Part 3

59

J\RsBALL McLURA
£ CH STRUCTDRA A D
f~
0 Lis 1v1_
Jam es M. Curtis
 ~ t.UHAN A D FRE

, , rLR 1Hli tcrr£R (P R F)PO T 10

Rlf)Rf \ l Dr,~

67
366
 r,,,cLIJ II/\N AND F R E N C H STRu
/\1.,L, TURAL\S••
511 I ..,
~ ~· f wer, and t 10s~ who consider McLul ,
11 . ~ j 11 o f.nd
0
in world history an instance O;an s work invard
1 0
B EFO R E AND pTE R T tl E LETTER : ( PR E)POST MOD E RN P rtt1 1\pt to ' ich could not write. Any such att an empire wi~I
,.,,1 11 e1 r w11 I M empt fail f '
t~ei\OPd powe n,erians anc yce1:aeans to that of the s: rom the
. b tween McLuhan and Structuralism, the em h ~o,<l \itef the SLI e){arnples,centra lized empires have 1. Mayas, not to
crucial d11fere 1;: L\an · and it suggests how Understanding M e: · asis on
technology11•1 c u fully the cultural process which engaged G :~ allows ~,1~,ri:s
1·· o
111o'e
ecent t " lt t II
' , distance. Bu . was no r~a y until the me h ':"nt'.ngto
re ied on . .
one t~ explaJJl,nore O lllann's 1'\ion 1at,, . • ce that mtense\y urnfied and cent · 1.c a111 zat1on of
1~ ,tr0 oenars5 '111 .
attention. e that any rich postmodernist theory must ofli 11 co1 the
i~ ·iiPg jJl
1'
grea tlv
; ennc 11 ourd un\ d erstan d'm g of .
1a 1zedp ower was
European hist .
surely we can agreintegrated explanation I
. o f t 1e technological er a sue. 1 , , we . fn g press, an t 1e correspond mg rise . \' ory 1f we
cessful, co~1p1etety 1 one of the Structuralists attempts to do so wOorJct in i~sib1e. ' ,1 theprtt11possible the absolute monarchy (~n it~rate thought
which • we• !Ive : •ye• 11 think by referenceto t he e11te - status of ti· ne ca
11 11S 1111
r \ite1 r.rst 1 111'8 de svrnrnetnca . f d ersa1\\es ·
1 aca es, created an ima . , with its
explarn this on11ss10 , 1 • d . 1e Frei ~i osi• ·forf11 , ; destroyed .1t when fragmentation ge m stone of the
• " ' It r 11 Ong S.J. has suggeste to me m conversaf lch , er aJldL,111 and then
rntellectu a1.one
vvacan 1.
e grow , in the
, U n1te
. dS
tates ~r C anada withoution ti 111r\al world~
~irra ,litYof all men. Thu s, McLuha n writes in Th created the
whereas no up hav·lat
technology the French educational system and F •ng ,i visf theequa e Gutenberg
1
some . awareness theOf gifted French' youngster to d o 1ust
· t 111s . . (One 'think renc 1
,~·ooo
11
soc;e!toaur°;e e11: ·'He knows everything, but he knows n;~ 1'.he 011
11orn1ali ~10, iJ': 1aye d bv ; print in institutin g new pattern s of cuIture .,s not
1110 '' ) E e Marxists make little productive use of their belief in the . in g fheroleP B t one natural consequence of the specializ· .
e se. of vthe '1 means of production. . Th us, one can ta ke G oldmann's an impor
I : fai11iliar .. u....s of knowled ge was th at al\ kinds of powermtgakct1on
1
tafnche . f Jansenism and of le grand siecle in French literatu a Ys1s 110
fthene
wfor,..Jjstcharacter . Wh ereas t11e role of the feudal oo on a
t e nse o ie ,centralrzation. • . of powe1. by t11e monarchy, . and enrich re, .as a o .,centra k' t 11 . 1 d' . . monarch
O
response strong; 1 n inclusive, the mg .ac ua y me u mg m himself a\\ his
. ,·ng centralization and the accompanying urst of creativity It by
to tl · b
adi,ee the Renaissance pnnce to become an exc1uswe
expIarn . . fr , as a h' . d'tended.d .
response to the fraginenting_qualtttesdo _1t~racy. ·b r . hbject 5• urrounded by 1s 111 \Vt ual subjects.is
Goldmann begins The Hidd en Go w,t a ~.up~1 exp 1cat1onof what h 50 .,ercentres
calls the "tragic vision,'' and. comments _that It 1s a _fact that all _forms0 ; pO'' ·dd God Goldmann begms . his . historical analyst's . h
racricvision have one feature m common. they all exp1ess a deep cnsis in th f/lef{t ell . . ' Wit the
Id " 10 G Id
t,, ,:,·
relationship
. . . I
between man. and his.sprrrtu~ wor . . . o mann , perhaps
e
10. observation.
does not know it, but Eltot descn?~~ tl~:s deep cns1s of the seventeentl~ fo llowing
century as the "dissociation o~ sens1b1J1ty . As we kno_w ~':Luhan ascribes . took at French society immediately before 1637 lthe d t
this dissociation to literacy, which takes language f~·om,ts h~mg context , and ow, f we . . of Jansentsm] . the fi rst t 11mg. that we notice . is the deve\-ae
N 1 0
renders it silent and visible on the page. Newto111~nphysics gives a math- oftheong1 f royal absolutism · an d o f its· most important
· instrument
ematical formulation of this homogeneous, cont111uous world , to which o rnentoucracf of royal agents 1mke . d to the central authority and,
P
Pascal responded when he wrote. "The eternal silence of these infinite spaces theburea ' . t6
terrifies me," only a few years after Donne wrote of a world in which "all cornpletely dependent on ,t.
11
Coherence, and just Relation" had disappeared. literacycreates a bureaucracy (which is by definition \iterate both
According to Goldmann , "That God should be always absent and always Na IIy,eralsense of the wor d , an d m
. tura . t I1e spec,.fi c sense .m which McLuh an
12
present is the real centre of the tragic vision." God had no real place in the nthegen
it) and this central bureaucracy must break down the autonomy of
1
linear, visual universe of Newton and Descartes, of course, but when
:: ~owerstructures. ln ~ffect , ?o.ldmann_ has · give~1 us the first
Goldmann says in effect that the rise of absolute monarchy caused the 1
absence of God he reminds one of Eliot, who initially blamed the dissoci- biographical studies that show m convmcm~ detatl the workmgs of fragmen-
ation of sensibility on the influence of Milton and Dryden. Surely we must iation,
and its attendant releases of creattve energy. Jansenism , and thus
take Eliot's attitude in "Milton II" that the operative forces do not lend Pascaland Racine, comprised a response to the destruction of \oca\
autonomous structures, and its members came from the ranks of those who
themselves to narrow political or literary definition.
For McLuhan , the introduction of literacy (or the change from one form 1uffered
a Jossof social status because of it.
of literacy to another, as from the manuscript to the printed book) , has the
effect of greatly facilitating communications between distant points in the Asfar as Jansenism is concerned , its birth round about \637- 3'8
society. He calls this e/Tect "speed-up ," and "Speed-up creates what some coincidedwith the final stage in the advance of roya\ abso\utism ,
13
economists refer to as a center-margin structure." By this he simply means

369
368
 1,L ]llicLUHAN
p'fER -rf-1E LETTE R : (PRE) POSTrv, 51~.....
EA D OD1 , r-l,-fl. Jete power over B.
aEfOR n of the permanent bureauc
. - l\N is coffl~00 does not love A .23
. saYtJ1eforrnatt bsoJutegovernment. 11 racy Wh· A11ves13,
that ,s ro y systef'llo a 'Chi A10
f increased power which \iterate t
es entialroanr y O f t he central government gradu a 1ly s ~ifld? )(IY so shrewdly used, results i . hought 'P
1~~ l! 1.,01115
f affection. A ~n~ B, whom :aJust this Par:~ern~ creat
. f
ThUS.the po ,cd inistrative.,mportance o th~ officier redu
oeial and a rn bilitY in general and with re s, botJCec1 ,ocilY?,respectively, exist m the infinitesrthes characte~
,i~lc ~;it Pree~ and
rhe ~"'ed with rhed"l,1endantsin particular . 'a spect to 1 as fl~•victifl1. couple (the tyrant and the ?a~ s Ofthe 11 lZes as ''t des a
corn.,-: J'Etal an n the od oacio1an. se ,,2,4 Vlct1m)str ewvisua\ ~rant"
conse1//ers . onlY these few ~uotatlo~s . i e r- d uoiver . ugg\ei un,ve
.here, Gold ,11 1pulateI selY resembles McLuhan in n a devas•· rse:
Although r c_anc1!~ence for JVfcl.,uhan s theone.s m a bo ok 111~1111b . o co d h' two "'ted
dt rti,es society, an is use of style B res'Pects· h' '
ether massiveev1 . we have only to put m what N Written 111 br1ll&s P
0~ef11Por~;: essays on film stars like Gret:rt~es' early~ol,s interest i
tog
=e Outenberg Gala . XJl,ule" and change "th e rise · of royal oa h er,Ore i;0fl vith 1 "\ believe that the automobile · arbo and ~me Mytho/'
~" "re-write r ,, d absot oni L
wouldcall a
· cause
d by literacy to un erstand that l
" · e g
Utis 's~y i'';~o<>
1 ,;,,'"' Gothic cat hedrnl s,"ll ant'.~·todayth, tath, <Luh,...,;
"fragTTlen tation
rnanifeste r
he energies. released by ,ragmentat1on
d . E I , which hadrand .i.,eto
Ji gmentationoccurre m ng and some t
111

Proc1c e
•
I ....,rth' '. tO do in Untk"'a,di,g Media ·~·"' th,
1eo• uhallwatnes
ki,;"'"'
' interest in contemporani s. . re\ationshi" of "."
"lui,:.
Ork that
d . . atto ~C" 13ar . ·, oc,ety " certain\
Sh•k"P""' wh"' " wo "'"" ""< tl"ee O ,A r){ Lenin, Sta 1m et al. do not appe . and the fact h Y exists
previousIY· the concept of fragme~tat1on enrich our unde lls tiecesto l"a ,
)1 word "b ourgeo1s . ") . A s Barthes s ar m. h'is work , \t hat re,er. •
Not onl~ doesk and the problems which he treat s in it, it alsorstandin eO e t e . h ays m W . . ,at ou h
.., 11s nist writers are t e only ones who . rit1ng D g he
aoJdrnanns boo 't totality and coherence of history u . allows ugor ""5 C J11f11U •. h' h go on im egree Z
t nd the uni y, ' fR . . . sing M s to d·... o urgeois wnung w !c bourgeois writ perturbab\ e~o.
un ers a. th last half-century o uss1an history as f cLuh 1ive a bO ago."26commumst writers and th ers. ~ave thems:1keeping
oned can interpret deernsun-king; Stalin and Louis XIV d.:ag111entattn, a d Jong d . . eoreticia ves co
~
d St lin as mo . de01ne. 1.,ukacs- have eep susp1c1onsabout d ns - eventhe b n-
an a. s ct of fragmentation pre ommated during St . that Ol)
a d . t11e
r in th~ thef11•sis
~11<e
destructive a pe t the creative aspect seems to have predorn · ahn's tei and certainly babout thef epistemo\ooic:'1
. en_iart, about "Sesthof
.,. imphcar "ye o-
80aY. t'h·1soccurs not ecause o anything . so simp\·1stic. as I·ions
d of re\a:t 'w,ty
.
w I'le in retrospec
. )(fV. Goldmann's Marxism · wou Id o f course pre mated1 durin gn I
~
theorY,t) but because as newly hterate peop\e th eology(a matt
h of. Louis
that h' ·fysis· he can even refier Ill · ,.,..l,1e n ldden
· God t vent" h·m frolll g
ofcon tell e'stigious and exciting. , ey find the Newton·er
accept~ngt is anhaas Hegel Engels, and Stalin. ,,19The fact r°h ... dialect . ersepr l d . \f ,an
ical thmkers sue ' h.1p cou Id group Hegel and Eat a n, an of. on'"
'1'he 111a tter of style d enB s h1tse more . readi\y to d'1scuss1on . .
, brilliance and scholars , . McLuhan an art es use 1t consciously i . . m the present
Goldmannslly considered the greatest mass murderer of all tirn ngels Witha te~t, . ·1 n s1m1\arwa
c0n provoked very s1m1ar respon ses from h t"\ . I :ys, and their
man genera . . . o f M arx1sts . to deal with the consrttutes lehas os I e cnfc 11
a~
mentary on the inability
e~~~ stY . t \et us compare two passage s one fro R s.
po1n, ' m a)'m0 d ·
To prove
sad 1• C,itici'"' , New fraud?, and one from Sidney Finke\ .
h
? l'icatd's
centu,-Y. ·
Barthes has written on Racme, too, o f course. Jnits.compromi
· sing for fletV if.McLuhan
0 . stems Senseand
. rather recallsearly essays by the Russian Formalist
On [(JJcine m,1. t1011se
nseo
,sm, " -r h . ,, Th h . s, sucha
ViktorScklovsky'sessay Art_as •ee n1que. , e ap onstic analysesof '
}lodne crrout roran appl1cat1on of McLuhan s statement , " I am cudous~" . [On Racine1
·s work · disregards
h elementary rules of sc1ent1
. .ftc, or
' hseen
. ford what it is' namelyo Thl
quite nply of dlarticu 1ate , t .ought
. .h On almost every page, m . the
knowwhatwouldhappen ofart weresuddenly 511
exact information of how to arrange one s psyc e m or er to anticipat h• frenzy of its hea ong sys~em1zmg, t e part is given for the whole,an
d d f: I · " 21 M et e instanceof two for the
. .um versa\
. fl , thed hypothetic
. al
. for the categonca
. \·,
nextblow from our own _exht~ne. achut1es.h hc~uhan uses art as cogni-
tion for the society in wh1c 1t anses t roug out _1sw~rk , but this remark, the \aw of contra d 1ct1on 1s oute : accident 1s taken for e•.sence,.
fromTheGutenberg .
Galaxy,suggests some analogies with Racin e·. " In K'mg 28
chancefor \aw.
Lear, as in otherplays, Shakespeare shows an utter clairvoyance concernin Theseare the forces of obscurantism. lf its most prevalent form is
the socialand personalconsequencesof denudation and stripping of attri; an assertion of the impossibi\~ty of ~uman beings ever to know any-
utes and functionsfor the sake of speed, precision , and increased power."22 thing. McLuhan can be credited with a nove\ and bizarre9form of
Barthes' "double equation" for the structure of Racinian tragedy .. its obscurantism. It is that of writing a travesty of know\edge.2
/angue. . indicates that Racine did the same thing, because he had an equally
clairvoyant sense of the consequences of fragmentation . 37\

370
 L rvtc LUI-IAN AND
itsl'l-"I., PRE.Ne ,., s
~A TR u
-rH E L E TT E R : ( PR E )P O S T M
r,,1aJ1 ave the clue to the funCtl .on f CTu .-.
""L1
D Af-r E R 0 D fo Je . forces g t 11at could \egitimat o the s1-.1
BE FORE AN d Truth "Something · vital has I{ ls! rta1n ·
r' \••ce . poetry, m t 11e novel and th
01tl · e\y b
e Calledessa;
concr
no d oubt b te, . 1vr1c . h ' e the ll)od ere w'-
hessaysin C,.,·(cis111
I
a11
d BartheS and M c L uh an have toucf .vf'' r~111,r, Jd of 1tterary t eory and er· .. ater have em and ••enhe
As Ba:~ ,,JO No doubt, an . 1ectit i11ee,, o'''~ntlttl l~iod in whose life poetry and ~1~1~11) .'''GThalso beco~hat Were
wuch · withstyle. . . d'ffer in the emphasis and vir I the 1i',e 'rfl;stpe eJiot, and Eliot wrote in Tl nticisll) had e one fig e ~?era.
ode -rS, . ·bTt ie Use .r the cl ure in
same
Wf ~,aY~•cLuhan
e 1v• 's cnt1CS
mon cau'se in denouncing his dstyle.
.
Chu. ence of th .
nstopf ~'. \\'~s . tions 111sens1 I I y, such as are .oJ Poe1r " osest re\ .the
I
11 heYfind.,com possibly use t 1e me JUm of th 1er " . e,r
1
,~1P t re"olll conventional modes of per penodican Y, It lPoet at1on.
attacks. t can ,v,r· rvfclU
.d ··f-!oW 11a1
t d)
1
in order to spea k a b out the e 1book (ty '-1c1. ,~e\ llPtl~ern1ing,and make people see :pti on and ~a~ee~ed ;;1
, ina-y
sa• , ·c linear, ",ragmen
graP 1 ,
h
instantaneous
1·e rs hirnself o f t he p1onouncement
,, , nd de ,ve . bl'
.
? 3 a "h which Jo~rnscum mg metaphors ."32S he St y
ti e ectroni Po..
1at "l' can
"S
•"'f'"'tl1:
f.\
i" this poss••' Eliot is 0 , ,, 0.', :o ,td ,rre,-.''.:"°' Whi;.,h,1,
,,11)'lO ticians from T.E . Hulme in Lo smg Bergsonr soll)enew are
. a viscousfog, throu" n M 1.,ev1n has made my own person I Peaki11/le of' ·, theore done· since the Symbolist ndon to Alex , as a nuin'-·Pan
,s bJingmetaphors. oa McLuhan's use of language: "Tl a favorit or 1,e 11ave ' . d d' . poets and andr v ""r of
swm . mmentson
a I the sarcasncco tion rather than seduce
d
. our un erstanding ·" 33 p •ca
1e sty!
· edPree
e or
•ers ~o1osco"' style des1gne to isonent , and th
e 11sed
~av. the P .
Cubist . orons\<,y
a erception of literate people J us change .. Painters, an· n
h' · oseph Fr : normal"
i
1sts
I
to rape ou~atte~ 'Jar veinof indignation. r Write • • .e., ,, a sem111a 1 essay w 1c11 few, if an ank, in "S . Ptrce
of BartheSm a s1m• S raglio is "a fem1mne . . or eunuchoid 11 . s 1101efll111re
11
~1 1·ch
1 J..'
, does for modern literature what ~tructura\ists hPatia\ Forni
. ma kes ju st this night d.d avee
f n
dw11 did for R acme, i for Sh k ver read
Take Bajazet. The : has the form of an egg is ovoid. The d 1ab.nat." ,~ 13arthes dJ " d argument F a eslle ,
,v1,at. proust an oyce un ermine the read ' ; rank sa s are and
Eunucl 101·d·?Whateve
J We are faced, t hen, wit . h a I1abitat thateto1dJ
11 1as ,,,jsts 111<e ,,3s One cannot , in the essa.1 er s normal e Y that mod.
the form of a d\ 1\ t as a eunuch is defined more partic 1 as the Cl" nee. · · · h. ~ · concre1 d Xpectat'
3seq11e . I argument w ic11 orms the proverbial e.' eve\op the io~ of
form of a eun~~ · 3~ clear what this form can be,34and even~ arty by
~
e!luenua1<est\ink; the form a\lows one on\ tch am which is n detailed,
whathe Jacks,it is 0 that of a place, the Seraglio . ss clear s 'ts wea . f h Y o defin h o stron
t~BII I d jve a few 111stanceso p enomena which e.t e langue in ger
hoWthis form can e joll·an g e ..-.uststudy langue , not parole i·s t manifest this la ques-
h Structuralists' critics have even less of a h t on '" . , o say th ngue (T
lsaY t a ) If I n,aY appropnate one of McLuhan' f at the medium: o
~
It would seem.th~t tei~turYintellectual and artistic history tha:e:~e of the 01essage : 1 style makes thed. reader participate i·n sthavorite
tta e arg words• th'1stsnon-the
unity of twenu~t -cdo Let us inquire into the nature of that Struc.
seque .11h. essay "On Rea mg Marsha\1 McLuha "· ument. As St .
wraliststhemse ves . unity as it said, 111 is n . einer
affectsstylef the few perceptive passages in Th~ Medium Is A Rear ~·1 ets his readers a perpetual , irritating prob\ .
In one O • nts and explains the term esscu concrete. e,v (-lesfurther.But that is his master stroke by ma:m . that_of reading
Mirror.Thea11mve anY ·
f th . mg of his m
representation o. e anomalies which he observes 111
c1ose . thanner a
. t · meant to apply to either printed or oral or ing in the essentta 1nature of human commu . . e act of
Essa1
. d concre 15 as Jong as they have t h e same relationshipeven
edi'ae"'orms t rea • . . T . mcat1on,McL h
d us into his argument. o put him down is to let h
draws u an
m1xe m ''
the combinationof theonzmg. . . an d expre~s10n
· .m · herent m. the essayo hallenged .39 t at argument
e conscious relation to the d1alect1cal process of weigh- passunc
as weJIas som . . 1. d . M ,
ing and juxtaposing of oppos1t~s 1hmp 1e 1.11 cLuhan s develop-
history of the form m t e twent1et 11 century would hav ,,unQuestionably,then , dthe ·postmodernist
'b '\' work. of McLuhan and Barth
ment... . A affinities with avant-gar d e art, t h e d evelopment ofe grow s out of the mo Th. ern1stf sens1. 1 1ty, and uses an ana\ ogous sty\e for es
"' · at,·ng
,ascm e use of collage m . 1 arts, t he use of aphorism
. t he v1sua ana ous purposes. 1s . act signals
. . an acceptance of McLuhan and
alog
hesof a conceptua
. . . . m whtch
d1 universe . . . the old, Newton·i,an d.1stmct1on
. . s
by t S th the development of poems m
poser,
Pound, . sh apes, and many 35 other 1, \d E
rt scholarshtp
Btween . . an cnttctsm,
h B .h cnttc1sm and
, . art , no longer o . very-
features which are intimately connected to the newer arts. onewhowntes, w~ttes w at att es calls ecnture; one can on\y ask whether
be
thewriterin question (no matter whether he ca\\s himself a scholar, a critic,
As Theall notes, concrete in French still retains a sense of "bringing
together"(cf. Arp, who called_his sculptures concretions);from w,·iting orapoet)uses ecriture we\\ or poorly.
Thus,a comparison of the work of Marshal\ McLuhan with that of the
Degreezero on, Bartheshas wntten nothing but essa,s con_cretes. Yetwhile elicits a better understanding of the postmodernist situationas
Structuralists
Theallhasdefinedthe essaiconcretemost astutely, he has said nothmgabout

its function. 373

372
 Jt5t-JA1.,l., M c LUHAN AND FRENc
DAFT E R -rHE LETTER : (P R E) Pos,
r/1/\ · ? Ii S't'
oRE/\N ~ OD • (larl<estave!s101:s)_.As if no cha I\ R\Jc:, \J
aEF
. ·cal re a
f}!e }!istofl
I tionshiP between New Criti . 111
. . h
t this situation as come int
. c1s
anct
l:I\
~ ~~~cs . abilitYofl!ngu1st1c description? ,:~ge has be
I, d ver1tiside - which, a1?s~rdly, equate~ . tt Possib\ e~ issue
RAl1s
M
~oa c~ri,iioW!lpsycholog!zmg be taken seh.,s work wie,tn 191:,4d to the
a whoJe.Jd rernindus t~a style between Eliot ' s prose o being v Str1.11: ,o t ofl~ s If ao aoachromsm , a charne\ h nou sly? ls t~hthat or'}o dis111~Uthon1
. shou
,s~ f tile d1·tfierence
. acceptance. H owever, we can anct h.is pe..,,
in ltt
-" te1:t<11, t~~flot •tse
e P· 346). ouse of rneta e designoung_ a:s i'reu~
(tnink od orJIYJjJ111tedf writers generally referred to take Naobetry) etitl,. ,,~d5;/eflCj;11g!Jedia, p. 66. Physical~ a fofllld to asi.
till fin s
s es as e.xaJJlP
Jeso i 'bl as " o1. , <I '
. ful answer seems poss1 e to q uesti artists '' I\Ov llq ~J"'''",,,. GolaXY, P· 21. '"'"ti'.:.;,.,._
gorg ·r· no rneaoing t1'st or a scholar in his parod' ~ns 1 such ""h"'ti11 II I· ',e0111~11 • 24. ngi<age
accept
b kov1,
write a5 an"Doesar Borges write . as an artist or1st c Con., as, '' ot:) \l 1 fl o(lc111 e, PCfLewis Mumford · " Wh
:;, od' " ;:'.,""';ficarion systems?" Because /~:
creates 111s btZ3 f'tY and coherence of the endeavor i
Hb,::•,,,
,
lps Us an "'ht\l
0,,
zl·Ofl
v·
11 1oid ·•P· 34
J' ·
ba~e, depopulated world· of matters
at wa aIeft (after the .
i~· ~s tlle ll it was necessary for the inh . nd rnotio . tnurnph
, ,~veat a ~orld up again with new ;;no~s of the s:· a Waste\a of lllecha.
' d th• "';,y, 10"
11
,.'i
LuM• Nabokov, and Bmges en n Whkh , to"''~
t~ filltllef physical science." (Technics ganisms, dev·"enteenthnd. In or:1s1111
t . ·es o
iealitl d v,/or\ •
d 1962] 51
' p. · ) and C- ·1· ised t tentu
O repr
. er to
ry tdol
;::.',.,." s,rth", ' r pos,;.odern;sm the acceptan.!a~ , I sho~:h d;~''·
i>'°~·,;o,s
IV, 1:ali
°'[N,.. ,::;,• u,, :m
p
ropose as a cnterd,ofi
(Since e e
0
0 nding and using this criterion wouJod the Un. cl
) B ·r . re •ve t()
li~/r
, d• So•n , 1957, p. 66.
,,.,,, ;,.La"'"'and Cohn sm;th (New y · """"~
of ecritt1re. I propose it here. ut even t mvestiga . quire rs<l lit
. If. I can on y . fi r I t1on h an y
in ,tse., . . valid - would ,t mean, o examp e, that Go 1 s ou1c1ess<ly 11•
z5·'fr. All~~on Barthes , Levi-Strauss has a ork: Hill and
,ad•!;,,nd I ,efe• the ;01erestod,J:;"d d.,t orret:"• ""1
2 . diSC~s~t
10
.•Strauss in "The Function of Str er to _my co van~ forth~\ 13.
'

this cnter10~111 .t might help us to ask some useful q ~11lann . Prov aod i,e _"; csurnrner , 1970), 58-67 . ucturahsm at ~an son or M110Wlng
pastmod"",st? - 'redo;ng and wmbe do;ng ;n the seve Uest,on, ab" no,' \8 .
J)iiliog1s• 2 e PresentTi;\uhan
"''"" ofwhatwea , nties.~ ou,,h:
Notes
tpicMd , P\n Sense and Nonsense of M
22 fiol<~ls:rs,'1968) , p. 1~2. ?i~ificantly , Fink~Lul~
publ_1sheet Verile(Pans: Ed1t1ons du Seui\ 1~
8 an. (New
J:m
e, TI1e

is a Marx.;t1<.: lnternat'
o.Crilq1' : f/ol and Cool, ed . Gerald E . St ), p. 11. s· iona\
1
t,{cI.,111 ern (New y
11-1932(London: Faber and Faber, 1932 ) 1011
331. 212-13. ork: Signet 13
?
~
19 Picard, New
1. Selected5;{;:mond Criticism or New Fraud/·203. PbP:d p.215. ooks,\%l)
2. Quoted 111 Wi hingtonState Univ. Press, J969) , p. 34 . · ' tr. Prank
(P,,11""~\ ",.,11,
"";qu, (P,,ris: Me"'"" de Franee 1966
3. Pourruot; ~~ious irony in the use of la nouvelle critiq~e for p. 66. the J· t,.,, 32.I .• 186.
3.Jbtd·'[;u;cis/11
334.tJe"'
or New Fraud?, pp. 14-15
,

