On Thursday we will continue our discussion about media as representation by turning to Ong and McLuhan. You should read the “Introduction,” “Chp 1: The Orality of Language” and “Chp 4: Writing Restructures Consciousness” (all of eReserve) You should also read two pieces by McLuhan, the first “The Medium is the Message” is on eReserve, the second “The Playboy Interview” is available online.
Useful Links
Group Projects
In Marshall McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message”, the author points out that the IQ testing produced one of the greatest flood of misbegotten standards. Although this may be true, advancement in neuro-science also made a close link between human’s IQ and our mental growth from birth to adulthood. Not to go against his statement but if I was to choose a major “misbegotten standards”, that would have to be the SAT testing. SAT was first introduced in 1901. Since then it grew in popularity, and now is one of the most prominent examination to pass in order for someone to pursue further education. A single test to measure one’s ability to be granted access to gain further knowledge is really quite unfortunate. Not to mention a child, at his/hers most crucial time of developement, spending the first 12 years of their lives being institutionalized in a building full of people, with all different views and purposes, force fed what is known as “standard knowledge” is I believe a truly an initial step towards what McLuhan calls it the detribalization of men. I wonder how it would be if education system worked much like how it is in universities and colleges from very early on.
McLuhan and Ong agree on the point that the technology of writing was a revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) force, though McLuhan would claim that ALL new media are revolutionary since they alter our sense of self and our interaction with others. McLuhan also agrees with Ong about the moment of transformation which restructured the consciousness of man. That moment is literacy in terms of coded script. Ong distinguishes between script and other forms of writing, such as pictographs. Pictures represent objects, whereas a code disassociates man from a representation of a thing and gives him a representation of an utterance — of “words that someone says” (83). Likewise, McLuhan says in the Playboy interview that it was specifically the phonetic alphabet that “detribalized” man. According to McLuhan, the phonetic alphabet, unlike hieroglyphs, “[rendered] visible the actual sound of speech, thus placing a barrier between men and objects” (6). (Is this correct: Tribal society for McLuhan is networked — it is decentralized, simultaneous, synesthetic, focused on how something is said? Detribalized society is the contrary — typographic, linear, sequential, esthetic, focused on what is said?)
On the other hand, a key contrast between McLuhan and Ong is that McLuhan believes thought could happen in nonverbal terms, i.e. medium-free thought. In “The Medium Is the Message,” McLuhan claims that the content of speech “is an actual process of thought” (107). Ong would argue that the literate mind has been so transformed by writing that it could not think without the medium of writing. This contrast points to deeper differences regarding the attitudes about literacy that Ong and McLuhan hold. While McLuhan says in the Playboy interview, “I neither approve nor disapprove. I merely try to understand” (14), he does not remain neutral throughout the interview. He cannot hide his bias towards tribal society: “Print technology has homogenized man, creating mass mind and mass uniformity. The young today welcome release from the … dehumanization of literate society … Electric media bring man together in a tribal village that is a rich and creative mix” (18). McLuhan depicts literate man as a mindless drone, diseased patient, or prisoner; he “tries to understand” the cultural changes within his own biased framework of thought. In contrast, Ong is slightly biased towards literate culture, arguing that there is a level of analysis and sophistication made possible through writing alone. “Writing heightens consciousness,” Ong writes (81). It is a “deeply interiorized technology” that can “express something poignantly human that cannot be expressed without the contrivance” (82). I am annoyed at McLuhan for his biased and extreme tone (reducing the issue to a choice between techno-utopia or -dystopia), but his literary examples in “The Medium Is the Message” helped me conceptualize his definition of “medium” as an extension of man.
It was interesting to see how whenever someone mentions “language”, they often refer to Plato’s Phaedrus as there is no better or more justified sages or philosophers they can quote and back up their theories.
Since I see the invention of writing and the use of internet a positive improvement to human culture, only that human need to be cautious not to be slaved by them, I have problem with McLuhan’s negative statements towards writing. However, I do have to agree with his statement in The Medium is the Massage about writing, in a unnoticeable way, separated people in terms of interaction. But I do strongly agree with General David Sarnoff’s point when he said that “we are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value,” however McLuhan seemed to belittle the statement.
