory' in Communication Theory Today, ed. by Crowley, D. and Mitchell, D., Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 50-77

Johan van Rooyen (12802437) 29 May 2013 Media, Technology and Society FFME017S5 BCB FFME017S5 BCB First Essay Is the technological determinism of medium theory necessarily a bad thing?

Meyrowitz, J. (2003) Canonic anti-text: Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media in Canonic Texts in Media Research, Katz, E et. al. (eds), Cambridge: Polity Press Ong, W. J. (1982) Orality and Literacy: the Technologizing of the Word, London: Methuen Stevenson, N (2002) Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication, SAGE Publications Limited Williams, R., & Williams, E. (ed) (2003) Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London: Routledge

You might also like