II PP· 240-41. .
,. ;rt;;:.::-:.i 0Ho"' ,d (New yrk' HHIand Wang, 1964), p. 13. """""'l; sm~;, a 3S.'fh_ead,,~ss and Insight: Essays in the Rhetori ,J
36.'{or
8/tllk·' Ollford Univ. Press, U pp. 143-44 · co Contemporar
d h 1971), y Cr111c1sm
... n.1
London:Methuen, 1~30,P· · _,.
,,,e Useof Poetry an t e se of Criticism (L on d on· F b " ,ew
5· 1i t . TorontoUniv. Press, J 970, p. 204. .
1
155 . a er and F he
6. ,~~n tnding Media:The Extensionsof Man (New York: M G 19 37 ~S
7. vnuersa c raw-H"J ,,i,1 foam ;n Modem Literat"re." '""'"" Re . ' '· 19JJ),
p J8. '1· '<1 1 221
JS. Prt'ntedthe essay in his book The Widening G view, 53 (1945'
reP dS'l 251 yre. . Frank
and Silence:Essays 011 L anguage, Literature, and the 1 1
[l,;d., p 49.
8. Language , £atlguage a~ 1 ence, p. . .
J9
., ""'is essaymcorporates matenalh'from a book , unay.
. .. Tlie
9· York·Atheneum,1970),P· 313. " '""'°"
(No, 40
~.rthe ']'tvenuet
iu • I C
. Ih entury, on w 1ch l am working· N L'111ear
, it deals 011-
with M Para dtgm
'

10
TheHiddenGod:A Study of the Tragic Vision in the "Pensees" if
· J,og,,/kSofRoe;,,,,tr. PhiUPThody (New York, H umanWes p,:
Pa,<of,,,,,th,
II. on rhe,elationsluPbetweenNewton and frag,nen taHon in i; terat SS.I 964), s 41
Opostmodernistt oug .
ht
cLuhanand

HopeNkolson,11,e9,eo/dng of the c;,c/e. ure, see Marjorie

12. TlzeHiddenGod,P·37.
Media,p. 97.
13. Understanding
14. Ibid.,
p. 96.
15. TheGutenbergGalaxy(NewYork:Signet Books, 1969), pp. 20-21 .
16. TheHiddenGod,p. 106.
17.Ibid., p. I 12.
18. Ibid., p. 119.
19. Ibid.,
20. :;Cr p. 195.trbenckhant
Steiner's attack on Lukadc~'rejecftionof twentieth-centurythought:
an one em ar on.a vast compen .wm o ~bstract propositions aboutlan-
guage,art, and consc10usness as 1f W1ttgenstem had not existed (he is oneof
375
 f L H
l •1111Wil/11u>1f

t· · ;n fle• •r:;I'. li rorll : Llnhersit.

11
- u~-.·
· 1/;i,,/A . ,-., .,t, ,rn
~ ~')(,-20:

377
376
 61
McLUHAN As
pRBpOSTMODERNis
FORERUNNER T A.Nb
Op
FRENCH THEORY

Donald F Theall

. "' Jv.(C1rshall
McL11hC1n,
Montreal and I( '
rec:11,ev,r:~s-137 , mgston: MeGi\\.Quee.
So~z()()
I, pP· n s Uni~crsi\s
pres~ ,

"S invited by McGill University in Mo

6 I w.. d ntrealt O b
. h pepartment
",. t96c g\15 . an to launch anada's Iir t do ecome cl.a
II
·
ir of
I111eir pO. tions.MYwife and l met Marsha\\ and . ctora\program .
.,., 1ca • f h' . . onnneag . in
coJll••·011. honour dunng one o 1sv1s1ts of Expo67 ( h amat a rece\'l-
tioO in.~~nin Montreal - " Man and His World" _t c:l~961 ~nternational
e~po 51~th anniversary). Montreal, with its Quebecois ~~atingCanada 's
11un~re ~ Marshall's work and for his playfuland s~nt, ~ada special
r~;.
a~nttY fair, with its many mult!-m~diaand other\i:~ing . styleand
thts.~0 seemed5
to bespeak the begmmngs of a McLuha~eenvironmenta\
;t
pav11to;Expo I was directing a research projecttogetherwi~te era. ~hat
5
surnrnAellen and a team of researchers photograph !,narchitect,
,,,rner ' . ' ers, 11m exn t
vie cial effects engineers to develop a documenta\ar h' 0 f "ers,
and~peediaand environmental exhibitions at the fair fortheeNwet . a\l\~he
u111·rn a 10naFilm
111
soar Of Canada,d four other government departments '(and the Nat1ona\
.
d
Archives of Cana a. .
Marshallwas warm and f nendly, although he did not seemparticular\
,ell- onlymuch later did I learn he was aIreadysulTering
fromthemas,iJ,
·n tumor that he had surg1ca\\y removed m a dramaticand \enothv
bratrationlater that year wh'\I e he was teach.mg at FordhamUniversity
b i
in
0pe •
New YorkCity.On that warm summer evenmgon a rooftoppatioin Moishe
Shafdie's"Habitat" overlooking the fair, Montreal's harbour, andtheback·
dropof the city, we spoke about Toronto, St Michael's Co\\ege,hissuccess,
myprojecton the Exposition, and the graduateprogramin communications

379
378
 I\Ac LUIIAN AS PR E.Po .
s l'Mo
. DliR
~
. D ,r11 · R rllF 1.FfTFR . (l>RE)i>os .
1
131rolH . I Iv!Ot) , . ,·eJ·ected structurah 111a d Nt i:;
Mc ill. In that summer 0 1.
t l·~,. ~y I d n ~~
n1D }-le ,et Ro an Barthes · r 1nan<1
1, unc1 a · • 196? '' 1 11
rh11t I wn t . ' 1 Id rhe United tate ' m tact the world '111
P· ,1&sv;roject,
11 jSr
··,,allYread Saussure.
e1
in Francein \"d7e
Saussu
f " 2 b re.
Montreal.0111ada, 1111ie~ 11dventure about which M L · ·ee ,\rtic\il ,0111t1~t I1 tit1uingto _exp1_or~ _urther McL ' Utit .as re\ev ·
rhe \'ergeof rhe grelll r 11ss~111e rhe chweitzer chair : uhan w~d to i.. 4tJi, 1974 orecoll rth An1enca, it is important uhan's ro\ . \Va s %tu~"\
ab ut to d d clt Fo ,ls ve ~ef~ jtl J'lO r sh (iterature who founded to llC>te hoe\\)te\ati %\
Marsh<lllwa fi r·r11ein over a cca e by Ted arp rdha, \.v1·ir ()~
. d fc rhe ir t i p ·k . w · I . enter 11 . t11 of 6t1 g ' university
panre _r collaboratorHarley .'1'e1. tt 1111 a year th as w~ <lcco &.
,~cor1or the . ·of Toronto • he related the first "r
"' a\Vd
,uat
as a ~nanad to·f:re"ch
arti t-de ,gner iqualifiedenthusiasm for McLuhan a e expo II <ls~- ress.,10r i I of c011, 01 un1catton h . Fstudies in the U1· to ti,e om e eo"'"'"'u1an· \lrc1.
optirni rnand tie eO. 0line 3 when ts ·ord-sponso d 11tedSt 1cia\\y n1catio
I urI ptic who was neither a pe sim'· Pe sin1is spirithis . c1P , 195 ' f h. re co ates · rec0
n
preferred an apoc,da ybyartists activists and youths as tst nor a1/' C>r as()f 1J1S QS·fro11IIYthe end o is career in the late mmunic ati in the 19 \1nized
(alrhoug1 I celebrate
d ·line ' (rorn' which . not until. two ctan .op t1n1i · st)oPtinr he
1 196 .1virtllll ·or debates on communicatio _1970s, Mel on seniinSlh and
· a teadY ec · h ec,1de w st v11t 1 ther11 aJ et when under the urging ofnh111 the US Uhan ' s re~r~tarted
begrn doxical apocalyptic prop et of tech no- .s late. eret ·111 tits , . . t ea h · · Was at,on .
McLuhan 1il rJ1tile0 ort of the u111ver s1ty' vice- re . nt ropo\o . quiteco sh,p
, in, para . . Optun·tsn,,t e\VC>ulo ()

once aga · obiects associated with commercial e n1er, f~ withsuP~ord·sponsored seminars in ~ui8'dent, C:lau;;st~-S. C:a~\l\ex .
Three cu1rura . d States, an d Ca nadaxposir .,e 1 0d 1t1 ose f 'foronto and began the t~re and co Bissen h ?enter
the Un1te
118
. 1 France,
J
. 10 1is he ·1y o f seminal . mmun· , e estab-
Expo 67 and w1etween 111 McLuhanism . an d t I1e rise . of Fre n iespe . such as jvers1 . he was aware o the major h interdis. .'cation
the encounter b Tower(built
. . the Eiffel . fior t I1e p ans. Expos1tion .
I ctivel
c 1Itheory inYN
of haUtit ~""'~~ ng discipline of communicat:n ~la,s •ho h~t'" "Y i:,"•
Amenc~. here (created for the New York World 's Fair wh~89), the l' C>tth ,,1y ,~:.. ,.,. he p,ofossed not to reg"d t;: the U.S. in :"'"' ;, :
and Pe;~~pId War JI) and the postmodern theme pavili tch Open driton 950s . t-4·11cantin shapmg the discipline H. work of the t e_1940sand
before vvor o 67 in Montreal.' A h -r ignt . . d'ff . is ma· ra1\bl
s t e •ower Ims fascinatonsd anct thee" J."4St _,,,y
1,. sd hlS . relauve . I111 1 erence . .. . to their work ' Wer Jor reservati .onazersas
Dome of Exp R I· d e ev r'\Jli ··1l1se statisttca ' emp111c1st , and behav· . e related s, Which
,. Duchamp and James Joyce to d o an · Ba fi rthe ' and theeryone .,..,. fro"' er . ant '
enc;
. h . domesticized European mo ermsm or the u S •r1ton ··•
i•
don1 1fl . atioll stu d ies.
' l
n contradistinctioniounst "'• emphases to. the then-
R
Pensp e,e d · ·, so E .,.,untC . (' h ' ,vicl h in m .
7 and coll'''' I 1d interpretative t.e., ermeneut' u an's a a1n\ine
th utopian mediazation of the postmo em moment . Why b ,XPo6 w historica atused the term at th at time). Wh;~· a\fthoughhe w~~lrdoach was
e.
posing these objects of . excess? Partly because of McLuh egin by
an 's [ . Xta. ju as 111have b . h e a ter \950 not
w1'th ar:chitecture and with
. popu
.
1ar cu 1ture; t 11e 11eavy influe
. M
ings of architectural historians Louis . um ord and Sigfried
.fi nee
at
O asc1nar
h' ion
_is Writ.
o1ai
1
11,ct•
b the new cy ernet1c t eories of comn . . . he had a\ nor-
\Jtes and England (N orben Wien« ~meas,onbeing
inthe . ,,o\ved in the Macy conferences) he 'a\ reg?ry Bateson edoped
d:i"''"
impact as the prophet of the new emerging technoculture ; and his i~d,on; his res,n• h ' so cntic· d , an th
ngu .co-111 atheniatic rather t an rhetorico-gramm at'\Ca\ ize themr"vr being .e
art, architecture, and popular culture. Expo 67 became McLuhan!ere sts in
\ogt was little contact between McLuhan a d ·.
fact openly ackiwwledged by th~ extent to which the theme a/ · Fair, a rhere.es until . late .111h'1s ,·1,e C' •
and .his n main .streamcommun
"Man and His World," whose · stu f .writings had re1atwe\ r . ·1ca-
' ·design
· blended
h' h Canadian
· hist ory Pandthons c t of uo11 di deniic study o commumcat1on in the US Y_ttt\eimpactO
were based on McLuhan s wntmgs, w 1c were liberally quot d u ture
I~ '~d by French theorists in the late 1960s a d· untsl191 a!\es he .:
throughout the pavilions McLuhan's Fair marked a special me on Plaqu, 1 ;
en1brat64 with the publication of UnderstandingMnd~ar\y 0 , although
a year before Paris '68, on the threshold of the popular oment moveme1111 t .:
time frol\1 e ia, he beo
9 '
'de·.,,pact · 'd d ·
Quebec, and at the moment when French theory was coming int 0 . s 1n wt .... in areas ms1 e ,an outside the academy. H'ts .impact ban
p to ti havea
ayfor French theory s emergence shortly afterwa d ar_Ypaved
North America. '" ownin te . d . 0 h d' r s as a maJo f
W Aniencan aca em1a.
h'thin t er 1fferences between US r actor
A little chronology: McLuhan wrote The Gutenberg Galaxy i 1962 ...,municationand those in Canada were a resu\t of th.· ahpproach~s to
1111
Understanding Media
. in /964, . taking
ti olf as international med",a guruand b co,.. d' . .. . e t en-dommat
a tiationsof Cana ,and umvers1t1es . . with England
. or Franee. Earl~.m the n
/965; Johns .Hopkins 6 held its con erence I don the structuralist cont 1 roversytn .Y ffiosMcLuhanshowec an bmterest 'd m the work of RaymondW'\\ I 'tams(w.1tn
the U.S. during 196 ; the same year Pau e Man met Derrida . It is 5t 'k' 195
axyn was whomhe share d a am n ge undergraduate education as we\\ as a
and significant that the French translation of The Gutenbera · o GCitl mg
ambridgedoctorate). Even more than McLuhan ' Wi\\iams had a cons1'der-
launched_less than a ye~r later at Expo ~7 - a tran~lation which was to mark Cable impact on the early development . of communication studies in ca Mad
the openmg of the ma3or debates on macluhanisme" in France . In 196?
inthe 1960s. At the same ttme, francophone universities in Quebecand
McLu.han had . virtually n~ knowledge of. contemporary French theory. In
Ontariowere being affected by the ear\y beginnings of communication
1?59, ma previouslymentioned conversatwn I had participated in between
him and two structural linguists at the University of Toronto , he had flatly
38\

380
 I tll\l ,\ I t) • R.
1
. Id ' 'l'
,11,
1t•r.wn d mg e ,a and c . .
·111 "'
qtrl,,1 u v1s1 n. • · · p·lrll d em nic a d nt1nu1n ·
& 1111 0
, 1 . 11,, ' ··eteetric" re oluti n. beginn~ t>t1rtly\ttol~e 1910s_b .
:/':,of 111;,11unh 1 • m de~ni t medley:, after the ta:, of theu~~his
i111I. rro'
J\ Jerni sn1 ,~1 arc~tt . ture and art Yn,bo\i t lo nd Wor\d ~re
i."' ·J'' ,1 udden d1 emmatlon of tra . Part of My~ l.ew· ar,
fl't'll ,,,,s1hesrt thr ugh hi practice and ~~gie and oncecl.uhan· '\and
,,~11~;11ftl
1l:'· rt,111.:
i,~d t~111n. mb Ii t amb i~uity: p;ot:p\i~tions : r:s r:\t
deri e:
1.1sc:f anal g where d11ference . . rat I,eremiotic
h . cean am'-·
ign \\\
~
u1va.
11• ti0': u . rnintion f th e empmc and pra an imil . father th
,l'ii' 1',r.1tl~t
,nuc
. int an intuiti I atiric em~1at1c e.tplicor~nty i dorn~,11
• 1oana\ . 11-
~
1011 du
,1:,,e ''' utturnl phenom:na: _the grammar and yt1c ~roto-se _rexreof
t~' 1it1S of I gi. b a p ettc dialecti . beco . . ~hetonc of mioc\a tic)
.,, . 111o d B k . bl ' mmg in the t ..
tt·..1 1ro d E,dn1un ur e u ,m e of the strument nvium
"c"v , . 1tl · . natur S of '
I l{ s, . crun ental ubhm e of th e mterior 1 al land ca CU\t1tra\
1
o·'. 1 .111 1 · t. · . and ca
tr ng 111 1mat1on s m the 1950 . pe of rnod ":1 ed4 to 'PC a""\'
~~
· ei;htl d ~n
1
~ 1 ,rehll
I~~
960s in his books that hi \l ork m artic\e in m.
1
drroin rthe
111 1 ian, paleo-Derridean . pale, ~u\d come to ;:lorarioras
sn 11 11le • .'1 The \ 960 were a moment v heo- hyotardian a dregarded I
; r rdtlll 1. n t e" · n
.;,.~Jri ll11 hat Northroµ Fr e claimed a hi " . . ew Criticis ~a eo-
11r
_. etl
I", • 1 un
cfi111
ti'' 01
10 w

• I 'ch he later
· f h
derwent a t,11 urt \ er, more
cap u ated
.
m the title
c1ent1fic" .
profou n d revis,o
of
.. rev,
b
m. sub,.
b ion of\.1teraru /
I w,, . a ook Y n FMcLuhan -.,a
..,~rsa
,. J. tl'pe,
but which ,n a more profound way w
f
. • roni Clich'
as akm t
~rr··
..
· · 1tsta
h. .
nd anarc. 1st1c f S nature o, the poetic Ome, hat ino a . ertino .
e to
., th e
1efl. 3 d's analysts o au ure s anagrams and f F ant1c1pation f
013
\lll11drill r the "New Criticism" becoming a 'sc ienore fud's Wit:. \f F!
. ted3on C.. . ," ce o poetr " . ,e
ins1s the ·'NeW nt1c1sm s empiricism and th . . Y, McLuhan
. tedon
ins
.
is 01ents of unmaskmg.H oncurrent\y
C
k' ~
e i)oet,c ,ts \f b
deconstruct·ton wasbe .ecomino.,
intr0france, first to John op ms, and. then more dramattca\\ . mgt imported
y
rro tn aseof what was by then the ancient newcritlcism, '1 o ale, the
hotnt: b .., and Warren. of Brooks, John
,veRanso,..,
cro . .
ASsaudrillard, agreemg w1th
h McLuhan
· h' s own statement has a\
• 1
. ted' •AcLuhan
iv•
was not• a t eonst;
•
1sapproach wasempmc . . A.sa ways ..
in
..netmat ,q,,e, McLuhan wished s1multaneous\y. . to concea\h.1spoetry
· satmc
beh ' d
l"'- gedinstrumentalpurpose of ass1stmgthe pub\ic 'to obse . m\y
anae . . . d d . rveconsctou
11ramawhich1smten e to operate upon 1t uncon cious\y
the . , ff t h 'h , f . ,,, wh.\1e gener-
. d
ating the "hght
. to o se " t e eat o mampu\ating cont ro\\'mg, and
e~ loiting minds through
\'b the\ prolonged. mental rutting" of med'1a, ads,
andPentertainment. 5
0 e I erate Y emp1oym~ techniquesof crypsisto concea\
thatpurposebehin~ an ~nfathomable a~?wa\e~ce McLuhan'swritingsand
interviews, like a ntual Jester or a participant m the medievalcarniva\fea-
tures pointedjokes, teasing deceptions, and devastating Witz. Withinthis
empiric, satiricpoetry manque,designed for a socia\ scientificera, the topoi
generating the problems and paradoxes of French theories characteristicof

383
382
 t)J-IAN AS l'K t t' V:> 1 MUD
[V1
C 1, E R N t ST

cY or immediacy of social rel t.

, · H E L E TT E R : ( PR E) Pos .- aretl . I
aflSPr f uI histonca un o mg
~ Id. of a gene a ions· b
, . ut indeed
raI wr
~~
Af-r ER M oD t ' · t. a
RE A D rei rp we consciousness , meanm_g, presence t 1 1ng of wh· rnore
e E fO
.
rsin and beyond first b
oststructllra ' ' egan ci
N lo6..,oref
p·
sPeech,
0
be
analyzed as such . lt is this que t'. ruth , etc. w ich the
. " (D · s 1oned ' ou\d
dern1srn, p . f rcu1 ,~ et11 oeel, to 1ogoce11trrsm ernda _, 1972, 329) effect that I on\y
postrno orth ,Arneri~l
The wave t d bY'[el Q11e.
- . ,ne that hit Pans a ter 1967, just
through N of ,ri( (l) cllit,c1111 philJipe Sollers, and Julia Kris When Jo
1 y attests to the French theo t~va as Yee\\,
aqti
~ ¢',,,! "11,d "V"rida takes up agam and again. Yet " Joh, F ha,,
r,e'' .,1.1ere
1e
d olJt,me themes McLuhan develop s th rough ' without rer,erenc ekete
. prorno e mentaf . N I A . retie I . a tn as i\ po1 11esa ut the 1950s): logocentrism ph out the \96() e to
t,e1_11g cultural com . for Joyce. In ort 1 menca , how a inte a.for 5 11
~~,,•;; 1,,,o•~.,plified 110 by Jcthe impact or th~ ph::ocen,,; sm, th.'!'"'· I
obJect for with his afnn1tYf 01 the 1970s to the 1990s ever, 1\1rest i
LtJhafl· d pates ro . k h h as Cl,,h 11 I 1d• ;; ,, I"",itY ,s ther,pcession or plu,;-dim •t•calph abe, , ~' · th,
~
c cuJtural e ' h it was his wor t at ad provide a Pri " an ,,-0, '11S•1inea·a etc." (Fekete 1982 , 50-67) A,tehns1on
1ecl1.llt1 al thought s_trac-
~
M
haunted resenceaJthOllgk . g arnong researchers in hum the la triarily ,,.1 ~r1 thesr , · ough , s1rnu\
unspokenpdiain policynlahindiscussions and writings of thaninterfa ngua"~ ·o~· sYoiies t oerrida and McLuhan , the philo so h not mentioned _-
used in rne
noJogY
' . IIYin cadef11Y
and especia t e
· The debate 111 . France in the
, ·aJ theorYin the a rninated the French McLuhan r earJy 197
e so ciat
. Sci
ce tech.'"'
enees8
~11~eitY:ficiillt
.,s1~. 111
t\lll que shared a fascination with Jo P er-theorist and ,hit
. poe1.,riCJ/1 ' · h
d n,ore extenswe 1Y t e very same the
yce, for J
oyce explor d
t e
and soc• d t,e deno d B d . , eveals Os t obl1'\r1ier
1 an 'th rvtcLuhan. mes that Fekete sae
h deserve to )lost sarthes an au nllard we the s" a
to w o f McLuhan's g . re the I iglliij. Pl It·e, i,ared wl ect of Dern.da ' s wntmg . . that app ys
cance • h , d ea.di nerr1dOe 5is one asdpeor "tone " of writing which McL ahrent\y echoes a ve
tenders.
O . ·1aritiesrn McLu an s an Barthes's . Ilg v·..-her mo , . u an h d d ry
~ '°'Pe"'
"';h,"' '"' strik;ng ""'' k Both were ,cholacs cac,y;ng out "~tc•ests a 1 ,r.caeiire , Joyce's transformation of the wor' ' f a eve\oped i
h ""1,rion of th'" "'?~,° ..,0 ,.,nt of English and F«nch e,, .;, .,e.e11tr:> from
sr1960s . S
from Lucian , eneca , Petronius and A " o pra f .
. c it1oners of n
•e tire - p d c \\ 1 • ' pule1us to A .
',, on th< h;gh """ 0 ,cly 000 cem with the histo,y or cl <a,na ,., "'" t1•edsa ·r Sterne, ope , an ar ye . lt is this " t " retmo
1
~oly Both exhibited an e•AcLuhan's in his unpublished b assicaJ rhePtect. aftl , sw• t, ssociates La carte p osta l e and which f one
11 1ois \\ . or genre with,
1ve · . · rnes - JVJ
and allWd d•SC•P, 11hesis on th• Ha,vey- Nashe controvecsy
ut w·
,a,1, tj,"
Or' ~. ,. perri·daa\so relates to Joyce , s ..-11
ooi,e
vvake with• , o owing
its " Bab 1. . an envoi of
ih1CI' he a . . e 1an imp\" .
01bridgedoctora ·cal rhetoric which were published in C anct Barth ect
. son class• .d , . omrn . es's
I A\lgost, lyptic affihattons. 0 n\y two en.vois \at , 1cat10ns"
1lr>d ,,,.,. apoca h his "anatomy " o f t h e " post catd " of Plat er ,on \8. August )
cahis seminar
in
(tie L 'Anc1en
. R}ietorique:une at e memo1re. Both m
. b k b en be
unicali
ans
under the t . in with their first maJor oo s a out ever d gan thei anrrida sayst ates 1 identifies this "tone": "1f you want to standmg behind
pe d socra
imp0r1S"1,pub1"!,~an;,al 9,;de and Barthes's Mytholog;./ _ ':;' CUltun,'.
{,lciuh•" s '['he . . thei' considecauon of obJects and ev h,ch sho
I'"'" , d . b .
of the post car m,gh t e, thm k of the A ,uitom y O
• •anatolllY that is not unrelated to Menippean sat1're· F ,f Melancholy
o under sta d
n what
. ·mi/anues JO I ents of w a,, genre · rye rec \\ h
~
striking st . ds roducts, spectac es, newspapers, magazines P?Pu- thisisee a of th• u,st supper d " fand of the th Symposium
. . on this •e "' nre, .mtermm
• s t_e
Jar culture- a. ' ·,nages ,nass ,nyth, even the new oraHty B fash,u" (ioflue(l
ts ency\ope ic arrago , e satmc critique of th I. -
photography,_v,sulfa:arninations of their projects and their acti · . . oth Wrot: able•
banque etc.)' Be Stoic, it will be our expyrosus: the end of theewor pu\dlosophus
by fire"
. ironic
reflexive, . _ McLuhan in Cul ture l s O ur Business and
se -e,,. v1t1es
8 as myth
11
later m . thetr careers h Both were literary . . . an d mtrigued
cnt1cs . b arth es 1. 5115
a'1980,240-5). had also told his readers that his writin
g(l)erfld
lor,o.
Bar1'1es _par Bart ~s.ations. Both were essayists and admirers of thy the .new 19 ~AcLuhan
iv, • • ( \ h gs and his
.
. st in commumc . . . e tract r
11 n 75 . were Men1ppean satires a t ough rather lesser one
mtere . d pascal; both were hterary cntJcs and prose po • 10 Isentatton . h. . .. s compared
pie ) In5his practice oft 1s poetic satmc technique he nredi sno d d.
of Montaigne a• • with a lefl wing political orientation; McLihts. Barthes Joyce . " ,, " " se au 1-
10cesto a tolerance for the anatomy as we\\ as
, other modes
. of Mempµean
.
was a .structura . h 1is·ght 1 wing political . .
onentat1on. . Wh'Ii e Barthes waan. was .. a en It should also be noted that Joyce s Wake ,s affiliated w'th L
Catholic d wit a fl
t s,ussurean structuraltsm, . Mc Lu h an was ,mually. . . s m1tiall
fascinat d l
6 discourse.
stalethrough Shaun (a twm. son of Anna Livia) who as nost 1 a·
attracte do , nd A Richard's semantic theories . While M Le by Carte . h h . , " , IS
C K Og en s a 1. . . . f h I B c uhan . ring
Po a note which, Shem, t e ot er twm, (a perversely diabo\ic poet)
·. · d h ·aJogY characteristic o t e ear Y arthes, he shared a .
re;~teh t / _sen~1thatwas to become the central concern of the later hnermter- Idwrittenfor ALP, h'tS mot h er. Dern 'da o bvtous
deive · ly relates his own use of the
est m t e s1g . . men-1 ~pO!t' Joyce'~ just as McLuhan does , when The PoSI Ca,dplays on the
. tstructuralistBarthes. And while he overtly reJected Barthes 's soc· 10 technological role of the postal service , such as telegrams , in
st-electric
eutic, pas
..
. 1 .
McLuhan's analyses were semioc astlc.
1a
~
,dulOsituate electric media as a central aspect of his exploration of tech-
critique,
'da had far Jess claim than Bart hes to be t he "F renc h McLuhan" and ~IO!Y - Thus McLuhan's project, influenced by Joyce, partly contributed
D
em
apparently wanted none, as indi~ate JO 1s s11~.~
d · h. · I
Mc~uhan in a
"' t?
1 ; re1erence preronditioning and predisposing the reception of Derrida ' s complex
r delivered at a conference rn Montrea 1: ne are not wttnessmg an end 10
pa h ' 'd I . I representation. , would
wriJing which,to follow Mclu an s • eo og,ca
of pe
385
 1111 J, FTTJ3R • (PR - )PO , l Mo ,
1