In McLuhan’s interview with Playboy, he did not maintain his neutral statement as he claimed in the beginning of the interview. Rather, it seemed that starting at the second half of the interview, his mouth almost got away from him and he was in an ecstasy type of emotion, that his answered turned out to be somewhat extreme. I cannot agree with his opinion about teenagers at that time were complete victims of the usage of writing and printing. His absolute love towards TVs and considering them as the savior was strange as well. I do think TVs as well as movies limit the imagining abilities of children, just like a lot of overly well-designed toys today. All they do is showing the viewers / children what the makers of the TV shows and toys think is right, or should happen, instead of allowing them to see it and think about it. His sympathy towards young people doing badly at school or doing drugs appeared to be simply finding excuses for them. I can understand his standing point on the issues. But I still think that his statements made the problem seem bigger than they actually were and lack of consideration.
Among the three articles, I think Ong’s probably did the most neutral analysis of the language as a medium. And his thorough study on different languages as well as history was impressive. He backed up his statements with historical proof, without overheating emotions, which made his statements feel a lot more believable than McLuhan’s.
A few things struck me about McLuhan…
His argument that the medium is the message begins with a comparison of brain surgery to baseball. McLuhan says that “It could be argued that these activities are in some way the ‘content’ of the electric light, since they could not exist without the electric light.” First of all, that’s a shortsighted hypothesis, since both could and do exist without electric light (I’ve personally played baseball with a glow-in-the-dark ball by moonlight, and while I’m not about to try or have brain surgery by use of a lantern, it is possible). In this, he is also saying that content has no message.
Also, in the Playboy interview, he speaks of the dissolution of tribal culture and the rise of nationalism. Nationalism is only possible after the invention of the printing press and by increasing the speed of information, however, couldn’t an argument be made that Nationalism is essentially tribalism on a large basis?
He goes on to speak of Shakespeare and begins by quoting Romeo and Juliet. Maybe it’s because I’m a theatre guy, but I took an extreme offense and adamantly object to his usage of Shakespeare. First of all, the Romeo and Juliet quote is haphazardly ripped out of a beautiful passage, falsely presented as a whole quotation, and blatantly misused. McLuhan’s lead into his misquoting is “some might quibble about whether or not he was referring to TV in these familiar lines from Romeo and Juliet.” With all due respect, you’ve got to be kidding me. Shakespeare was referring to television? Really?
This may seem a bit trite, but in the Playboy interview, McLuhan states “ …inherent in the artist’s creative inspiration is the process of subliminally sniffing out environmental change. It’s always been the artist who perceives the alterations in man caused by a new medium…” So, with this being said, McLuhan believes that it is the artist who will understand the effects of the new medium. That seems to make sense. However, since he is of the belief that the medium is the message, he’s also of the belief that artists’ messages are confined to the specific medium they are working in. He believes that even though Shakespeare wrote 16 comedies that were presented on stage as a play (the medium) that none of them delivered any message other than “Comedy.” Even though Shakespeare wrote 12 tragedies, the message was no more than “Tragedy.”
McLuhan ultimately does say that content plays a role, but he feels it is a subordinate one. Maybe I’m way off base, but I don’t see how content cannot be the message. McLuhan thinks that while Shakespeare and other artists are incapable of conveying a message more than “oil on canvas” or “pantomime” or “sonnet,” but they are able to foresee the effects and creation of television four centuries it’s prior? If an artist is forward thinking enough to foresee the future, why have they generally limited the mediums they utilize? I can see the argument that with the speed in which technology is progressing more than ever is the medium is becoming as important as the message. It is important to remember that the message is the true purpose of communication. Otherwise, would mediums even exist?
While Walter J. Ong’s and Marshall McLuhan view writing as revolutionary technology their views on how the phonetic alphabet affects societies is very different. Ong views the phonetic alphabet as “a democratizing script, easy for everybody to learn” (92) while McLuhan sees the phonetic alphabet as a destabilizing force that unbalances humanity’s senses and that the age of electronic media is the beginning of a balancing of those senses once again.
