I am frequently reminded of one of the most powerful quotes
about the media and what is understood a truth. Peter Drucker in his remembrances
has a chapter on McLuhan.
As a second
perspective of the impact of technology as a dominant driver, we can refer to
McLuhan and his development of the concept of media. Drucker has referred to
the presentation of McLuhan's doctoral thesis and McLuhan is quoted as follows
(See Drucker, P., Adventures of a Bystander, Harper Row (New York), 1979, p.
250):
"Movable type,
rather than Petrarch, Copernicus, or Columbus was the creator of the modern
world view.”
“Did I hear you
right," asked one of the professors as McLuhan had finished reading,
"that you think printing influenced the courses the universities taught
and the role of the university, altogether?”
"No, sir,” said
McLuhan, "it did not influence; printing determined both, indeed, printing
determined henceforth what was going to be considered knowledge.”
This concept later
evolved into the medium being the message. In our context it is the fact that
both Kuhn and McLuhan recognized, albeit in differing fields and in differing
ways, that fundamental changes in technology and technique, call it paradigm or
the medium, will change the world view, also the message.
What McLuhan said was that, in my opinion, the transmitted “truth”
was defined by the medium by which it was disseminated. Spherically, what one
uses to transmit something plays a controlling role in what was meant to be
transmitted.
Let’s take a brief walk down memory lane. Take Homer for
example. Homer was meant to be memorized and then recited, not written down and
read. Early Greeks all had memorized Homer as Muslims often memorize the Koran,
and in the old days as Catholics had memorized sections of the Latin Mass. Then
someone got the bright idea to write down Homer’s stuff. One can read it, even
in Homeric Greek, but it is not the same thing. It is like seeing Shakespeare
and reading the same play in High School. Henry V at Agincourt is Branagh, not Mrs.
Jones having “Luis Smith” stand and read! Even Churchill was better! Really.
Now let’s move to the 14th century. Two events
are critical. First is Wycliffe and his English Bible. Wycliffe was protected
by John of Gaunt, the King’s brother and father of Henry IV. Wycliffe wrote in
Middle English a Bible, not for the Church but for the people. That was 150
years before Luther and his German version. One of Wycliffe’s friends was a
fellow called Chaucer, perhaps some may have heard of him. Chaucer did for
English what Wycliffe did for religion. He wrote in Middle English, the vernacular,
but for the people. His tales were of the common folk. Not like Dante, a
political polemic, nor Boccaccio, about the Florentine elite. The Widower’s
tale was clearly a women’s liberation tale to beat all! It was in 1390! So much
for the Middle Ages. But the point was that the medium of written documents set
off a cycle that led to Luther. More people, common people could read, a new
medium for sending forth truths. The production of the copies was slow and a
bit costly and demand increased. Thus Guttenberg was responding to a market
demand, and thus Luther! There is a cycle here that one must understand, since
I argue we are seeing the same thing happen now.
One could thus ask if the Internet was a response for a
demand in more access. However in a McLuhan sense the Internet and its media
have actually changed what we see as truth. I may examine Latin texts of
Gregory I, in simple 7th Century Latin, and then compare it to books
commenting on them, and then to YouTube commentaries and remarks (Yes there are
YouTube commentaries on Gregory I). Who is the true Gregory? Does Gregory and
his ideas change if we go from Latin words to English words to YouTube videos?
I think so.
But even more so, what we could do in the written word took
time. Like this short piece, I thought about it, wrote it, edited it, and then
placed it in this blog. Maybe you are even reading it. Thus I may have had to
work a bit to get these ideas straight. By the way that is why thankfully I
dropped Facebook and Twitter. One often does not think what one is saying.
Freud would have had a great time examining the subconscious elements here. I
will avoid our Tweeting President.
But clearly, as I am certain it is not just the Russians who
understand this, the medium of Facebook and Twitter actually define new “truths”.
They create new “truths”. At least people believe so. No longer does anyone
ask; what is the basis of your statement? Gone are any rules of evidence. Yes,
we do have rules of evidence, another artifact of the Middle Ages forgotten by the
Millennials.
So when one uses a new medium for communications one should
beware that the “truths” elicited therefrom may not conform to those of the
prior “medium” and in fact may have no basis in reality at all!
Posts