•87
 . H E L E TT E R : (P R E) p OS
;\f,-ER 1 l'~()D M c LUl ·lA N AS
P11.E POS T M
OD1:.11.
i;fORf, p.;O r hand, the schizoid McLuhan . "-ll.t,i
B ,, QJ1rtie othe n,ed purpose_(unless we take h_dissen,· ·sissiJ11alls of her f~cets lare) becomi N l s,
, r,,111ss' . r rtiepresu r ) of undoing and exposin •111to b••1 iflfifllcribllbtes. . . shrinks from schur . ng manier
at.~
·BJ;:icl<fe)(cess. 1.1J1lcle~listic
fo fthis cenru ~e's rebellion - that carn ·g throunLel:lticl• chaos~os has affinitieswit1~•~7 ss " (PW 2~~dmanieras
etrYO nicSO ( JoY · · 11.1r
•vate 'batized society. Developing d is acousti -25-30) M · · . her
"' " e ell
po re11rest cY worJ<iflgs 0 oJutiot1,an msurrectton , a Phair sque r ni\:l/
orol,trlter's (1959 and 1973) anatysi:n f adoptingt~t Pace,the'ret cLuhan's
00
rheg v11riofl th_ee11JitY a rev 's superrnan. McLuhan corr ic erec/ slltrIt
corP~:world, McLuhan explained t~1air ,7-literate l~;otion fro,;t;dto the
~bserwnichi~in rof Nietzs~heoetic, for what Nietzsche des ec~ly se.1on, a.e~.
etecl~
uoJ1,esurrectJOfl ,h of Joyces pder of all the atoms of the Pchribe
1 of boundless random reso . Acoustics t cultureto th mund
s a:~ectt~cl
the r an deP"' rhe or . f ti t ,,
cons•~t:iot1 of this approximates the t::~~ons" (McL~~ce has no ce~tost-
ras " 'ii •1e
..,ierzsche . reP111ces ihilisauon o ie e ym (353.22) e a b lleti c1escr1~ tain of Lille's description of G0 dth~centur y Auan ~9&9, l33)er.\-\l_t
i~ I nee which "the 11bt1 of Joyce's Wake occurs in W. . l'hi s ~Collitet I" t ·· in wh· gust,nia · is
v. oJoyce
e ,s ~Vpk e, ·ve use . y ec h omg po re, whose cen e1 ·~ e~erywhere, and 'w
. that of ar and h is lvh es l~h "God i n t~eo\ogical
1 t e)(tens1 I title iron1ca11 sphe s 1968, 6-9) . This situates McLuh ,hose c1rcumfe s an •ntelligibl
in
r,,11,uh!1t1· l e (1968)- pe tWO Wak ean wor d s, " he war " a Iater req
's 1110s (Borged e ce;'t
nature, like that of Blaise Pascaa \? s hidden or abrsence is nowhere~ '
,: 1,wlV•\'{, ,, ,.,1;"' ,.p,oducing and exposing th tJeY on :••,4
(D"ho
at 1111ture not G1od ' is · an .mtelligible' s Ideus ab.sconditent "Od
sp ,ere F b
us, for b
as a deity
6 in w !ituiting, then,,er to defend the Catholic loose Nietz 1984
I 'errida
'
t 1, · notes, abso ute space becomes the · or Pascal oth hold
But 11 . bser• · sorge gos Sch ,
I 5 rned to adore God . But God abyss, for he· "h~tads Jorges Luis
145-59.
D eJ11piflC 0 ,, while preparing a ground for d yell again ea~ 1 Ii was less l . e . the .
epths)11s1111 ,, as "litter: ddlYenough a paradoxical rn racticat ;t the iJ'J. erse.J-iewas sorry t 1e 1rmament could 11 rea to him than universe
Joyce!lll
d
•·Jetter ·~g
th AJ11en.,.., 1sho 's early role mo d el, the Edwove w 1thOS. Orthyq en~h
u11" e of ship-wrecked men on a desert . 1 ot speak; he com
Id ,. is and H f I
the hated
paredou \'
·11Nor f ,AcLUan . . . ard1a ofth
theorY• tics o iv• ,._ ,.,.. these empinc , poetic acrobat · n Cath e tO physical wor ; 1,e ,elt confused af .d · e et the ince r wes
Joge 1i perior .. , " d " 1cs
wittYII 0 rton- o 1
. t·c insights 1or ate ra 1cal mod ofistfhe 1. , •••cl or1~
~.
eelings like this:. " It ,.(Nature) is an \nfi:,,1~t1e sphere
and alone; h and ~:ant weight
eitpressed
e11este
P . p11onst • ern ty Uh'
where, the c1rcum,erence nowhere" (Bor e , t e centerof whic .
a.K netraung8 h Medium 1s the message, the mas 1 anct an
teverYthat according to the manuscript vers· gs 1968, 6--9).Borge h/s
prod"~~ such ,s "T : SS of the c,owd) ," events who:•ge (i.etr,"•·
structuraisas,sage (the a \ng the implications of " syrnbo1·e Hnportit~). note(s.«.,·o y~ble) rather than infinite remind· ion, Pascal first wrotesf _ahso
I e11· . ' mg us of M ng t-
d the ni 'fi in unve1 •c exch ante
ffears posthterate
u the . G death
d . of the book and ·111
b .sts 011 thcLuhan
s1 1 ' who aIso
an riJIMdidentl es transparency. . ange",
. ·ng _ for his o 1s a sent from the med· e ogosas a primal
Ball~ ulacra,ecstasY,. d there is too much commumcation in t vntl
. . n dissemmate. d a sense of pa111c . to Nortl1taAworld . . conseq uentlyhis
the s1rnhan who beheveJ yce's treatment of Silence) , corn mu . he tnoct 1
v1s10 e as it ass1m1 e
. . ate d F renc11 theorists _ first Dmencan . ·mte1\ectua\ dis-
rv1cl.,U ' . ilar to o d I I n1catect rn 1
Id (perhapss1rn ·1 to detour, e ay, concea , and eradicat . about cours
,x Luhall, an d uIuma . t eIy, DeIeuze, Guattari andernda. ' who had rejected
wor jcation prirnartdY.tuited the cosmos to be the Joycean "el it. F'ro,,, iv,c was the most appreciative of McLuhan;s a b~art\1cularly Baudiillard
ornrnun h n ha tn I b d who c 1ao .., . m 1Vaent awa '
c outset Mcl.,ll a ouattari appar~nt y orrowe from the W. smos• trans arencYof evil and the awareness . of fatal
' strateg1es . and cool reness of the-
the veJeuze and di/US a hidden god. In the 1940s h ake)- a ci,vetPthough personally committed to. the Vatican
. · and 1.ts defencememonth es.
...
(ahtersrnrnos " of a deusabsMcoa:Jstro;,," to explain symbolically ~heehad used
pseudo-Thomism -.b.yet actually M "I ' aSsch1zo-fideism_ McLu11an ... chose to roug11
be 0af
1
"c ao Allen poe,s "fhe . between a wor Id movmg · toward ch nature of
w at Blake, descn b mg . I ton h s atan h as Jehovah' ca\\ed t"' ne dev1\ . ,s party·
Edgar odunit as the tension d with horror, d"iscovers t h e " power ofaos h d ancta
·....,ultaneously ecommg ·r .et for the global' transnat tona
h'I t . e prop " I elec,-
. w r hwho, wh•.1e paralyze
the . · h Sh" etached
. "scientific" mterest 111 t e action of th
tronicentrepren~ur_s, w ,ef mtens1 ymg and accelerating the hysteric broad
sa1o ,, h taking a k. ·1 e stor
bservation
1 , t us . I Bride, whose wor mg tit e had been "The G .m. eption of the ms1ghts o French theory .
o 1951in the ]Jechan1cad the same image to explain his new u1d reclfYirilio and Baudrillarffid,_and ~o a lesser extent Deleuze and Guattari,
e
n M Luhan use . C' • empiric
appearto h~ve a greater a 1111tywt~h McLuhan than Barthes, Derrida, and
l chaos," . c
to , J59). In 197?, 111 i10111 Cliche to Archet,
meihod(WtJmott 1996' 51
_ cornrn1
'tted to both htS Roman
. th d .1,
Catholic faith to
anl"
Jean-fran<;;OIS ' Lyotard , Mc~uhamsm has played a role in their rise to
rorninence in North Amenca because the schizoid McLuhan's demonic
schizo-McLuha11 - still declares that chaos is. e ev1 s world - and that
Joyce's Chaosrnos d b the very type of cycltcal reversal that Baudril\ad ~ide,let loose in his_~n:'piric poetry '. provides familiarity with the issues that
Baudrillard and Vmlto - not bemg encumbered by McLuhan's hidden
· produce
such chaos JS . . Yf the simulacra. resu Iting
· · t h e ecstasyof
m r
fideist agenda - reveal as the transformation of reality into virtuality.
considers charactensttc haracteristic of Joyce ' s v·1co111a111sm
· · .
O
Through his immersion in the symbolists , particularly Joyce, which released
commun1ca. t'JOn, but also c . the comic, carn1va · Jesque domam· of an earth
his demonic side, McLuhan's work has for over four decades disseminated
WhileJoyce's chaosrn,os is all abscissan for Jimitsing this tendency ...to
goddessw ose "redtang es are . . [ h'
ossible paradism1c pen mutter . . . w 1le]the
h 389
expenseher selfs as sphere as p '

388
 1• II

R fetenc
r,ti\.hoil I Rab lai and
., ~tit"• 1~: I ff press. H is IVorld
111~) f1'Ji,I ms of Dosto e1• ky' R . · 1-ie\ene
ti ·1r f rtinn . t!\ Press. oe tri:s. C:arytE ls..01
L1'' ($1,phellI 9 ) , ietzsche/Derrid . ITlerson (I hrans.).
°·
~
( f· 1 the onomnble'. Postmodern Blanchov ran ). Mi
. •' . ,,a (197->'f.nho/ogl ~ . . ~·:~ ~ I){ ,~ '"'"°',
';°'.'""
It
(19 1
>ffllld Barthe By R oland 8
) J?.c rs (tra 11) p ember) ~lltary \>
ari/res R • Lo1111 · ~
""' ,,·,,011.- · · I-Iowa on: lona
, Jc~ Lui ( t 96 ) Other luquisiti 0 rd (trans.) thanCa
. . ,~ ,nd h, ,e, . '"' l937- 19s, ' ,.,. ,.,:;; .
,, ~· Gillt:S
0 ( t 97-) Proust and Sig
s. R. Ho
11 ' Ruth R.. s·1rns(t · 1-\11\
·Uef
, ran )., ,:.,.,,
~
\Yard (Ira
!Jr.¢99())71,e U,gic of S er~e. C. Bound ns.). ew
,.. . if - man there be /(I ) e,,• ork : Columbia nivers· as (ed .). M , __ ork: Geo
111111 • FT ( 9 ny Pre . -.cste rge
- if J/cJ,JJ,an were he! ( d auottnri. e I I 77) A11ti·Oed',pus. R. l-\ur1
.,,...an r WithChartesSti
' inl!press- ey er 01. 1
Yale
\l 7) A j/ro11sa11d
Plat eaus. B. Ma su . ra (tran s.).
........-l_ ta press, mi (trans.) M' ewYork
19
,1i111l 972) M . ' innea Ii .
_ ...;da. Jacques ( I argms of Phi loso It , po s: Uni\e .
IP'' ::.... press, P .\, A. Ba ( rs,tyof
ofChicago trans. ) Ch'
,,...- 4) •Two.t \ ord
Ess forJrJoyce' . in D · Attnd
. · •cago:um,ersn.y
. .
Sftl"t11ft1list
(19 oyce: ays rom the French.Lond ge and D. Ferrer
..n.148--159. on: Cambrid1te . (eds). Pas1-
l'T(l9 7) j/1e Postal Card, Alan Bates (trans..).Chi
,,...-, - Unt\e~ty PTCSs..
p¢S- , . cago: Unh'l!~
f<l<"' (1982) M,ssage m tho Mas, Aoe· R
)<>hn O of Cb.,.,
Journalof Politicaland Social
(jJPlldiOII The~r
ememberingthe Mel
o,<, . (1957)AnaWm)' of Cdlic~m Prinreton'.6(J) (Ma,ch) SO-<""" "-'.
"'°''"· Ga<Y(1999) Mda,han ~d Ba..,M11a<dc
Rouiledge.
;;'~" Uoi,onity."=
rurersofImplosionL
nJon•T· (1997) Marshall
. McL1Jwn-Escap
· . Und
emto · ondon:

~
.b)te.James(1945) Fumegans Wake, ew York: VY erstandi11g
(jo , Toronto: Stodd
"""''' Jofi• (1980) n";" u,Lan...,g, Ls '"• "'-
.'eWYork: Columbia University Press. ' · · oudiez. T. Gora, er alia(trans.)
>fo<l"l'·R..and Oonoto,
. J h HE. (1970)
k' Th,
. La"~'" ., Cr111cism
o· ges O; . .. and h ·
Man , a umore. o ns op ms UniversityPress.. r e Sciences of
BI
McLuhan, Marshall (1951) The Mechanical Bride·· Folkloreof Ind11s1rial
)3ostOO:Beacon. Man

-(1953) 'James Joyce: Trivial and Quadrivia\' Tl hI ( . '

-(ed.) (1956)Alfred Lord Tennyson: Selected p wug Spnng): 1~9&.
andWinston. oetry, ewYork:Holt.Rineh
art
. Galaxy' Toronto·· Unive-,·t
-(1962) The Gutenberg ., YofT,orontoPress.
-0964) UnderstandingMedia, ew York: McGraw-Hill.
-0969) The Interior Landscape: The Literary Criticismof Marshall McLuhan,

391

390
 1
'''' f \ 18
MA
lh M '\ II\\ •• /\ I I\
\I\ l\\l\\ '
I\ ~

11/'l'<llillo/ 11,u/8111'111/
I 11·1111/ l'l1r111
'(
1Wtlll/11f/l•tlf I i(l )(h1\\ \11~2)
~,II''~ \\I ti/

393
392
 b4ASSAGE. I TH£ "1
- l\.s,
rwhich Understanding M . l\.'",1.
•D F•ER
,tlE 1,ETTER : ( PRE ) POST
M(JI) ~ that in capturing and ae.d_ia
t,O"p \old
ullllntouched a contem rticulatin•ell<>.er
~ Ute. ,,,,,,.)
sEFoRE A . . revolution Eit ,I siJPI"". I
. "fbeeXcent to which th1~ t;;tlorJCL, ~ption in university cf°c1rary
an nwe
. . _,,[h cenrurte>_,.;on knowledge,and intelligence may p· O
.,..,.. o f in
-"~Jitie5
1
. for01"" ,
ogernents of our social, . econom·' the e~ivot 1 i'~,1i
iO
Jr'.111> •swentbusia5
·- . t "tc, an d it . r
is P<>s es d e
sib Urtngth·1 ~- I
t,J{~ -~
newd tno<"" ... ,-earra h. h · . 1c p "tell IJ ~cVi,e!t l~u}tie5 in the way of a favo le lo iden 4
~ J:ler1c «
• h - ·mpfie5o,-e,• h o"tent tO W JC It entails subJi" . ' Oliti t _
wJllc • 1 . and t e..,. . h mina1 Cal "' IP'ofd' p0tarized around his dev_ur~le and t,r,.<!ll...lt . •
cultural1 instiruuons. . and estheac responses ave become I alter _all(!
;('° cef1l~re,from the spirit of criti:~ ns frornCrid11n
10
~I
. our co!!llitheemoft1ve-r
in
p,.,s;o,
- •
••""""' 0'"' ;o aoY
ou
a·rnes. not least because of the im arge, oi...:.t•o11
of ,beseC
h I men ""fl
. ange< n <he ;mmed;. se eo, ~"'
J'f 11ct1lt
iii!' ated text. valuesan;he ~~- -~
t rnaYbe 11nphca ..,er.nng erectnc or electronic tech te, the 1\1~ ;J.~ jsol tion environment of elect . fr0rnthe ..
roeW)-0 '" b--
1 inCO · nolo · llat ~~il1fof1113 d wtththe aid of compute TOntcdata. !ta ll{
and
tha impactof ou_ ·a1 rporat10n may proceed point t &•esa lire ~o · ao d · rs suoo, t>r0ccs tbc
.,.., ; ,,,.;ch ,h~':::,,.,, a, d quaH,Yof h.uman. ;nte,aci;~ Pos,;b,;d <h, , ~3 f formal e ucat1on. It favo eoestsa . ~ing
~=uences for ences attached the mvent1 on of w . ~s at J.,
, .:<>1 1- 1,, ..ncUOJl O t will make stored informa~~S the f!x'rv...~!Or \hift. "--
~ ~
0 the 5 to ,.1''" t}lll • f . ton av . --e.11tli0ti the 'iOC
"""
as t he consequ tried to absorb and respond to this ntin g or Pti '"""tas r ttef11sroliferat1on o signs at large, a ~liable to itt\d
profound
MarshallMcLuhallh e paint of evolution, and to ar ticulat prosPect 0 pt. ~
Jf pbe and interrelating data to nd tt requi r~rth ~
hurnanlife-worldhon\ tis ;rnposing complex of problems anedan Orient !he
=sures t dat rine concerns m . t he purview . of the hu op_Portun·
0
ati. n
~"'"'l0
premium ;s placed on co':"'~~'
earniog and knowledge form 1:ehens1ve ~nstd
;es""·....:...,""°"
~
to the pr.,, J 111el1100'1 \
exerciseson the eln ~e,.;pes. he has left behind a challen 1?antties.Atltes
f new an.,.,.... . ed ging · sa
fr,.-i.P'
.4!> of f . terdisci.plinary liberal educa1tto~. To an exnderstatldino
- . 0 JO h uOn ts lent. he .,of
r pcY t hard to see ow such an COnfirrnedt hutna.
~
eXpJorer_o . I I aCY· He can be descnb as a maverick h intellect n
and insnwnona _egparticularly interesting and instru ctive f, urnanist· uh~! it is 11~and professional attachment to ernp~asis runontl\e<;egx
·ostitutional fate
I ·eet,s or frarn·Ing' h" •s .,;,•'"'~ rlYfeudal d;vision of funcho,s
theO "tY structure of the l 950s, M L diSCtplines
;:'''·"°',.,,:,;:::!"
"' . 1p.
U.
intellectual proJ d.oxical that McLuhan should have beco ts \rerst · c uhan in the
t a
I widel
r--
...,.
.ars para . . h
k wnaod acclaimed )Jterary sc oar while rema · . e Wortct
P y no ·sted in the academic milieu where he sp tntng relativ 1
1 . me th 8
10
~t u~with his vi~~rous dpurs~ttl of_an interdiscip\in:ryll'e~ded the ~a-
most ..rl!I) h ..... anittes an soc1a sC1encesbe . . \Il\est" . mlllant
h · hed or res1 . ent ey ,.... the u.., F d , gmning. •g;uion
unc ens .,., A a~r after his death, his Centre for Culture and ....most of h" '- . founded on a or Foundation m 1953withh cutting
w~rkin8 d. Jue. tied Y=at the uni.versity . o f 1ioronto , and his . work •hechnoiogyis is ~";" ,senedpartl y thrnu gh McLuha,!"'nt 0 . Tbe,, n..,,.' ' """"'
1,emg . I,smanlittle active interest in . recent years m · t he academic hu a s att . _racted .. ;,,<' :;.ck on the feudal forms of educat.' "" effort,,\oth of'"""'-
relative y . . worth recallinghow very popular McLuhan beca man1ties. By ,gen e~ haand advocates of deschooling as :n\plressed
d. · r
sue;
by ;me?J,of
contrast
J960s
. ,.11is rtant non-university . sectors me . 1ud mg " teaching thme dur·tng the
~ 111, c
vement.Inter 1sc1pmary formations t d
e as by get}ties
a broadlymir
as
. in ,mpo hitecture, business, and med"1a-related fields. In the , eFarts engin I . ~ c;apa
#ntJIIOble of looking after their needs, ando ayarestronge
. correspond·
r.,;omn:nt
twuat
eenng, ,arcni"'uhanisme became a common noun , s1gmfying . . .rench an.
guage, ,e ,,,, d . d mixed- . !s tridentif even_fimor_e stradteg1~~ly important. mgly<;omev.'hat
'"'orms.In Canada McLuhan a vise the federal govern media ...-th. 6
cu tura " '. .
heI collectedsubstantial fees for talking to executives of Bell ....
. ment·
I 1 ·
' in the 1Viin the c1ass1cat10n, f h e mt1on, . and co-ord·mat1on . of da
I
· ., · fA · d G e epho . techniques pose a urt er great challenge for all h \a, theelec-
IBM
US Container eo,porauon o menca , an eneral Motor< Ith ns "'::: pecialconcerns of the humanities : thecha\le " ola,s,b,,tcsptti,lli
o se ' ed that McLuhan's . sense of the f corporate . ti "may . even have made as been
th i,r eresand are not technical problems and to supngetokhnowthe
,na ta . f . port t e valo. .
limitsof
rv
,ecuti,e suite as attracuve a base o operatwns or h•m as the th e bu!Tlan functions- rom the phattc to the a\uat·
e b . " (38 93) rone room (host • h l we andconse of
nzanon '
had beenfor the early humamsts , P· · .nanitiv e-for which tee no ogy cannot substitute beca h nsua,I)'
p et or ..,... · l th · · use t esehuman
Newspapers routinely referred to him as "communications pro h ,, ntionsare . essent1a to e interpret . ive. and communicat
. · wed"unens1ons . .m
"media guru' " and Toronto newspaper coverage
1223column inchesin.JJ964(36,. pp.31-33).
. alone of McLuh "• fuCformauonof human commumty and m .the mtersubJ"ective\e . gi.t.unat1on
. of
d His. faceI b appeared on the coversof tbe andc~\tural goals ( 39, pp .5- 7). The mformat1onrevolution
ll)Cial , thus,with
Newswee k, and Sat~rua y Review, an matena . Y an_d about him reached ~Iits perceivablepressures. andd"unfore . seen fallout, placesthe humam ·t·,es
vast and varied audiences through new mass circulat10n organs like Look ~ith thefullforce o f all t he1r tra 1t1ona\ concerns in a strategicposition .
Vogue, Fomi/y Circle, Fortune, Life, Esquire Playboy, National Re,U,w,Ne~ McLuhan's recognition of the educati onal function of the newmedia
0
Yorker , New YorkTimes Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, and Popular """'' ran into the resistance of schol ar, to the primitiveconten" [ ,i,;
Photograph y, as well as radio , television , a record , and films . McLuhan also
took advantage of the rise of the mass paperback , and published over a
395