McLuhan opposes Ong’s statement that the phonetic alphabet is a democratizing force by stating in his interview with Play Boy that the phonetic alphabet is what causes the separation from what McLuhan terms the “tribal web”. McLuhan’s evidence of this are the other societies that use hieroglyphic or ideogrammic writing systems. The induction of a phonetic alphabet causes “knowledge to be extended in alphabetic form,…creating divisions of function, of social classes, of nations and of knowledge.” While this is true this division or fragmentation is not unique to societies who do not posses phonetic alphabets. As Ong points out “Chinese character writing, like many other writing systems, is intrinsically elitist” (92). If a writing system is difficult to master the writing system itself will create a barrier between those who can write and those who cannot. This barrier causes separation and fragmentation just like McLuhan describes happens with a phonetic language.
Perhaps I missed McLuhan’s point, but he seems to have a very shamanistic view of the world which seems a bit off for the subjects he tends to talk about. His phrase “the media is the message” has some interesting truth behind it, but I relate to Ong’s view of writing as a positive technology over McLuhan’s writing-dystopia.
In The Medium of the Message, Marshal McLuhan makes an interesting point about media; it’s not the medium that is important but rather the content of that medium. One would never sit and watch a TV if the TV were not on and displaying information. The same goes for radio. We are not engaged with the radio but rather the content coming out of the radio. Couldn’t we even say the same thing about internet sites, movies and iPhones? The content provided by different mediums can be good or bad. It is up to the person to decide what content is important to them.
New technologies will always provide an opportunity to present information in a way that is negative or positive, but this should never prevent the creation of new technology. McLuhan questions the effects of technology on our minds and environment. Technology is powerful and the content of different mediums has the power to shape young minds. The current generation of children is being immersed in technology, which is changing how we think about teaching. How do we now approach teaching children in the information age?
People have been affected by new technologies for thousands of years but people in different cultures assimilate new technologies at different rates. Walter Ong discusses how people during medieval times did not even know what year they were born in. Is this because some cultures were unaware of the calendar or they simply lacked the technology to keep up with the current day, month and year? In modern times, technologies such as newspapers, computers and watches help people keep track of time, which is now essential to daily living.
As I read chapter one “The Orality of Language” by Ong, I started to realize how much oral communication has really been lost in western civilization. When this Chapter was written there were only 3000 languages that were spoken and only about 78 of them have a literature. Nobody really knows how many oral languages have been lost over the centuries. The author of the chapter made a good and interesting point that “the orality of language is permanent.” Last spring, I took a class on Ritual and Shamanism with Tom Riccio where we discussed the importance of having a oral language for several cultures around the world, and how these cultures were trying to keep ther language alive and the culture from disappearing from the earth. Many cultures are turning to people in academics to record there oral language not because they really want too, but out of necessity to keep thier culture and traditions alive for the young members of a culture. From young native american indians to young persons in an african tribe, the young people don’t see the value of learning the old ways of the culture. It is to bad that Tom Riccio could not be asked to give a lecture in this class on this topic because it is like going to see a one man show. However, I am wondering if oral language can come back in the western societies with the help of technology. Why should I have to type this post, when I could as easily record this post in a podcast or an mp3 file and upload it to the blog. Also, in Second Life people can talk with each other through voice. Another example, is web cams with microphones that people use to talk with a individual or to a group. Could technology be the key to help to keep oral cultures around and the language?
Ong’s writings seemed more objective and definitely less pretentious of the two authors assigned. I was interested in his differentiation between “computer language” and “natural human languages” (7). It seems to be a very simple concept but I had never heard it put so flatly: computer language rules come first, then are used, whereas in natural language, language comes first and the rules to describe it are secondary and usually not defined well.
I did have a bit of trouble, however, with this phrase: “Writing, commitment of the word to space…” (7). His complete thought makes sense (that writing extends the potential of language exponentially, restructures thought, and in turn creates the possibility of “grapholects”), but I have always considered the spoken word to also be committed to space. Not that either is wrong, but I believe both should be considered in our current climate of rapid change in communication technologies.
I am also unclear on the concept of “grapholects” (borrowed from Haugen, 8). Ong is very clear that he considers writing to be “residue” (11), and that orality is primary and permanent in all human languages. Writing, he asserts, converts some dialects into “grapholects” (like the English language) which have an extensive word bank and rely heavily on the written word. This allows recorded history of the use/meaning of that language over time, which is difficult in simply oral dialects; this is very important in America and other technologically developed English-speaking nations because it allows for our popular culture to reference other decades or centuries (which interestingly is a statement for Saussure’s theories that we define ideas not by what they are, but by what they are not – this is how we tend to define our current pop culture phase – but this is an argument for elsewhere). I am unclear on how this concept fits into his model of primary orality and secondary literacy. Does written language convert to “grapholect” or is it modified by it? Is it still positively secondary to orality since “writing takes possession of the psyche” (14)?
