MarshallMcLuhan:MediaEcologist andEducator
NadiaDelicata, FacultyofTheology,UniversityofMaltaThewiredplanethasnoboundariesandnomonopoliesofknowledge.Theaffairs oftheworldarenowdependentuponthehighestinformationofwhichmanis capable....Theboundariesbetweentheworldofaffairsandthecommunityof learninghaveceasedtoexist.Theworkadayworldnowdemandsencyclopedic wisdom(McLuhan, Forward 172).
Thirty-twoyearsafterhisdeath,MarshallMcLuhan(1911–1980)stillholdsthe dubiousdistinctionofbeingoneofthemostcontroversialthinkersofthetwentieth century.His firstdoctoralstudent,DonaldF.Theall,describedhimintheepicformula: “gurucumprophetcumphilosophercumpromotercumpopularizercum pseudo-artistMarshallMcLuhan” (Theall25).Morerecently,thegeekmagazine Wired hascrownedhimasits “patronsaint”.Still,as “prophet” ofthedigitalage andpopularicon,McLuhanhasattractedmuchmisconceptionandevendisdain. Academiahasblatantlymisunderstoodhimandevendisparagedhisworkcalling himamediadeterminist,atechnophobeandparadoxically,evenatechnophile (Willmottxii).Popularculturemighthaveadulatedhiminthesixties,butjust aseasilyforgothimadecadelater toberemembered,ofcourse,whenthe worldcaughtupwithhimandhisso-called “prophecies” became “real” intheInternetage(Cavellxvi-xvii;Ward).Hence,interpretationsofMcLuhan’sworkand hispublicrolehavenotoriouslybeentaintedbyanimatedpolemic,evenifthe importanceofhiscontributionremainslargelyunappreciatedandevenunknown.
Inthisarticle,IwouldliketopresentMarshallMcLuhanandhis oeuvre inthe rolethathehimselfassumed:ofeducatorinthetraditionofCiceronianhumanism(Chrystallabstract).NotonlywasMcLuhanaliteratureprofessortrained byhismentorsatCambridgeUniversityinNewCriticism(McLuhan, Interior xiii-xiv),butinimmersinghimselfinclassicallearningforhisdoctoralresearch, hebecamesomewhatofananomaly,translatingtheancientskillsof “exegesis” to themilieuofcontemporaryculture.Thushebecamefoundingfatherofacontemporaryhumanistictraditionoflearning: “mediaecology” (Strate1).Asconceived byMcLuhan,thestudyofmediaeffectsthatcreateanecology(hence “media ecology”)retrievesthecentralityof logos intheGreco-Romanandmedieval
traditions,wherethe “word” asutteredandasprincipleofintelligibility(ratio etoratio)holdstogetherallhumananddivineknowledge,alllawandpractical wisdom,asallhumanaffairsandlearningareinterpretedinlightofdivine wisdom.Byapplying(whiletransforming)intheneweraofdigitality,thetechniquesofclassicallearningasthequintessential “literate” wisdom,McLuhan re-appropriatesthetraditionofGreek paideia andofLatin humanitas andraises theCiceronian-Augustinianidealofthe doctusorator asthemodeland terminus forcontemporarypersonalandculturalformation.Evenmoresignificantly, McLuhandoesnotmerelypreachamessage:heembodieshishopeforthedigital agebybecomingatrueeducatoror “model” ofthe “eruditerhetorician.”
IwilldescribeMcLuhan’scontributionthroughunpackinghisassertioninthe posthumouslypublished LawsofMedia:TheNewScience thatthetrulyeducationaland “human” taskofthenewageofdigitalityis “agrammarofrhetoric” and “arhetoricofgrammar” (McLuhan&McLuhan229).Thiscontention restsontheretrievalofthethreeartsofthetriviumas “words” thatinterpret allphenomena(grammar),distillprobabletruth(dialectic)andarguepersuasively (rhetoric).Thus,McLuhan’spraxisofmediaecologyisthecontemporarygrammarian’scarefulreadingofthebookof “nature” asthatnaturemanifestsitself today:totallytransformedthroughhumanity’smanipulation.Likewise,through hisretrievaloftheidealtowhichancient grammatica wasoriented,the doctusorator,McLuhanappropriatedstrategiesforpersuasivecommunicationinamilieu characterizedbyacacophonyofinformation.Throughhisstudyofancient oratoryandasinfluencedbyThomasNasheandtheElizabethanrhetoricians (McLuhan, Trivium),McLuhancraftedandputonthe “mask” orpersonaofa “popular” figure:thecelebrity-professor.Thisstrategyisconsistentwithhisunderstandingofthenewelectricecologyasa “globaltheatre” (McLuhan&Nevitt265) inwhichtherecanbenoaudiencebutonlyactorswearingdifferentmasks. Iwilldividethisarticleinfourparts.First,Iwillofferabriefoverviewof McLuhan’seducationalstrategy frompayingattention,tounderstanding,to enticingforthepublicgood throughthephenomenologicalhermeneuticsof PaulRicoeur.Next,IwillpresenttheunderlyingassumptionsofMcLuhan’ s practicesasteachings,eachcorrespondingtoaspecificmomentalonghiseducationalstrategy.First,thegrammaticalpresuppositionsthatunderlieMcLuhan’ s work,inparticularhisAristotelianandThomisticcriticalrealism,aswellasthe relationbetweenbiased,mediatedperceptionandthecreationofculture.This stancecanbesummarizedinhisoften-quoted(butill-understood)aphorism that “themediumisthemessage”.Inthisregard,theFourLawsofMedia,or tetrad,areadistillationofhistechniqueofthe “probe” for “critical” reflection ontheeffectsofeverymediumthroughretrievinganunbiasedor “scientific ” perception.Lastly,McLuhan’spublicpersona,aswellasmuchofhispublished material,wasasatiricalcreationwhoseintentwasto “wakepeopleup” from thebiasand “somnambulism” ofsensoryoverloadandnarcosis.Hence,inconclusion,itwillbeobviousthatMcLuhan’soveralleducationalstrategyisto becomemedia “literate”—inthedualsenseofbecomingagoodinterpreterof
theeffectsofallmediaaswellastheiraccomplished “masterperformer.” His overallstanceasmediaecologistandeducatorcanbesummarizedthrough anotherofhisaphorisms: “Thereisabsolutelynoinevitability,solongasthere isawillingnesstocontemplatewhatishappening” (McLuhan&Fiore25). Thus,McLuhan’soverallintentisafundamentallyCatholicprinciple:toreclaim thefreedomtobeartisansofcultureratherthanitsdeterminedsubjects.
MCLUHAN ’ SGRAMMATICAL - RHETORICALPEDAGOGY
Asearlyashis firstpublishedbook, TheMechanicalBride:FolkloreofIndustrial Man whereheattemptedagrammatical-rhetoricalexegesisofadvertisements McLuhanhadalreadyestablishedthefundamentalassumptionsbehindhiseducationalmethodasmedialiteracy.ThismethodwasinspiredbyEdgarAllanPoe’ s shortstory “ADescentintotheMaelström” (Poe574–597),butcanalsobeunpackedthroughthephenomenologicalhermeneuticsofPaulRicouer.Inparticular throughhislaterwork,whereheemphasizedthecompellinglinkbetweenhermeneuticsandethics,Ricoeuroffersarichanalytical(andthereforedialectical)articulationofagrammatical-rhetoricalprocessofhumanformation,whichcanbe appliedsuccessfullytonuanceMcLuhan’ smore “mythically” groundedproject.
Poe’sallegoryofthesailorcaughtupinamaelströmisnarratedinthevery openingparagraphsoftheprefaceto TheMechanicalBride.ForMcLuhan, thesailorrepresentseachoneofusindividually,aswellasthehumanracecollectively,whereasnewtechnologiescreateawhirlpoolofeffectsthatradicallyalter patternsofperceptionandinteraction,humancultureisinevitablypulledintoa crisis.Yetcrisesbothamplifythehiddenweaknessesandbiasesofaculture,stirringupacascadeofinnatedestructiveforces,aswellasgeneratenewopportunitiesforcreativity.Thekeyinsightthatemergesfromthemaelström’staleis howtotapintotheenergyofpotentiallydeadlycentripetalforcesandchannel itforconstructiveends.AsMcLuhannotes, “Poe’ssailorsavedhimselfbystudyingtheactionofthewhirlpoolandbyco-operatingwithit” (McLuhan, Bride v) Throughpayingattentiontothecurrent’spatternanditseffects anactionthat initselfneutralizedandtamedtheviolentvortextosubmission thesailorwas abletocapitalizeontheirpredictability,manipulatethemskillfully,andthusredirectthewhirlpool’shiddenpotentialandresourcefulness.
Thisseeming “jump” fromattentiontoprudentaction,ifabitpuzzling,can bestudiedmethodicallythroughRicoeur’sphenomenologicalhermeneutics. Ricoeur’sproject,whichaimsfor “thegradualreinscriptionofthetheoryof textswithinthetheoryofaction” (Ricoeur, FromText xiv) andthereforeechoes McLuhan’saimoftheinterpretationofallphenomena canbeunderstoodasincludinga “poetic” anda “hermeneutical” arcthatmutuallyform,challengeand complementtheother.
Thepoeticarc,inspiredbyAristotle’sunderstandingoftragedyasthe “imitationofaction” isdevelopedandappliedinRicoeur’sthree-volume Timeand
Narrative asthe “threefoldmimesis” (VolI52–87)thatmakessenseoflifeby understandingitwithinaframeworkofnarrative.InRicouer’sinterpretationof Aristotlethis mimesis ofactionincludes first, mimesis1,thereflectiononaction itself,whichassumesattentivenesstophenomena,tochange,toshiftingeffects. Nextcomes mimesis2,theworkoftheimaginationthat “ configures ” thisobserved actionintoaplot,thatis,atellingofthestoryincreativeform(anactof poiesis) thatbothappropriatesandintegratesthemeaningofactionasacohesivewhole. Theplot,however,shakesitsreceiverandtheirworldview,and mimesis3 isthe challengethatemergesfrom “reading” thestory.Itisthebeingmovedbythenarrative(aesthesis),whichinducesashiftinourperceptionoftheactiontoseereality anew.Theaestheticmomentiswhatinvitestoconversion,andhencetothepurification(katharsis)ofboththeaudience(orreaders)andtheiractionsastheyrecognizeandembracetheirresponsibility.Thereaderisprofoundly “ reconfigured” throughthepowerofimaginationthatcreatesthe “text,” evenifthe “reader” still needstoappropriatetheeffectsofthisconversionastheir “ new ” self.
