Response to McLuhan's Tetrad Wiki Task

Blog Post # 3

Through an analysis of McLuhan’s life and ideas and through my own personal attempt to apply his tetrad (Laws of Media) to an emerging 2004 technology, I have come to a few realizations. First, McLuhan lived a life dotted with irony. We discussed certain ironic happenings in class, like the fact he studied media while he also became a fixture in media (appearing on television) and the debilitating loss, later in his life, of the ability to speak and read (two things he greatly enjoyed). I came to a realization after reading a piece from a Skinner article entitled McLuhan’s world – and ours. In the piece Skinner describes a 1969 article from Playboy Magazine interviewing McLuhan on his thoughts and ideas. Skinner (2000) describes the article as this:

…Mcluhan’s ideas emerge straightforward and well explained,
in large part due to the interview’s willingness to risk looking dumb
for asking obvious questions. It turned out that many of McLuhan’s
opinions, despite his reputation for being some kind of super scholar
and untimely thinker, were standard radical chic, while others were
radical even by the heady standards of 1969.(p.54)


Skinner’s statement turned me on to the fact that in many ways McLuhan became famous or infamous for the way he delivered his ideas rather then for the ideas themselves. He became an icon of perplexity. Common man tuned into McLuhan not to understand but instead to be baffled. It is ironic that the thing that gave McLuhan notoriety with the public (his complex batty oratory style) was also the thing that limited the public from unlocking his ideas and discredited him among his academic peers.

Second, McLuhan did a great job of coining catch phrase titles for his ideas, with the creation of titles like “the global village”, “media is the message” and “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man” McLuhan made his ideas catchy and appealing to the common public (the group he really wanted to reach). But, the common public still had to rely on McLuhan’s over the top explanations of the concepts through his writings or oratory lectures to unlock the ideas. Most found this to be frustratingly impossible. I believe McLuhan may have made some headway in reaching the common man with the creation of the laws of media tetrad. Although the laws of media themselves are difficult concepts to understand the tetrad created and organizational structure to the laws, which makes them easier for people to break down, organize and use.

My third realization came after attempting to use the laws of media tetrad to analyze an emerging technology. I continue to use the word “attempting” because I had no idea if I used the tetrad correctly. With some reflection, I have realized that there really is no “correct” answer when using the laws and that they are not really laws at all. (Yet another catch phase developed by McLuhan?) Scientifically a law denotes a fact, something that has been tested (quantitatively and qualitatively) and is known to be true every time. Instead McLuhan really created the theories of media, (never been tested and proved to be correct) which created a theoretical model for understanding the effects of new technologies. I find it very interesting that McLuhan would even choose the words “laws”, because philosophically I don’t believe he created the tetrad to “prove” anything. He instead created them as a tool for man to consciously make their own realizations correct or incorrect about the effects of technologies.


In conclusion, I have come to quite a few realizations after the completion of my McLuhan task and I could go on for quite a bit longer. When it comes to McLuhan there is always more to unlock and realize. Although in many ways I feel like I failed to comprehend more of McLuhan’s than I was able to comprehend. I do leave this task with what I believe is his fundamental life lesson.

“Take time to evaluate the world around you and take the time to consider that everything you do has a consequence in that world.”

References:

Skinner, D. (2000, Winter). McLuhan’s world – and ours. The Public Interest, pp. 52-64.