394
 MASSAGE I
,HE LfaaER· (PRE)POST . • 11~. ~
, D .AfrER 'I.ion . joO and agency is: (a) a .._ ,
sEfoRE . mica.Iattacks on the monopol I.:~. ,l' Je'1: e)(pJorationthat the revalori·. 1. .._,•l
massine&1· r;;'
J-ftS 1 :11the eJ(tent to , hich trad/ or the boo ,)111(izatiollof t h e ways inopen
" i,ol•c
Whir;Orms zat on
of r,r the .
3"-ail~ a-aid(- . p.ll- aJ1ssi,-econsumers of uniformJy-pa•onaJ edu ltai ~e5·s sense)of mass.culture m:h the <;Jthe""' •4'11ed.tt
1
re:acb = cutfellCS10 be_~ , reiecied by academics in a defe c~aged ,.:ttiOri !,:1(111_,.,.ionof the sem1ologicatfield
Y beO""- O<\eofor >er,c It l1tit •
coerces
]/,
111
_µ). "'ere pO
JeJll1cai} ,
1 - · · I ns1ve ..........
er frolll (he msnruuona norms for th Postu~··•ng
. oil"""
tfP' 1d:an
d (d)
an emancipat
. """to · tr
Withthe tn illd <,f
'PJ, . ..rw:I
""1dt-' ~
'i ort" - ..,,J,tic ~ ,1n
"°'11 ::_ Ualr hr,l(y~'! a
,ct;.,.,..,..i'""",...,...,
I 1 bY pia,<ng to ' m,~ audienee e """-' ·"'11
sernioticizedsocial un~ryanatom
)1&,~or_.,e
,,1llu' h d iverse
~
• d d. ,ri1>1.JtJOJ1 of r11_fo....derestirnation of umversities, a d in new C\10 1p1~1contras~ to t _e eeply root . •oef0r . intrier I . lcia
an
..,.,.;,,al forllls.bis · ,...._:
-or10US ""
d jJ]teUeetualva Iues w h.1ch is then or th e c-:.,~- 1
r,,.,, 3..<11 ·u·eswith their
IJ1111 •
received
d . defens1ve
cnt1caJ Ill\ of drlfli1n;,,_
Ile\ of
f --·•cur.,, an · d h. mann-. -,,1
~ ~?~
izV?- the soc1a1 or er or dis Stallce Postu, IOrla
"°"""'°""
o cu, . . 1 ·mpl further strame ~II'· 3
- -1orarioJ1 1s relation . =ed Ca.I
10hiS •·Introduct ion" to o~derof the or "'<i!tecla Of the t
':'p of"" io ,he end "" acad=ic hu.': W>•h 1 the r,,,,_
uon . al 0 0,, .. - . f " ann stru I~ ion cedprogrammatically the Ugh Kenn:1_,11\e\ . McLulldrr1Cti~&d1tiona1
re of ;nsriwoo~
ru _,e3ue with bJ5P~v-
oeath-eformulation o a classroom . es hav c.
uon · · ..all ~
chat. in rbe electronic inforrna~ Without.. }et ~ ....u·cal moraI an d sOCJal
,,Ano . order need t o face '"' s 1'.
K arUd, ian.ai ' ) 11h
10 <-•·- = _
~
...,.og111UO 11
an I·15 ceno"'1 •- (Side_,. u,e C1-·crOOITl· n1Jheu• llJ s
pract•
c11icll
ca-operates in multiple wa . .. and this the Pro~ l1t Che
ntelllPoraf)' world" (17 ;s ".'.iththe n:~\ant,
cari,,as
of trC:.:;''m,
d
"'"''"'-"'
<P-''

A prop0rtJ011 • outside the classroom and the fi hon

· ti Tfllaoon .
•
•" and p,op,ie<Y ,,.. closely hnked, so a «Aec .
orm
I on
's tit' C::.A
13c,.c::u
•·the technological bi~ .xfvn)
· ed' 0 the
. Wherea
at ·t,e the electnc m ta as ho f age 0 6 ear\yM eatur~of
lllero\1$ ho~ an
,, ~ the .....u\ f ...........
a:~
-1
a ans th
~
ioturne of 111o eh the £xpfora1ions penod and thereafter 1e Je>'fl 1 3), and to claim that they r: ~I features't1~17\). 1~..t-uhan had
fcl.,Uhall-wrou~ . 1·....,that -everything connected with to rejeci C<I
•
higb-CUJruie d
pro\1flCJ3i:,,µ • •
uJar entertainment ts merely vulgar, (I
... an pOPas conunun1cat1on • ·
mdUSt the
ry. Co 1Jl·: 3.,.,..pt~
/ ~ 170)
healed " the prio,-~:"' thet<adit~ '' .... :-
de sp\1tbe na\huma. llla1.1mtze
to
n:ierce- spo,~ network with wh· 8' p.96). IillJ. 6 P· . . tv.een ntstllf hi......_
(• .;,,ch a teehnologtcally-effected resO1 .
~
headan-<o,,,_,~
~
3
came 10 definecU 1~e kind of relation so that • there are n tch all objeci: .,~ ·b'l'ty th t ut1on f "u hca
and aCO'i.ries _ba,-e(ls0p.!90- .By shifting attention to form honon-cuttu ·on of sens• t I _a ~reoccupied T.S . prob\ . rt
area - 111 · S()Cletv ,• 9
· of cultural art1cu
·ry . 1atton - . a multipl
m , · e. au endedra1
O t all rnafYsuperordmauon of the w l.dE\1ot
(IISIO d. b or of h
1sa par~~ It e the d
"'1UXJCa\ IS>()C\
r. al cononu1 . 1c1ty f o {llachinean tt was ound to e ok umaneval re-.ersaif .
we,onn
When fcLuhaD
. ked profane culture to canonical culture
ID
_A ;1 ""'re -serious culture
-
(21, p.7) or that ad , and ~
fieJ.i.
_ProPo""-'
itie ·c hulllanities, with justice in so fe nervousrese,.,,.,.~es
iJel1ll h ·ca1 ar as a to the o~dthe
· •<><Ions r of
• 1. t,\ rnc;u.,a ,.... . . verti - -u ·u·oo t,etween tee D1 potential s and h ny distinct . romthe aca
that u•~ n b . ues create communal part1c1pation in th sing l1sed \\'fl " • • t h l e co •on in M -
~1JlbOl~sr 10
te<:fnrqo·onalbrand commodities such as Coca Col e( totemistie ..cive.But 1t 1s
..,, b no ewortd . y that elements of ntext.s \\ of human· cLuhan '
••"'
· 1u11ons k o na ,. be heretical w,th - respOCt ,o ,he canon;cala h20· p.SSSJ. duadirions.. colla
fl
orate m this reversal Th a of Mcluha _response
h G . e sea h ns h .
is
he \\~ ta en umanities (atbohCin uences sue as .. K . Chesterton . ~c for order llll)an\St
lt"i ,ook an openly techmeal tum ;n T 1i,H,i,.., lklloe., ,';"'• h•
rofession ,.,,n .-o!!llize such arguments as bel ongmg · to a larg ,,..,;
cal rradition of Lewis Mumford . unt'le1hard de Chardinnl N)lldham
P o,, \\-e........, ...
ed- with
- reducing the d ',stance be tween the arts a edcultura1•st
· tvo· d h . I t e late . n the .
coropleXconcernorthrop f rye' s argument tior t h e tiorma l continuity n the other ei serve as t• e mot,d e force. of the renewalofretra
nolo""' · .1. tion
. e\ectnc . techo-
forms o e. · 1· · - . . of narr arts. from futunsmd . . an Dadaism to cub.t m and cw,Cuauon. ln t he ''ISUal . ·
. f .1:iTerentdi courses. the umversa ism 1mpltc1t m the att . Ia. ~
t1"-eaero 'iii UJJ••
·caJ tances and conventions• th at b ot h orgamze. di ciplt' ent1on o ~anarme'sescnption of the ne paper a a ne,, onstru faisin. as m .
the r eton . . . ne·specifi 1andscape(32, PP·5- 21) , M cLuhan found to ad orm of mmu \
. . h nd cut across disciphnes. the structural or sem1ot1c generaltza't . c ;g!riedG;ed;on,. · that mechanuat ;on t~ok command 'P' a phra
wnting a . . . k f ionof f of hofon lustonan "'
. hrouohout the social domam tn networ s o con entional form . TheEnglis tra d 1t1ons o prai e for the mira 1 0 f t e imagmation
truJS r Y' f . allon h
a;d the past- tructuralist development o the product1 e notion of trace T,nn) on s ··Lock ley Hall," Carl le' de . "'. th, ma mn< ,o 1,, 0,;
oenealogy all parallel or . confirm
' d h ' . . npuon of loco . -
an "' . II McLuhan d . s .approach
. and create p<>eOl , an S el\e s de nptton of the mou~esa - ur
around
d it a palitically democratic mte ectua. I an . mstttutional du ter which p,ometheuUnbound. ope of t. hni \ powerin
wasunavailable in the 1950sand I960s. which is more or les reali ticall Perhap mo t important\ , the n2.\o- meri ..
synchronizedwith the widely. variabl~ retrieval and rncept;on cond;ti,1 theory,of , hi h McLuhan ou\d be -de ribed n trad,tm_n ~f riti l
in the contemporary infonnat10n enVIronrnent. and mto hich M Luhan
13) · · · · ~ a u\mmaunono
p.h ,hnt,th tn mCg. ~rt talit y and order. from\.,\. R' han\s:nd";re
(Ell~·
can befruitfully resituated. What the traditional hurnanitie and the human· 1otl roug e ev ntl and onhr p Fr~e i • de,e\ """'
!"-" an m
· re:nng\_
...
ist odal science till need to introduce ;nto uch a pan- ,m;olo~cal
configuratiooin order to a ist the acti e appropriat;on or practical pone•

396
 r1TrR . (PRE)P

discussio
n.

399
398
 E tN TH E MASS AGE
r,.,1A55AG .

s a general theory ofd'objectivation has at 1·t s centre .

kere a this sense, me 1a are not vehicles or a
FTER THE LETT E R : (PR E )POST rs " ·on· 111 ffi · f · mean of
u E t=oR E AND A Moo i::R pr.,eO,u,,icalld contents • or co-e c1ent f 'd o ideology·, in the,r . very
!~~1 0rcofl'I 11for111e Jtacto effectors o ' eology and social r I .
. · age of McLuhan's 1967 text '!'.' N
\ ri°-011of are ipsottheY compel involvement and partici~ati~ at101h1
. . pe,11ng ,rn . . d , 11e .l'vJ .
The rnaJO'o 4-S), highlightsa 1ife-s1zeha'.,d cupping an ea e ~/1i1111 is l'
,°, 11 eY ws tha •uh an characterizes the electric age (in co tn- t e
Ma ssage (29, PP· 'd fa head. A lock of hair, a patch of r, r attach ll1e i0'15 1fo110 rvtc....
the barelyvisibles1 e ~ty'to house the eye add fragments to olrehead ec1to '~;;..i·1 16 . It ..,11i cI1
. · d .
f the earher pnnt- ommated period). ln
ent o• t of a recewer,
n rast to
dirn suggesuo • of a cav1
11 . . ., the ,nassage.?" Tl,e most partial t 1ePicture · · allda ' ~ 91
,11"'
r0t1v d tach'1. 1
· t h '1s ·1s ev1 'd
ently the worldas much f .
sen1101 11, I\ . l e
,age IS t 11<\ rnption o f signs, . .
~i f.1i111,s 1.11
sole capuo • inquires. problematic
··· ofM c Lu1,an ,s mterrogat'
· · 0 ., · 1'1le consumption of media 0C Ul11-
11 consu . . . orre-
displayI,ere checencr . daIby chehand, i.e. . t1,e universe · of man·1 ions·· an ac"'Y "'i'I11 l 1111fll911 ,11rtion , ·a the111se lves tak~ on, m_ their very operations the
tacule. fi1eId dominate . " s of the image ,s · a receptive gest Pllhti . ' on. ousric le, 11s11 e ned1• ('.rl11of the unilateral gift, the massage.
1
The cor,1ro1I111g ,ocu
. g the field o f attention, · more broad] Lile of a111pr , 0
·11 I"i~i11
,~..1·;di''g i1t10. ~rd'S account , '·r o~e agrees to un derstand communica-
1 • n the ,o
11
attenlion. In ,n~pplllwhYwe attend to the things to 1~ than Ii •hect t ,ofoos11lldn\l , nsrnission-recept10_n of a message, but as the reciprocal
. ' . quiry ,nto . I w Heh aro1d
Jnnrs
_ s in ") McLuhan expands a problem 111 t 1e psychology and soWe . 0'attenct ,,ri Je1fl1 if11Pte tra _ (not psycholog1ca\ or moral , but persona\ mut I
( I), p.x~11· d tie articulation of an ecology of sense t· k ' c,01 ., 01101ass • th ua
rcepnon wwar i h t fs , a ing r .,yof • esPons 1 ) then medi. a, as M c L uh an accurately presents
'bi/llY
pe . . d social sensoriulll sue ~spec s o ense as sensation ron1th 11·o,ef1· 11ofa r. e)(C hange ' ,·cation " preventmg . response , and " mak,.ngem,11
organic an sensibility, apprehension, affect, percept, conce · ~e1~ slla)jte ,r:1' - ,, 111 ,mun ' ssib\e
• \except m . the _va_nous . a
sensuousne~s. I e McLuhan says, people cha nge (29 p 41)Pt, rationar Y. rre~n'. 10e 11on-co11, e j111po forms of response
As their rauos c/8~~piifiedauditory attention, especially '3 · th · ll y, ~[ibrrci 11of e)(chfl 1g ·nterpreted 111 the transm1ss1on process, thus \eavin
The gesture _o ~arpoint of view, rests on a posture of total e ear is saidt sses 11en1 setvesfI the commun1cat1on . . .mtact ) .,, A system of social co g_

favour n?parductuthe anticipation of an acoustic or oral n,sensory receo ,.eral

1
na.ture o coded in the ab stract soc1a . \ relations so established n
.b I . .
· 'ty ad1uste
uvc o
r. McLuhan. not only spoken or verbal but total (22 . e.._Which
essag p. i1 tpowe1) · 1s thUSthe light of his .
~r'. a opt1m1~~ MbcL~h~n's µreposition
means. ,or . " the ,a . ' iten, I 1
1 9-t70 · e is c1earlYnot a ~nt1ca propos1t1on, ut 1t 1sequally clearly
" ti verbal caption. . . . ?"
n ssage. ' even a . ; 26 1ro
1111 111
·J): In iact, b etic ie formula-the med 1um ' 1.s t I1e message- tisit echoes th' 1 16
(l, P~iaf1lassag 'derable analytic value .
P
earlier cy ern 25) . lat M L e
. d d ·n 59 (23; see also 24 , , exceeds th at fonnut c uhan ofn1 dwithc01151 , reading medi a processes do not serve primarlly to
intro -'uce ' vides 19 a dual hermeneutic · spec11cat1on'fi · of messa a. Its . doub/e endo 1ve(\lie1.,uhall . sbut to reprocess , an d trans,orm " the factors of communi-
entem,re .pro , ti've paradigm histonca · 11y d rawmg · attention · to the ge With· 111the Jf,00yinfor11 1atton taken past the the atre of representation and the conten-
.commu111ca It re and behav1or ' . a lly, to t 11e sensory massage Themas age With .
. theflwe are. , of signs. Signs
c0nve . are separated from transcendental
,ts mass cu u , · f
. their verbal synergies, of course urt 11er exceed these pro
· pun a nd the
'. .01 . ns
(Jll 00•and abstenti 0115 s Derrida wou\d pre fer, d e-aurattzed · , as Walter Benjamin
ec o, m d. · pos1ti
hThe punch that comes from tie I me ,a envll'?nment . then makes o is. 11 no
sigoifie dsy,asthat
Jacque · · · fima r1t~ a\nd.1mp
is, stripped of mtnns1c d · r~~ated ·m a genera\
t 1e an .1
t'cipations· ,
its gift
•
saturates the receptive hon zons of g oct0
expectatio, ~ould sa•. olitical epistemology , a tacttca 1spo 1t1on, a coded pro-
\~ at\his point that Mc Lu an n s a pro v1s1ona \ term mus of sorts ,
I uon a p h fi d . . .
Accordmg to McLuhan. 1. aoipU
grao1
01 . \t 15 nscendental ends that are \ost to the med ia massage, by way
media work .us. over completely.
. IThey
. are so perva IVe . in
. 1ace thetraature, especial\y t he sensonum: · "A \\ me d'ta are extensions of
All personal, poht1cal, economic , aest 1et1c, psycholo gical, moral 1oreP
their
ofreeo ursetof:culty- psychic or physical " (29, p.26), and extensions a\ter our
ethical, and social consequencdesTthhat thd~y le~ve no part of u~
I. untouched, unalfecte?, unaltere . e me n~m. 1s the !nassage. Any
sonie
ratios
hurnan perceptions and thus the way we think and act (29, p.4\)
ofsense
Id be important to stu d y t h e extent to wh.1ch t h'1s phantasm of
understanding of social and. cultural
k change . 1s 1mposs1ble witho ut a
knowledge of the way media wor as environments (29, p.26). Itwouh'ch draws body, techno\ogy , and social form into a simu\at\On
1
nature,
model Wthe
of penetration . oft \1e ne1•vous sy_stembbYcu \tura l pr~c ess, cadnbe~r
ln massage, everything _and everyone is compl~te.ly ~orked over, altered, . der investigation into the connections etween organism an social
manipulated. We are here 111a world of mass med1at1zat1on , forced socializa- [rut:~;ation. It is possible to criticise ( \ 0, pp . l 68- \ 70) the ideological char-
tion, universal imposition of models. We are past a world where contents o~~ erofthesubject-object identity which is postulated here by McLuh an and
are significant, or even where forms dispose of relative self-determination. :hich,fromgenetics to socio-biology phi\osophy , \iterary theory , or physics
Jt is noteworthy that we seem to have here a regulative paradigm , not a ispartofa complex contemporary strategic configuration. What is worth
productive paradigm. The media are the processes that effect changes "of noling hereis that the sensorium serves, on McLuhan 's account, to provide
scale or pace or pattern " in human affairs (27, pp.23 -24).
40\
400
 o/.F'fl?.R Tlf , Lf, ' 1 1H R . ( l'l<l ~)P()'I MAS SAC,t. I
1 ,,,, . >.,
gf.fORP J\ • "1111, 1
code carried a~d 1mp Oll<:d by th. ,. with an e f1i . Iy 11
~·twe har<:<1. . " ' ' 1\1• I
tfle varuibles~f ~; the method of mformation procc~i~cui1i. It #'
11
t a!I even higher cogniti d1m1:n~i
he sen10rrt.,1'.15 that regulates the process o f significar & f11v, u i\ lh fl'~oflt!1e~:ciable subjectivity,a hi&:c~uncti,,~~In '>u
r r rticuJarmedtU'::ie
con,equence,
sccio-cultt.1ralsystem has no furthc',°~ ar11
referential values and McLuhan .
",.,..,ogjalmyrh o,re hierarchy an interplay o f scn;/Ccordin l~tt11,n1,1
1 ;ell fl/'.'
f0unu,~Ch11n ~
l!I!.
ef'!'l~ei r ifleecmsindispensable for aor,citJ
10I ,r11111lf
tP""1011
Sreception. .
of his connection that Ma
/ ''"n I
COt11:rCc'.tnt
ny htrllltn:t,~.ati<>~lltr
qut~f1,rr11<1t,
Utic th1:/'t1~1t~llotiin,';'
r.e"" r his va u
exagSC(atton
h J d cd h
,tic pealc.o r one over the ot. er. n c ' e defines "t PPo~C\J
s as O
." s the general mterplay of enscs rath • ouch;• th t,, %I
,. m,
!11:t,~
'>r 4~~isill t call attc~tion to the ~~~\' . McLuha 1) tn4tv~~
4, 35J•interpretation fforms and lion• of n, li~c'W
1
•t~,::
'It\ the
f manipulauon ,a er th,1n . c 11<: n) l;eerou#11 '5pccificationi to find in clC<:tlllC(li11an(l;hf:<:el\tion
}llttr 11c
o (;,v,
fC11$t "" p•65)
, . ophetic stance ,s . accor d ing. IY as11umed . " kci,,,rrttc ~ tJI 'ell1s
~1s
·t ro·m·
1ofl 1,oniccommu111~· mac.Jcintcrc.Jc<1191ctie:
cir r inrn niam
P Un~,,()n a,, cultin
Nfc/..u~a~ 8 prmic optimism (26, p.32), to the extent ~;.Ust like -~ . ,,ii eleC11aneou s processing of informa!'Cndent b rote,e, thMtLuh:r .e
1
de Chardlrls cos onetic technology an era f tactile . at he fi11u C~ lh~r~ h~ssirn° reshaped at the level of thll~n in a &l~~he in,tac•haPc,~'
era or e1eciro·l11ai:,-
. i ht that · a pcrro . d or ,"ragmentat ,on, . distan c mn,
. unicati ~ 11 1the '.!llndillg
ir· all
1dy inclusive mode of awarcnc•e in<1ivi<1u
f . •8 as
a1al ntt°'lon~anC<iu,
Ply h r. ,
~~n<1
a
McLuhan18 r g . .. what he calls a visual period is cc, ltnd d on. If ,inoos d r11 odes .o co.nsc,ousness in e· . Oppo!K:d<: c with~~d Corre.
$CC!uerrt1a • J reflect'0 " •
sider that j ust at t he point ·
where touch' rceed· g, thectuch
.18 b ''.1 .,.r11ente chnologres. Like reud or M· <1rhcr cu\tu to the111'.. a <li1eon
1. cu ,..!>'-'fl"te i, · arcu11e \ , re, d ·"'IUtnf •
intrig1Jin8 to con value as a factor in phy ical manipu l . crng ucn~ t i1 fflcnll ,, ference to psyc ,c rganizatio , •••cluh oniina~ia1and
separatesen~ory aluc in classical politica l-economic te ation, a.nu icu iti .., n1edrebCof interest in other context n.h · anreadsh' byfrao. O
d'ngly ,ts v . rn,s it • corr r· 1 aY • ·11 s l at~ 'Mr>ry
spon ' • •d as a general sensory interp lay charac teristic • should c. fl01 eJectron1c v1 age c mmunity. onictim with
. 1obll 1 I 70) . in thet esMel
recatcsort~ nd plasticity (2, p. 100). McL uhan 's argum. of scncr·,I'· bt l~,sS, d cthOS(3 • p. ' sometimes, mor crmsofa uhande .
manipulatr~nh~.. a constellation of similar argu ment t t~nt merits s~r;~d ri1ua11 Z~ pluralistic eros (26, p.3 J) • c rarely , in thnU\tra-ton,.scribcs
ention wrt ,,, . • J d . ,e ctrcc 1uniin I ' <1nd80 e tcr "rva\iv
att '
ove m ent o
r information incrca I h'
mg y exccc s in signil1c,
I . t' h ance
t tht1tth
ll
Ol!g
c
JibC'., I religious apoca ypsc (31, p,72). Part lllctinic
ffli
8 in nisofanultc
llefllahcrc partly a strategy of ambiva\cn IY,thcreareid thetern" ;a-
m f hysical materials. n ,s c escrr~ ,on, t e result is ti . ic move.
men! 0 . P niverse become a fleld of inter face, f bci 1 ~,lt the con, otP111Yd' ::c
ti~ns to reduce the vuln rability thatbuildsin~Ologicahar~a a
mu~tcatt~de l~nC would have tO say, tact ica l Simulation I g ll1 ~0Ucl, or contra,~int of view. What matters mor: ~efutation ori~thetexteno~~
1act1le an · Ii , simulation, . . a mosa.ic
in • · arra
, . ngement where mes.. • nc 111,gh '
t even siog l~/in sistcnce on the question of a nc~r /h~ 11'lomen;~ that ttcnua
hope tact uI s<1geturnS .111 10 ce~tr, e a sensus communis at play at the lcv :1t1 ona\ity,bothMcLuhan 's
massage . · cl · · priva t ' . al organisation: els of bothse PUb l\c and
McLuhan thus brings ,organic .atln to ~ga 111 ~abtl10 11a l clements into ... nod1echn1c n oryorganism
. h ·pin a way that eaves ncr 1er crm sta e or, rat her i . . ,1ct1vc
relatronh sth'e structure of their relationship s. It is of part icui:/ .st,tutes both r extended senses. t I • techn logies tl
throug . . h k . ' 111t ercst ti Ou · bl f · · irough the
closed systeri:t, t ncupa e l n.tcrplay or collectiv ages,have been
asa result, he moves to re111 st1tute a t e ey to 1,,s eco l gy of sense 1. 1t11, the electric age, the very mstantaneo e awarcne s.N
'storical edrre the category f sensus communi.1· (26 p , 06) 1 • ~ th a n I I . I .
I ,ong our tee 1110 g1ca instruments has ere us nature of ow,
new J11 ,:, ' h b' . • · · n hrs d' un . ated a c · CO·e~istenc•
· • •
. :on of the sensorium, McLu a n co m ine a medieval usage of h' is.
cuss, . d' 'd 1 . d ti t 1s c·,t ·n humanh1 t ry. 0 ur extended facultie l\l\d. ns1s qu,tenew
egOry, ""Sa faculty of .the ,n 1v1 . ua fm111 h
1at se rves as the com mo . ' •
. n ,oot or l
a single he· Id. o f expe11 ··c•nee w\11 ·ct' demand that senses
the now - cons\·\tute
the processo r of the 111fol'm at1onr.o t e o uter se!1scs, ~ 1th the category of tivcly consc1ou . ur techn I gies. like our . ~ become col\ec.
common sense ~ts the sense.,t.hat ·?~
1,11 1s c mmun1t y. Tfh1s latter usugerefers
demand an 111t
. I I .
erp ay an ratio that makes rnti
pnvutesense·
~ now
to the common world, preu1spos1t1 on, m?st general rame of reference or possible(26, p.5) onalco-e~, tence
way of seeing of an epoch or a culture, which has served thr ugh the cent .
. I ' d . v·
ies of the commercial-industmt perio , in 1c , ,a tesbury, the cottisl
I f u,.
morali ts, or the Gcnmin pietist (see 14, pp. 19- 29), a a defense agnins:
privation, usuallyas an (dea l norm t.o the c~tcnt
or a f ortiori, a ubstantial commu111ty
u,~t a ~roa d p~t~lic sphere
, we1e not given 111emp1r1cul reality.
,