Thus,thepoeticarcofthreefold mimesis requiresitscomplementinthehermeneuticarc,from firstnaïveté(ornaïvebelief),toacriticalmomentofexplanation, tothesecondnaïvetéofcriticalunderstandingthatawakensthecourageof “conviction” nowinfusedwith “practicalwisdom”.Thisisthemethodofreading thatalwayspresupposesre-readingemergingfromRicoeur’searlywork, InterpretationTheory.AsRicoeurnotes,themomentofattestationthatemerges
from mimesis3 isaccompaniedby suspicion thatrequirestheexerciseofcritical reflection.Conviction’sclaimtoveracity,tothetruthoffaith,culminatesin therecognitionoftheselfasagentinrelationshipwiththeother,whoatevery moment,actsfreelyandresponsiblythroughembracingpracticalwisdom (Ricoeur, Oneself 203–296).Itisaclaimtothehopeofhuman finalitygrounded inthegratitudeofrecognizingourpotentialtoactjustly:
Thisexperientialevidenceisthenew figureinwhich attestation appears,whenthe certaintyofbeingtheauthorofone’sowndiscourseandofone’sownactsbecomes theconvictionofjudgingwellandactingwellinamomentaryandprovisional approximationoflivingwell(Ricoeur, Oneself 180).
Accordingly,Ricoeuroutlineshowthissix-foldmovementfromattentivenesstoour action,tothetellingofourstory,toconversionasnewbelief,tocriticalreflection andjudgment,culminatesinthetestofrightbecominginrelationshipasexemplified inrightactionthatinvitestoimitation.Therenewedattentivenessto “action” births inturn,anewnarrativeandthehopeofcontinuedcreativebecoming.
Figure2: 318
InMcLuhan’seducationalmethod(symbolized innuce inPoe’stale)we seethissix-foldmovementunfoldinfourdistinctmoments:theexploration andarticulationofamythosofan “electricecology” throughongoingcritical reflectioninthepraxisofdialogue;andtherhetoricalpraxisofbecomingasatirical figure,amediumandmessageoftheelectricecologyitself,anditseffecton theaudience.Whiletheconfiguringofthemythosandcriticaldialoguecanbe seenasthebackgroundofMcLuhan’sendeavor,theforegroundisthepublic personaoractorseekingtocommunicatethe mythos anditsdesiredeffecton thecrowd.Insum,McLuhan’seducationalprojectembracesaquestfordiscoverythroughdeepinvolvementandfullparticipationintheworldasglobal theatre.
Thecreationofa mythos, orwayofunderstandingtheworldreceivedthrough thesensesisconstantlybeingpurifiedthroughdialogue,whichMcLuhanunderstoodtobetheprivilegedpathtothediscoveryofinsightsandknowledge.From conversationsandcorrespondencewithhisstudentsandmanycollaborators, tothefamousinter-disciplinaryseminarsattheUniversityofTorontothatwere therichmilieuforMcLuhan’sarticulationoffundamentalmediaecologyinsights mostofthemcollectedandpublishedinnineissuesofthejournalthe seminargroupaptlytitled, Explorations (1953–1959) McLuhanbelievedthat throughmassagingwords,or “probing”,throughplayingwithideas,through thespokenwordasanalogouswithbeingitself,communitiesinconversation couldaspiretoastateofreasonas sensuscommunis thecommonsenseofsharpenedawarenessandopennesstothetruth.The “probe” inparticular, firstasan actofwordplayandinits finalproduct,asaphorism,isapoem innuce thatinvitestodepthinvolvementandparticipation.McLuhan firsttestedoutthis methodofdiscoveryandtransformationinhis firstessaypublishedinthejournal, “CulturewithoutLiteracy”.Moreover,amajoradvantageofthisendevourwas thatthedifferentdisciplinesrepresentedinMcLuhan’sseminarsandhiscollaborativeefforts,inparticularthroughtheoriginalmembersEdmundCarpenter fromanthropology,CarlWilliamsfrompsychology,TomEasterbrookfromeconomics,andJacquelineTyrwhittfromarchitecture,offeredavarietyoftextured vocabulariesforhumanbehaviourthattogetherwouldproducetherichlymetaphoricallanguageofmediaecologyitself.Forinstance,itwasbecauseofCarpenter’sinfluencethatMcLuhanwouldformulatethecrucialmetaphoroftheglobal “village” andemphasizeareturntoan “oral” sensibilityintheelectricage throughits “acousticspace” (Gordon159–165;Marchand124–137).
Criticaldialogue,however,wasalsoessentialtoformtherhetoricaldiscourse thatMcLuhan(onceagain,withmanycollaborators)wouldpresenttothepublic astheformativemoment.AsPoe’staleofthesailorcaughtinthemaelströmreveals,inthisdiscoursetherewasnoroomformoralizing,whichmerelysubstitutesforthecriticalprocessbysettlingdownforeasyblackandwhiteanswers withoutdelvingdeeperintothecomplexrelationalityoftheecologyitself.As McLuhanpointedlyremarkedinhisinterviewwithG.E.Stearn,moralizing, or “classifying” as “for” and “against”,istheongoingtemptationoftypographic
literacysimplybecause “classification” isinitselfnecessaryfortheliterateperson tomakesenseoftheworld:
Themeremoralisticexpressionofapprovalordisapproval,preferenceordetestation,iscurrentlybeingusedinourworldasasubstituteforobservationandasubstituteforstudy....
Anybodywhospendshistimescreamingaboutvaluesinourmodernworldisnota seriouscharacter.Youmightaswellstartscreamingaboutahousethat’sburning down,shouting, “Thisisnottheactofaseriousman!” Whenyouroldworldiscollapsingandeverythingischangingatafuriouspitch,tostartannouncingyourpreferencesforoldvaluesisnottheactofaseriousperson....Theirhouseisburning andthey’resaying, “Don’tyouhaveanysenseofvalues,simplytellingpeopleabout firewhenyoushouldbethinkingabouttheseriouscontent,thenobleworksofthe mind?” Valueisirrelevant(McLuhan,ed.Stearn277–278).
Insteadofclassificationormoralizing,opennessthroughdialoguehasthe potentialtokeepthepersonhonestandthustonotfalltoimmediateconclusions withoutweighing firstallnuancedaspectsoftruth.Thus,McLuhanbelieved,it wasnotthroughcondemningorcelebratingtechnologythathecouldcommunicateitssubtleinfluenceuponus,butonlythroughchallengingthecrowdto awakenandstudytechnology’seffects.Accordingly,McLuhan’srhetoricalstrategyhadtwoimportantcharacteristics: first,toexaggeratethoseeffectsthrough probesandthustoattempttomakethemmoreapparent.Thiswasthetask ofmorphingclichéssotheybecomeonceagainarchetypes,powerfulsymbols ofourunconsciousnowraisedasmirrorstoourconsciousness(McLuhan& Watson).Second,toraisehimselfasthemediumembodyingtheeffects,that is,bysimultaneouslybecomingtheobjectofcontemptandofadulation in RenéGirard’sterminology,amodelandscapegoat thatis,acomplex figure nevertobecompletelyunderstood,butthatalwaysenticesadesireforunderstandingthatwhichherepresented.
Thisbecomingmediumandmessagealsoteacheshowdetachedattentiondoes notprecludeinvolvement.Infact,inPoe’stale,thesailorwasstillcaughtinthe maelströmwhileobservingitspattern.Indeedthesailor became thepattern, acceptingthevortex’sfullimpact,atthesametimethathecouldtranscendit. Attentivenessassumestakingresponsibilityforone’sinvolvementinthecreation oftheculture,atthesametimethatonebecomesobligedtochoosewiselyandact responsiblyinthenewecology.
Asthegospelsteach,itisfromtheyeast within thedoughthatthebreadcan raise.Indeed,McLuhan’ grammarianpresuppositionswillrevealhowitisalso thisrealityasinterpreted fromwithin thatexists,andthattoassumedetachment fromwithout (the “objectivity” taughtbytheprintedpage)ismereillusion.Asthe ThomisticphilosopherBernardLonerganwouldsummarizethisstance, “true objectivityisauthenticsubjectivity” (Lonergan265).
GRAMMATICA ASTHEINTERPRETATIONOFALLPHENOMENA
McLuhanhasfamouslydescribedhiswork: “Idon’texplain Iexplore” (McLuhan,ed.Stearnxii).McLuhanneverpresentsa theory ofmediaecology,but ratherhasaprofoundawareness of media as ecology,anewterrainwhichheapproacheswiththepassionoftheexplorer.Thisspiritofexplorationcomesfrom theperceptionoftheworldaswondrous,aschargedwithmeaning.Unlikethe flatworldofthemodernscientist,whoseekstoexplainrealitythroughreductionism(weareemptysub-atomicparticles/energies),orinstrumentalism(wearecogs inasocialmachine),McLuhanseekstoobservetheformachievedbyanartifact initsecology aform,thatanalogicallyandinits finalitycarriestheimprintof theTranscendent.Thesethreetenets thepriorityofform,formasbeingobservablebythesensesthroughtheeffectsitimprintsontheenvironment,andtheperceptionofformasanalogical arethefoundationofMcLuhan’sThomistic epistemology,physicsandmetaphysics.Theemphasisonanalogicalperception willformthebasisofhis “newscience” ofthetetrads.
McLuhan’sexplorativeendeavour,ofcourse,washardlynew.Aristotle,who inhis Physics (II)and Metaphysics (V)waslikewisereactingtophilosopherswho understoodtheworldmerelythroughmaterialandefficientcausality,moved beyondhismilieuthroughhisfour-foldanalogicalunderstandingofcausality thatstressedtheprimacyoftheformthatfulfilsits telos.Thus,Aristotleemphasizedthecomplementaritybetweenthepurposefulmanipulationofmatterand theformthatisrealizedthroughtheact.Inotherwords:
[T]heenvironmentitselfconsistsofstableidentitieswhicharealreadyinfavourwith theenvironment,andwhichthereforeintheirturn,actas causes oftheemergenceof newmatter,projectingtheirownfavourednessandstabilityontotheirenvironments bywayofcharacteristicactivitiesproducingcharacteristic effects.Thatmattertakes onacertainformisthedoingofanagentgivingexpressioninthatwaytowhatit favoursortendstowardsasagoal(Aquinas,ed.McDermottxxvi).
Fundamentally,thisreciprocitybetweenform-telos andmatter-agencyisan expressionofthechangeor kinesis thatdefinestheinterplaybetweenpotentiality (dynamis)andactuality(entelecheia).Formisrevealedthroughsubsistinginactual “material” objects.However,formasthedesiredornatural “end” isalsothe “ essence ” ofanobjectasitspotentiality.Accordingly, “effects” (ortheformas essence)arepriorto “ causes”—narrowlyunderstoodasmaterialandefficientcausality andfromactualeffects(ortheformsubsistinginobject)wecangleanthe logos thatordersallmatter.
