"And so the title is intended to draw attention to the fact that a medium is not something neutral—it does something to people. It takes hold of them. It rubs them off, it massages them and bumps them around, chiropractically, as it were, and the general roughing up that any new society gets from a medium, especially a new medium, is what is intended in that title".
It means that the nature of a medium (the channel through which a message is transmitted) is more important than the meaning or content of the message. Or if not more important than perhaps has an invasory aspect or quality on a subliminal level.
McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs"
I feel that pace and pattern change is stronger now than ever. The pace of technological change. The pace of communicationary change. Following the Law of Returns (apparently) the pace of technological progress—especially information technology—speeds up exponentially over time because there is a common force driving it forward (according to Singularityhub.com).
The main message that I want to get across is that the contemporary mediums are so transitory. If the medium is the message then the message that's being told is you can just scroll through, flick over, swipe again.
I've found this with social media in general. Just look at Twitter, or Facebook or Instagram. They are all formatted, embedded into them the idea that you can just graze maniacally. If something doesn't interest you then the next thing is moments away. The very physicality of it. How you just scroll habituates and ingrains itself within you. And it filters down to all our interactions and our relationships.
For example, dating apps, more specifically in my case ... Hinge - on a few different levels and its something I'm complicit in. Firstly when it comes to a match .... which is something I've engendered, something I've positively contributed towards in that I have "liked" this person ... and many times I'll then take a second look and feel its not for me and just not respond. I'll respond if directly asked a question but if its just an invitation to chat then I won't pursue it often. Even then ... sometimes after I've engaged in a chat I will stop abruptly. Its happened to me more times than I care to comment on. I think it goes without saying that it happens to me, a lot. So even at the initial stages, and many say that the initial stages set the tone and tempo for the whole thing, the meter is one of transience. As my esteemed flatmate Johnny says ... there's just always someone new. Something new.
This then transfers into the dating itself. We've all seemed to have turned into Jerry and George.
Even when we find perfection its never enough. There is so little scope for error. If its not perfect, if its not the one straight away, then you know there is another one round the corner, a swipe away. Its the BBD. Bigger Better Deal. Its turned us all into gamblers thinking that the next hand is gonna be the Royal Flush. And that's a fucking shame, but its the nature of things these days.
I suppose the dating app to actual dating is particularly apposite, as it shows a direct link between the medium and the outcome.
I don't want to make a value judgement about all of the above. Clearly i have valanced the discussion towards a negative reading but I'm sure there are many positives that came out of the above. Maybe. Perhaps. A linear progression view of History. But thats a whole other story.
Posts
