Understanding McLuhan

I didn’t find McLuhan that difficult to read, but I’m not sure if I buy what he is selling (so to speak). Instead of trying to convince us that everything is media (and that all media is classified as hot or cold), it would have been more interesting to read about the way specific mediums affect the individual and society. McLuhan obviously discusses these themes, but they are obscured by some of his other theories. I have not read a lot of mass media theory, but I feel like McLuhan was sort of making stuff up. I think he has become this sort of seminal figure because Understanding Media is full of short, easy to remember, “profound,” pronouncements. In other words, McLuhan is quotable. It seems like we do not discuss his ideas and theories so much as throw around his catchphrases.

Despite my misgivings, I found some of his statements particularly interesting. One on which I would like to comment is an observation about television. McLuhan writes

But the need to use the senses that are available is as insistent as breathing–a fact that makes sense of the urge to keep radio and TV going more or less continuously. The urge to continuous use is quite independent of the “content” of public programs or of the private sense life…

My own TV watching habits confirm the compulsion to keep the TV on regardless of my interest in the program. I often find myself wasting time by watching rather dumb TV programs for no reason that I can discern. I’m not sure if the urge to leave the TV on is testament to the fact that “technology is part of our bodies” (68). Perhaps, technology as extension of the body is part of the reason for leaving the TV on. I also think there is something to be said for the intimacy and the sense of entrancement that comes with watching TV. McLuhan touches on the fact that TV fans identify with characters rather than actors. TV creates this odd intimacy with the people onscreen so that the characters start to seem like real people. Maybe, we can’t turn off the TV because we feel like we are abandoning these characters.

The other interesting observation McLuhan makes about television is the tendency for the viewer’s eyes to follow reactions instead of actions. I’m really not sure that this is always the case, and I wish McLuhan had cited more than one study which supported his conclusion. My own TV viewing suggests I prefer character-driven programs in which the actors convey meaning with their reactions rather than their words or behavior. The American version of The Office is one television show which makes really effective use of the reaction shot. Yet, sometimes it is the action which captivates the viewer. Battlestar Galactica is a good example of this sort of captivation. It is very much a character-driven drama, yet it contains many action sequences. I always find myself paying attention to the action sequences not only because of the dramatic tension of the scene, but also because the scenes are shot in an interesting, sometimes beautiful, way. Before Battlestar Galactica, I had never realized that a space battle could be beautiful