Kant haddemarcated a space for this problem in hi discussion of ac thotic

judgement, and any attempt to maintain the ubjcctivity f lusta while
avoiding the tnips of ideosyncratic subjectivism must come to terms
40.
402
 MASSAG E I N ..
I Ii\ : 1-.1
AFTER TIIE L E TT E R : (PRE)POST
ource o f t·11um1n
· ation "~s. l\t I
D EF OR E AND Moo l:1\
. i,Jere5 ents representing i,~~s a lcchn· ' ·
he claims electronic culture reject N
:s
as much as he reject~ visualraiionality. s,
the Prop0 1.
:i 9 011
s' vif c0f11~rit
~t9 po'
of view or lineal con~ght_by c,i"'1ue
wn pedagogic art emptoe:tion or:~fully
of'
es~O\\~ati
of the clo un~elfectef .:sight into the forces shaping hu rt 0118
For techniques.k: ~alter Benjamin (see 4, pp. I 57- 202)man Perce 11 . ii!~~ .h~fls -~ both Barthes' sense ~srsuch iuxet~Uentiatb\i shC\lon , a IJ·
~v I•• f th . . . Illy h ap . Or·• rai· ara.
McLuhan wrns, 11 ess of symbolist and modern art a ,dto the p/ 011 ,ii jofl· .., 1u01eo
f
e s1gn1h ect " d l "s os,tio ~er"1, •os b
"n t1 " h· . ns · <6 • u1
of awaren . . . f· , n Po "lle,1 8' '' r~1 i,e 0
!Sv e11 I , own sense o myth as a " n, 1a1of lhav'.n& nina ro 'P-2.61)
and method s 'tselfin d1st111ct1on 10111 the produc · etry t 11
f the processi F I b . ts. In ti , o ti ti1''~ 1,~nsouPof causes and efTects" (29odeof sin,es,&t1if1e~ ·:'rcg~;~,c eon:
contours o R k·n and the renc 1 sym oltsts, he fi le esu le
of multi-e,
5
developed from . ul.,~Jedinsights. It is characteristic of M •Lnd
r, d ·
s Clues letic
c uha , lo
lpte~ gr rnevein, McLuhan insists
l'IPthe•r1
;t 114). t1ItaneoU
s~ r..,.,ationmovement and I t ,It ll11<10 s a'>larc.
(\,Jl.t~ ratio
0) •nd
proced ure habits. t 1at he seeks . to 111 d 111· popular c uIture n s collvi& 10 '" 1un,, . ,r th ·•Css
tions and h.1 ratic intelligence an ts prepared t the b c. vs
pe tica
1 ,.ty are well served by ti <111 interd e cond
. . 1e 11 ep
·
ttio
ofa
components of a ie, of "serious people". In a discuss1· o Withsta11ct <lsic ~ Oprac 1erspective, but require as I •xe<1 or endenee nsof .
·
almost 1ne vitable scorr I ·
that the vogue of t ,e Gothic romance on of ti
·1e c; the ,o< .,re,or p ••field" and the susp'e11d td1
e Only visb\lecia \ist . neithcrs1rou1.
.1osv pen . e j <I a le Poi lru1h
grotesque, he notesby "serious people" (26, p.266) in Blake' W~sconsi;thic ~ 11,eo r in art and physics alike (26 u gementl'Oethod nt ofVi
trrte b en as the quest fior a uni·r,1ed mode of Ps time
. and ridiculous . •.Yetco erect of"centlldyedjudgment deconstructs 1' P,278).o' thedisc · theroe1~·
later and now e/e way out of the "single vision and Newt~Pt1on WI~Id iOt"uspetl · ·
. the 11arc1ss1sm o f the poirltt 1e v·•sua1d.n Iv\cLuha ove"'
, ·, ()fthOd
held the key to t e . on s slee ,, ''ch I~e 5 . ,o h I of v· !Shin ns a e
ht all his life. P th· ·t11P1ic1t e process,throug t ~e open "nelct" rew and t Ce or detCl:ount
Blakefoug d 'ption which won Rimbaud 's and Pro , at I oein.th of ones assumptions by critic"_method, hhe~ef orer:chroeni
Ruskin's escn rotesque ' as a way o f b rea k.ing open the closed ust s attentio,1 ~t11j ti1t1ot1S the category of participation ,~111 g them ~1ngsul\la1nv()Jves
8
present~the gb dded in the "regime of Renaissance perspecf Yste,11 f' ~ere ;h~~negative capability ", and theref~rt . McLu.hane'.1JUst re:' the
perceptionem e rve and o if eats s . tY without closure .) As Ray signifies a ' rs roode\\ 1'11ber
visionor realism" (26, p.266): single ~ certain 33 rnolld w· n (acr ed o
orun t conte){t(40, pp. 4-338) ,_a suspencte .'lliamsreceiveProcessinn
tesque is the expression, in a moment , by a series f Jj~erefl
u reude to the eventual exercise . of an aut\ d Jlldgeme
. nt roa n\lynoted.in&a
A fi nehgro together in bold and fearless connection fo syn,. sarY p I stances and thus deprived of a .. ient1ciudoe Ybea nee
bols t rown • • o trutl 'rcum M L , Pnv1leged ,. ment e·
h. h 't would have taken a 1ong tune to express in any verb 1 1s j!lCl other words, c . u 1,an s .argument mayP standpoint . of restored to
w ~c / hich the connection is left for the beholder to work a way, ilY · I11 ge of normative considerations . roperlyop superior.
a? 0 r.wthegaps left or overleaped by the haste of the imag·out_for I rail . d. . , 111the ,. enthed
afuI .ended, plun- 11nens1onal life-style ,ense of orien._oorsto
h1mse11, • (
91) 1nat1on
forming the grotesque character 37' p. . , aoopeflof hOWto redeem value discu sio1~~nd thu to a mtat,onfor
problem rom the gr· Ost urgent
!ism· . 'P ofa Phil'·
, han finds here a source of
J Rimbaud
, 's technique of vision ,.11 11· 111oraJ yceanstream of .consc1ousne • or in oth istine
M
Ci.,U •
11 .
, and draws a line to oyce as we ' 111as muc~ as Joyce acce rs
In O r . · . er contc
f//u111inations
ue "as a mode of broken or syncopated ma111pulation I Ptc? McLU ha, n sees a trans,01
. mat1on of an llllperso I mporary
. na proc tee"11 .
n1qu es
t egro lesq . f d' .,. d opermt ·nvotvesactive reception a Joyce expresed . . essto onelh·it '
.h ., . or simultaneous perception o a 1vers11e field" (26 P 267) 1 iral Iyt ers are they not my producer s?" And th 1t1np·11111 ega11s Wcike
' cen.
· "M
mc,us1ve . · If b . . ' · . The
I world of manipulation again ~loses on ,tse
artisticarticulation.
ut t 111s tune as a resource
Simultaneity here may be read as analogical ratios rathof
th' as the coordinationof absolute presence (see 30, p.240; 8, p.8S). er
consu rn d 'd b'I'
. d t rrninacy or un ect a. • tty, McLuhan cal\ r
10ee . I .
,,.. of rationaltty, so l ,at visual sequence m·iy n 1
nor,., 5
. nal norm and t 1,at much of what modern .1• • • onopohie
rough thee
,or an e~p·i .
' o ongerm
newrealms
•11
· Y
s1onof our
.
of

the
We might draw further 1·
an 111esbetween R tm· bau d' s " painted
· slides" .
rauo . b 111
scuss1on .1

. J' k. I I and .irrat1'onal or non-log1ca 1 may e •een as features of "ti,e ordm·1ry . regar11
I
s ns
niamin' s dialectical 1ma.ges, 111 111ga renc 1 poet anc a erman cult . 1 . nsbetween the elf and the world, or between. b' ' ransac-
Be 'J • • ' d h kf ur,i 10 • • . \I Jectandobject''
theorist,or among Keat s's, BenJamm s ~n t e ran L'.rt chool's commit· I
, ·278).Tactt 1e rat1ona 11ty w uld thu be a largerr·, "1·1ona11\. y .111wlHch
.
mentto fragmentsas anchors of? su~hme defen~e ~1ga111stthe pres uresof (26 Pclosure, among others, would be suspended. When
visual . . . . Dcrr'i(\·\, wn\cs. of
singlevisionand homogenised rat,onahty. Tl.,e po111t astha .t McLuhan is here deferring lmgu1st1~ c1?sure a 1ong as p ss1ble, it is clearthat the pot·
workingdeeply within a cultural conli~urat,011 that also mclu.des the struc- slructuralistlnvcst1gat1on f the trace structure of languageandMcLuh an's
turalist attentionto gaps and fissures 111text · and the J3rechllan theatre of 1udy of the strategic mcth d of inclusive awareness have important points
1
multiple-visioned estrangc.ment.. I fis c~o~t, not unique in l~istory but sigi~ifi- orcontactwithin the single web of the m derninformationenvironment.It
cantin ourtime, is to retnevc d1scont111u1ty from the multi-cultural archives
405
404
 M .'S 1\ • 11

407
406
 FTER THE LETTER : ( PR E) POST MA S A
GE I
B EFO R E D MOD ER.
" t . 'd 1' 111::.
rnedia ma sage that I connected with the . ,iitelY , no ms1 e, like a k ~l\s 8
statei:ien~ abo_ur. ossible to differ fro_m those _who compare teitt u ~111fl t,t it out only as a glow b ~rne1bu l\c1:.
examrnanon- 11 1 P blYwith the cauoous qualification s O f l'vtcL '1det brollS rings oUttah outs·Ide
ai.e. ' ~nve\o
formulationsunfavourfiaction of such exaggeration can be acadern~han·s ·. Pingth
,. eflector un f h regard tc "- e la.le"-'hich
vention . T 11e take account o t e communication . ectas "'11- N
Jogical and meant~? ce presumed to be asleep or hypnof situation Para. 1 artheS,Roland. M y 1lrologies Otes
I, 13 udrillard , Jean. L"Echa11g • trans A
addressed to an au ie~ need of excessive address to loose •zect by c,:1 t is z. : audrillard, Jean. For a /.sf111bo/,qnnettcLa
. . and hence in I . I n the . ...tu
imprinting . d from an epistemo og1ca position that . 1rnPri . ta1 J. c~artes
,,
1,evin.St. Louis·
. W It os Pre of ",
/// . Te'1111qi, ce, la'" o,1
I •e p
vers. l.Q
I' ndon
It is al o enunciate tus call attention to its hypothetical is PreParntin g. 13erijarr1111,a er. u111i11a1i o1 ess, 19&1 oliticai ans:Cl. ~Pe I
4. york: Harcourt, Brace & Woi'3 •trans. 1-1 Ccono"1alhrnard972
subvert its . owns asta robe , rather than a t heorem . Fmally . . likcha racterectto crosbY,Harry H . and Georg;d, 196& . arryZohn y Of lhe·lr16.
propose itself a p Jly it invites engagement with its rat · e l'vtcLut1and 5. ,, rshallM cLuhan and' Und R. Bond 71 • Cd. Ii &n. Iran
· tapositions genera ' it proport10ns · an d the proportion •onar 5 ' •ty, sinan•s ,,,, 0 . J L'E ers1a d' · 1eM annh
JU ortioning oernda, acques. criture et I " '"gMd clu1, a Arend
1aneously r~p.ro~ outright acceptance or the outright reje . of thew luJ. 6. oerrida. Jacques. M arges de I a differe11 ce •a.. C::" E:xpfoi, t . ew
1. errida. Jacques. Of Grw~/hil osopJ,;ee . t>aris:SeYork , 19~'·A C<isebo
s. ~.,aItirnore
0
more than ;:;~~t~e~estinyof academic reception . ction Whicho~d , and London: Joh 11aro/ogy · Paris· M Uil_. 19o1 · k 011
frequently . r. ct seems to use a complex rhetorical arse as J " S' ns Ho k' , tran 1nu1t 1 ·
McLuhan, m ,atext· to a single po111t · o f view,· · oerrida, acques. ignature E Tl ins Un· s. Clay , 912
. f h. mcluding thenat. to resist th 9. rvfehlrnan . Glyph I, 1977' pp. I 7;~ntConte~~e!stty Pr:~ 1C:hakravor
reducuonf oN ' tzschean,s aphonst1c · · 1ragmen
r. ts,. ana 1ogy, hum ll)determin e O feket~,John_. The Critical Tivifi l97. ' trans.Sarn97t, . ty Spi11ak
ene~gylo . t,ece
sem1oc
. asuc
hniques (see 34) ; and undecidable probes devei°ur , ~nct
d' t 'ons-even on matters as bas1cs . as whether in th
I Othate
oped n contrer
I . ;l/llerrcan Lt1erary Theory Jro11

II· fekete, Joh~- Modernity in Lit

ghr:. Exp/or 1.
1
Routledge& K~.gan Paul, 197S. E/101 10 ons ; t/ie z cltu1an
11
UelWeber
. Lo~deofog
a
ndJeffrey
y of
d1ctorY.kirec I . . d
ly to "live in a smgle constncte space resonant with t . ctnc ag
e ele . a.
ftecorrstrucu ve Encounters with th eraryTheo " . donand BAng/0-
we are I e Id d It
or "JivepluralisticallYin many wor s an c~ ures simultaneously '
. rtbaJ d
rums''
e fish, Stanley. ls Ther e a Te . e_newFrench in The S
12• c 1111nities.
ii
Cambridge: Ha/' in This Clas;ouglt,. tri1e1u,a/All
<>ston
:
.' ht say ultimately, on the Barthesian or Derridean (26, P.3I) . h I "M vardUn· s. Tl egory·
One m1g , d . .. argume . 01111
foucauIt, Mic e · on corps •versity p •e Au1ho. ·
de/ is its own norm , an m recogmt1on of the variab ·i· nt that I3· (Znded.). Paris, 1972. ' ce papier , ce feu.~~ \98() : "', of ln1erprefire
every mo . . . 1 tty of
tion, that McLuhan's m_o~e! , rfellyl
mfg.o~ com~u111cat1v~ and social orgrec_ep. Gadarner , Hans-Georg. Truth a d M P!>Cnd1x 10
H' .
. ·ts referent or ahbr rs u o 111,ormatwe surprises for th an1sa. 14.. tnnis, Harold. Th e Bias of Co1n111 n111u
. erhod. ew" k
ca( 1or · Seab is1or1edelafolie
r,on as 1 ' c h . ose wh 15 1964· 10 11. Toronto· U . ury, \915
capa e of receiving it that way. 1hor ,ot ·ers, rt ·may take . a mor e pred 1. o are
McLuhan, Marshall. "Mr. Connon · niversityofT~ro
bl
s a . On this account, . McLu an s . mcons1stenc1es
h. , evasio ns, unct ctable. 16· January, 1947, pp . 167- 172. Y and Mr. Hook" ntoPress,
h pe work fior him as much as agamst 1m, and one might
Tties . ec1ct. McLuhan, Marshall. "lntroducf ,, · TheSewanee
a rI ·1 h . h . see hrm . Re .
b respects, as finally a tactr e t eonst , ~ at '.s a textural rather th ' in
basic 17· London, 1948, pp. xi-xxii. ion. Pa radox ;11 Clie viei,SS,
structural analyst, with cultural t~xture as his obJect , and , by way of a~~ a
M h II "
18. McLuhan, ars a . Defrosting Ca .
March1952, pp . 91-97. nadianCulture."
sterionb H
A •
, y ughKenner
·
of pedagogic art, texture also as hr~ product. . rnct !9. McLuhan, Marshall. "Technologyandp . . mericanMercury1 •
4
This is, to be sure, a generally friendly humamst reading of McLuh summer 1952, pp . 189- 195. oht1ca\Change ." llllerna.
close to the agnositic spirit of the Russian harlequin in Conrad's Han, but 0 0 McLuhan,Marshall. "The Age of Ad . . Ilona/Journal 7.
Darknesswho holds that Kurtz, for all . his shortcomings . , enlarges th eear~ mrnct ! . 55
2 JI, t 953, pp . 5-557 . vertt smg" Tl 1
58
· e Commonweal
The culture-techno_logy ne~us, t he rat1dona11ty p~oblem , and the structure: 21.McLuhan,Marshall. "Sight, Soundand theFur " ' eptember
1954,pp. 7- 11. y. Tlie Conunomveal60 A .9
form-content matnx remain open an strategically urgent question s to
22.McLuhan,Marshall. "Verbi-Voco-Visual,,E . ' pnl ,
whose elucidation McLuhan has made memorable contributions The 1.8 23. McLuhan, Marshall. "Myth and Mas~ M:~'.~r~u o,is8,0ctoberl951.
broad constellation of cultural inquiry . into which McLuhan ca~ be pre ro~fi a pp.339- 348. • Daedalus88, Spring1959
ablyand honourably welcomed if we are less dazzled by his points of exce 24.McLuhan, Marshall . "Around the World A d '
. . f M h SS Summer1960, pp. 204-205 . ' roun theClock
." Renasce
nce 12,
and more open to his points o access. cLu an , like Marlow , was an
untypicalnarrator of the crisis situation of his culture, a culture embarked 25.McLuhan, Marshall. "The Medium is the M "
Houston)3, Summer \960, pp. 19-24. essage.Forwn(Unive
rsity of
on a great adventure and poised for great changes through an expan sion of 26.McLuhan, Marshall . The Gwenberg Gala xy· TheMak' .ry .
intelligence automation , and major rearrangements of life. As was said Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962
.. mgo, ypograpluc Man.
of Marlow, so too the meaning of McLuhan's writing can be said to lie,
409
408
 Andreas 1fuyssen

10 (1989): 7- 17.
ce·;tssemblage
sour .

~~
ago an e~ent took plac~ at the Wh.it~:YMuseum in ewYork
.., yearse at the tail end of a David
fe"' \ dSalle
dexh1b1t1on
· ' a majorretros""ctive
A. It cam an acHst who, on Y a "'.• ea,1,.,,'" d~ng1a,.,t ""'
Ot\ ..86) of foe a pornograph,oma':"me, " anistwhoha, hadooe
(19'7hie wock . es to painte,Iy sta,dom '" " an ma,;cthemon°""'king
gr.>Pfastest ns I cefe, to was aono"""'1 on , h,,. '°'"'
JEA
ofth•'(he even~ SOLD OUT. "Sold0"' " "'"""" iohi&blockloten
;i,lf,DRlLLAR . the su,face. And !hen, •gain ho"'°"lal\r.TOPIC
s,\tl lly acrossNCED Cimly, weli,e inana,. of fan an"''"'°''
dia&';
ro
1beOIY·
ANNOU
B The
,;,, say in 1999,who,!hem,.,,m willaooo,ao,•
day ma'e~cr't VE _ WORKSFROM1999
• RETROS TO2001.ARTIST
.

neW showNNO UN CED. uddllacd spoke •ho"'

at !heWhit"'Y , and,lt,m,
TOBEA know what Ba oint is !hatwhathappened here"''"'''
I do not ters very httle. T?e 1:,.
a,gument,namely , thatstim,,.tton ha,
telyit mat of Baudnllards o f oursocialsystemthatcontempora~
t s one
a
·nus1ra d ction at the center· o 1 Mac,isiuse"!We,,h••&< .value.d1s-
has ! ~~stinction s~\ ~ ::~ :; .. ,es
e f
' lacedpro 0u beyond the class,ca n of Adomo
on !hebasis~:r
's fro,e,d,ah,t<o_
:wre ~:1:~
tincuon. case the caseof theory
m and mass cuhlt_u , t~e~ngasthesignifier/
dern1s . in t ts ' h amefunctiom d
mo . n value is . name value,t en ·,. a topicweaim Y
. :itney, obv1ousl;, the audience:no "'"\;::tical pointof ,i ew, at
large
• the d unit that attrac Retrogressivefroma t ruwouldha,eto al'tl"',
signdie e will get. t've the referent" uemandg,,tup
knowwhat wd ·11ardianperspect ,ghthedoorsofthemu
· a Bau
leastm n have to watk throu
ould
inperson ,w

411
 DAFTER THE L ETTE R : ( PR E)POSTM
BEFORE A 0Dic~ THE
I-IA Do
. audience to deliver the goods. In the scheme of . \V O
in front of his d as referent becomes so much refuse: "T s1niui 1. .,ould still have to appear in . P McllJ
of course, the bo Y Jess body." 1 At best. it could be seen he reala_t0~ '/ ')'bo)', and the New York y · Tin1e, N I-IA
appear as a large,use need to simulate t he rea I . So, 1f . as resictu
Baudr 'JJ . ItS<!ir
8
, f odyet . . .
p.11
line s M eivs11·ee1c
agazine , . Vogue
porting the_systemd~esthat make him complicitous in l~t ard sh0: llp. ' Which ' Esquire
at the Wl11!neyiate the real where there "really" i no real el capita1~ this essay I would like t seelllshight·Forru11e
8s lip
schem~ to ~,m;eor of simulation express the post- I 968 despai eft? Or 1li's lflediatheory, which in its P~l~~Plorethe . Y Unlike\;.
r11re than a theory of images t1ca1and s h~dden ret
Baudnll~rd st ( that there is no real Left left? Or c r of the I clots 1110rent of Baudrillard's wri . and imageOCiaJ impJier~ntof Ba .
Frenc~ mt~lle~;~:renever took place, that "Sold Out " was ~nusld
Baudnllard ~~e start, and that therefore no one ever came to cr1bectonthat
. it beeftist
~~;erall, Baudrillar~'s texts :·~\:;t beie~~~tion~~o: is a1~!:'!rd'
poster from Is of the museum would now record· I buy a ticklhe Jessclear, however, is what this of referen~ddenthan ~ure,thetex~c~
And yet the d anna h and such a day, I987 . Th is . scenario would . ecture by J en· actllallYmeansd and what kind of appropriat· ap ionsof to Meluhs1mp1y
an' forgOtten ua
tiOlla postmo ern recycling of M Propriation.. McLuhans Work. Much
BaudriJl~r , ~uctheory of simulation, of the map precectin clearly /an largelyforgotten and his na cLuhanfora It is. Is theth for the 1980s
better with t e esenting it. But this is still America , the coun~ the terri10rk are h "th . me for Prese . eory f .
1oganssue as e medium is h tnostco . nt in wh·h o s1muta
rather th~n rep!th "the real thing," and there does exist a por ~y fanious~ry ~,orrnulaof. the global·
village?D t e message nJuresup no m1chisWritino:
· oes B d , or the oreth .,,.,
·ts obsession wi implicated, to be sure, m
deeply · processes of sign·fi 1t1caJecon0 ,,., •or
1 theoreuca1 pasttc11e based 011 au rillard . massage ~ an a fev.
of
. cu ture,
1 . . d "bl t th
b t not l thmk , re uc1 e o em. , o see the ent 'T' i car
•on a .,,y ~ cination with McLuhan sug amnesia?Ord in Otherwo;,1 .or thehappy
,as · gest that oesB . "" mere!
s1mulauon, ou more' than s1rnulauons
. . d es,gne
. d by the systemangleni t . entsnct
of e twenty years later becom WhatWas audn\\ards ~ offer
n
the reaI. as . there a presence, a retierent , a rea 1, 1s • a form of o fe1gn tha s0111ether? e reality? 0 . Prophecy in MCOntmuing
somethmg is , h. h onto! . t aJtog r is som h" cluhanh ~
. I . that betrays perhaps, not mg so muc as a desire f, ogizin It would be too easy to speak of a return f et 1ngelseat stake as
s1mu at,on ' f .
. floss And yet the theory o s,mu 1at,on, which has
. or th. e reaJ, ga
eory an d t.h.en to fuse the timewom a o McLuhan.inth
nostaI.giaFrance
o ·is called la te'l'emattque . (a neo 1ogism . at Its th
both-The
what m d bl l'. • • •
from 1 •1. . 10
e .ev,s
. center . · cnt1que
I o McLuhan from thersena\ va of ideoIogyeguiseofFrec.. nch
. •r, . e) exerts an understan a e ,ascmation smce it seem n and and cnuca 1 t 1eory, as admirably arf ntagepoint f W,nt1queagainst
tnJormauqu , . f s to aec 1 Tivi/ight,2was surely important at ic~latedin John : k esternMarxism
or certa i·n very "real" tendencies o .contemporary . culture , extrap oun I fC a penod wh e ete's Tl
fc
t hem po lemi. . •
·cally and grounds them m the evolution from th 1 ates °
e 960s O
era!government o anada and moved .
ofBellTelephone, IBM , and General M hberallythroughth dv15ed
en McLuhana . 1eCririca/
thefed.
telecommunications. . . f · otor• a d e executiv ·
rse Baudrillard's theory . of s1mulat1on cultswept t he maJor. mass circulation magazin .., n whenaventab\e . Mele sunes
h
Ou ,
Ofo cated f . . fand of the simul acrum sion talk. sh ows. H is unbounded t' . es, radio progr u an
over a decade in a senes o wntmgs rom the " Requie r , as . h O p im1sm ab ams.andtel .
eIab r v 1· . I E m ,or th commu111cat1ons on uman commu111 .tYand h. out the effectsof electro ev1
Media,,
J l
in For a Critique OJ t,1e ro a,ca conomy of the Sign throu e • 15bl' ·-
betweenthe· media and economic and po1.thcal . pow mdnessto therelat1onship
. n~c
,c/'hanoe s"mbolique et la mort to In the Shadow ofh the. Silent Ma;o . . gh
L c,.,. " .,,is prim_anly . . h A 'J nt1es and an affirmative cu 1ture,.. as an. apology . ~,or ruthless terhcould.onlybe readas
Simulations, a media t eory. s sue ' its reception is by no tion or, at b est, as naive pohtics. At the . ec nologicalmode .
ans limited to artists and the contemporary art scene, even though in . the ' · f h d" sametime th "' m1za-
me · h · theorizmgo t e me ia on the political st . ' e e11ectof McLuhan'
United States in recent years t~at 1s w_ ere 1t~ st~onges_t effect seems to have were anything but merely affirmative ~atdegtes of the 1960scountercultur:
been felt. It is precisely the nodt1~nofd~1mu1atti10lnl m _all t~s breadth and impli- · o ay, howeverM L .
McLuhanacy, as some . h ave
. . called it is no 1onger a ma1or ·. c~ uham . sm for
cations that accounts for Bau ~111 ar s cu 1t . o owmg m New York, on the discourse, an d. me
West Coast, in Australia, in Berlm , and even m Frankfurt , where his writin I d ia cy111c1sm (both affirmat.we and cnt1cal) . . orcem public
. . f Ad ' ·1 gs thoroughly . d. 1sp acedh the. cosmic . media opt"tm1sm . so typical . seems
of to ha.e
can be perceived as true to t he spmt o orno s ev1 -eyed critique of mass commu111cattonseup ona m the 1960s.ln this ct· . a certam
culture . And it is exactly Baudrillard's status as a cult figure on the fringesof ideology critique of McLuhan 's work thoug:e~ t :urst~econtext. the
. d. I . . , not m ahd seem less
the academy and the plain outside it that makes him comparable to another 1mme · 1ate y· pressing;
·d castmg · aside McLuhan's soc,·a1 prophec1e ' · that the
prophet of the media in the United States at an earlier time . Marshall electnc age ts sa1 ·~ to entail .we can .focus aoain " . on whatMcLuhan actually
McLuhan. Granted, the parallel is not quite persuasive in purely quantitative argu~d ab_out d 111erent media , media reception and media effects . In Tlie
terms. McLuhan's UnderstandingMedia sold well over a hundred thousand Med111111 IS the Message: An Inventor y of Effects , McLuhanwrote quite
copies, a figure of which Semiotext(e) and Telos Press, the two American persuasively:
publishers of Baudrillard 's work , could only dream: moreover , Baudrillard
413
412
 \ I AfrfR rll : L E TT R: PR.
B