Thomas,however,goesastepfurtherthanAristotle,sinceforThomas logos alwayspointsnotmerelytoactionorchange,whichforAristotlecanbe “natural”,buttoanactorwhohasagency:
Aristotleemphasizesthatnaturalthingsdifferfromartificialthingsinhavingan internalform(self-constructed,asMonodwouldsay),whereasartificialthings
dependonaformexternaltothembutinternaltotheartificerthatproducesthem (hisartifice,asAristotlecallsit).ButThomas’spreferredwayoftalkingistosaythat bothkindsofthingsreceivetheirformsfromexternalagents,butanaturalthing receivestheformbywhichititselfexists,whereasanartificialthingreceivesa formunderwhichsomethingelse(thematerialoutofwhichitismade)exists. WhenAristotlecallsthestateofrealization energeia oractuality,thewordstresses thatastatethatwaspreviouslyonlypossibleisnowactuallypresent;whenThomas callsit actus,thewordfurtherstressesthatthepresenceofthestateisnotonlythe beingofsomethingbutalsotheactionofsomeotherthing,thedoingofanagent. Allbeingisdoing,andifthedoingitselfisalsoanenvironmentally-favouredrealizationorachievementofanotherwisemerelypossibleagency,thanasrealization ittooneedsadoer:the firstagent’sdoingmustitselfbethedoingofasecond agent.Andsoon.Butnot adinfinitum,becausethentherewouldhavebeenno doingandnorealizationofbeinginthe firstplace.Rather andsoon untilwe cometoadoingthatdoesnothavetoachievefavourfromtheenvironmentbut alreadyandeternallyisdoing.Everyotherbeing,everyotherdoingmustbethis being’sdoing,andthisisthebeingthat allmencallGod,andthatThomas,asphilosopher,attemptstoarticulateandmakepreciseinhis fiveways(Aquinas,ed. McDermottxxix).
Thomas’stransformationofAristotle’ s “nature” asself-directedandself-formingintoChristianity’ s “creation” aspersonalact,positsthenecessityofa first causeorprimemover,whoisnotmere energeia butCreator.Godis “theuniversalcauseofallexistence,”“theagent,prototype,andgoalofallthings,andthe sourceoftheirmatter.” Atthesametime,creation,whichisnecessarilyoutof nothingifGodisprimemover,isGod’swayofcausing,totheextentthat “sincewhatthingsdoreflectwhattheyare,Godcreatesinasmuchasheexists.” Thus,infollowingAristotle’sinsight,that “effectsrepresenttheircause:eitherby imagingandreproducingtheformofthecause,orastracesofthecause,which donotreproducetheformofthecausebutonlysignifyitscausalpresence,inthe waysmokesignifies fireandtracksshowthatsomeonehaspassedthatwaybutdo notgiveusapictureofhim” (Aquinas, SummaTheologiae, I.45.6–7)creation itselfbecomeschargedwithGod’spresenceandGodcanbegleanedthroughnaturalreasonthroughtheveryrelationalityofanalogicalcausality.
Thisintegralwayofinterpretingeveryeventhappeningintheworld,whereit isnevermerelytheeffectofalinearefficientcausality,butrather,itisarichinterfaceofmutualrelationalitybetweenobjectandcontext,subjectandenvironment, canbecondensedintoThomas’ peripateticaxiomthatMcLuhanmakeshisown: “Nihilestinintellectuquodnonfueritpriusinsensu.” (Quaestiones 2.3.18).Nothingisintheintellectthatwasnot firstinthesenses.Inotherwords,therecanbe norationalityunlessitisrootedinthesensorium.Theveryinterfacebetween thehumanandtheirenvironmentstresseshowhumanknowledgecanonlybereceivedthroughtheenvironment includingknowledgeofthedivine.UnlikePlato’sForms,whichareanabstractiondisconnectedfromtheworld,Aristotle’ s understandingofformalcausalityasinheritedbyThomasandMcLuhanis
perceptualandthereforeempirical.Aristotle’ s “philosophyofnaturalform” is theprecursorofcontemporary Gestalt psychology literally,the “psychology ofform”—whichemphasizeshowthemindarrangesthesensoryinputfrom theenvironmenttomakesenseofreality,inturncreatingtherealitself.Thus, asthefamousparableoftheelephantandblindmenteachesus,howandwhat themindperceivesbecomescrucialtointerpretingcorrectlywhattherealis.
Aristotletaughtthatlikethestringsofalyre,eachproducingdistinctmusical notesifattunedproperly,eachsensehasitsparticularpotentialityor logos (or ratio)toperceivewhenattunedtotheenvironment.Theperceptionofformis thuspossiblethroughthebalancedinterplayofthesenses sensessowellattuned totheenvironmentthattheyreverberateinananalogicalproportionalitythat graspsthewholeasgreaterthanthesumoftheparts.Experiencing,orbeingpresent,isgreaterthanmerelyseeing,hearing,feeling,smellingortasting.Itisthe attunementofthewholesensoriumastheveryanalogical “ sense ” thatoversees thesenses,the sensuscommunis.AsAristotleexplains:
WithwhatpartofitselfthesouldiscriminatessweetfromhotIhaveexplained beforeandmustnowdescribeasfollows:Thatwithwhichitdoessoisasortof unity,butinthewayjustmentioned,i.e.asaconnectingterm.Andthetwofaculties itconnects,beingonebyanalogyandnumerically,areeachtoeachasthequalities discernedaretooneanother(forwhatdifferencedoesitmakewhetherweraisethe problemofdiscriminationbetweendisparatesorbetweencontraries,e.g.whiteand black?).LetthenCbetoDasAistoB:itfollows alternando thatC:AasD:B.If thenCandDbelongtoonesubject,thecasewillbethesamewiththemaswithA andB;AandBformasingleidentitywithdifferentmodesofbeing;sotoowillthe formerpair.ThesamereasoningholdsifAbesweetandBwhite(DeAnima,431a-b, citedbyMcLuhan&McLuhanin LawsofMedia 231).
OrasMcLuhanputsit:
Ourveryword “ grasp ” or “apprehension” pointstotheprocessofgettingatone thingthroughanother,ofhandlingandsensingmanyfacetsatatimethrough morethanonesenseatatime.Itbeginstobeevidentthat “touch” isnotskin buttheinterplayofthesenses,and “keepingintouch” or “gettingintouch” isamatterofafruitfulmeetingofthesenses,ofsighttranslatedintosoundandsoundinto movement,andtasteandsmell.The “ commonsense ” wasformanycenturiesheld tobethepeculiarhumanpoweroftranslatingonekindofexperienceofonesense intoallthesenses,andpresentingtheresultcontinuouslyasaunifiedimagetothe mind.Infact,theimageofaunifiedratioamongthesenseswaslongheldtobethe markofour rationality,andmayinthecomputerageeasilybecomesoagain (UnderstandingMedia 89).
ForThomasandMcLuhan,thistaskisoftheutmostimportance,because “thesensoryorderresonateswiththedivineLogos,” (McLuhan, Letters 368–9) andrightperceptionisnotmerelyofthenaturalorderbutofthesupernatural realmaswell.God’sself-communicationispossibleonlythroughtheworld,
theintrinsic logos/Logosofcreationpalpablebythecreaturethroughbeing imprintedinthecreaturelyrealmitself,andtheonlywayhowthehumancanlistenisthroughobservinganddiscerningthepresenceofGod’sWord/wordsincreation.Thusthecreatedworldismultifacetedandinfinitelyrichwithmeaning.Its contemplationisnecessarynotonlyforadjustmentandsurvival,butforthriving and flourishingthroughgraspingthedivineWord,OrderorRationality.This ChristianpremisebecomesthefoundationforMcLuhan’stacitsuperimposition andinseparabilityofmediaecologywithChristiantheology.Thehuman,endowedwithreason,isthemediumandmessageofGodtocreationandvice versa.ThehumanperceivesGodintheworldandactsintheworldforGod. Accordingly,humanityalsosharesacommonpurpose:thefulfilmentofcreation throughitsbecomingatransparentmirrorfortherevelationofGod.
Yet,sinceperceptionisarelationaldynamicbetweentheenvironmentand thesenses,anall-involvingparticipationoftheorganismintheenvironment, consciousness,orthe “analogicalproportionamongthesensesfrommoment tomoment,” (McLuhan, Letters,280)isnotstaticorconstant.Rather,anystress fromtheenvironment(orvice-versa,anyhumanchangetotheenvironment)impingesthesensescreatingabiasoradistortionintheabilitytoperceiveitself.In theextreme, aisthesis,ortheabilitytosenseandperceive,couldevenbecome anaisthesis,somnambulismornarcosis thereactionofthesensestoover-exertion wherethesensessimplyshutdown.Thepersonhimselforherselfisnotawareof thedistortionintheirperception,inthesamewaythathallucinationsbecomethe realityoftheschizophrenicorofthedrug-userduringtheir “trip”,orintheway howdreamsaretherealityofthepersonwhoisasleep.Thisispreciselywhy McLuhaninsistedthattheformandnotthecontentofamediumispivotal, fortheeffectofthemediumis firstandforemostontheperson’sperceptualapparatuscreatingtheirconsciousness.AsMcLuhanwritestoWilliamKuhn:
Ihavealwaysassumedthatthe user ofanymediumisthe content.Thepersonwho turnsonanelectriclightisthecontentoftheelectriclight,justasthereaderofa bookisthecontentofabook.ThisisstandardAristotelianandThomisticdoctrine, thatthecognitiveagentishimselfthingandcontent.Inthesameway,onpage199 [ofKuhn’ s Post-IndustrialProphets],youmisswhattomeistheveryobviousfact thathumanconsciousnessisananalogicalmirrorfarmorepotentthanallothermirrorsthatmerelyprovideaunivocalormatchingimage(McLuhan, Letters,448).
Moreover,notonlyisthismutualityofthesensesandenvironmenttrueofthe individualhumanbeing,butalsoofthecommunitythatsharestheecology.A culturedevelopsitsown sensuscommunis,itsownwayofperceivingreality,effectivelyrecreatingtheexperienceoftherealitself.InBernardLonergan’sThomistic language,thisistheinherent “bias” onthelevelofperceptionthatisendemicto everyculture.Oralcultures,forinstance,areparticularlyattunedtotherhythm andcadenceofthesungwordandtheyreplicateitsharmonyevenintheirplastic arts:forexample,theperfectbalanceoftheParthenon.Incontrast,atypographic culturelearnstofocuson figurestotheexclusionoftheirground,thwartingthe
veryanalogicalproportionalitythatperceivestheinter-relationshipof figureground.AsMcLuhanputsitsuccinctly: “media,byalteringtheenvironment, evokeinustheiruniqueratiosofsenseperception.Theextensionofanyone sensealtersthewaywethinkandact thewayweperceivetheworld” (McLuhan &Fiore148).
