 |
| Marshall McLuhan's Photo |
The phrase "the medium is the message" seems to mean that the content of the message is not as important as the effects that the medium has on society. An example that this blogger uses to explain this phrase has to do with the television. The blogger explains that television has altered many aspects of social life; therefore what is reported through the television is a reflection of the changes that the television has caused.
The idea of "the media is the message" is linked to the another idea that Marshall McLuhan had about technology; that it can be seen as an extension of the human body, moving out of the realm of what humans can do with their own minds and bodies in order to do something new and innovative. As we find more efficient and productive ways of doing things, we "amputate" our old extension and replace it with the new one. A perfect example of this theory is in the case of a computer. Through the medium of the computer we have gained access to the message of the internet, which has changed our lives profoundly in terms of communication, efficiency, and access to knowledge. Without the medium of the computer, the internet would be completely useless because we would have no way to access it. Therefore, in this case the medium would deserve more attention than it gets, because the message would not exist without the medium.
I feel as though this idea is no longer relevant in today's society; not because of its content, but because of the amount that individuals in society take things for granted. I was born into a society where the internet was commonplace and was the standard for obtaining information. However, I feel that people don't realize that if you look further, there are other factors that caused the internet to exist. I think that because people are born into a world where technology is taken for granted on a moment to moment basis, the argument of "the medium is the message" loses its relevance. The argument of people nowadays would most likely be something more along the lines of "the message validates the medium", because so much praise and attention is given to what was originally meant to be the message. I would be guilty of this way of thinking too - I spent at least an hour reading various web pages to even be able to understand what "the medium is the message" means.
Computers are of course not the only example of this phenomenon. Another good example would be a vehicle. Vehicles were originally created to get people places faster. Now, I find that people are so obsessed with getting places faster using their vehicles that they give little to no credit to the vehicle itself - the piece of technology that allowed for that efficiency to take place.
All in all, I think that there is definitely a shift in people's thinking. I think that a large part of this shift can be attributed to the fact that our society seems to be driven by immediate gratification. We access the internet within seconds to get the information we need. We can't walk five minutes to the McDonalds, we need to drive to get our meals faster. If we are so obsessed with efficiency and immediate gratification, why would we stop and take the time to think about the question: "where did this all come from, anyways?".
