Media And Deception

Media and Deception


Alberto J. L. Carrillo Canán (BUAP / Puebla)
Acarrillo_mx@yahoo.com

“To the student of media, it is difficult to explain the human indifference to social effects of these radical forces. (…) So extraordinary is this unawareness that it is what needs to be explained. The transforming power of media is easy to explain, but theignoring of this power is not at all easy to explain. It goes without saying that the universal ignoring of the psychic action of technology bespeaks some inherent function, some essential numbing of consciousness (…)”. McLuhan.

Alberto J. L. Carrillo Canán (BUAP / Puebla)
Acarrillo_mx@yahoo.com

McLuhan’s interest in studying media seems to rest to a great extent on his presupposition accordingto which we regularly tend to misunderstand the nature of any and each medium. Indeed, according to McLuhan, media not only have the effect of “shap[ing] and control[ling] the scale and form of human association and action (…)” (UM 9),[1] but we just do not understand such an effect of media. And on its turn, this misunderstanding is, say, an additional, special kind of effect they also have. Wecould call this the presupposition of the deceiving effect of media. This presupposition implies in fact a whole theory about deception concerning media. In the very end, it is not an exaggeration to say that in conceiving of media as “extensions of man,” McLuhan makes a deconstructionist move against the Western tradition, since this tradition conceives of media merely as instruments, that is, assomething merely posed between us and a certain goal, therefore, letting us completely unaltered. In this way, already the term “medium” misleads us in such a way that we cannot understand technology in its deeper effects, which reach far beyond the uses of any medium. In considering media as “extensions of man,” McLuhan’s target is the deceiving character of technology. The aim of thispresentation is to examine McLuhan’s move in considering media as “messages” and as “extensions of man,” and not merely as instruments, that is, not simply as media.


The medium and its “content.” McLuhan’s deconstructionist move

According to McLuhan, “[p]olitical scientists have been quite unaware of the effects of media anywhere at any time, simply because nobody has been willing to study thepersonal and social effects of media apart from their ‘content’.” (UM 323)[2] In fact, McLuhan is very emphatic about the “content” of a medium and says, “(…) it is only too typical that the “content” of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.” (UM 9) Furthermore, “(…) the “content” of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.”(UM 18) Thus, we need first to gain some understanding of McLuhan’s concept of “content.”
In speaking of communication media such as newspaper, radio, or TV it is relatively clear what their content is, but not so, if we are concerned with other media such as axes or clothes, or even communication media such as car and railway. Nevertheless, McLuhan’s concept of “content” is quite general andapplies to every technology. No wonder, then, that in the quotations above he puts the term in scare quotes. He is obviously using it in some idiosyncratic way. Indeed, McLuhan uses the term “content” as synonym for “uses,” as it becomes apparent when he says that “[t]he content or uses of (…) media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association.” (UM 9) For thisreason we can paraphrase McLuhan’s claim by saying that “typically it is the uses of any medium what blinds us to the character of that medium,” or, in the same way, that “political scientists have been unaware of the effects of media anywhere at any time, simply because nobody has been willing to study the effects of media apart from their uses.” In other words, in focusing on their uses we...