Category: Cici Liu

In “The medium is the message”, McLuhan was saying that the medium is the tool that we deliver information, and it is not the content but the media was the message that we were delivering. Also, it is the medium where rapid change is occurring. When people invent something new, they do it with the intention of simplifying our tasks or just with a good intention. However, throughout its process some face with negative consequences and some intentions are forgotten. The author is saying that the content of the medium, the new inventions, is itself an another medium.

before we use to distribute information by mouth, and then by newspaper, and now we do it by the use of the internet. So, our perception of the information is changing while this constant change is happening, and he suggests that if we pay attention to this changes and how it is affecting our society, we might be able to predict future effects before they happen.

In his article, “The Medium is the Message,”  Marshall McLuhan argues that, “The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance” (159). This sentence struck me as significant because of the enormous role technology plays in our day-to-day lives. While the content each person sees on their smart phone or computer on a day-to-day basis is likely different, technology, as a medium itself, has altered the habits and perceptions of all of us. I myself have noted the role technology has played in my life and how it has changed how I interact with the world. Before getting a smart phone in my Junior year of high school, I was much more likely to focus on talking to people in person, and would often get my news by talking to adults around me. However, since obtaining a smartphone, I rely on it for my informational, communication, and entertainment needs. While the content was the same before and after my purchase of a smartphone, the medium changed, which in itself altered my perceptions and habits. This shows clearly how often, a medium itself is the message, and the content itself is not always as significant as the medium in terms of the effect on our lives. 

Overall, I found “the medium is the message” argument to be quite convincing. While content of a medium is often touted as the “message,” we often ignore the medium as the message itself and the effects different mediums mediums have no our lives and culture. In our technology-driven age with constantly changing and evolving mediums, this “medium is the message” theory is one we as individuals and as a society should keep in mind in order to monitor the effects the medium’s message has on our lives and society. 

Prior to reading this article I never really thought about how much the medium through which information is dispersed really does affect the content of something and the way in which we perceive it. I think this quote, “the medium is the message because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” is a great example from the text of the way in which the medium affects the reaction to the content. To a certain extent, I agree with this because obviously depending on the medium used, the information will reach a different audience. If I publish in the newspaper my audience is mostly going to be retirees while if I publish on social media my audience will most likely be teenagers. However, I think that nowadays the medium through which an information source is dispersed doesn’t matter as much, if a piece of information is relevant enough or is that amazing it will find itself being dispersed through other mediums than its original form and will then reach a much larger audience regardless of the original medium used. 

As I was reading “The Medium is the Message”, I found myself both disagreeing and agreeing with McLuhan’s argument. Of course, the medium through which we know something affects the knowing itself. For example, if I read the news through my phone on The Economist app which features a sponsored ad, then I am going to have a different experience from if I were to learn about this news through a radio broadcast or from a tweet.

I related most to the part when McLuhan quoted General David Sarnoff:

“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.” (pg. 154)

Mediums — physical tools or digital platforms — merely enable us to execute upon our desires and plans. Our motivations will always rule our behavior, but we might not always act upon those motivations until we are empowered to execute upon them in a comfortable and conceivable way. Products are not created good or bad. They may have been created with certain good or bad intentions (consider the hooked model or the topic of ethical design), but it is only when a human decides to create something and when another decides to interact with that thing that the product then produces an effect (harmful or beneficial) upon others. 

I was also particularly struck by the quote from psychologist C.G. Jung:

” […] Because living constantly in the atmosphere of slaves, [the roman] became infected through the unconscious with their psychology. No one can shield himself from such an influence.” (pg. 161)

I do not necessarily agree with the statement that you cannot shield yourself from influences around you. An atmosphere can be contagious, yes,  but if you are mindful, empathetic, and observant, then I believe you have the power to alter the perceptiveness of your mind.  Allowing yourself to become “infected” by an atmosphere is an act of complacency. Without intentional thought or mindful reflection, this becomes an unconscious choice (or lack thereof). However, if individuals simply questioned choices, actions, feelings, and thoughts more often, then they might begin to accomplish a higher form of actualization.