You want me to read a Playboy interview? Sure! I figured it wouldn’t be what I had expected, but just the fact that my first university reading was published in Playboy was comforting. Not that I have a particular connection to Playboy magazine; I can’t even say I’ve touched one, little own read an article in it. To be honest, I didn’t know Playboy had articles. Now that I’m thinking about it, maybe I’m confused, and there’s some other educational Playboy magazine I should know about. Regardless, I learned A LOT from my first reading, and not only that my dictionary will be my new best friend.
Naively enough, I had never thought of media as more than television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. Learning that the development of the phonetic alphabet not only started the dramatic change in discourse, but that it led to an age of “anomie and apathy” truly overwhelmed me, and left me quite disturbed. I thought I was wise realizing how influential the media’s messages could be and was satisfied knowing I would not succumb to their popular preaching. Little did I know the content which media advocates is practically irrelevant when analyzing the effects media has had on society and that the medium itself is the message. His postulation of hot and cool media describes “hot media” excluding the audience, and “cool media” requiring audience participation. This explains his thought about "why the medium is the message, rather than the content; it is the participatory nature...itself that is important, rather than the content of the particular image that is being invisibly and indelibly inscribed on our skins" (McLuhan).
Marshall McLuhan describes Narcissus narcosis as “a syndrome whereby man remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in.” I thought that was a great analogy, and an unbelievably true statement. Being “extensions of man”, the media affects our lives in an invisible way, which McLuhan says is what has lead to our age of anxiety. We’re living in a world of chaos without question, but I ask, “Does it have to be like this?”
McLuhan’s “rearview-mirror of the world” analogy makes so much sense it’s scary. Of course we are living our lives in the past, because that’s all we have to base our thoughts on. I think it’s fair to say we are conscience of our past and unconscious of our present. McLuhan believes that our survival is based on understanding the nature of our new environment. “Unlike previous environmental changes, the electric media constitute a total and near-instantaneous transformation of culture, values and attitudes.” If we understand the media’s effects we can understand and control them. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
McLuhan goes on to say that we are not hopeless. The artist is able to comprehend the present. He says, "awareness has always been reflected first by the artist, who has had the power—and courage—of the seer to read the language of the outer world and relate it to the inner world…It’s always been the artist…who recognizes that the future is the present, and uses his work to prepare the ground for it."
For my own sanity I decided to look at some of the goods things our current technologies allow us to do. Working away from home for the past 4 years did bring heartache at times, but having a phone and computer as communication tools definitely made my family’s physical absence in my life easier. Similarly, now that I’m home, the Internet has allowed me to keep in touch with the many friends I’ve made around the world. I can therefore say that the Internet has filled a void that otherwise would have enabled me from seeing the world, meeting amazing people, and most importantly finding love.
Media is a part of me, and with out it, I wouldn’t know who I am, so I will continue to follow the path which the media has paved for me.
"The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." 1994. Playboy Magazine. 7 Sept. 2007