ThisisthetriangularideathatdefinesMcLuhan’smediaecologyasa grammarian-rhetoricalstudystemmingfromadeepcommitmenttoanepistemologygroundedinthesenses.Itistheinherentmutualrelationshipbetween humanity’stoolsshapingherperceptionoftheworld,whichfundamentallycreatesapeople’ s “culture” or “worldview”.Ifthehumansensesarethepermeable boundarybetweenthehumanandtheirenvironment aboundarythrough whichthehumanreceivesinformationfromtheenvironment,butalsoactson theenvironmenttransformingitastheydeem fit thenthesensesareadouble-edgedsword:ononehandtheyaretheseatthroughwhichhumansactualize theirpotentialforcommunicationandcreativity;ontheother,theyarealocusof greatvulnerabilitythroughwhichhumanitycan “missthemark” initsrelationality.Morefundamentally,inthisongoingdancebetweenhumanandcreated realm,thegreatestresponsibilityfallsonhumanshoulderswhoseself-reflexive consciousnessenablesthemtoactinfreedom afreedomtobecomethatcannot beparalleledbyotherearthlycreaturesoreventheecologyitself.Thustheonus oftendingthegardenfallsonAdamandhishumancompanion,evenifAdam himselfwilloftenprovetobedistracted,inattentivetohisenvironment,slow tounderstandthesignificanceofhisactions,aswellaslessthanwiseinhis judgment.
Inevitably,Adam’sactionshaveconsequencesthathelearnstolivewith,and forbetterorforworseAdamtransformsthegardenintoa “city”.Thissymbolic ecologicaltransformationfrom “garden” to “polis” happensthroughthetools thatthehumancreates.AsMcLuhanputsit: “Themosthumanthingabout usisourtechnology” (McLuhan, Probes 172–173).Accordingly,inviewof theepistemologicalweightthatMcLuhanputsonthehumansensesaspermeableboundariesbetweenhumanityanditsecology,herecognizesthat “tools” actupon,aswellasare “like” thesenses,by filteringthem,enhancingthem, changingthem,totheextentthattheyaremetaphorically asMcLuhan’ssubheadingtohisclassic UnderstandingMedia putsit thevery “extensionsof man ”.Inhistext,McLuhannotesthatby “ man ” or “human” heactually meanstheembodiedperson,since,evenifMcLuhanimpliesadistinction betweentheintellectandthebody,likeanygoodThomistorChristian,hecannotfathomtheirseparation.Thuswhiletheintellectisfreetoactthroughthe body,thebody’sownimpulses inparticularthosethatleadtoerror need tobetamedbytheintellect.
Evenmorecrucially,forMcLuhanthefundamentalhumanerrorisperceptual andthusitistheintellect’smisleadinginterpretationofwhatthesenses receivefromtheenvironment.EchoingtheoristsofhumanfailingslikeFreud andGirard,McLuhanraisesNarcissusasthesymbolofhumanblindness.Yet
contrarytowhatFreudpreached,andmoreintunewithGirardianmimetic theory,McLuhanpresentsanintriguingexegesisoftheNarcissusmyth:
TheGreekmythofNarcissusisdirectlyconcernedwithafactofhumanexperience, astheword Narcissus indicates.ItisfromtheGreekword narcosis,ornumbness. TheyouthNarcissusmistookhisownreflectioninthewaterforanotherperson. Thisextensionofhimselfbymirrornumbedhisperceptionsuntilhebecametheservomechanismofhisownextendedorrepeatedimage.ThenymphEchotriedto winhislovewithfragmentsofhisownspeech,butinvain.Hewasnumb.Hehad adaptedtohisextensionofhimselfandhadbecomeaclosedsystem.
Nowthepointofthismythisthefactthatmenatoncebecomefascinatedbyany extensionofthemselvesinanymaterialotherthanthemselves.Therehavebeencynicswhoinsistedthatmenfalldeepestinlovewithwomenwhogivethembacktheir ownimage.Bethatasitmay,thewisdomoftheNarcissusmythdoesnotconvey anyideathatNarcissusfellinlovewithanythingheregardedashimself.Obviously hewouldhavehadverydifferentfeelingsabouttheimagehadheknownitwas anextensionorrepetitionofhimself.Itis,perhaps,indicativeofthebiasofour intenselytechnologicaland,therefore,biasedculturethatwehavelonginterpreted theNarcissusstorytomeanthathefellinlovewithhimself,thatheimaginedthe reflectiontobeNarcissus!(McLuhan, UnderstandingMedia 63)
Justasthemindwillstoppayingattentiontoasmellafterawhile,ortonotice thedécorofafamiliarroom,ortopickupthe “whitenoise” ofcitydwelling,so alloverexertedsensestendtobecomenumb,narcotized,asleep,dimlyawareof theirsurroundingsor,forthatmatter,oftheirownunconsciousreactionsto thatenvironment. “Suchamplificationisbearablebythenervoussystemonly throughnumbnessorblockingofperception.ThisisthesenseoftheNarcissus myth.Theyoungman’ imageisaself-amputationorextensioninducedbyirritatingpressures.Ascounter-irritant,theimageproducesgeneralizednumbnessor shockthatdeclinesrecognition.Self-amputationpreventsself-recognition” (McLuhan, UnderstandingMedia 64).Thefamiliar,theordinaryisprecisely whatwedonotperceiveevenif,paradoxically,itiswhatshapesusthemost. LikeNarcissuswearenarcotizedbyextensionsofourselves,whicharethe veryimageofourselves.Webecomenumbinbeingsplitasourideaofself, andourrealityofselfconceivedasanother.
Numbnesscanbecircumventedonlywhensomethingshiftsintheground, causingtheusualsub-routinestobecomeinefficienttoprocessinformationand thusforcingthebraintopayattentionagain.Wehaveallexperiencedthestrange sensationofknowingthatsomethinghaschangedintheappearanceofsomebody orintheset-upofaroom,butnotbeingabletoputour fingeronituntilwetruly startto quiteliterally payattention.Similarly,onlythestrangerforwhoman unknowncultureis “ new ” andbizarrecanperceivethehiddengroundthat mouldsit.Thisisoftentheexperienceofnewimmigrants,whoinundergoing theradicalshiftofbeingtransposedfromtheirculturalgroundtoanother,suddenlydevelopasharpsensetograspthepeculiaritiesofboththenewandtheold,
sinceneithercanbetakenforgrantedanylonger.Thetwoculturesactas “antienvironments” foreachother,inthesamewaythatwhitenessorblacknesscanbe perceivedonlyagainstabackgroundofcolour.
Yetthemomentofawarenessispreciselywherethepersonismostfreeto choosetheirfuture.Correctingorsharpeningthesensestoenablemoreaccurate perceptionoftherealisessentialnotonlyforthepursuitoftrueknowledge,but morecrucially,forrighteousliving.Justasthestringsofalyrecanbeadjusted and finelytunedforpitchandresonance,socanoursensorium andconsequentlyourreason betrained.Awarenessisnotsimplysomethingwehave, butthatneedstobecultivated;itisa habitus thatweneedtoacquire,asecond naturethatweneedtoputon,byunlearningthebiasesofmistunedperception. Theattuningofperceptionisthespecialskilloftheartist,forthetrueartist,the scientistof aisthesis,isalwaystheonewhorevealstherealbyrecreatingit,and thusaccentuatingit,incontrasttothenormativebiasoftheage effectively creatingacounter-environmentforourperception.AsMcLuhanwrites: “Theeffectsoftechnologydonotoccuratthelevelofopinionsorconcepts,butalter senseratiosorpatternsofperceptionsteadilyandwithoutanyresistance.The seriousartististheonlypersonabletoencountertechnologywithimpunity, justbecauseheisanexpertawareofthechangesinsenseperception” (McLuhan, UnderstandingMedia 31).
CRITICALAWARENESS : TECHNOLOGIESAS LOGOI PREGNANT WITHMEANING
Idon’tconsideritanyexaggerationtosaythatconfirminganddetailingthistie, betweenspeechandartifacts,constitutesthesinglebiggestintellectualdiscovery notonlyofourtime,butofatleastthelastcoupleofcenturies.Yetthefourlaws aredazzlinglysimple.Theymusthavethemostprofoundsignificanceforthearts andsciences,andnotsimplybecausetheyerasethedistinctionbetweenthem. Theyalsoprovidebothwithacommonsetoftoolsforforgingaheadandbackward muchthesamethinginanycase forconstantlyminingandrevitalizing thetraditioneachhas,andforusingeachotherasresources(EricMcLuhan, “Preface ” Laws ix-x).
McLuhan’slegacycanbesynthesizedasanew “science” orgrammarforreadingtheBookoftheWorldandconsequentlyasanewlanguagetobridgethedeep dividebetweenthe “twocultures” ofscienceandthearts,inordertoforgeanew educationalmodelfortheelectricage.In LawsofMedia:theNewScience, McLuhan’ s finalbookthathewrotewithhissonEric,butnever finished,the McLuhansarticulateanessentialsynonymybetweenlanguageandhumanity’ s artifacts,bothasessentiallycommunicativeandthereforeasrelyingonthedistincthumanabilitytosymbolize,thatis,totransfermeaningfromonerealmto another.McLuhan’slegacycanbeinterpretedasthedistillationofthetradition
of grammatica,thatinitselfallowsforthetestingofdialectics,forapathofperceivingrightly,understandingcomprehensivelyandknowingtruthfullythatis applicableineveryhumanculture.Ifthehumanisdefinedbytheabilitytosymbolize,andhumansymbolsreflectourverybecoming,thenhumanlanguageand humanartisanryaremirrorimagesofhumanity’sunfoldingroleincreation that ofextendingouttotheother/Other,of “loving” throughcommunicating.
McLuhantheteacheralsoemphasizedthatintheelectricageallhumanbeings mustbecomeartists,studentsofform,theirsensessharplyattunedtotheenvironment.Artistscomeinallstripes,fordifferentmediafashionedbyhumanityoffer diverseopportunitiesforrecreatingorcommunicatingthewisdomofthereal.In followingthetraditionoflettersbeforehim,McLuhangivesprioritytotheartists oftheword,preciselybecause,themostpowerfulimpactonthesensorium whoseprimaryroleistocommunicatewiththeworldanditsdiversesubjects happensthroughtechnologiesoftheword,withlanguagebeingthemostfundamentalexpressionofhumaninteriority.Artiststranslaterealityfromonemedium toanother fromtheeverydayworldtothecanvasorthestringinstrument,for example andtheartistsofthewordarethosewhocapturetheanalogicalcomplexityoftheworld thefourfoldcausalityofallphenomena throughasimilar analogicalinterface:themetaphor.
