Mcluhan, M. Selected
Material from Understanding Media: The
Extensions of Man, in Giddings, S. and Lister, M. (eds.) (2011) The New Media and Technocultures Reade, London
and New York, Routledge, Pages 82-91
Williams, R. The Technology and the Society, in
Giddings, S. and Lister, M. (eds.) (2011) The
New Media and Technocultures Reade, London and New York, Routledge, Pages
92-104
When comparing the two
texts it is clear that there are definite similarities and differences between
the two writers concerning the media, technology and society and how they all
link together and influence each other. It is also apparent that each have
different views upon the matter and have reasons behind them which need to be
explored further to reach a conclusion as to whom is correct and incorrect or
simply which makes more logical sense.
To begin with,
Mcluhan’s text sets off the pace when talking about technology and how the
media has become affect by it or affected it itself. Mcluhan argues that ‘the
relationships between technology, culture and society are seen as dismissive of
other economic, historical and social determines.’[i]
When looking more closely at his text we can see that he is trying to argue
that there is no relationship between technology, culture and society in terms
of economic, historical and social discussions, with which he then goes on to
say that ‘media technologies should be understood as ‘extensions of man’.’[ii]
‘These have been extensions of the body senses: the eye, the skin, the hand,
and the foot.’[iii] Therefore he believes
that ‘the nature of the medium through which people communicate which shapes a
given society and not the particular message it carries’.[iv]
For example, in an extreme case if someone close to you had passed away you
would prefer to hear it in person and not over the phone or on the news from
the television.
Differentially, when
then looking at William’s text in comparison it becomes apparent that he has a
very different outlook on the matter when it comes to looking at technology and
how it has been either influenced or not. ‘Williams argues whatever form any
particular developing media technology may take, there is for him nothing in
the technology to make this inevitable’. [v]
Throughout the first section of the text it becomes difficult to see what he is
trying to argue as Williams states that there is nothing in technology to make
this inevitable but it is yet clear as to what this inevitability is until
further on. Later on in the text Williams makes a point of saying that
‘technological devices or systems are not the inevitable result of either clear
consumer demand or their own inherent logic’. [vi] Following
this quote it starts to become clearer what he is trying to argue; whether it
is down to the consumer (or media’s) fault that we have technology the way it
is today, which is a valid argument that has a number of plausible answers. A
good example of what he is trying to explain here is this quote that he uses
himself as an example to back up what he means: ‘The television did not supersede
cinema because it improved picture quality, but rather because it chimed with a
broad economic and cultural move.’[vii]
Now Williams settles
into his argument bringing in valid point about technology, and more
specifically the television. As the television was invented it was inevitable
that change was going to happen but what Williams is trying to argue is that if
the television had not been invented we would not live the way we do, but he
then goes on to question himself, wondering if we are the way we are because of
the technology or if we have made the technology this way because of the way we
are in the first place. He states some ideas down looking at whether the
television was down to the result of scientific and technological research or
whether there were possibilities of research after it was here.
When comparing them
both together it is clear that they both serve good arguments into their
particular field of knowledge but the one that makes the most sense in all is
Williams argument due to the fact that there is an obvious link between society
and technology and the media, and it is also possible how his argument would
come into play in the real world. There is also a clear argument in his text
where he speaks about the different ways technology has affected them, (Page
94, Line 1-31). The first half (points 1-5) argues that ‘beyond the development
of technology there is no reason why any particular invention should have come
about’[viii],
which implies that ‘if television had not been invented, this argument would
run, certain definite social and cultural events would not have occurred.’[ix]
Whereas then he moves on to say about the second half (points 6-9) ‘if television
had not been invented, this argument runs, we would still be manipulated or
mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully.’[x] So
to finish off the two views can go either way ‘it is either a self-acting force
which creates new way of life, or it is a self-acting force, which provides
materials for new ways of life’[xi]
but in the end what they both have in common is that ‘television has altered
our world.’[xii]
No comments:
Post a Comment