415
414
416
 41
418
-.2
 '>11
J{ r H ll LJ::TTf-R , (PR Jl) PO STM <1
1 II I,
AJ)(JW ,,,
ginalitYor otherness, it
oefORll
,-ID Af1 .
A d esistance- The ~a sses ~re to him p· . "
01 , J\ •·
ofrflll' ·cizingmass refusal a5
toi11Jlf1
:em-
l~f diminished expectatiJi>erconfor
that h
111,ll J

c_canan<1
It.-,
. of refuSllla_n .' i-God- He gJonfies their refusal of aga.,, a . ~~ ofJ1il'collrse, Baudrillard is f'ai~~ - rn,,m, a k,;h%111 ht .
~
notions dence, antifa(th, an\he media. He describes the desire ~ea11i11g _nt,. ot>S a full understand,·
r11as.,.. ng yoffar frorn M d of Mareu critic;,-..
Q.. r,or
"''":''r;od"'"'"""
bY. , g " "th< po, iti"' brntaHty " of tho ~ 11 ,"' ' i11e . and simultaneously a co McLuh- Cluha ~nhm for
:fu~~cle insteadof mea~~the fiction of any real exchangtdifT ere !~~ lfle(ltlll sti~I<.,with this posi~ion nJK:iou,
tor ve re/n ', h-<1 When
1iitPr""" .·he.atcri'-·-
dl"'J11u1acra~~y notion of rcsista ry long. CC~th,-,,.,.,~ion
,or sr- he seesas refusa
·1ence 1 h d d. • as a ""'· ., 110 , • titan
11 I dgementthat t e mo .e rn me ia per se . h Prate . '"°'to
• h clcnowe . . . ZJ in ib· st
basedon t e a
S onse,partrc1pauon.. . . •t and of5oil
1
olithicv1st0nM of contemporary neehagd~rta1n\y
•sap •W11h ~la ....... about
..I\Ut th the
ventexchange.resp d ·iJard's paradoxical vahdat1on of the .1 i rf1 .,ersal of cLuhan , but M Culturet lleared. •11cP enhe
preThe rationaIe for. aau
d Ii nnee of rneanmg. 1s. most c Iearly and s1ence of th
a""' re• J\11cLU ans euphoria" cLuhan nevhatSCcm
h ' "
,•andweare\efi rtce\si?n
asses an of their eS''·adoW
ia of the s·t '" . . . persu
I ent ma1ont1es in the b . asiveJ
c
foto l~fJwhich strikes me as a ~rnes back';heless. A~tmorelike~~th
m
spelled outd JO
. In the• "in the Media. . " H ere Bau d n·1la rd talk rief essaY
(iofl, is better." Technological d end of Di: th~"tcsta./nLes Strate ~-
"frnpfosion of ~eanmg fation to the media culture, compari s a?out thy ,i11o''phantasmagoriaof the scr;terminismr:Ystanchao!o~commu;:
. d" rn our re . tr .
"double bin . s children use in refauon to c?n ictmg adult dema to the
ng n e ifltoa n. ns amok•tran Wtth
sforA_mencan . .
doublestrategie h y be autonomous subJects and , on the nds, on 5olflething h~s changed, and the mmgitself
the one hand, that t e other, that
oedipal)· period
, fof production andFaustian • Prom-+h
theyobeY · . ce as subject is today unilaterally valorized, held •protean1c. era o networks, to the nCOnsum . "· ean (J>erha
. Ptton
connections, thcontacts , ·contiguitY, ••eedb
arctssistic WaytO ps
The resista~ in the political sphere only the pr actices of 1. as th and&wC1
p the
·(ve hat goes w1 0
e universe of comm ack . and&enerarroteanareaof
pos1 r - 1ust . ast·on expression, an d const1tut1on · . as a p 1•1ber
. • tilflage... our own b ody and the wh umcat ion.w· !zedinterface
.
auon, emanc1pa k It be '
valuable an d subvers1ve.
. But this is to o. ttica1
° even superior . impact
· a control screen.26 olesurround·,ng1\hthe televis
unive ·ion
sub.~ect are ta enhaps , of all the practi 1gnore TSebecome
the equal, horperunciation of the position of subject and of ces-as-
, - t tie ren
?biect the practices of the masses - which . we bury mean- 0 ourse.one . could sayfthat here Baudn\\a. d
f Cof the s1mu
. 1hacrum , o the map preced"mgrthenactswhat he P h
mg - exac Y the contemptuous terms o f a 11enatton
. • and pas . and. ag
nting
.
e reahtY, is text could be read as si e_territory.
Rath reac es: t'ne
forget under d f th s1v1ty
The liberating practices respon to one o e aspects of the system. :venthen, I would say that it rather rec cl mulatmgwhatis stilt~thanrepre-
ultimatum to make of ourselves pure obiects b •
to the ofMcLuhan's large-~cale periodizing\n~ w~ato~cewas:nam~come.But
d cons tant at all to the other demand, which
't respond . ts . to constit
, ut
nications as a tact
they °n subiects to liberate ourselves, to express ourselves at ute JO . d ftie. world of contact, conn
his notion
. of the world
. Y,the
ofterms
ourse vesvote
as produce,
, , decide, speak , part1c1pate,
. . han
U a visual wort o ' m Baudril\ard's te
·k· t h ecttons,
rms,the see el and feedba k com-
c , rather
. 1to play the game _any t t is strt. mg o see ow McLuhan's
. grandhist n· seenor themirro · r.
pnce,of blackmail
form ' .
and ultimatum . as senous
JUSt . as t he other , prob-a inIsaudnllar~ from t~e mid- I970s on. In his l~nca\ 61 ~hemeis reworked
ablyeven more serious today. T?a sy_stem w~ose ar~ume~t is oppres- audriUardsttll had this to say about the Canad1an . : reV1ew of McLuh an,
sion and repression the strategic resistance 1s t_heltb~ratmg claim of B
·ecthood. But this reflects rather the system s previous phase and
SU~ d .h . . . 1 ' Every. tenI years
h American
. . cultural sociology
. sec t
evenb if we are still confronte wit tt, 1~ts no on~e~ the strategic b m which a diagonalana1ys1s
direct1ona. sc1· emes . of all
re es
. ·1·grand
.
terrain: the system's current argument ts the max1m1zation of the ends up c1rc mg ack to contemporary A . . civiuat1on
word and the maximal production ?f meaning. Thus the strategic telos and model of the future .21 mencanrealityas implicit
resistanceis that of a refusal of mean mg and a refusal of the word_
or the hyperconformist simulation of the very mechanisms 24 of the Tenyears later,
• this kind
· of American
• cultural soc1·0 1ogy has evidently
.
system, which is a form of refusal and of nonreception . caught. up,, with . Baudnllard himself
. r n~ phantasmagona
' and the Euro""a .
"Amenca ·dominates
er the Baudn\\ardi
. an discourse(enhanced, nod OUbt, by
Whilethis passage is quite persuasive in its outline of the double bind and jetlag an ,ts euects on perception and experience).Fromhi discussions of
its political implications, it becomes problematic where it ventures into a d
Disneylandand Watergate by way of the twin towers of the , orld Trade
theory of history a theory of subsequent stages of the system. And even if
weagree with Baudrillard 's critique of a certain prominent romanticization
423

422
 ot~
commi ioned for the conference..1r h • 1 1
1
Tiil•e~HIIY
w1111
Media RcprecnH1tin of t e )th r' " held at theR,,c:f i:rut,ure
' e11 ounldopularCulture
ation'• ·.
llellal!i()

425
424
 64
ATAL M.
Toward a (nee) rorma1sodoJogicaJ the ry ,r
media.culture '

.1 natltr,n S, /JpJtein and Margarete J, hp 'lte/n

11

~ (¢ J. JjlJJldri//iirdA ,r111u1/ 1<,1141-rOd d I, ,.

.,.pUr- of thit chapter it to offer the btginninp of a for .

"' the"rf
JosU"I --•· _ It"" ·11..,.
,,--- oftl,e ..,. ., _,. • throu-mal •".""'•
- our content ,on .
Th
paperthi,I two of th• "'"" f,"'1-IY deba"'1 thrones of tho med·, h;
Marwn McLuh"' and th,t of lea? Ba~rill•rd. can be und.';- that•I
-~tin" within the framework of s,mmeJ• formal ~oJnuy. , Jn kk.,d a,
y-·
,,,.ke
0 •fll•-•·
D
thl•
• fj •• S' •• t'.
""'"' it>p_.,"' In the worl<of McLuhan, and then pr.,.,,, It>ex on.
-~ <>rder
we""" "'' out ,ne ,mnu: • ,orm•I MJCiology,den, "'
throu&hMcLuhan. into the worf<of Baudrilfard. When under,...;:'? •on,
1;g,t of formal ,ocio108Y·both McLuhan and Baudrillard haV<,lgn~; the
conrributions to make to thesociology o( culture , llaudrillard , in part'.""'nt
offer, a t11dicalfor,,,.l ,ocio108Ythat defin"' th• ,hin into the po,,tmoo':""'
thefin Je,,JJde, n DI

immcl: formaJ ocioJogy

They cometo play freely in themselves
and for their own sake· they
produceor make use of materialsthat exclusivelyserve thci; own
2
operation or realization.
Simmelproposedthat sociology be categorized into three types ; general
sociology,philo ophical sociology, and formal sociology. It is his formal
sociologythat hashad the largest impact on the discipline of sociology. The
principlesof formal sociology rest on the distinction between the "fo rm," or
grammar,of the social and the specific "content" of interaction.' It was
29

428
 \l 1

I Ill I' .,,111~ n o t

' I• I\\ . I'

~~
n\y l)1t 11. ,
ilr,,,s. btils11nultt1ne l/\
nea111\v e
,,ctl cl)' r p•:'ss ing the ·e { ~ 1\1\\y• Pt~ssiv
. . 1 11nd 1111 ci, n,s. i'\l!Cls11\ 0
. n
. sity • ICl's ,,8· vee<.Ir'
l.ly\nll.
of1\I11w ' ?\'111S, \~ m L1k 'S l " . \ \) '\'\ '.S\)! b· \Ve\ c:,\1/:
1\ Of \f .
,f'"" ,m, nnp\
I y
I JSsib\' in (111 ep Ch
b .' "''"' ~teo,e'"'•'"•I\\"'""""'
\ llllSC \h a \\e~es 71\\
,1.,
St\y fl\\\_;e tn\ss\f\lo.,
\l/h\en\S
,"' ,,~ "" _:',,,
\lt , W \Cr i:.y '\ v i\ ()
, ,oos<cl ,o ,I. wM·h ho,/. "''"• ;,~1 '"'m
r, 1,,111·omPI 1ely o , '"1~old y Proc,, ,h11th1t1•m it >
ci1r"'"
e ~on ,,'" ' '":1 hll,\1\
~lOb111.i :•,
· icts f . an ll. eewI.I y n\
fl•'" I""·
uo" 1 oult,rn\ to,·
. ,,,pti ''. th"' • """"' w,s m • ha,, ,·
o ,,, ., '°"'"''~.,,
' ''""'•, .~·h°"'~'
o•., woY, unrnol soultm is: '"'"•m1t'"'' » '•
"" glo I o,wbli
sh th fon "'I'"",,''.'""·11,
"'" r
s.1r11~t,6 Within thi s frm,1ew"of "n f ,.1L11n
bl•Y· ,., m"
' in e,e<.1,
» · """
• , 1,,ul<"'°I. fo,·ms ,nd "oom • "' l'"" I ; "" o,1,:h1'11•h,~' ,, • .,;.
w~!es leau \
°''
•'''.
so~c."" ·c ~ho
,s ,dos lh" e pre .ionis i'~'"" "
t un f., e Y '" the ex1rac1
' ~ Pl,, '<1'i,
t" i,;en"'•
t of\, .\\,~
I is\Og• • • % " m,,\, •• m\O\ "" ''
''r, i• ,1 po · ,bk . how.,.,, 0 1
" ' •l<ho' '""~.;" . !,om

~ 1~. '" '"""' p\\mist . The

~1e"'
Ji\ "'""d r,,e.
·r N
,,i '
nump\
re,d i,
..cd a ,he beginnin g of t ·"" \\ , or :m,1 '"' , .
•Orn, f
lon go, would ' of l\fe o-,,' 1 o, \m,,:"'"' "'• •
" " m\s ~· ~,
-t\ f 1 .
' """" by

\ b' domu,ant . In modem ·, the fo,m• "m . "d • ""'

h' ~· itsolf in aII its cu\\u,a:
e~P,(1/ formal tructure .19It is i11,
~
•~me\ 1.,1~
,an1fetation,• WI\\'\
' ' "''' °' o~~""'°' or'~
\~HI\ lifewo h\Id
e\w,11
r'
towa· d
10 f
I Rt thCab ence O to,m was ,o,
\)O\'l t\
,11 lc,,01' I °""h0oo
t1'atthe ocia I wa a closed y t po sible fort\~oiowever, th11
'"°
\)e

~s1_
'

n,ints of a
,o
t' ..20 h' h · em absti" reason tm"1 e\ \'\
li•IOS"'"' · . w ,c ,s ,ep,esen1od " ""d 1'om" . Fl,\\, Sim eld
t ri11nl principle perfection of fo. as the mot e•t the mere ""' m\e\ felt
,o "' 1 m as ti " reme \ . "' ota \ r
secondly,,or01 \are nece r sary cond'1ion 't ,ef ultimatecnteri ~umination o•• t~
ne
fo''° a way •?Paces ,~rm, the,·e canbe no"' the ,.. ,ibilil°' of <rulh.""
I
rntnework. It ,s more likely that ti,e event tother. wa" , w1.th111
. .~ th of the. soc·,a\ .
resente a trugg I eS1mme\ian
f . IIe between forms .m who' IwhichSimme was
d
yel,merged . S,mm• , though antioipf
rep '" "'clcas do . "'''"'""'
i,nveperceivedthi shift, sinee he , •;"'the po\mode,:~-~" fo,mhod
modernlife. He would have had to' l~aa yz.bed
ve een a pre-technol
\he . i .\ , wou
og1ca ld notr
l boll\
standth• tremend ous changes in ,,,., d .
• . As uch' his opt~
rnediawould bring ~)'
1m1 _life
st1c atfthat tech o\o•}
bJ a11
"""°'""10
11 fol\ n °•
undder-
the
I
of a different reality from that to which
ossibililY h wa ba ed 011 t,e
.' itude 1
P
.
1heemergence o f technology as the pnmary
. cult , 1 r '""re"°"
b ' .. 111
"'",.,.
went,eth
. f century,
d . form 1 . now. constrainsrr uraof,o,m
, e, a reversal s· . in ,t\" .mid·
1uon o mo ermty. t 1s with this in mind th·, t we turn 1 imm d'e\ s concen- I'

Marshall cLuhan .
M
,ouss,ono! °'
Moralists,reactionaries,and people with strict feelings for style are
perfectlycorrect when they complain about the increasing 'lack of
form' in modem life. They fail to understand however, that what is 43\

430
 l' A"f
.Ac1.,uhan shared Sim A I. ,. ()
iv~ta.fll struggle; one fo~el's noti I\ ts.,s
111
co11 j 1g form. In the de is ,tlw:'' that
oPP form
05 1 will appear as ~elopnienis i11a c11\tur·11
~e~cl1 the new form will le conten~I St.1g~Onfro~t forllls
accelerated ,.1,1
osdominated b y a cl1aract llltirnate\Yof
p thefor orl\ ne\V~ sta llleu·•a .
atio11a1anu
i~~ocents
22
. . . . Canadian media theorist Marshall McL 'di'
ro ·and P" '.' "'has
A' n1d10 · mo,;on
beco pictures t""'
." "'Y 11llila·.,m~ar\ ""''·his th,,:"lvtcluh·vis
,;.;"'"' an
;,
During J11s!1fet1n; media star. NoW, two decades after his ~h an was a1 jofl· :r .
• ,,.,,o< "oo d .,, ;n,d
rne a 1iav r to Yte\ . e op
me,. <oe l"q <h., ,,,,_ P0s;" , , e
an h
'" "I "'"'.'"°"J"m"'"" " 1,,o lo"'" weil-k,own and fewoa<h,his , '"1- ''oi 1
0 ,;mo" any in<ell:. h ;om,.; ' •1o;:;,'."': """i:.',;to,.,:~'"
"<hemod'"m" \ ., "" ,ral ,on"P" of "media" and "messag :: ude., , , Och,
his narne;fe~erl ir y of culture can be described as a formal e,. now
111 co
"';d<,ed , oechnologi,,/a l
·1jol1 that the world
•<a
,;'"' Pia"<;...,?''""""'"' :''
McLuhan s t ieor·urn according to Mc L u I1an, 1s
. an " extensiot 1eor Y of nost . . , th rouOptitniSt ards1-1· ,,"'C
Yer
l . or thetll\b\e
ored telev1.n~
r d coJ11!11un1cat1on I
techn g_,the~ is \\Ir' .uhan tnotoris
1<u"' AnYthe
""""';~,of m•dhum'"
• • ,olmal', phY''°~· 1 b '.mg
· m · <hewo,ld .nFo, of mao,"»:
'di 9n dYbecome a "g lob olog1es . ew (c'1 it1.nos \Vou
11 rca " st \u h l
00 . s corresponded to stages Ill l11story,so that pr ·
these extension odernity and, rt
""""P°" '
. can be a1gue
d . M
McLui
0 11
. d , the current elmt tech110 1 1a.
"''"' . &<o,
I ell ' al v' ll , is f
• ',1,uh••· thcough the ;n,p; •ge." '-,' '.' "" ;,;'•
,<,ic ;,,c,ease in th es peed ;"on or ,- """'' .""'
e::
m10~;t1,
~
<o be
"');"' "'~ the
,ochnoio,I" m
d to'°'""ponds '°.pos<m~""'" · cL~han emphasl,o "" °''<Ila Jilll1,notogies
tee .
. As McLuhano 111forrn
d argu
a~·rneand s~'.lage" isbecomin~rlllation
1011 t ~aceb tnad "' or h
P"'""' """i' age 1he,mplodmg o, con<rnctmg eno,gi" of ' tha, "in
"'
now dash with the old O'<P"n"~""' and trad,t<onal pattem, ou, wo,ld
ncet<" y an ,o,po,at<I
<Pweha"1 already e,tend~ " '•no,, < '"";"
•• "<he %m;,. <oo,g1,e
""" sa\\,
'""ib
tonbyby,,'''"'
as
.0 . . ,,z4Jt is this cJash of org11 35 . ,,JZ our se o the WhProce s Wed th e dra-
1zat1on . that deJmeates
M h the Id
modernist
" and postn
1 an. Jiled•a · nses and o\eof of kno . esenew
. . As Kroker pomts out, cLu an I1e that : techn 10der - ,;,Lohan , howevec, did ,ee "" "'~ hom,. ,"~• >illbe
pos<«on. .
. t·on in the electronic age o ogie "'
mu"'"< . . overthrow .the privileged po,mo.. s of com. folth• effects th,t th"e ne the dow.,id "by th,:'°'~' · m""
'"'"''""' oflhe media, ,ubs«w«og a now S<gn-language of <hot n or th, ,.,,,,tralconcern of his caree1·w techno\og· e to this . ariousother
,ymbolic ,,roe•-This is the age of the enclosure of "'.holo ,odeincaJ_ '"d Id and 1es ltnp\ .
f . ~ e a " I ng\yI ~ ve on h L,
v•''
.,,hile the wor may indeed
. b was stro ~ay ha os1on . ·s co
1o1
a.,,;g,,od on,iconm'""' of ,net,P"?' · ,od of MED [A [S<Cj."" A, "e" W<thin v, •
.,pidotYo m o,mat<on tmn . g ob,l,i\\ n '.'meob .•m,n;, "en,
an" each medium extends Jog1cally
. h fromb its correspondin g b od1l
~tensions ,plainednumbnes, th,t eacl •m""°" ha age,'th,, Yh'.' Cath;i
.""' a
Of m
the
t . In this manner a super
.
radio becomes an26 extension
terpar
I11g way ecomes an extensi·on of tiY coun.
d h of the ear, I books
·· and the print media
. 1e foot,
;,d ,ociot(~ l n peehap, w~::tensionbri~~"'•ght :~':
iscourses
clf..,'.'~~:
. h I an " he warns b that the speed was the "' ..,ostabou
s .t in bothitththe . "never e
extension of the eye an t e recent tef ev1s1on and cornput er techn are
me, for McLuhan,
. an extens10n o t e central . nervous syste o21ogies dreates .rnenta b 1 reakdown of vary'at which.inforoc10\ogic . aI ofeMmdivid uaI
,h• ,ned<' ecome the p,ima, •ng dogie, .. m,i,o, isn •L..ben ',
tJtrough
beco the.se "'ten"""' thal cu1tucalforms are reahred. " m. It is C
iticsin the later part of the tywent co~modity
h ' as.vie
_Further' howe argtransmitted
In his most well-known work, Understanding Media , McL h willbecotne accepted. as. the " social . ietb century', 6 1t .wisshared
1·1. bY man uesthat .as
1he argument that all media ha"' as their content another ; ;.n presents Cr
ac<'P,anceo media ,mpact" _ond" ""'i ",,,ty thatth Y""'a l
echoes the Simmelian
. assertion thatf all JUm
h forms .have . as their co netent an. (This
h hu"'" users."" f It is with the c".atmg "priso ng ~ob-limina\"'modi,
form.) rn th<Smanner thecontent o t e novel "pnnmily Jang ot " andthe speed of. information. . th at
notion
wen of the i;psloswe "'.1thout
t wan:~d ,ordocile
th ·
"'ntenl of the mo,ie is primarily a novel, story, or play rega,~~ge, and th,
is about
andcontroversml d,sctple _ Jean Baudril\ard owtom· to McLuhan ""'s most
of tech "'
.influential
nology
the screenplay
. d. . for. McLuhan
"' h , the actual narrati,e c ontent
"' of what
0 of
mo,ie ,s at i,eSI a istract1on ,mm t e message that the moti . a
medium ;,,elf conveys 1he message that linear, print-oriented
reached the pofot of perfect mechanization." It can be argued in ~~
~ P<ctu<e
t ~re has
10
. Baudrillard·
... starung from McLuhan ' s fo
· speed andr
eversal
1hat 1he content of information technologies and computer tech~~ "'.h<0~
rorn bemg
consequences of which are fa r frrnula · medium
the isthl&emessage,the
exhausted
technology. Technology becomes the mediator of experience or ;'" "
Kroker would haveii, the experience itself; technology is reaiity 'I'
K rthur
by a
points out "[w]e are the first citizens of a .society. that has been. easten roker French
. sociologist
f Jean Baudrt'\lar d is
. arno I ·

~
O ard,s theoretical
theorists o the current era .39 BaldI n.11 ng t1e most.influ~ntia\
. social
.
technology , a culture that has actually va111shed mto the dark vort f onentat1onrests on
elec1ronicfrontier... ex the
433
432
 · fatal forms
DiscUSfilon·
In Simmel words., eo
oat.ion l· the imp\et thin,,po
o •
ib\e.41

The American novelist Tom Wolfe Oneea ked of

Th e same
if he .1s ng
. h ,,48
t. question bee _arsha\lM Luhan"".h
·11 d' r: l · ome an im , ;v at
Baun ar s 1orma sociology.. . What if l·t 1. noht
. ? Hportant ~ ng
h onere'™1ii:
d
intothe mass, now existing only as a re "' · as1t e socialimploded
·r h d . pon e to statif
and I so, w ere oes this \ea e cu\ture.'} \ndeed• ~ here
d ..
an opm1on
doe ·itpo\\s,
\eave