Theword metaphor itselfimpliesa “carryingover” fromtheGreek metapherein; meta“ over,across ” and pherein “tocarry,bear”.Metaphoristhusthefundamentallexistocommunicateor “ carry-over ” therichnessofperceptionand consequentlyofconsciousnessitself:itliterallytranslatesutterancesintoicons, images,textures,sensations,tastesandsmells.Ittransgressesnamesandconsequentlyrecreatesmeaningsbecomingthemediumfortheawarenessofinfinity itself.Aristotledescribesmetaphoras “thegreatestthingbyfar” preciselybecauseofitsabilitytorevealnewtruthsaboutbeing:
[T]hegreatestthingbyfaristobeamasterofmetaphor[literally:tobemetaphorical, tometaphorikoneinai].Itistheonethingthatcannotbelearntfromothers;and itisalsoasignofgenius[euphuias],sinceagoodmetaphor[literally:tometaphorize well, eumetapherein]impliesanintuitiveperceptionofthesimilarity[totohomoion theorein]indissimilars” (Poetics 1459a3–8,seealso Rhetoric 1412a10;quotedin Ricoeur, Metaphor 23).
Thisparadoxicalgraspingof “similarityindissimilars” canbegleanedthrough themechanicsofmetaphorasanalogy,whichAristotleexplainsinhis Poetics: Analogyorproportionispossiblewhenevertherearefourtermssorelatedthatthe second(B)istothe first(A)asthefourth(D)istothethird(C):foronemaythen metaphoricallyputCinlieuofBandBinlieuofD...Thusacupisinrelationto DionysiuswhatashieldistoAres.Thecupaccordinglywillbe...the ‘shield ofDionysius, ’ andtheshield ‘thecup ofAres ’ Ortotakeanotherinstance:Asoldageisto life,soiseveningtoday.Onewillaccordinglydescribeeveningasthe ‘oldage ofthe
day’—orbytheEmpedocleanequivalent:andoldageasthe ‘evening’ orthe ‘sunset of life’ (Poetics,1457b;quotedbyMcLuhan&McLuhanin LawsofMedia).
McLuhanexplainsthisanalogicalinterfacefurtherthroughgestaltpsychology whereheshowshowinitsessence,metaphorholdstogethertwo figureswithout losingawarenessoftheirgroundforatotalholisticperception.Thus,inthetwo examplesabove,themetaphor “cupofAres” impliesAres’ shieldandrecallsDionysius evenifneitherwordisarticulated.Similarly, “thesunsetoflife,” induces inourpsycheimagesofoldageandtheday,evenifbothwordsareleftuntold. Hence,metaphoristhe “resonantinterval” between figureandgroundableto shiftfromonetotheotherwithoutlosingawarenessofeither.
Metaphor,astheanalogicalrecreationofreality,liesattheheartoftwoprincipaldomainsof logos:poetry,therealmof grammatica,inparticulartragic poetry,whosetaskofcomposingarepresentationofhumanactiongivesitthe powertopurgefeelingsofpityandfear;andrhetoric,thepoliticalartofargumentation,oflayingpraiseandblame,withtheintentofmovingtorighteous action.Metaphoristhuspregnantwithmultipledimensionsofthetruthorattestations,transformingthemtothefullnessofconvictionthatleadstoaction.Metaphorsareattheverycuspoftruthandaction:inpoetrytheyspeakthetruthof fictionandinrhetorictheydemonstratethetruthofreasonableopinions,thus healingthewoundsofpastactionstopreparefornewones.Thereforetruthas metaphoricallyuttereddefines(ormeditatesupon)actionasithappenedand could(orshould)happen.Inaveryrealsense,therefore,metaphoritselfisthe happening:itisthe is and is-not,thecrossroadsbetweenlearningfromthepast (thetruthofpoetry)and flourishingforthefuture(thepersuasivenessofrhetoric). Inthemetaphoricalact,pastworldsareconstructedtomouldthepossibility(and probability)offutureworlds.Themetaphoricalact,theconsciousmomentof translatingsensationtoanalogicalperception,isthustheonlypresentwhere wetrulyactbecausewecreate.Thecreationofthenewcorrespondstothetranslationofmeaningfromonedomaintotheother:frommatter(figure)toenergy (ground)andviceversa.
ThisinherentrelationshipbetweenmetaphorandactionbecomesmostperceptiblewhenwenoticehowtheunpackingofcomplexmetaphortoitsfourfoldanalogicalskeletonrevealsaremarkablesimilaritytoAristotle’sfourfoldcausality. Thescienceoftheinterpretationofmetaphoricaltextsreachesitsacmethrough grammariantheologiansandtheirfourfoldinterpretationofscripture.Allegoryis anextendedmetaphorandtheallegoricalinterpretationofscriptureteasedout howtheliteraltext,theformalproductofcomposition,symbolizedasubtext oralternatenarrativeofdeepertruthaboutthedivine.Thisnarrativewould teachthehumanhowtorelatewithoneother themoralmeaningortropologicallevel aswellasrevealtheir finalityinGod themystical,spiritualandeschatologicalunderstandingoftheanagogicallevel.Visually,therelationship betweencausalityandexegesiscanbepresentedasfollows,wherelikeinallanalogiesA:BasD:C.
A.FormalcauseLiterallevel
B.MaterialcauseFigurative(Allegorical)level
C.EfficientcauseTropological(Moral)level
D.FinalcauseAnagogical(orEschatological)level (McLuhan&McLuhan218)
Thiscorrespondencebetweenmetaphorandcausalitybecomesthecriticallink tointerpretingallphenomenaintheirjourneyfrompotentialitytoactuality.This istheroleofthefourLawsofMedia.
Justlikelanguage,thecreationofanyartifactor “extension” fashionedbythe human,actsasamediumforrelatingto(oractingupon)theworldandeach other.Yetifmetaphoricallanguagehasfourlevelsofmeaning,everyartifact hasitsfourfoldsignatureof “effects” correspondingtothefourlevelsofexegesis andinturn,tothefourlevelsofcausality.ThefourLawsofMediacanbeteased outthroughaskingfourquestions,theanswerstowhichwillgiveaspecificfootprintorpatternoftheimpactanartifactishaving(andwillcontinuetohave)ina particularcontext.Justasmetaphorsarelinguisticanalogies,theLawsarethe fouranalogicallyproportionateeffectsorphasesofeverymedium,frompotentialitytoactuality,inrelationtoaparticulargroundorcontext.Thisrangeofeffectsofanymedium,whethertechnology,ideologyoranyotherhumancreation, isthetetradactingasartifact-metaphorweaving,withmillionsofothermediaeffects,agrandnarrativeofhumanbecoming.
ThefourLawsofMediaare:
• Whatdoes[amedium]enhanceorintensify?
• Whatdoesitrenderobsoleteordisplace?
• Whatdoesitretrievethatwaspreviouslyobsolesced?
• Whatdoesitproduceorbecomewhenpressedtoanextreme?
Theyarearrangedindiagrammaticalformasfollows:
TheMcLuhansexplainthesignificanceofeacheffect:
Enhancement consistsinintensifyingsomeaspectofasituation,ofextendingasense orconfigurationofsenses,ofturninganelementofgroundinto figureoroffurther intensifyingsomethingalready figure.[...]
Obsolescence returnstorenderingaformersituationimpotentbydisplacement: figurereturnstoground.[...]
Retrieval istheprocessbywhichsomethinglongobsoleteispressedbackintoservice,revivified,adeaddiseasenowmadesafe;groundbecomes figure through the newsituation [...]
Reversal involvesdualactionsimultaneously,as figureandgroundreverseposition andtakeonacomplementaryconfiguration.Itisthepeakofform,asitwere,by overload(McLuhan&McLuhan227–228).
Aclassicexamplewillhelpusillustratethedynamismofthetetradfurther.A car,astheextensionofhumanlegs,enhancesthespeedoftransportationand simultaneouslyobsolescesmore “primitive” extensionslikethehorseandcarriage.Yetthephenomenonofroadragebeliesthehidden figurethatthecar retrieves:theknightinthepowerfulshiningarmour.Roadragebecomesmore accentuatedasthenumberofcarsincreasesrevealinghowthereversalofthe mediumisthetrafficjam,drivinglinearly,oneaftertheother,atasnail’ s pace.Thefactthatthemediumisanextensionofthebodyandthatdriverand cararebutoneunithelpsexplainwhythepersoncaughtupinatrafficjam feelssofrustrated.Itistheirvery “powerful” self,theirownidentityaltered throughbeinginacar,thatisbeing “oppressed” throughthepresenceofamultitudeofothersthatlimittheexpressionofone’spotentialforspeed.
Cars,ofcourse,haveothereffectsapartfromtheonesjustmentioned.For instance,acrucialeffectofthecaristhatitenhancesroads,obsolescingthosespiralnarrowstreetsthatcharacterizedmedievalcities.Theyevenretrievethe nomad,carryingtheir “possessions” ontheir “back”.Tosustainthisneedto travelforlongerdistanceswhilecarryingmorestuff,carsgetbiggerandmore powerful,reversingtotheneedforhugeparkingspaces,andeventuallytosuburbia quiteliterally,theecologybuiltforandbycars.
Similarly,carsincreasedramaticallythedemandforhydrocarbons,obsolescingotherfuelindustriesandretrievinganewgloballordshipbasedonpetroleum.Weallknowwhatthiseffectofcarsreversesinto:theecologicalcrisisof excessivecarbondioxideemissions,globalwarming,acidrain,theepidemicof respiratorydiseases,etc.
Thesethreetetrads,alldepictingtheeffectsofthesamemedium,helptoshow how,likemetaphorsusedindifferentliterarycontextstoelicitawidevarietyand depthofmeanings,multipletetradsofthesamemediumcanhelpelicitthecomplexityofinter-relationshipamongmediaincreatingcultures.Thelevelofexegesis,orinthiscase,ofculturalhermeneutics,isliterallynever-ending,asnotonly canamediumbeteasedoutthroughdifferenttetrads,buteachtetradiceffectin turnopensupthepossibilityofnewtetradstoelicitdeepermeaning.