His comments/explanation of rhetoric puts the discussion in “Phaedrus” into context a bit more. He also makes an interesting argument that trying to describe a horse as an automobile without wheels will end in an inadequate transfer of ideas. This seems to reference Saussures ideas discussed in “Course on General Linguistics”, but here, Ong is referring to a situation where idea A (an automobile) is used to describe idea B (a horse), but where A is a technological derivative of B. I would like to further discuss the relation of the two ideas to more thoroughly understand his intent. Does he agree or disagree with Saussure?
Ong does a convincing job describing the relationship between literature and oral performance through the use of his “wheelless automobile” metaphor. Textless literature, like a wheelless automobile, cannot be eloquently described without misconstruing the meaning; the real difference between the primeval and new forms will never be discerned. Another example of this back formation would be to attempt to link two technologies as disparate as a paintbrush and a computer together– you could not pair away the differences from the paintbrush without distorting the comparison. I’m having trouble with Ong’s next argument using the term “preliterate” to describe oral performance. Is this argument similar to what we discussed about synchronic and diachronic with Saussure?
I am reluctant to accept McLuhan’s arguments about the affects of phonetic literacy. McLuhan places an excessive amount of responsibility on literature in fragmenting and ultimately corrupting man. While I understand that the introduction of phonetic literature enabled man to be more individualistic and detached, it is caustic to claim that phonetic literacy alone was responsible for the “shift of values from tribal involvement to ‘civilized detachment’” (as McLuhan states in the Playboy interview). McLuhan states that man does not begin categorizing and classifying data until the advent of phonetic literacy, but ancient man had developed the concept of categorization far prior to phonetic literacy. Take division of labor in hunter/gatherer societies for example, which date back to more than two million years ago. Tribe members categorized members as male or female and assigned duties such as hunting or staying to tend the camp.
Walter Ong compares the oral culture to the written culture, defining the two process and history in The Orality of Literacy. He explains a theory of thought to sound relationship with a quote from Bernard “ picture is worth a thousand words”. Ong makes a point for the quote to be true it would have to include the context of the words in which the picture is set. Ong refers to several linguist to explain his concepts and ideas. Saussure makes a similar connection to the sign method with signified and signifier. Ong explains a non oral communication method based on thought to sound process. The thought to sound method reminds me of Saussure sign method. How is Saussure’s sign method different than the thought to sound method Ong mentions? Does Saussure’s sign method only apply to the internal process of the communication?
In Writing Restructuring Consciousness, Ong makes a point that Plato’s view against the written language, as passive, out of it, in an unreal unnatural world. He makes the same relationship to the computer. But, Ong makes a reference to the paradox of technology where he talks about how technology enhances what is poignantly human. Ong explains the writing as an internal and fictional process. He seems to extend Plato’s arguments about technology and praises the benefits of technology in one chapter? I am not sure if he is for or against technology?
Conversely, Mcluhan presents a more pro technology view during his Playboy interview with Eric Norden. He makes a point that technology is an agent of social and cultural change. At the end of the interview, Mcluhan asserts that he is not a fan of technology. Is he under the influence of the narcissus narcosis he mentions in the interview? He seems to avoid authorship of his statements? Norden interviewed Mcluhan in 1994, during the early stages of internet. Recently, authorship became an issue for users of web based content. How would Mcluhan respond to the issue of authorship of web based content?
It is evident in reading The Medium is the Message that there are certainly some effects that various media have had on the human race. Reading and literacy inspired a certain individualism that is still ingrained in our culture today. Other media, such as personal computers and video games, have the same effect in many ways. The media, by its very nature, does something to the people that participate in it, regardless of the content.
