Marshall McLuhan’s chief acolyte Mark Federman takes me to task for believing this is the best of all possible worlds, our political system (“representational democracy”, whatever that is) can’t be improved, and that technology only advances by intended consequences. I don’t get the whole “Global Village” thing, in other words.
I really do hope that the people who build these strawmen out of my observations enjoy ripping them apart as much as I enjoy laughing at them, because the prospect of professors of English and Mass Media explaining technical progress in networking to someone who’s been making it happen for 25 years is pretty hilarious, you have to admit.
I certainly don’t deny that tools, policies, and initiatives have unintended consequences; I’ve spent way too much time combating these in the legislature not to know that. But I also know that these things also have some clearly intended consequences, and that nobody embarks on a tool-building exercise without some idea of where he’s going and why he wants to go there. I don’t just start up Visual C and turn the keyboard over to an infinite number of monkeys, and neither does any other technology dude. And while we don’t have omniscience about all the long-term effects of our work, we do have crisp specification in hand before we start laying code, for the most part. That’s how progress works: you get an idea, flesh it out, and then lay some code and see how it works. Brownian motion just isn’t a good methodology.
I liked McLuhan when I read his books (you know, those old-fashioned paper things with black marks on them) 30 years ago; they were provocative and challenging, but now that they’ve been fossilized into a religion, I doubt McLuhan himself would have much use for the causes to which they’ve been yoked. Best to strive for you own vision than to spend your life erecting monuments to dead guys.
And to you, Mr. Bennett, better to strive to have vision than to proceed through life with your eyes unfortunately closed.
Despite the myriad of factual errors made, in your comment, understandably, through your own ignorance, you miss the point by standing fast on a point of view. This is entirely not useful. But then again, most people who simply read McLuhan without thought believe they acquire an understanding and an insight. They then check it off on their reading list and promptly return to their pre-conceived notions. And yes, sometimes they even believe they have found a “fossilized religion.” That too, is sad behaviour among the so-called acolytes, an appelation that I most vehemently shun.
Much to your surprise, I imagine, McLuhan thinking (note: thinking, not doctraine) is being applied today to business, government policy, social issues, theology, engineering, architecture, legal mediation and many other disciplines. It is not merely the regurgitation of McLuhan’s writings, but the application of techniques of acute awareness.
We hear that drive-by shootings are popular down there in California, and you, Mr. Bennett, perpetuate this notion, much to the detriment of reasonable examinations of the status quo. (Did you follow that? If not, I can speak slower.)
But more to the point: If you would cease the narcissistic examination of your own “omphalos,” you may well see that the mere existance of an institution does not make it optimal. The fact is that institutions, like society, must evolve. Those who are aware of the evolution of society must take the responsibility to explore the possibilities and guide social and institutional change. Otherwise we will be left to the devices of the lowest-common-denominator mentality that seems to pervade policy in the once-great, and now in obsolescence (look it up, Mr. Bennett: McLuhan and McLuhan, “Laws of Media – The New Science”), country of yours.
And one specific fact correction: I am neither a professor of English or Mass Media. I worked 25 years in the Information Technology industry in just about every area of business endeavour, before re-entering the academy. My area of specialization is getting the people who sleep-walk through life believing that what exists today is “the best” and needs little change to wake up and realize the ground-effects. In last years of my direct involvement with business and government, this was, unfortunately, the sad state of affairs that motivated me to find a new approach.
I see you’re holding fast to your point of view, so let me state mine clearly for you: I’ve never met anyone who believed this is the best of all possible worlds, nor have I met anyone who believes that the American system of government is the best of all possible governments. I don’t believe the institutions we have today are optimal for the kind of society we have today, nor have they ever been.
Government, in a democratic society, takes the shape that the people wish it to have. As the people wish different things at different times, government changes. Because the public are whimsical, the government changes more slowly than the public. This is good.
Technocrats hold no special brief with respect to reforming government, nor should they. Direct democracy is neither practical nor desirable. McLuhan was not a scientist, and his ideas, while often provocative, are not truth, they’re simply ideas, and many of them are demonstrably wrong. The same could be said of Jesus, Buddha, and James Madison.
We argue and debate, and from that we make progress. Debate is most effective when you take the time to understand what your opponent is saying. Try it, you might like it.