TheFourLawsofMediaalsorevealwhywetendtobeblindedbyamedium andhowwebecomeoblivioustohowitshiftsthegroundofculture.Asthefour effectsofanymediumdonotbecomeapparentatthesametime(orinthesame wayindifferentcontexts),inthebeginning,theunderstandingofanewmedium islimitedbytheviewpointoftheold,justaswhenthenewmediumstartsto becomemoreprevalent,itisthentakenforgrantedanddisappearsfrom
consciousawarenessasitbecomesthenewnorm.Asourbiasesblindus,the grounditselfshiftsfrombeneathourfeet,oftenleadingustoprofoundconfusion, sincethehiddenassumptionsofnewandoldmediacanoftenbecontradictory.A caseinpointisthestarkcontrastbetweentheethosofcontemporaryformal schoolingandof “populareducation” through “infotainment”
Theimmediateperceptibleeffectofamediumisitsenhancingcapacity,and consequentlytheobsolescenceofanother figurefromtheground,whichthe newmediumreplaces.Weareusuallyenthralledorexcitedabouttheenhancementcapability,butnotnecessarilyawareofhowitwillobsolesceacurrent figure inthegroundofculture ortheimpactthatthatparticularlosswillhaveuponus. Someofusmightbesohungupontheold figurerecedingtotheground,thatwe donotevenpayattentiontothenewmediaandhowtheyareaffectinglifestyles. Therecentcrisisintheautomobileindustry,forinstance,canbeunderstoodas beinganeffectofhowcarsasprivatemeansoftransportationarebecoming moreobsolescedasthe “private” ethositselfisbecomingincreasinglythreatened. IntheU.S.especially,wheretheindustryfaceditsradicalmeltdown,itisnow beingforcedtore-inventitselftocontinuebeingviableinanewdigitalageofvirtualcommunication,areturntourbanindwellingandecologicalcrisis.Conversely,ifpostofficesworldwiderantheriskofbecomingobsolescedasletter writingbecameobsolete,theyweremuchquickertorespondtothechangingecologyandwereimmediatelyretrievedtofulfillthenewdemandforthetransportationofgoodsasonlineshoppingincreaseddramaticallyinthesepasttenyears.
Retrieval,therefore,becomesmoreperceptibleonlywhenthemediumismore entrenchedinacultureanditseffectsmature.Retrieval “alwaysseemstoprovide thekeynoteordominantmodeofeachtetrad,whichmayexplainwhyitisoften themostdifficultofthefourtodiscover” (McLuhan&McLuhan228).Accordinglytopredictwhatamediumwillretrieveoffersakeyhermeneuticaltoolto criticallyappropriateit.Theexperienceofcaveindwellingthatapartmentbuildingsandcondominiumstendtoretrieve,asenseofretreatinginshelter,darkness, andsafetyfromthewildlifeofthecity,mightexplainwhysuchbuildingstendto breedsolitudeanddiscouragethesocialinteractiontypicalofmoretraditional cityneighborhoodssurroundedbypublicspaces.
Bythetimetheretrievalofamediumisapparent,theartifacthasbecomeso pervasiveastoimplodeuponitself.Thereversalofthecivilizedandmodern apartmentcomplexistheghetto,theoverpopulatedsettingthateasilytipstoconflictoverthecontrolofresources,inparticularoverspaceorterritoryitself.Asa mediumreverses,itstruecoloursarerevealedsincereversalrevealstheground fromwhichthemediumitselfemerged:the “ savage ” city.
Asatoolforawareness,thetetradunveilsdynamicsratherthanstatics,raisingboth figureandgroundsimultaneouslytoawareness,evenifthefullform(or reversal)ofamediumwilltaketimetomature.Accordingly,thetetradhasboth diagnosticandprognosticvalue,foraswepredictthefullimpactofamediumin anyparticularcontext,thenjustlikethesailorcaughtinthemaelström,effects canbeaccountedforandcontrolledaheadoftime.Themultiplelevelsof
exegesisandprognosticcapabilityofthetetradofferpreciousinsightsfortheplanningofaculture,itspeopleandtheirfuture,bypotentiallyweavinganarrativeto teachusaboutwhoweareandwherewearegoing,inourcommonlifejourney.
McLuhanoffersamethodforcriticaldiscernmenttotransformcultureintelligentlyandresponsibly.Yetthe flourishingofculturedependsontheprudential judgmentofall(oratleast,mostof)itsmembers,notjustan “enlightened” elite.Theintentofahumanisticeducationalprogramispreciselytoshapeapeople tobecomeartisansofculture.Yetwhathappenswhentheaudienceisresistantto theformativeendevour,whentheoratorasprophetisshunnedbyhisorherown? Thentheoratormustbecomeevenmoredistantfromtheaudience,separate throughtheirgarb,actionsandwords.Theymustbecomeaclown,ascapegoat, asymboloftruth,whodoesnotthreatenusbecausetheymakeuslaugh;a figure whoissharp-tonguedbutharmless;someoneso “other” thatwebarelyrecognize ourselvesinthem,makingourimitationsweeter(ormoreunconscious)still.Itis thetechniqueofthetheatreandthemask,where,instealthilybecominglikethe “mask” westillhavetheillusionthatwecansimplyremoveitandreturntoour oldwayoflife,evenifwehavebeenradicallychanged.
ThisisthesignificanceofMcLuhan’ssatirical(andcynical)rhetoricininterim timeswhenwearestillcaughtupwiththe “rear-viewmirror” ofour “modern” literatepastandunabletograspthesignificanceofthepresentshifttodigitality. Itisa firststeptoconversion,theshockof aisthesis,butthatwillstillrequirethe personalappropriationofthenewawarenessthroughcriticalattentivenessand understanding.
RHETORICALSTRATEGYBYMCLUHAN
MostofmywritingisMenippeansatirepresentingtheactualsurfaceoftheworld weliveinasaludicrousimage(McLuhan, Letters 517).Youhavenotstudied JoyceorBaudelaireyet,oryouwouldhavenoprobleminunderstandingmyprocedure.Ihaveno theories whateveraboutanything.Imakeobservationsbyway ofdiscoveringcontours,linesofforce,andpressures.Isatirizeatalltimes,and myhyperbolesareasnothingcomparedtotheeventstowhichtheyrefer.[...] Mycanvassesaresurrealist,andtocallthem “theories” istomissmysatiricalintent altogether.Asyouwill findinmyliteraryessays,Icanwritetheordinarykindof rationalisticproseanytimeIchoosetodoso.Youareinneedofsomegreattraining inperceptioninthearts(McLuhan, Letters 448).
Inthe1970s,asMcLuhan’sfame(andhealth)begantowaneatthesametime thatthecriticismofhiswork(ormoredirectly,ofhimselfasanacademic)began tosoar,inhispersonalcorrespondenceMcLuhanstartedtomakehisrhetorical intentionsmoreclearandtodescribethepublicpersonaheconstructedinthesixtiesasprofoundlysatirical.Whetherthiswasafeebleattempttodefendhiswork, ortrulyhisrhetoricalintentallalong,ishardtotell,although,mostlikely,itwas abitofboth.WhatisundeniableisthatMcLuhan’spublishedbooksattheheight
ofhiscelebrity(thatis,after UnderstandingMedia)were,intheirformandcontent,profoundlyenigmaticandbizarretotheliterateeyeandnecessitatedopenness todeepinvolvementaswellastotheshatteringofpresuppositions.Reading McLuhan,aswellaslisteningtohismanypublicspeechesorinterviewsontelevisioninthesixtiesandseventies,gavethedistinctimpressionofambiguity offascinationmixedwithapprehension asifthemanweresomehowplayingwithhis audience,notbeingcompletelyforthrightabouthisobjectives,dubiouslydetached fromthegravitasofthe “gospel” hewaspreaching...asifhewaseitheracompletetricksteroraharbingeroftruthtooveiledtoreallygrasporarticulate.The novelistTomWolfe’sfamousquestioncapturestheenigmaofthemanandhis message: “Supposeheiswhathesoundslike,themostimportantthinkersince Newton,Darwin,Freud,Einstein,andPavlov. Whatifheisright?” (“Wolfe, repr.inMcLuhan,HotandCool31).
DonaldTheallmakesacompellingargumentforthemaster’sconscious appropriationofsatire andspecificallyMenippeansatire throughouthispubliccareer:
Hewasfullyawareofhisroleasatricksterasdemonstrated, first,byresearchhe carriedoutonthissatirictraditionin1951–1952,andinwhichIcollaborated.Second,headmiredWyndhamLewis,perhapsthemodernistmasteroftheroleofthe trickster.Third,theconcludingsectionsof TheGutenbergGalaxy areaboutPope’ s TheDunciad,amasterpieceofsuchsatire(whichincidentally,hadinfluenced Lewis).Fourth,heencouragedhissontopursuedoctoralresearchonJoyceandMenippeansatire;orwhathisson,perhapsfollowingMcLuhan,called “cynic” satirein hisbook, TheRoleofThunderin “FinnegansWake.” Whilethetricksterisonlyone aspectofthepoeticvoiceinthissatirictradition,itisclearlytheonewhichMcLuhan, withhisradicalconservativeorientationandhisproclivityforLewis’styros andtricksters,identifiedandfoundcongenial.Itisthiselementofthetricksterthat allowsMcLuhantobecomfortablewiththeconfusionhedeliberatelycreatesfor mostofhisreaders,astrategythathasinvitedstrongreactionstohiswork(Theall45).
MarkFedermantakesitastepfurther,revealingthesatiricalintentofthe masterthroughMcLuhan’ s “bizarre” publicationsthemselves.Federmanargues thatfrom UnderstandingMedia (1964)until LawsofMedia (publishedposthumously),McLuhanintroducednonewthemesorideas,butrather,intheseven booksfrom TheMediumistheMassage (1967)to TakeToday (1972),heacted likeaHomericbard,repeatinganddistillingformulationsfor “theireffectiveness inachievinghisalmostmythictask:revealingthehiddendynamicsofanunseen societalgroundunderconditionsofpervasivetechnologicalchange” (Federman 10).Throughoutthesebooks, “McLuhanembodieshisadmonitionthat ‘the mediumisthemessage.’ Thebooks’ contentwillnotassistMcLuhan’sreaders tounderstandtheworld itistheunderlyingeffectsofthetoolsusedtoconstruct thecontentthatwill.Indeedearlyinhiswriting,McLuhanwarnshisreadersthat, ‘itisonlytootypicalthatthe ‘content’ ofthemediumblindsustothecharacterof themedium’” (Federman10).
ThisliterarystanceisconsistentwithMcLuhan’sformativemethodofchoice throughouthiscareer:the “probe” asamethodofdiscoveryinandthroughcommunication.Initsessence,theprobeis “observationminusideas,” where,as Marchandexplains,McLuhan “attemptedtodiscardasthoroughlyaspossible mentalstructuresthatwouldinterferewithpureinsight” (Marchand130).In EricMcLuhan’swords: “Myfatherdecidedearlyonthathewouldtryas muchashecouldtowriteandpresenthisideasinaphoristicstyle,” andtheformativeeffectofsuchamodeofdiscourseisthat “[i]t’sapoeticform.Anditcalls foralotofparticipationonthepersonregardingitorthinkingaboutit” (Eric McLuhan, “Introduction” Forward 33).Theactofparticipatingindepthin andofitselfchangestheworldviewofthesubject.Inturn,whenappliedto proseandnotmerelydiscourse,theeffectwastopurifythetextofanymoral toneandtransformittosatire.