In fact that this content at all is crucial is largely abandoned as a possibility by McLuhan: “Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot” (114). He even compares content to a “juicy piece of meat” used to “distract the watchdog of the mind” (114). Certainly this is true in some ways. As stated above, the overall effect that a medium can have on a culture is astounding if it is far-reaching enough. It is these effects that, because of their very nature–-as what I’ll call “meta-effects”–-are hard to discern. Only one that looks at the broad course of history may glimpse at a meta-effect, such as the individualism mentioned earlier.
But surely it does not end there. There are other, more immediate, effects in any medium. By contrast, I might refer to them as “micro-effects.” Why should these be mutually exclusive to the other, meta-effects? A micro effect may be such a small thing as an emotional reaction to something seen on a television screen. The medium is not questioned here, even though it is slowly having an effect on both the person and the culture. But the emotional response, in the moment, is not something to be discarded altogether as unimportant or nonexistent.
Media theorists, Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan, divide human cultural history into oral, written, print, and electronic cultures. Their division is simply based on the communication media used during each period although both seem focused on the changes that occurred by different technologies rather the content of each media. They discuss the evolutionary transition from orality to literacy, and analyze how each medium affected human identity from tribalism to detribalism, and then to retribalism.
Ong, in “Orality and Literacy,” claims that with any new technology comes in major cultural and social changes (e.g. women entering the academia as the writing culture evolves). He then talks about the revolutionary cultural transition to “secondary orality” when the new communication technologies convert the society from the solipsistic nature to a cohesive tribal one. Marshal McLuhan who seems to be many years ahead of his time refers to this “secondary orality” culture as “global village” where participation replaces linear communication of mechanical culture. Our digital culture seems to be very close to McLuhan’s retribalisation vision although I wonder when/how we might enter “acoustic space” as our society is still fragmented, individualistic and logical.
McLuhan, in “The Medium is the Message,” further argues that what is important is not the effects of the content of the media but the effect of the media itself. So based on his arguments what we see on television or Internet are of little or no value compared to the ways those media are changing our lives. I strongly disagree with this view. The content of the media is as important in shaping a society as the media itself. Media portrayal of violence, cultural or racial stereotyping, or pornography affect the society as vigorously as the media itself. Wikis, blogs, or microblogs are as valuable as the quality of their contents, no matter how revolutionary their technologies are. I also disagree with McLuhan in regards to television itself. In his Playboy interview, he states that television “necessitates great personal involvement and participation,“ and that watching TV “involves the active participation of the viewer.” I am actually quite surprised by his remarks. Applying his own terminology of hot and cold media, I believe television belongs to the hot category that excludes the audience participation and involves passive constituent of the viewing or listening experience. Nevertheless, I agree with McLuhan that electronic (digital) media including television have an incredible ability to retribalize and recreate sensory unification similar to tribal societies.
When reading Ong I constantly pause and consider what cognitive shifts the internet may cause.
On page 93 Ong says that shortly after the introduction of writing a ‘craft literacy’ developed, where a craftsman was hired to write something (much like a builder is hired to build). This ‘craft literacy’ ended in Greece when writing was “defused throughout the population and internalized enough to effect thought processes”. The internet has done to publishing what the Greek alphabet did to writing. It is no longer a craft that belongs to a special few.
The internet has also made us move away from a list-based ethos. On page 99 Ong says the horizontal/verticle-line came about in contrast to the way oral sensibilities where structured. Oral discourse had no way of operating with reference to a space so sound could not be reduced to space. The interent is moving us towards a more ‘real’ or ‘natural’ way of organizing knowledge, moving us away from an artificial structure based on physical location. Knowledge can be displayed in a web-like manor, subjects related to one another based on the weight of meta-data attached to them, not based on (sort of) arbitrary positioning. Although still based on a displayable location the location is more contextual than arbitraty, existing in a middle ground between literary and oral societies.
There are also a lot of small things creaping back into our way of thought due to the internet. Ong mentions on 97 the weight of symbols in pre-literate societys. Icons (the lesser-cousin of the symbol) can be seen on many websites, although usually a icon-text hybrid (on fark.com for example the symbol for florida replaced the ‘o’ with an orange). Slashdot has symbols that do not acompany text, and attempt to be intuitive (a image of a joystick for ‘games’ section, for example). Computers themselves are also symbol heavy, and on macs you dont have the text under the icon. This isnt due strictly to the internet as such, but due to the fast-paced society in which we currently live. We have all sorts of symbols on road signs which we pass by at high speeds.