435

434
 4. 1
436
 r.TER Till: L TTUR : (P R E)POST M o
6 J"D ,- D(!l\t,.i
oEfOR and for their own sake . It is ti .
xist indeP
endent IY ,·r,
f form from I e t 11a t co mp els B· nabii·
11s i PATA 1. PORM

and col11~trot~iedewch111ent t:I stage. audri 11 1i~ t(l minds of those who believe th s
account O h stage. the rrac ndarie s between forms co llaps l(l 110
tonger plural ; it is singut ey respond to 011 1
add the fourt cal stage, the bo\ s such. For example , Ba udrille , allowii, 1 village is h~n.1ogenized; indiv~~·ude_spi~e the varfa~ne~r the other. ultur .
In this frac ng the forms er locat ed in sex, but ca n be a;,ct Poi11/8 fllt The trad1t1onal sociologic· 1 ahty is expected on m content. The 1 ebis
1110
. '' study r , confor · go al
the free play a ·•sex·· is no 10.n~s" invades all other forms sticJ ounct a1 %t inS an mve~1tory of effects caused o ~~lture can be umtty guaranteed.
that t e
h form " o 1t1c
lse the form P 1 Jay is the detachment of form f eco11011\
• 1 as n,?st work. In this manner it prov"d· by hv1ng with' nderstood as pro .d
of sociology, but to the cutt'u;s a _valuable servic~ n a specificformal fra:e ~
everywher~e pr;." This free P qualities discussed by SimmeJ ron 1 life •cs, I . I , . . e with wh· h . , not only t0 h
forn1a socio ogy s 111 s1stence 011the . 1c 1t is concerne . t e discipline
science an he distinctive hufn~nm These have become fatal fo 1~Ontribut~ Nil he cultural contents on a coiit· Primacy of ~o
er do t · n o ,or · . d" ms u , le1 t . 1nuat ba · rm, wedall as wet\. .Despite
Iong d . ct the creatto r. 5 are possible accor mg to Baudrill llder th nisses him/herself by actually talk' sis. The typical ind" . must hve with
alone ,re • fatal ,orm ar<1: e on the pho~e is generally not inte~:: to ~hecomputer 1~:iual who embar-
. oftechnology.
ign . r actions, are freed from th_ei~ respective i phone call m the first place. No ted 111the cultural has called them
things. signs 0 . points of reference, ongms and ai <leas in which the po sibi_lity of the p~o~: they generallycon~~~=dth~tled to the
When ts, essences, values. f If d . 111 ti ' however momentaril y, with how to dcallar.ose. They willbe utth the form
di s process o se -repro uc t1on . Yet ' . 1ey
con cep nn en es . .d I d" thin embarrassment. Most of us ar eat with their blunder~ dte;oncerned,
embark upon "". n long after the!r I eas 1ave 1sa ppe a re<1 gs form . e content oriented be" n t_ e resulting
inue to functio ·fti ence to their own content. The par act' and of ' mg quite
cont . ta l indr er d · oxic I Placing Baudrill ard within ,1 fo . unaware
hey do so 111to . n even better un er t 11e e c1rcum t ance 55 a . ' rma 1 socio\ ·1
t . theY functto s. 010
re comp Iete ana Iys1s of his work Wl
· · r( · 1en view ?&cald ·framework allows r,or a
fuct~~~ . ceptualtzatton
of the most dramatic result s of the ,. 1 b o d post) modern cult ure become 111 this manner, h"1s con-
ontent, one . . . Tl ... •ata lit J-{ehas e a _orate the formal theoret ical or·1 es _more.easily understood.
At the Jevel o f -~ f ersonal social mter~ct1on . le. I sues of th Y or modern soc iolo. gy can proceed . Hi termmo . ogy entationbe within
. the curtatl1ng P. . n do not pertam to us as mdividu a t e day"
O 1 . which a po•t ,•
a framework 111 much the same way M _can viewed as providin
fiorm I5
t we 8 11watc o11
h teJev1s10
d absorb it (and are absorbed by it) , but h are
s. We ' k ,. 1· · as arx1st t · g
framewor ,or ear 1er soc10\ogical anal . ermmology provided a
t ha b the new an ' . d f l"fi t ere . . I d .h ys1s. However B d ·11
ertained y f: t form is divorce rom I e and we a re h I sociology 1s p ague wit many of the sa , au n ard's formal
en t t The a a I . . . elct · , . . 1
' me s 1ortcom' h
n no impac · thods of human mteractton , mcludin g s 111 Simmel s formal soc10logical work · Ne"tl . mgs t at are present in
o fte ult All rne . C . exuatit 1 1er Simmel
ance as a res · d with m achine . ommerce I la rge ly ele .Y, saudrillard elaborate a methodolo gy that
,.
b . . , nor McLuhan, nor
' can e ut1ltzedfo
a bey . d b or rep 1ace ' k h. d ctron1c
are mediate y. roliferation of ban mac mes a n a utom ated tell , sis of cultura I ,orm s and as such , at this oint ~ r ~oncrete analy-
as witnessed by the p . checked by a software package . It is not u er strictly descriptive . p ' ormal soct0logy remain
rammar is f h ncon1
machines ; our g h "ne in the absence o t e party you are tryi · Yet, form. al ociology provides a strategy for gra pmg · the co l . f
on to speak with a ma~ J 1ic twist on this relatively new phen ornng to 11uman bemg. It allows for the explication of th I I mp e ity o
m In an JfOl • . enon . d h b e cu tura forms and code
reach by phone. u generally dunng dinner . For the m o t pan that guide
. d an
' s ape · oth . human interaction and socta · 1 tructure From
11y~y,alarming. Our basic modes of interaction we saudnllar t'. s perspective
machines frequently~ h this· undert aking i further nece· 1·t atedb y t·he per-
1 fection o f 1orm s to ~ e pomt of fatality in the postmodern scene. \n thi
do not find this parucud ar'th technologica I su b st1tu . t II .
es , a m the name r
are
steadily being replace W1 o paper w~ have outlmed the formal orientation of three ocial theori t
Georg S1mmel , Marsh~II McLuhan , ~nd ~ean Baudri\\ard. in an attempt to
progress. fatal technologies become obsolete befor e the,,1
show how all three thmkers wer~ prm~anly concerned ~ ith the unco ering
When J•
t'.orm • beeomerealit both' in terms of mven · t ion
. an d mass produ ction. of cultural forms and that there is a direct Simmelian influence in the v rit-
1,ecOrnea physical Y mputer coprocessor , which was mass m arke ted in ings of Baudrillard. Form al sociology can be under tood as the search
86
for instance. the 804 b c~ te before it went into mass production by the for the grammatical framework that make the ocial possible. \n thi
0
1992,was rendered Pes:ti:m coprocessor which has, at the time of writing manner it stands as the nece ssary complement to the o iology of culture
announcement of the proper . Future studie in the ociology of cultur e could benefit greatly by
just beeome available. what is important about t~ese example is the code by an awareness of the formal frame, ork , hich guide cultural content as out-
At the level of form. . becoming more 1mpersonal. more anonym- lined mo t appropriately for the current ociologica\ moment b Jean
.h h roceed Cu1ture rs . . d .
\ b1c t ey P . · nd interconnected, consututmg a c 1ose sy ten~. It, Baudrillard .
ous. all encompa sing~ . . h between high and low culture except m the
no longer possible to d1stmgu1 49
438
 ,.,TfR Tf-lE LETTER : (PRE)POST••o
DtR.ll/
BEFORE A D Ar .. ,
Notes
33 For a detailed . 1'1\1' 1\L
Catholicism see discussion ORM s
like to thank JerrY M . Lewis a nd D
McLuhan/Gran, ( Arthur K on the
J The authors wo~lddrafts 0 fthis paper. ougJas 34 McLuhan , Urd ew York·roker, r. relation .
commen.rs an ~r~er Socio/ogJ' of GeorgSimmel, tr an s. Kurt H l<.ellner 35 Ibid ., pp . 36---;/r s tanding MSa.int Mechnofog;h1 p betw
2 GeorgS1mmel, r,,e 21...4 . Wolff( fo,.
YorL 36 For a critical ~n . ed,a , p. 2~rtin's Pres"lld the~ McLuhan
Mo:f e o.( lnforma1 · in-depth d' . s, 1984),Ppa;fian M;,,;.nd his
free press. J 950), PP· · 1 ew
J Jbid. . . b "The Aesthetics of Modem Life: Simm , , U niversuy Press I ~11 : Posis, iscussio -86. fonu/
4 seeoav1d fns Y·d Society,8, 3. (1991) 73-94. e s Int er · 37 McLuhan, Und~~ 90) : ruc111ra/ u ,~, Of this 0 ..
T/1eorJ• C11f111re,t"'s;mmel.PP· 6J--84. Pretar 38 Jean Baudrillard s tandin g Me .
39 for conflicting , a'n!;"'"la,; 0 , 13~'~· PP. 23-44
and s
0
S S11Jonsee
a/ Co111ex,.(~rk Poster
5 Sociologyof Georg ion,,
Kellner, Jean Bau .Ysesof Ba e:,, York· · ICago: a,'· The
6 Jbid. . "The Realrn of Sociology as a Science ., S
7 Ernile ourkhe1rn, • ocia/ F. Stanford Universf;1llard: Fro,~dnJlard's~ Se°:iotext ICago
(1981) 1054--7?:aeorg Sirnrnel as Sociologist ," Social R e
Theory(New Yor/ ' :re ss, 1989Marxi sm I ntnbutio~eJ, 1983).
39orces,
2 59• 4
8 Max Weber, search 7 40 Jean Baudrillard, Theout1.edge, / 9 ;nd Mik: ~stmode:~;~ 1 al theo
Press, 1975), pp . I ?If Mirror of p I) . ane, Baut1," and Bey; seeDouglas
ISS--163. h H Weingartner , Experience and Culture: The p . ' (19 41 for an elaboration · roduc1;011 •llard: c,;,·nd(Stanford ·
9 S~ Ru/(;J'd dl ;,, C<>"""W" W,,ley•" U,lw~l,y P= ,;•/o ,ophy l] 42 Kellner , B aud riflar/n this revers 1 ' trans. Mark p ica/ and Fa1ai
S1111~11e .', 0:0r
5;mmel,PP· 2 J-5 . • 62). of Geo, 43 Jean Baudrill ard ' p. 68. a , seeCha OSter,(SL .
JO Socrolo!!0.1 Je Coll.f!iclin Modern Culture and Other E g Charles Levin (St' tor. a Critiq Pier 2 by Ste Louis: Telos
'1york · Teachers College Press. 1968), pp . J 1- J Sssays, tran s v
11 Georg s,(Nrnrne 44 Jean Ba udrillard · T?uis : Telos ~e of the Po/' . ven Best in th'
Etzkorn ew · · · "' · p (Sydney : Power l~ s/e Evil Dem ress, 1981) tllca/ Econ is volume.
12 Ibid. "" 45 It is here that Krotute Publica~" of Ima~~ · 175. omy of 11,e Si
Simm el ( London · spaces of the "Ba ud e~ ha~ focuss~;s ,.1987). ' trans. Paul P gn, trans.
13 Ibid. , pp.IdI-Ml~~haelWeinstein, Pos1111od
ernizing Rouued ge_
46 Kellner , Baudrillard n lardian Seen ,,his most r atton and Pa
J4 Deena an 47 Jean Baudrillard Tipp. 67-8 . e Whichis dece~t explora . u\ Foss
1993). I 12 13
15 s· rnel Conflictin Modern Cu ture, PP· - . Verso, 1993), p. 72 ie Transpare11c escnbed in Art;~ns of the farth
16 sl:mel: Sociology of GeorgSimmel, PP· 40-57 . 48 Tom Wolfe , " wha~ ·r h 0
Y ! Evil , tran ur l<.rokerSpa est
newton , darwin , fr~ud e !s right? what . s. James Benedic ' sm.
J71bid .. p. 4J. 16--19
18 Simmel,Co4fict in Modem Culture. PP· . E. Ste~n McLuhan H ' emstein , and tf he is the . L ( ew York·
49 Baudf!llard , Simulati~: " 11d Cool (Ne!~lov-what if~~·~ important th. ·
19 Ibid., p. 15.
20 s· I 3 11
Simmel, Sociologyof Georg m1111e'PP· - . 50 Baudnllard , Mirror ors.1 ork: Dial Pres is nght?» (sic inker since
21 Simmel, Conflictin Modem Culu'.re,p. 2 I: 51 Baudrillard Trans '.I Pr od 11clion p 17 s, 1967). ] ed .. Gerald
Marshall McLuhan , UnderstandmgMedia : The Ex tensions of M
52 It should b; noted~~r ency of Evil.' · ·
22 S]g,<1Books 19641
· '" (No,, Y<><k
· discussion of historii~, McLuhan offers a . .
technology in Understan~~ges of develop s1m1lar,although l
mg Media, p. l 9~~nt based on pe:ss c!early delineate
23 Ibid . .
r . Samt M After three thous a d hen he states· pie s relationsh· d,
5 Arthur
24 /bid., p.I(roker,
47. Technology and the Canadian Mind , (New Yo k· .
m h · 11 years f · tp to
2 press,1984),p. 54· artin's ec an~cal technolo ie o explosion b
26 For an extended discussion of the effects of print on huma d mechanic a l ages we hg s, the western ._,; Yn_ie~nsof fra
H""''' M•~h,11M,L,h" , ''" Gu1,nb"g Galaxy, Th, Ma;. ,~]opm," , than a centur of ad ~xtended our b o~ld .1s tmplodin gment~ry and
Man (Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 1962). In this textm Mg LofTypog rapt system itself i~ a g~~:trtc technology ~tes tn space. To!~ D~nng the
' · h. I · f d I · ' c uha ,c
the Jogic from whrch rs ana ysrs o mo em e ectromc
27 r,1,1,h,a, u,,a,"w"d;ug M,dia . See also Mmhall M,L,h~<eed~
media pr n outlines
extensions of man - ~med . Rapidly , we ~;g
as our planet is con a embrace , ab~lish· extended our ceJ{ a ter more
both space and~\ nervous
Floi<.h"" Clid"" A"1s"YP' (New Yo1k,Pockel Books, 1970( woth
28 This point has led some socrologists to argue that in this manne
d<1e,mi"'"" of social s""''""·
I