Thus,tohonorthepoetic-rhetoricalformoftheprobe,thetoolsthatMcLuhanusesconsistentlyinhissevenintermediarybooksaretheprinciplesofmetaphorastransformativeagent(whichwerethensystematizedintheLawsof Media),therelationbetweenmediaandthesenses,and,insupportofMcLuhan’ s claim,aswellasoftheformoftheprobeitself,humour,parody,andsatire.Federmantherefore,succinctlycallsthesevenintermediarybooksMcLuhan’ s “satiricalarc” (Federman11–13).
IfMcLuhan’sfamewasthusa “put-on”,whydoesherelyonthisrhetorical tropesoextensivelyandtenaciously tothepointthatitbuilthimasmuchasit (“publicly”)destroyedhim?Theanswertothatquestioncanbefoundinthevery essenceofMenippeansatireasithasevolvedthroughtheages.
Menippus,borninAsiaMinorinthethirdcenturyB.C.E.,allegedlyasaslave, boughthisfreedomthroughbeggingandusuryandeventuallybecameacitizen ofThebesinGreece.InThebesheencounteredCynic “philosophy” andbecame aninfluentialfollower.Aphilosophyofthefringes,yetaprecursortothepopular Stoicism,Cynicismwasareactiontotheotherschoolsofthoughtanddescribed itselfasawayoflifeinaccordancewithnatureratherthanpopularconventions. Thus,ratherthantheAcademyorLyceum, “thestreetsofAthensprovidethe settingforboththeirteachingandtheirtraining....[T]heCynicsneglect,and veryoftenridicule,speculativephilosophy.Theyareespeciallyharshcriticsof dogmaticthought,theoriestheyconsideruseless,and[Platonic]metaphysical essences ” (Piering).
FromwithinthisCyniccontext,Menippus’ contributiontotheformoffringe andsubversivelanguagebecomesespeciallynotable.Menippusrevolutionized theformofcriticaldiscoursebyabandoningthe “serious” lexisofdialogue andoptinginsteadforsatire,themockeryofconventionsandinstitutionsthrough aliberaluseofprosewithpoetry.Menippusaimedtoreachthepeople,aswide anaudienceaspossible,andhischoiceofimaginedandunusualsettingsasthe contextofhiswritings includingadescentintoHades,anauctionandasymposium wereemployed “withstrikingeffect” (“Menippus”).Forthisreason, althoughallofMenippus’ writingswerelost,hislegacysurvivedinhismany
followers,mostnotableinantiquity,thesatiricalworksofVarro,followedbySeneca,Patronius,Apuleius,andLucian(whooftenincludesa fictionalhero “Menippus” inhissatiricalworks),butalsoinmanyotherliterarygiantsthroughthe centuriesincludingRabelais,Erasmus,Pope,Voltaire,Swift,Cervantes,Carroll and,ofcourse,WyndhamLewisandJamesJoyce.
NorthropFrye,MikhailBakhtinandEugeneKirkhaveallattemptedto describethesalientcharacteristicsthatmarkMenippeansatire.Frye,the first totrulyattempttodefineMenippeansatireasagenrethroughthetoolsofliterary criticism,recognizesintellectualismanderudition(andthereforethegrammarian’ s “encyclopedicknowledge”)askeymarksofMenippeansatire. “TheMenippeansatirist,dealingwithintellectualthemesandattitudes,showshisexuberance inintellectualways,bypilingupanenormousmassoferuditionabouthistheme orinoverwhelminghispedantictargetswithanavalancheoftheirownjargon” (Frye311).
ForBakhtinthefundamental “atmosphere” createdbyMenippeansatireisits distinctivefeature:the “joyfulrelativitycharacteristicofacarnivalsenseofthe world” (Bakhtin124–125).Thisisreminiscentof “the ‘comicalsatire’ tradition, thatis,thenarrowlyElizabethanversionofMenippeandiscourse” (Milowicki &Wilson300),whichwasemployedby,amongothers,ThomasNashe.InsummarizingBakhtin,Weinbrotwrites:
ThisMenippeancarnivalaircarriesfourteen “basiccharacteristics”.Brieflytheseare: (1)anincreasedcomicelement;(2)liberationfromhistoryandlegendsothatitisunfetteredby “demandsfromanexternalverisimilitudetolife” andincludes “ an extraordinaryfreedomofplotandphilosophicalinvention”;(3)boldunrestraintin its “useofthefantastic” andits “testingofaphilosophicidea”;(4)joiningofthefantasticandsymbolicwith “crudeslumnaturalism”;(5)contemplationof “theworldon thebroadestpossiblescale” andconsiderationof “ultimatequestions”;(6)plotstructurethattakesus “fromEarthtoOlympusandtothenetherworld” andthusengendersdialoguesofthedead;(7) “experimentalfantasticality” thattakesonhighand changes “thescaleoftheobservedphenomenaoflife”;(8) “moral-psychological experimentation:arepresentationoftheunusual,abnormal,moralandpsychicstates ofman” likemadness;(9)scandalscenesandviolationof “theestablishednorms ofbehaviorandetiquette” thatfreeusfrompre-determinedmotivesandnorms; (10)sharpcontrasts,for “themenippealovestoplaywithabrupttransitionsand shifts,upsanddowns,risesandfalls,unexpectedcomingstogetherofdistantanddisunitedthings,mesalliancesofsorts”;(11) “socialutopia” asin “dreamsorjourneys tounknownlands”;(12)extensiveuseofotherinsertedgenres,likeletters,proseor poetry;(13)consequent “multi-styledandmulti-toned” works;(14) “concernwith currentandtopicalissues” thatmakeit “thejournalisticgenreofantiquity”.Such Bakhtinsays “arethebasicgenericcharacteristicsofthemenippea.Wemustagain emphasizetheorganicunityofallthesefeatures,thedeepinternalintegrityofthis genre ” (Weinbrot12,quotingfromBakhtin114–119).
Whilebuildingontheworkofthesethreecritics,MilowickiandWilson emphasizetheover-allpurposeofMenippeansatire,inparticularitssuppleness
asatoolofexplorationandsubversion: “Menippeansatire...inevitablyexplores,thenexpandsconventionalgenericboundaries,sometimesevenapproachingsubversion....[Itis]aself-conscious,encyclopedicarrayofdiscursive techniques,bothmotifsandconventions,anysubsetofwhichcanbeemployed forexploratoryorsubversivepurposesinvirtuallyanytext....Menippeandiscourseconstitutesasupple,ifabrasive,literarymethodwithexcessiveartsbut onlyexiguousstructuresandwithanalmostbafflingrangeofuses” (Milowicki &Wilson293).TheseauthorsalsostressBakhtin’ s “grotesque”,thatis, “theportrayalofthebodyinstatesofexaggerateddeformation” (Milowicki&Wilson 311)askeytothecarnivalesqueelementofMenippeansatire.
AllthesefeaturesofMenippeansatire fromtheintellectualismanderudition; totheradicalself-consciousness;tothemélangeofdifferentgenresandmediaas amedleyofliteraryandartisticforms;totheintentofsubversionorconversion ofastateofmind;totheclowning,elementsofthegrotesqueandfantastical allegories allcharacterizeMcLuhan’ s oeuvre,includinghisownverypublic metamorphosisasthe “gurucumprophetcumphilosophercumpromotercum popularizercumpseudo-artistMarshallMcLuhan.” Eachoftheseelementscreates theeruditebutwhimsical,penetratingyetseeminglysuperficial,charismaticyetalso ordinary,opusoftheteacher,MarshallMcLuhan.Theallnotesthatevenbeforehis overt(albeitprivate)confessionofbeingaMenippeansatirist,McLuhan’sexegesis of Finnegan’sWake in WarandPeaceintheGlobalVillage wastheultimatetelltale sign.McLuhan “turnedJoycefromthecarnivalesquemode(oftendescribedas Varronian)intothemorecynicalsatiricmodeofLewis” (Theall193),effectively describinghisownprojectasacontinuationofthemorecynicalandsubversive strandofMenippeansatire,indeedoftheCynicsthemselves.Evenmorepointedly, with Counterblast McLuhanpaidhomagetoWyndhamLewishimself,offeringa “counter-environmentasameansofperceivingthedominantone” whichhad beensopowerfullyexpressedinLewis’ 1914 Blast (McLuhan&Parker5).
EricMcLuhan,whoinhis TheRoleofThunderinFinnegan’sWake renames Menippeansatireasthe “cyniceffect”,clearlyemphasizingitscynicalratherthan carnivalesquespirit,noteshowthisformofsatirehasoftenbeentheweaponof choicebyartiststoreveal “thereaders’ ignoranceofandassumptionsaboutthat culture,andonthetechnologyoflanguageasanup-to-datestorehouseoftheculture’sexperienceandperception” (EricMcLuhan, Thunder 12).JustasRabelais reactedagainsttheprintingpress,andFlaubert,thenewspaper,McLuhan becamethe “prophetofthedigitalage,” intentonsubvertingitssomnambulism toarenewedattentiveness.Theallrecognizesthatthissubversiveattitudeof McLuhancouldbedescribedasthe “trickster” maskoftheonewhoentertains andplayswiththeaudience,whilehistrueintentionsarenotonlymuchmore serious,buthidden.HealsonotesseveralreasonswhyMcLuhanwouldchoose thevoiceofthe “trickster” tobecomeaheraldforthedigitalage:
McLuhan’spredilectionforthetricksterstancewasreinforcedbyanumberof things:hisconvictionthatthepost-electricerawouldreturntoatribalismwhere
theshaman-tricksterhasapeculiarlyimportantroletoplay(apositionhefound supportforinanthropologicalresearchthroughCarpenter,Lee,Batesonand others);thesimultaneousaffinityofthetricksterwithaspectsofthemedievaland Renaissancetraditionsinwhichhehaddonehisearlyresearch;theextentto whichcontemporaryadvertising,whichhesawasatypeofpoetry(perhapsa poésie manqué),wasitselftheproductoftricksters(Theall45).
