Ever think about the time before smartphones? Maybe not if you’re a zoomer. Guess I just aged myself.
Point is, I’m getting a master’s at the time of writing this, and I can knock out lectures in the palm of my hand. This may not be a new development, but it’s not something my Sony Ericsson could pull off back during my bachelor’s.
There was a Canadian scholar named Marshall McLuhan that thought a lot about these messaging medium divides. This would come to be known as technological determinism. Some of McLuhan’s ideas here are surprisingly relevant, while others… not so much.
Boiling Progress Down to the Medium of Each Era
Still relevant: McLuhan’s general structuring of history by the main form of communication at the time is a strong way to organize societal eras. It’s somewhat simple, but that simplicity makes a wide view of how we’ve gone from word of mouth to a slew of modern tech mediums easy to digest.
Not-so-relevant: This simplicity is also reductive. While print was certainly the dawn of a major new medium, the “print paradigm”, as McLuhan calls it, tends to ignore the continued influence of word of mouth and the “tribal” isolation that still existed after the invention of the printing press. The existence of print media didn’t halt all forms of oral communication.
Links to Web Marketing Pros’: 95% of Consumers Have Mobile Devices in Hand While Watching TV
Can You Comprehend While Multitasking?
McLuhan never saw the dawn of accessible internet. But he did touch on multiple mediums co-existing. His “electronic paradigm” noted the simultaneous existence of television and phone.
Still relevant: The overlap of phone and TV lends itself to today’s blend of smartphones, computers, and TV.
Not-so-relevant: McLuhan didn’t seem too concerned with comprehension. He placed an emphasis on how one could still watch TV while talking to someone on the phone. I struggle to see how relevant this is due to comprehension concerns. I love browsing Twitter while watching movies, but I’m constantly rewinding because my attention is split.
We May Be a Global Village,
But What About the Global Village Idiot?
Despite focusing heavily on how we communicate as a society, McLuhan didn’t focus on how that communication can be twisted. He never blamed the medium, something common in the media today.
Still relevant: The concept of the “global village”. That modern tech allows us to communicate across vast distances. The closest thing I’ve experienced in my lifetime to distance-related challenges are long-distance phone charges and those are long gone thanks to alternatives like email and voice-over IP.
Not-so-relevant: McLuhan’s focus on the medium instead of the message places too much value on how someone consumes by ignoring the content being consumed.
If I see anti-vaccination movements as dangerous then focusing on what device a conspiracy theorist used to consume their misinformation seems irrelevant. The misinformation would be just as dangerous on an iPhone as it would be on a television news broadcast. McLuhan didn’t focus on the message or the messenger, but maybe we should.