Fo1 one of the ea,Hest discossi medm

.
Q,;"""
bocom,
:~:e~::t::
extended
':1fit~l~F~•~:::.:1:;
~~~::,f:'Yiii:~te::,:
our senses and o uman society much e y and corporately
i,,,;, "Mcl.,h'"' A SociologioaJ l ote,pretation," in 17., Humo ?,"'
see Jeny M.
53 Sociology of Georg Si, I
ur nerve s by the , . as we have a\
vanous media . ready
(NewYock,ChadesA. MeniU,J974), pp. 195-213. """ as SocW/ogy
·11 d nme p 19
29 McLuhan, Understanding Media, pp. 248-59. 54 Bau d n ar 'Transpare 0'.r' .'
30 Arthur Kroker, Spasm: Virtual Reality. Android Music and Electric F! 1 55 Ibid ., p. 6. ncy .1 Evil.
, S.iul M•rti• Pres, 1993)p J5.
(NewYorl< '" ,,
31 Ibid., pp.23-35.
32 Ibid., p. 19.
441
440
 +t
+L
 TER -rHE LETTER : (PRE)PQ
ND AF STr..,
~ Ill
f'ORE A . • ClD i,
BE f ·nteracung events m which 1I
'tota l field 0 . ~otvernent in the lives of all a ll'len P· IMPLOSION , S IM
ULATION
d ce a · total 10 • • 1 b Othe . , arr . AND TH
pro u 48) and a duces organic soc.a onds as 'th •s ( I99 tc,lla electronic ~edia produce not E PS EU DO- EVENT
(1994:.2 technoJogY p_ro,(!994: 172). Her~ , therefore , we fie hull'\a 4: is~e·
organic ne tribe again t a transformation of dimensi nct the r,/' fal))·1
roes o , as no h . b
beco ,·.,,pJosion ' not just p ys1ca11y, ut a 1so affeci . lit in '"Cal\
ons b
).
aJ ,.,, t y
sacred, but Its electronic amp\ifit~rely_ a rediseove
at1oninto the sacreJ t
the Durkheimian
pu s.

jog~f; as we beco•~:e wear all mankind as our skin' (l~~e/y

refa/1°11 ' writes that ur hearts there too. This is an ag
4 clos:~:au ;
: 47) h · Whe
0
saudrillard 's first respon
Are friend 1
s e ectric?
., 1,uhan e wear o . h' e of'p e Sh I\ translated Understanding: ~~ McLuhan - his 196
,.,c dded that W
havea
·rnploded relations 1p to the 'cold' 1 artic· O\tlo
in which our I ation and meaning ( 1994: 22- 3e2)ectricn? a_tiol\' an ambiguity towards his e;a J .
~Baudri\\ard200\a· 9 review of the newly
therefore, e its oper . - r ec1,u ' critical, repeatedly reproach ' or · On one \eve\ ·B -44d ) -a lready reflects
coniplet . to all others. eflect I)) , · mg McLuh ' au nl\ard ·
ical an d social context of m d' an for failing tO . is extremely
as wed d retationsh 1P ts such as Kennedy's funeral (I 9 9 s Out 'technological idealism' and e .,a,. and for his 'fund consider the histor-
in1pl~ ein televised evlen of this participation in practice a . 4: 335-...7) 1
Jt ,shaO finds exarnP es h . I s it d th that Baudrillard has alread;i~m,sm (200\a: 43), but::~:: det~rminism',
f TV to achieve t e mvo vement of th ell'\onst at taking on board his discussio gu; to adopt and rework ~ readingreveals
r.,tcLUrivalled power.fo ·ng 'an entire population in a ritual e audienc rated non-Western cultures (200\a· :~\~he meeting of Western~L~han's ideas,
'the unJ< process,, uni y1·ng passivity, . · ·
te 1ev1s1on, he says e Pro cess' (le •na forrn . Baudrillard easily co-~pts th'. and his emphasis upo;\ n~logy ~nd
cornPIe ncourag 1 · , . nabtes 994
far from e . the ... group emotion . 1t s 11ke being at a People, : analysis, seeing the message of teIev1s1on
ts. ~pproach
as 1 .into his own ec n_ollogi.cal
3::i~gether and ~n~~y (1998a: 3). McLuhan, noticeably , draw~all gal))eto
d sem10
irnages an ~ontent, b~t,.following McLuhan . yi,ng, not in its transmitted
ogica\

g_ grouP ~010UO s to describe these ?~ocesses , referring to Upon kA. and perception t.hat it im?oses' (200I a: 42 ' m the new modes of relations
b1~hropolog1~l .ter~rnbues upon its part1c1pants (I 994: 336) a ~he 'sacte~ replacement of hved relations with . ), and, more specifically · .
·r f · sem1ottc rel t'
resu It ( 1 not unction)' , Baudrillard sa s ,.
, m its
a ions. :relevision's 'precise
a;aracter tetev1.s'.on-~urnanity as a 'tribe' (1998a: 2) and allow: its 'rituat•
\ racter, reumtmg. 4--S) and as 'hunter-gatherers' of inform ~
us to liv eventful character of that which it tr y '. ts to neutralise the lived unique
~
" ,, . h' . ansm1ts, to turn it · . •
~thicallY' (t99Sb .. ty involves, therefore a retribalization andation (1967~ message , a sign w 1ch 1sjuxtaposed 0 mto a discontinuous
sion of TV programmes ' (200 Ia: 4;; ;; :her s in th~ a?stract dimen-
moo--t)Electric socie nd strong social bonds, an idea cle al return t~ 0
Baudrillard adopts McLuhan 's ideas bu; 1 the begmnmg, therefore
ntes and ~ . c 01n
I · rience a . . ar Y e h . 0
. shared expe rding the 111tense communal very dissimilar , critical project. Far ' fromo~r~~~tur~ them ~owardshis own,
its . , Jaims rega
rkheJJtls c .
. . . 1 f
sform 111d1v1dua pro ane I e, ratstng hu 1.fi . . estivir "
. tes of
u . . which tran ' d' . h , rnan1t Baudrillard electronic media represent a roc:ortmg u~ 1n_tot.he real, for
D'bal societies d fi eling of the sacre m t e general e"' Yto a with McLuhan 's ' the medium is the m p .ss of s~miottc d1stantiation,
tfl . ce an e h . 11ervesc
higher e~penen . 213, 216-21). :Y• for Mc_Lu ,an, bnng~ the same ~nee • of this process and consequently as 't:essvage ery !tandmg
,ormula of as alienat'
the expression
·
ourkhetlll 1995.. h nee his cnt1que of Ehade s Durkhe1mian Tl orn. technological society' (200\a: 43). · ion m a
motion, e . . . . . 1eSacr d
(
munion an d e J 959) for its pess1m1st1c mterpretatton of the loss of e Through The System of Objects (1996a) The c s ·
andthe Profane( d nd profane here are not metaphysical cate ~he
sacre a h 1 . 1 . gones
and the early ·11 d in For a Critique o'~ the Polit;°c
essays · na sluEmer oc1e'.
conomy o1~ t(h199~a)
e Sign
sacred. Th e oducts of our tee no og1ca extension and m d , (\981) Bau d. n ar began to develop the central critical oppo ition which has
u~ b~~ d ' d oe~ informed. ,his career - that. of the 'semiotic' and the Durkhe'1m1an-m
· · pue· d
cLuhan. arg . n ' far f ro m losing the sacre , mo ern. . man , since the
M
commumcatro .. d' veries of more than a century ago , ts investing hims If ' symbohc , the latter bemg a mode of relations and meaning who
· · · c: • , • • e para
_
d1gmattc examp 1e is 1ound m Mauss s gift relation hip and which is trans-
eJectromagnettc ·~co f archaic man plus' (1962: 69). e
forrn~d and replaced i1~the co~temporary domination of the semiotic ~-ee
with all the dimensionsbo ·s for the sacred, McLuhan himself was a Cathoi·
. t h 's •seculark das1 . Ient t h eology influencedin ic Merrill I 999a) . He apphes these ideas to the electronic media in The onsumer
oesp1te 1 monstrates an amb1va Society ( J998a : 99- 128), directly expanding upon his earlier review and
convert and his wo~h ~·n's own catholic, evolutionary , technological mys. retaining his central concern with the transformation of e perien e. gain
I
art by Teilhard de ar accordingly between a celebration of man's elec- 'we have to accept ... McLuhan' formula that "the medium is the mes-
P . J-l'
tic1sm. is c?mments he
veerossibility of this. unified
. .
consc10~sness . the
roaming sage" ', but, again also , the most ignificant effects of the form invol e 'the
tronic extension and t P t god (see McLuhan and Zmgrone 1995: 268 · disarticulation of the real into successive and equivalent sign·' (\998a : \22)
O
cosmos to become closer 'bTty that this electrontc · s1mu
· Iacrum of tle
I mysti·'c neutralizing 'the lived, unique , eventual character of the world' (,\ 998a: \ 23)
1 to substitute for it a universe of elf-referential media ( 1998a: 124). Hence we
Davis 1998), and ~he posst ; be 'a blatant manifestation of the anti-Christ'
1
body of Christ might a~tu;/ Davis 1998: 254). In one reading , howev
er,
3 447
(Molinaro et al. 1987· '
446
448
fill' lETT R:
 I Ml'I 1111
10 I M Ii i .\ 1111
.\ ll 1111 11~
J'I I Ill 11111\1111', I \•'Vii! flll (l ljlJ I· 111111I 'I I
I
11 o n1 "
1111
11
n 1ph r11 I ,, 1\11•
n1111· 111~11 I\:)
'ii l, I 111111111,1
lljl!I ~IW • Jll)d, 11llm11 II) "ll1111p\, 1t~tH lq1fllll1fl th 1 ·t'l1 ·u,\t\
I hi r tor • ' )II IHI not /l/11, II~ J,\Y· ,,1 ~lli'\~ty
•I
·IIth ;itl>'.)'
,1th1111 1i1n~.hu 1
)I lllhnltl'I lat\,,u
,,,:1t1: ·1~, tmn\ m"'1111
,

'Tlw Nh111lo
w 1111
1111t,1!11m 111•
• I
h 11dRO •11111111 ll l M ·I, Ii I11
1n ll l)f\ I\ 11 > bit l!illlll l!I.!'. ••
j11Ktlll ~I, I\~ M L11h11n'ij fl pl ,1 nuc I lh11dnppear~ II
11nd hi~ own out l11
01111drlll11nl
w p o~ll \1111 ''.'\ ,11 lh. •I• ·11qu\, 111~1
'R WOik 1111~1 hlMOW I 111\y ltllt\i.:\p11
;:~
1 th<:lil y\• 1111
rt~'
~1e,ht,1<1I
ll~ / h•1r •l\i:,.;
1~
1
1h1 t I \I 1
1 111 1 ~, t
II ·11111 " c 1m~n t ,if
KIltl W~ ' • wl M •L111)1u1's nOue11 ' • II u~. A t:lll~ l l<:adingho •
11irou h th • 1()7()R nnd •itrly l'>!\O dr\llnrd (I 1 ' w1:ve
()I) l\a11 i,
In nntl f v ·r 11\ of hlh work wit\~,·. \Ml)\ lll) do \\1t1 1llr\\lurd'/, 1:1~: ..\m1:'.~
11
r
. I Ii ' " l I • l ~ nnt\,M"L I I ...., i-:,,u•
ore. n l • c prnport on lo hlR M , 1 1 "' u 1:111~rnd •ve\l)p\ng 11
Ithnl 011udri\111rd '~ r •versnl is i~ot R ~tmp
. 11,,anIsm. It i;houl I be n,1ted 11
y 11 produ t , re-,
, \, wl ve1
M .l~ 11I,~tn , b ul rnt Il ·r repr ·~ Ills the OR ltiv • . c o1 a c1·1l\c11 \ reaction to
11
pon his medlo theory. Thi Is th . , 111 fc mnuenee ot another think 1•
cncc which hns 10 tlnle on e;nii·;; uenee. of Dnnicl J l\o r~t\n an inOu-
1011
ouudrillartl but which plays 'J sign\llunment cd in the critical \\t~rntur l>n
01
app1· nch 10 the rnc<lin. /\\;h~~ ..h hitc·:~ eI nt ~ e in the formation of hi~ cill\c:\I
o r 1crenccs to l\oo · "
tll'C rare (sec 2()()I n: 72, 20()1b), nuudrill· , . .. . r~~m,,y l\au,lrillard
' s Ml 1~ 111 t maJOI'UIS. ' . f
(
\n The 0 11s 11111er 'ociety dmws very he·, .1 ,cu~s,011o mel.lit1
fn, age. and the latter's , Ideas b~come ce/t,'.·YI
h
tup~n ~~?rstin'6 1962
.,auurtllt1rd's emer•' book Tl,r
., ·
0111
th~ory nncI usI . t hts critical reversal of McLuhan. g mcuia
fhe /nwgc' ,s the only bo k on media written b ti /\ . . .
· \ I B ·st' t r .. Y ,e mencan h1stom1n
an te. . ' m, s am mg ,is an idtosyncratic, " w ncglcctell b, I . •II
engag~ng tc){t -: at the margin . f both his own bibliogrnphy a~d ;ti, ~~ ~
Amcnc,~n media .'"'d ~om1m1~1 cati n studies. /\ s one of the lirsl bo ks lo
cmp ha tzc ..the . d1amattc
•d. . perceived
. transformati
. . . 11· of expcrient··t.\ 1 re,1
. \'t
1 y by
contem~o 1?1Y me. '~· it rcmams prescient tn ,ts insight and critique anti
inOuenttal 1f only 111its c_lTccton French theory, timulating thew rk f b th
uy Debord and Baudnllard and their own explorntion of the media's trans-
formation of reality. Debord's debt to Boorstin, itself overlookc<lin b\, .
graphics and in most histories of Situationi m ( uch as Bracken 1997; lappe
1999; Plant 1992; Ball 1987; Wollen 1989), wa equivocal, as, in his 1961
book The Society of the Spectacle, he devotes cveral sections to criticizing
Boor stin' s fa ilure to recognize the economic and political basis of this spec-
tacular world (Debord 1983: paras 198- 200), while borrowing both his con-
cept of the 'pseudo ' world and his critique of media and 'celebrity' (Debord
\983: para s 2, 25, 5, 59, 68, 92, 19, 60- 1). In contrast Baudri\\ard' s adoption
of Boor stin was less troubl esome as their approaches were more sympathetic.
Boorstin take s as his ubject the transformation of society by tl:e
'g raphic revolution ' from the mid- late nineteenth century (\992·. 13) , and its

453

452
 THE LETTER : (P
NO AfTER R E)Pos
poRB A ' . l'J\.to
BB tin creating a ~h1cket of unreafit , b 1,I\
gicJlli!11Pac replace reality for us ( 1992· 3 Y and ~ IMPLOSION, SIMULATION
epistern° I.0 h 11ave cometof'pseudo-events' (I 992: 7-4· 4 ' 5, 6) :,ea.111) . AND THE PSE
, wh•C · daYo · )t · '- e ()f,
sions rninanceto . and spectacular diversions (I 9 9 o fulfil 11tr a.1 ill expenen~e. We fill our lives . UDO-EVENT
is the d~antlYinterestt~;nted, or incited . . . for the i 2: 9). -r;ur d;\) th~ , of experience' ( 1992: 252): a s~it with experience b .
forconare
5 ·planned ~oduced', being arranged ' for t::'rnediate ese Pslli<ln ~ summary of Baudrillard's own te.~ent that could' ut with the images
Boorstin's own prescript' position. serve equally we\\ as a
ev~nts reportedor re[cing media' , announced in advae conventurp;lt((o, 1
t,e1:~;ngor repro~d judged for their succ~ss or sign~ce as i;nce \)~eor (iberation in which we must in s for ~hange - restin .
( 1992: 260-1) - are a some hy to rediscoverthe rear g bon an individual
rePdy occurred, a red' ( J992: 11) , becoming true e ficance . they hthe also drawing
. . attention to w at weak
a grey ar response
· . to thity e7ondhour
e society d images
.
~I: widelyit is re[i% : J2), spa_wning other pseudo~:~ts by t~: . terll1 /ve of this reality, as at various t" . ea m his book th e escnbes,
h in the news . 33)2 to constitute an ever greate ents 'in ir a.pileor 'illusions' of our ' unreality' (I~;;~ it has either me;e\ya~e~~ ~~e exact fate
an;ression' (199J2) as 'the work of the whole machi: Proportioge\)niet'.· or it has been definitivelyeclipsedb2 ~0, 240), and so may st'\\ bidden by the
::perience ~1~9~~eo;Yexplicitly serves as the basis fo~~ of socie; ,()f tlt~~ would explicitly adopt and / im_ageswhichare (in a ~ e recove~able,
36).Boorsuns roduction of contemporary events and audri1Ia.;',(199{. (1992: 249). More radical an::: his o:'~) 'more reat t~:~ ~audn\\~rd,
Baudrillard cautions us about Boo re .s~ns1~1ve to the problem of~7reality
analysiso~ th~ iion ( ! 998a: J 25-6) . for his ed s tJw~ and the· 'a rtificial'' having now passed rstm s'bediscourse
theorYofsrrnu ad ·uard incorporates Boorstin into his tner&in d of the 'false' , th1~u\acra,
e pseudo'
h Bau fl . . d . own . . & sirnulauon (1998a:. 126-7) · Despt'te th.1s ho yon the true and the f a1se, mto .
Althoug ry semiotic estructron of the symb . cnt1caJ not altoget I1er avoid the problem O f h ' wever, Baudril\ard's work d
on the conte:~f :hall , this does not ~ecessitate any viol~~~ · Unlikepr()je 11 q structuralist
. h critique
. of its re~erent1a • ti e real as, although he offers
charact oes
a post-
1 .
treatment
phifosoP.
hyofas both share a concern . I with . Ithe loss of a modee tof Boorsr1hi's
d with the increasing y simu acral effects of h o expe . 11s
w1th t e symbolic - those comp\e 1 .
14_3
6 h . xre~oo~
_er, P acmg his critical ho
~ 3), t e latter s~1I\ come to play the re .; s external t? the sign (\ 981:
~
andrealityal~ that the pseudo-event 's progression mak t e tnedia ~en~ cnucal ground for his attack on th . _s, ua\ role of l1Yed'reality' and
(n rea ,ze5 2 19) .h es the ' . 11en . B . e sem1ot1c(see M · 2
Boorsr . sible to trace (199 : wtt the pseudo- Origin 1' ce open, as 111 oorstm , to accusations of . emn 001), leaving him
ventimpos . event b a of bl . nosta 1g1a.
Argua y, therefore , m their shared critical c .
anYe . .
;e porting thus 'reshapmg ... our very concept
event_m its ing 'new categories of experience . .. no lo of ~ruth'
205),in P~ho ~d common sense tests of true and false ' n(f9e9r 2sunply cla ~:
ecornin
(l;;n of contemporary examples ' extreme 1·nt erpretat1on .ontent,
of methodolog1ca\
and engaged, polemical writing style Baudri\lard' evi . ~nee, ~austic tone
·d use

surpass those with McLuhan De,spi't B d . s affimties with Boorstin

liableby t e · (1992 229) h · · 211) ssi. . . . · e au n\\ard' Ob ·
d" erase these distinctions : ' avmg ' a revoluf. . thu olog1cal debt , m his advocation of 'theoret·1ca1 v10 . 1ence' s of avious
, method-
1 .
theme ,a ception of reality and truth (1992: 212) . In bei •onary effect ~ the death , whose only method is the radica\isation of h:' sp~cu at1onto
on our
. con .
publicity drama, 111terest, repro d uct·b·1· I tty and disse
ng . plan . nect for to McLuhan ' s ' probes' (McLuhan and Zingrone 19Jfo;~~s)es/99~c ·. S),
maximum ' .
d vents also have a s1mu1acra 1power to eclipse ordinary
. m111at1o
n, these aim · · is not ,das is McLuhan
,- · ' s, understanding
. . and ·msig. ·ht,· b ut, 'hke
. ,s Boorstm
pnma_r)'
pse~/.:i~) reducing, as Baudrillard would also later argue co ev~nts (1992: .
critique . .
an trans1ormat1on , .a1mmg ultimately at a fi na \ reversal and 1mplo- · '
37, e;ssuringly intelligible and simplified images ( 1992" 18 ~P 9ex experi- s1on of the semiotic. system. itself. Even if Baudri\\ard an d Boorstm · d o not
ence to r · . h . · ->- 4) ' share the sa_me _Ph1\~soph1ca!conception of the real, they share the belief
.. d more attractive and more persuasive t an reality itself ( 1992. 3' more
VJvt, 1 J.
,.,., B · fi · 6) that something _is be1~g lost m the social and technical advance of the con-
Again and again, through J. ,1e mage, oorstm nds evidence of th . ·
tempo~ar~ media, which do not merely transform experience but kill it. lt is
. ·mulacral usurpation of the real, of a fallen Platonic world , hisdefin.
mg s1 . . . h b , w ere th no c?1~cidence that .' whereas McLuhan reads the Narcissus myth as
·mage more interesting than its ongma 1, as ecome the original' wh , e exp\ain_ing our nu~bin~ by and fascination for our technological extensions,
1hado~ has become the substance' . (J992:h 204). . But this involves
. ere
not the
an Boorstm emphasizes instead Narcissus's death through this fascination
unreality
S but a form of hyperrea r.
I ity
d . , as t e
h . image f determmes experi ence (1992: 257).
with historic sites now transiorme mto t e site o box-office films ( 1992 '. Boorstin's ideas were enough of a threat for McLuhan to make a point of
I07)and theGrand Canyon transformed into ' a disappointing reproductio · targeting him in the early I 960s. 'Professor'Boorstin ' s literate and \earned
oftheKodachrome
original'(] 992: I 4). As in Ba udrillard , advancesin tech" status (Moos 1997: 32; McLuhan 1994: 52; Molinaro et al. 1981'. 506) is
no/ogyonly blur rather than sharpen this picture , taking us further from not sufficient to expose him as an outdated , backward-looking figure res?onding
to the changes of the electronic world with a 'moral panic', charting what he
closer to it in its technical perfection (I 992: 213). The result of these
sees as 'a lamentable decline in values ' (Moos 1997: 29). As a direct rebuttal
processes is the abolition of social relations and lived experience , for,
Boorstin
says, 'we make , we seek , and finally we enjoy , the contrivance of all
455

454
 Tl JI. f· 1 1 r· fl I I' I{ c l I' f J b t M n I I· 1
1
f 11· fi
111
pf! 1,
, N IJ r mer,::ly eJ1p e 11~n ci 11g, n 111 . lt-41 I All')
A i I Hl I' 11
n arrn11l• th at Wll :i ngl e, ca tas11o phi ' d oline. Fil b 111!• ;nc.ere:,~ins ' ie;i.dmg m whitj f . . J '''>1 , 1
M l..11IHI ":'. not a • 1'"' 4 · 2 12 ) · lltlJ 1
to l}oon, tU1, ~ rma11on•, i,aru ct r ( , 7 · , a~ they , r. j nver t:othe hypmh :,ji,' , l9n~ ' •om an 11 1ti I dete,ce
of hi•tonc.il ,ran•: a •pstiuJ 0 • · ~·on 11nd arbitnir y valu s' c199; ~1s1 t() 90) . Al~houghthere aie fowo ~~). I.<) reve, •tie 1 . Qf McLuh,n ' Q "
,, I · ~1 J fo1 en .
rnor . all m_e Jrµ;,~~ artili ia!pll~~~ fli:iriL Y,we n~usl e)(pect a ll new llJ ~ 1'.9?l, wor,,. , ie remam:, a central · fl ce, I.Q McLuh·
C<.;t,1e <I ,,c .....
· n...., <W93a·
,mest our h ll• ter is Jost1v1 th f, 1,ave acqurred th pa1Lerns or a IQ foregro und the elecho111c "'"~•: uence, e:,J)C(:1a\\y aanB,n~audrill\id • late,
but as thi b charac do by those who se is that of the . ·ulturaJ re·1c1·earlie1 · ...~,a a11d • aud ·11· d
co11clu :,1on,are rever:,edby Baud . , technology , but, "~ an. ar wn e:, to
1 ay,,
• tid as pJell • , r,:: spon d ., ' 101111 Tl)u:, from Fma/ Si . nllard. h1,cnt1ca\
be clabs ) aoor tlll 5 • failing ro un erstanu the new . 1 y . '. • ra 1eg1e~ (199\) ' )
edia' ( t 994: I 99 .h n con Judes, rn Id I euliiy descnpuon of our comcn)p . _c onward;, 8aud ..11.
tial growth of its ,yslem:,(~~~~Y..l>Ociety,
m 9) McLu a · wor · chartingthe.,: 'etrd e~alatebhi~
(1994 : _19 • • the new electronrd n,phasis upon the epistemologicat
t,eingtormed rn . en their share e. media this McLu lrnnist cri( co,1. cuits and 'obese' overproduct" c. 32!, acceleration f a\\ a,tatic expo1en-
11
Interestingly, g•t:mporarYetec1rot11 Bcaudrill;rd . Hence, in his sketcl1que of of the media in this processai~~ ~f 111:0rmation(199<x: : ~;~t~\~~·.and c1r-
of con
sequence5 Id ply equnIIY .
well to fi .
d their trans orma llon of the . le
1 or LI effects reinforces his McLuhan· 8 audnllard's empha,is upo,;tie· ~ntrahty
Boorstin co~1 ftcral techn0Jog1~9; .n. 50- 76) Baudri llard does privii'ea1 i11 in term, of their destruction ~~'~i although he again reads the~ orm and
history _of 51;),~,;geand Deatl'. (I rn:~ Jic serves as a , now reduced ;;e U11
sequence of the global village ·, .. 1edsymbolic'scene' (199()c · 55)·ptrhoce~s~
. s 111 eed the · · · e con-
f pJaces, and expenences but, for nau dnllard
. mstant availability of al\ tin,e,,
:n
ym~oltc E°'"bolic era and this n also offers a competing history ofdes. O
. ' t\fs , b
\ead s t o ti 1e erosion of all meanino . 1• . • 1 o scene' transparen.
an tenor sy7,eged reality. McLU powers ( I 966b: I 00- 1) in our exten~he
the symboJ'c .. .' .' ti1.e,e· ~ore,.is · replaced ""by
ie ations
'the smo and participa11~
· . · .n. The scenecy of
troyed, p~,vI 'simulation' of .hum , ' ( 1994· 45) (which, significa ntly has ect
technolog1ca as ',dos 'simuJacra . • ( R ,es
. 1987·73)) ' also commu111cat1011 , reducmg us to 'te. . 1 otI1 and functionalsurfaceof
• hich we serve . . However I. , 1m111a s of mu\tipl
Assau te y l 1e over-proximity'of ti
I db I ': networks' (19-0'o:16).
•;magt~~in~ated(rom the Gr~~ a~vilege any era,. serving as an implicit' c~-:~ of a1·1101.s' scI11.zophrenic psychasthe,e world and m .an e\ecmca\
l°1 ( . • . '
. version
~ n of simufacra refuse~ ~ origina l and pn or, now lost, reality, bei the limits of his own being' the in~· \ ~ 1. \%4) , ' unable to produce
111018
~,story( y theory suggestlll? a w re of th is transfo rma tion. ng environment as 'a pure scree;i a pureiv,bua ~ merged with the electronic
t,que. .o an ,·nstead to tJie recurringr M naLuhan comp 1,ca · · tes tiit·s. In pn·v1·leging ti
the inOuent networks' (1988· 27) Alth I M
• a sorpuon and reso t' f
rp 1011 sur ace of
sens1t1ve d. g c • • • ie . · · oug' cLuhan had beat
t a closer rea rn O fli a prima ry scene 1ater 1ost with tech this (1976), Baudnllard's reversal is clear·· tod·ay we becomethe .. mt suggestf
Excep , h does o er ti no. extens' 10
oustic world e d es frequently reso rt to 1ose value judg techno I
. Iogy.
I d d , most of Baudrillard's late ~
f n ee ° n
·at
ora_I developments, and he dotti and Deha rt 1997: 147), in, for exampr
Jog,ca he claims to avoid (~ene ~balization . Even the view of his work _e,
I.
precise y rom t lt S attempt to push and reverseMel h· ,
· ( \ 990b· I IO 1992
r re,erencesto McLuhan come
u ,m s conceptof exten-
ments f I tronic retrJ f I . . a sion · : a: 17; 1992b: 12- 13, 1993b: 30, \ 17, 1996b· 3S 71
his celebration o e e~ iven his later critiqu e o e ectr ~mc med ta and the and, although
· · f. his many . comments
, , . .fail , .to cohere ·1,to 1• a fina1 cnt1que, :. ' ,,1 ~·s
' t'mistic' is inadequate g . 'a nd merging of hum a 111t y a nd de tru ctio11 quesuonmg o McLuhan s subjective mterpretation of technology is sti\\
•op,
. Jenee' of their ' ·ncarnatron. g (McLuh a n I 9 76 ; B en e d ett,. a nd Deh·irt
. 'd ,s, important.
v,o . . . nd• mean111 . .. •
Ba udrillard's most important later
of individual ,denuty a es all imply a critic a l pos 1t1on, one th at, at least , he . f . . critique.. of McLuhat' , ,, con'e"
, ,, howeve1.,
from a n extension o his earlier cnt1que of 'communication', in his
1997: 72- 101).These.them su esting that Sata n coul~ be ~t wo r~ here, the
would privately admtt 1?· ,gg y good electric a l en g111 ee r (M olinaro et al. unp~1bl!shed 199_2 l~cture '~ he vanishing point of communication' (1992b).
'Prince of this world' _bem~ a_~er e of electronic technolo gy is simil a r to that Beg11111m g by reJectmg the idea that we have alway communicated - tribal
87: 370). At this p~mt hi~p,~ u~irilio (see Virilio 1997) a nd Baudrill ard societies, for example, having neither the word nor concept, do not com-
19
of his French inhento _rs, ~~ of Baudrillard - or of Boor stin - is not, munic ate, ' they ju st peak to each other' (\992b: 3) - Baudril\ard argues that
himself. The McLuhanr st crrtrque 'communi cation ' is 'a modern invention', arising only when speech and
symbolic exchan ge are abolished (1992b: 3), constructing a formal 'appar-
therefore, so stra ightforw ard .
atu ' of communi cation al media, 'a huge network of information' which
organi zes and regulates all exchange (1992b: 4). Thu s, returnin g to hi earlier
' .. . traceson a monitoringscreen' conclu ion s, he says, we must never forget of the structure of this communi-
. . · t to Boorstin for his critique of Mc Luh an, cation that ' its very es ence is non -communication' in replacing human re\a-
111
If Ba udrillard is !n~ebted, ~~rc~itique develop in his la ter work ? In a 1984 tion s and th at 'thi s has consequence for the future of a\\ hnman re\ations'
how thendoes t~,s rnfluence/ McLuhan 's is 'still the best a na lysis' of the (1992b: 4). Again, th e electric media represent both the end of re\ations and
interview Ba udrrllard says _t 18t . . made 011 the basis of hi s own ' more
media (1993 a: 87), but this c1aim is
457
456
 . u"'
m Baudriflald
:e;rred
Ja1:~- \\ ..
...
, ...
ro. Boorstio · ideas ontinue to play a

r·
especially in _hisin~g
In hi first d1SCUSS1on of
inte~
Boorstin.
,edia ·non-.. -. -
0
me remporaI) ID
. . . appropna
. led i...: theorY of the pseudo-e,
lU ~ • •
nt as the
•
Ba exp . . 0 f media ·siffiufatJoo - of the produ tJon of
00
· fir bis O\\D c:fiscUS .00 - artefact (1998a: 125-o)- and thi is an
·
e\ffllS from theirm
odel as serru
in hi \\Ork of the 1990 though uitably
I0
idea he returns to and ~e-"t-e~ as non-events in their in tant pas age into
radicalizedno"· to see a/. ~-e~ rstin just tho e produced by and for the
0
the media.rather than. as in d. ~ iro~y'. Baudrillard says. that 'things no
media. Today" face 'th:_~ ,canetbeless seeming to (1994b: 16) - a dis-
__ n ·-"e place nuJ1e no . '
longerrcanYtaA • dissemination of apparent events and
. tJ·onbetween the spectacu1ar
JUDC • "fj ce·
theirlack of meaningand s1gn1can .
459
458
 t P it t ll'il I ~ll l l l l II N
It I tl t 111 I It I 11 I M I' t II II I N • I M tl t

4\

..JO
 eEFORE ..\ ' D FTER rHE t.ETTER : ( PRE ) PO T IODER

confessions and sound-bites : tig~cs. carneras. emotion! ·~~

are imme
'""'"" ,ea1;Q •• s,o,dnil"d ""'"" (. O<l1~138_. b"' ,.., "no• Mc L°:" ;,
eJocnoo;c,ll . .,,,dod ,ea1;Q. """h e ~,"'ded ,m"Janon ofa glob
O I han ·,
"'""""'"'
,he"""
'"""'°"'"'"'""'I L"h'"
or'hi ,n<di• <h"'Q'
;,,o ,he ;mWation ' •hcain,
pcrating ,;

Jal Ffl"nch

nd n: R utl ii

I" •

42
 , . . .. R .... 11 rn R \l'Rl')P sr H)t PR
I IPI n:s1o ,
,r \• I ' :sI I 111 l'l \l
Ill I ,1J th<' .If
,:c: ( '11.l ·r.~1,111,ll)1 -.v..,u,~
, 1, 1 , 11
t,1: S1 Vlrlllo. P. l I<N7) (. /lW, ' AI' I\ I l 111· I'S Hll)()
I'll tllll S. R .(11)())7 '•/ > • nllon: v , , • I \I I N1
Wolf . •• ( l ()\)(:,), l t 1 : n, ,, I o.
•/sfo11
' l, - I
• •
.""lo
he wisdo,n t' • fillH M,~,,w,tl c,' Illlro/ /.cir
Wollen, I". ( 11),I)). l , , the h I I' "\ 1111
irsh 111 d n: R 111
<>7Q., I ' 111111ioni't I 01,1 . ll'ir,•tl J1\11 l ell~
z nt 'r nm, unr · I
. ur lfllAI!, • (, ) 1111', 1,11, 1 (I
I c1· l 1997) .lt•m, tll,r r1fl11NI
8 1
.
· I
-~ Rr1•irw 17.\(
. , rt m11/, lrtefn I L
'
' • • ••
I ln:h/April):
lid 11: l\p_•
\

h ll p;/1\\ WW , Vid In ' l uh,n ,

,n Fnt n ' i ' · ·' H •,\I II .Ired

ulf Wur',

f inno and the

vii dem n r th

Lulw11
,

it11atio11istlnternatio11al ;11"

n: Methuen.

m Hou e f

6
464
 IJI I p,cl ANIJ Al 1 Hll I Ill ' J, l! 'I I H I( Cl'ltl ' ) l' O S' I M1J1>1 11 N

66
RI AR
M ·L HAN & BA
N tes 11 the disca matc , simulati , :;
and tetrad s

Joe Gell/Jo

11
!ir1111i:c •f I (1 ) )1/: 1()1 101,
, Md ,11!11111.'l/llrllt
 BEFORE. A DAFTER nH ! LETTER ; (PRE1POSiMODf I!

1truaure of para.llelfwithout otJViousc0nne:'ion. McLuha.~·s epi~ol~y

ated on the fe\'el of ..homowgid." ~th ,mase a.nd_reality:1retwins that
oper: • .... on··-~d u,wards their transfonnat1on. It 15 McLuhan'
constant Y 1mpe .... ........,
1 modef
·.-.· O fth ..... d
1 that is so central to the heun,.. ,c •
homological e .....ra ·
If we apply the r.etradto sinndations "'.'eca.na,k some relevant questions
aJ,out the c0g11itivc processesthat are l,elnge."r.en~ by our technology, If
simulations enhance a.disca.rnatCe,ustence of_mten~ mvolvement and ironic
distanci ng, what do tbef retfiev&.What do simu~uons obsOI~? What do
simulations wm into when p115hedto an extrem~-These questio."s are to be
vieWeda5 the beginning of a provisional analys,s; rna~Y of the ideas sener-
ated will be self-contradictory, but they are a useful a,d to the study of the

media and it5 effects.

Enhances: Extension of bOdY, parody, irony . postmodemity , Baudrillard Jean s · Works cited
McLuhan, 'Marsha;rulalio111. 'ew YOf\- .
recombinant sryle. Pocket Books tndWilfred W-~eJ , \~J
Retrieves : Tribal bricofage . Eclecticism Molinaro , Mat~, 197
Corin · From Cliche IO· A.rdie,
Flips : Erasure of body, makes power structures more tran spa rent, Toronto : Oxford P.7:cLuhan and William 1i , ~ . Se,, Yor,c:
• OOJe.Letters of M arJha!IMd..uhan.
and intervention more plausible. .
ObsDJesces: Private identity, the idea of author ship.

1. Simulations enhance the i,ody t~rough ?tension and ~uplication . and

transform it into a phantom body. This body IS ~ _the same time a parody of
the real body and an ironic restatement of the onginal.
2. When pushed to an extreme. simulations contribute to the virtual
disappearance of the body through teehnological colonization and erasure.
3. Simulation s make obsolete the distinction between private/public , and
subject/object. Simulations militate against the idea of author ship. One of
the interestingeffects of living within a simulated environment is the chal-
lenge that it makes to older notions of authorship and subjectivity . These are
modernist terms rooted in ideas of creativity that emphasize that the " new "
the "authentic," and the "o riginal" are a matter of subjective interventi~n
and affirmation . Simulations shake these very concepts to their foundation s.
In a cultural environment where reproduction and image proliferation reach
new order of possibility, simulations make possible notions of creativity that
emphasize recombination and execution rather than invention.
4. Simulations retrieve an eclectic approach. Jt reclaims a form of tribal
bric-0/age now associated with aleatory writing, pastiche and parody, and
which we currently subsume under the term "postmodernism ."
5. Simulations enhance the play of surfaces and styles. Deliberate cultiva-
tion of surface is evident in the "historicism" of postmodern architecture
which shufflesand staples together shards of distinct historical periods . All
styles are to be recycled. The postmodern sty le is one that raids and ransack s
the great data bank of art history with increasing playfulness. Simulations
enhance a recombinant approach to creativity.
41\
470