As “trickster”,McLuhancreatedhimselfasamediaicon,thatinbeing “selfsatirical” ,a “fool” ora “clown” becameamirrorforthemediatedlifestylesofthe JohnandJaneDoeinthestreets.Themaskwashismostpowerfulrhetorical strategypreciselybecause,asprivateidentitycollapsedintheelectricage,any maskwouldbecomeanobviousattractionfor mimesis.Thedifferencebetween McLuhanandother “celebrities” wasthat,asamanoflettersandconsequently aquintessential “individualist” bredthroughalphabeticliteracy,McLuhannot onlycarefullydistinguishedbetweenhisprivateidentityandpublicpersonas, but fiercelyguardedthatprivateidentityatthesametimethathecarefullyconstructedthe “mask” (EricMcLuhan,Introduction Light xviii-xix).Ironically,just asthemaskenticedfor mimesis,throughthatveryfrenzy,itchallengedthetribal normandcalledforattentiveness,breakingthespellofunconscious mimesis,as theimitatorwasforcedtoreclaimtheirintelligenceandintegritytoreflecton theirownlife.
Thisdynamism,however,alsorevealshowthe “ persona ”,the “mask” isnota fakeself,afaçadebehindwhichtohide,butratheritistheartisticexpressionof theself the “ person ” oneconstructsfortheworld,theveryprojectofselfone createsfortheworld’sredemption.One’ s “private” self,one’sexperiencesand memoriesfashionedasacohesiveidentity,istherawmaterialforthisartisanry. Thedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublic,orselfandpersona,therefore,does notimplyaseparation.Rather,McLuhanwillarguethattheobliterationof thedistinctionresultsintheveryannihilationofidentity,oftheself.Thisisin linewithAristotle’sunderstandingof mimesis astheimitationoflifethrougha performance.
Yetinthetraditionofthe “fool” whomustbescapegoated,Willmotthas poignantlydescribedhowMcLuhan’srhetoricalstrategywasultimatelya “sacrifice ” ofmaskannihilation:
Hiscareer,ifinsomewaysreallytragic,isyetthetragedyofanuncompromising self-satirist,ofaHumptyDumptywhomastersthesignifierofaperiodatthe costofrelinquishinghisegotothesignifiedsinformingitspowerandwaste.[...] Thismodernistself-reversalMcLuhanlikenedto “standingonbothsidesofamirror simultaneously.” Thejourneythroughthelookingglassisaprescriptionofselfsatire,aninsertionofthesubjectintothejunkyardofhisorherown ‘extended’ historyorbeing-in-media(Willmott154–155).
Ultimatelytherefore,andperhapsmostpoignantly,hisstrategyofbecoming himselfamediaiconthroughaput-onmaskenabledhimtoreveal(oratleast
attempt toreveal)thebanalityofourcontemporarynarcotizedexistenceassimultaneouslyanarchetypeandacliché.Inthissense,asTheallandothershaveargued,McLuhanthe doctusorator isinessenceasatirist,exploringthroughpuns, jokesandaphorismsourmostprofound “grievancies” (McLuhan, Understanding Me 277–298).
CONCLUSION
InthisexpositionofMarshallMcLuhan’sthought,theauthorandperformerwas presentedinhisroleasfatherofmediaecologyand “prophetofthedigitalage.” Asmediaecologist,hesynthesizedthedisciplineasanew “literacy” whosegrammarofformalcausality thetetrad enablescarefulattentionto,andinterpretationof,theeffectsofallmediaintheirshiftingmilieu.As “ guru ” ofthenewage, hechallengedmasssomnambulismandurgedattentiontotheeffectsofnewtechnologies,whileproclaimingthecontoursofthenewcultureandwarningagainst itsmightychallengesofdisembodiment,virtualityandtribalism.Hewasalso concernedaboutthedisembodyingeffectsofelectricmediaonthechurchEric McLuhan,IntroductionLight.Mostessentially,asaChristianhumanistrooted inthetraditionofclassicallearning,McLuhanembodiedtheeducationalideal thatheproclaimed theancient doctusorator andretrievedtechniquesofencyclopediclearningandofrhetoricalengagementtomodelastanceoffreedomand authentichuman flourishinginthedigitalage.Inviewofthesenotableachievements,McLuhan’sinsightsarevaluable evennecessary forarenewedhumanismthattrulyallowsforhuman flourishinginourturbulenttimesthroughthe artisanryofculture.
WORKSCITED
Aquinas,Thomas. SummaTheologiae:AConciseTranslation. Ed.TimothyMcDermott.Allen,TX:ChristianClassics,1991.Print
QuaestionesDisputataeDeVeritate(Truth),tr.RobertW.Mulligan.Chicago: HenryRegneryCompany,1952.Print
Bakhtin,Mikhail. ProblemsofDostoevsky’sPoetics.EditedandtranslatedbyCaryl Emerson.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1984.Print
Cavell,Richard. McLuhaninSpace:ACulturalGeography. Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress,2002–2003.Print
Chrystall,AndrewB. TheNewAmericanVortex:ExplorationsofMcLuhan.Ph.D. Dissertation,MasseyUniversity,NewZealand,2008.Print Federman,Mark. “TheFifthLawofMedia,” http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/FifthLawofMedia.pdf.WebFrye,Northrop. AnatomyofCriticism: FourEssays. NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,1957.Print
Gordon,W.Terrence. MarshallMcLuhan:EscapeintoUnderstanding. CorteMadera, CA:GingkoPress,2003.Print
Kirk,EugeneP. MenippeanSatire:AnAnnotatedCatalogueofTextsandCriticism. NewYork:Garland,1980.Print
Lonergan,BernardJ.F. MethodinTheology. Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress, 1999.Print
Marchand,Philip. MarshallMcLuhan:TheMediumandtheMessenger.Revised edition.Vintage/RandomHouse,1998.Print
McDermott,Timothy. “Preface.” InThomasAquinas, SummaTheologiae:AConcise Translation.EditedbyTimothyMcDermott.Allen,TX:ChristianClassics,1991. Print
McLuhan,Eric. TheRoleofThunderinFinnegan’sWake. Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress,1997.Print
McLuhan,MarshallandBarringtonNevitt. TakeToday:TheExecutiveasDropout. Jovanovich,NY:HarcourtBrace,1972.Print
McLuhan,MarshallandEricMcLuhan. LawsofMedia:TheNewScience.Toronto: UniversityofTorontoPress,1988.Print
McLuhan,Marshall,andHarleyParker. Counterblast. NewYork:Harcourt,Brace andWorld,1969.Print
McLuhan,MarshallandQuentinFiore. TheMediumistheMassage:AnInventoryof Effects. Toronto:BantamBooks,1967.Print
McLuhan,Marshall,QuentinFioreandJeromeAgel. WarandPeaceintheGlobal Village:AnInventoryofSomeoftheCurrentSpasticSituationsThatCouldbe EliminatedbyMoreFeedforward. CorteMadera,CA:Gingko,2001.Print
McLuhan,MarshallandWilfredWatson. FromClichétoArchetype. NewYork:The VikingPress,1970.Print
McLuhan,Marshall. ForwardthroughtheRearviewMirror:Reflectionsonandby MarshallMcLuhan.EditedbyPaulBenedettiandNancyDeHart.Scarborough, ON:Prentice-HallCanada,1996.Print
LettersofMarshallMcLuhan.EditedbyMatieMolinaro,CorinneMcLuhanand WilliamToye.Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress,1987.Print
. TheBookofProbes.EditedbyEricMcLuhan,WilliamKuhnsandMoCohen. GraphicsbyDavidCarson.CorteMadera,CA:GingkoPress,2003.Print
. TheClassicalTrivium:ThePlaceofThomasNasheintheLearningofHisTime. CorteMadera,CA:Gingko,2006.Print
. TheGutenbergGalaxy:TheMakingofTypographicMan.Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress,1962.Print
TheInteriorLandscape:TheLiteraryCriticismofMarshallMcLuhan1943–1962 EditedbyEugeneMcNamara.NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1969.Print
TheMechanicalBride:FolkloreofIndustrialMan.CorteMadera,CA:Gingko Press,2002.Print
. TheMediumandtheLight:ReflectionsonReligion. EditedbyEricMcLuhanand JacekSzklarek.Toronto:StoddartPublishing,1999.Print
UnderstandingMe:LecturesandInterviews.EditedbyStephanieMcLuhanand DavidStaines.Toronto:McClelland&Stewart,2003.Print
. UnderstandingMedia:TheExtensionsofMan. Criticaledition.EditedbyW.TerrenceGordon.CorteMadera,CA:GingkoPress,2003.Print “Menippus.” EncyclopediaBritannicaOnline. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/375094/Menippus.Web
Milowicki,EdwardJ.andRobertRawdonWilson. “AMeasureofMenippeanDiscourse:theExampleofShakespeare.” PoeticsToday 23/2(2002):291–326.Print
Morgan,Peter. “McLuhan’sUseoftheNotionofPlayinHisApproachtoUltimate RealityandMeaning.” UltimateRealityandMeaning. 13:1(1990):21–32.Print
Piering,Julie. “Cynics.” TheInternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy.LastmodifiedApril 18,2006,http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cynics.htm.Web Poe,EdgarAllan. “ADescentintotheMaelström.” In TheCollectedWorksofEdgar AllanPoe. Volume2:Tales&SketchesI.EditedbyT.O.Mabbott,574–597. Cambridge:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,1978.Print
Ricoeur,Paul. FromTexttoAction:EssaysinHermeneuticsII.TranslatedbyKathleenBlameyandJohnB.Thompson.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress, 1991.Print
TheRuleofMetaphor. Tr.RobertCzernywithKathleenMcLaughlinandJohn Costello.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978.Print TimeandNarrative. Volume1.TranslatedbyKathleenMcLaughlinandDavid Pellauer.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1984.Print
Stearn,GeraldEmmanuel,ed. McLuhan:HotandCool. NewYork:SignetBooks, 1967.
Strate,Lance. “President’sMessage:UnderstandingMEA.” InMediasRes:NewsletteroftheMediaEcologyAssociation. 1no.1(Fall1999),1.Availableonline: http://www.media-ecology.org/publications/In_Medias_Res/imrv1n1.htmlWeb
Theall,DonaldF. TheVirtualMarshallMcLuhan. McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress, 2001.Print
Ward,Olivia. “WeareallMcLuhansNOW.” TorontoStar,January1,2006,D1Section:Ideas.Print
Weinbrot,HowardD. MenippeanSatireReconsidered:FromAntiquitytotheEighteenthCentury. Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2005.Print
Willmott,Glenn. McLuhan,orModernisminReverse. Toronto:UniversityofToronto Press,1996.Print
Wolfe,ThomasK.,Jr. “TheNewLifeOutThere,” NewYorkHeraldTribune, 1965. AlsoreproducedinGeraldEmanuelStearn,ed.McLuhan:HotandCool,31–48. NewYork:SignetBooks,1967.Print