P art 3

o r e a n d a f t e r THR

e t E R ; (P r E '>p o s ™ o d e e n
 59

S H A L L M c L U H a n

F r e n c h s t r u c t u r e s

J a m e s M . C u rtis

.,1(0(1972): I* - ' 46

„ McLuhan and the French Structuralists have attracts

,,a0hall * * d hostile cntics have used this fact as a 'Mde
^ ! r » t t e ^ " ‘ fads. But no one has mentioned the similaritiesm
^he<faSn I the men involved have such different in teH ec tu T v ^
owe their intellectual
' Je M cLuhan’s synthesizing capacities bear nofabel f o r ^ E
V ° * r « l e som ething from most o f the major names in n v e m ^ t
$U P a m this essay. 1 wish to deal with McLuhan prim arilvt
f£rv E t ; structuralists. Lucien Goldmann and Roland Banhes.
J > 10 Ma r xi s m and Barthes' use of Saussurean linguistics make them
> * nn Sl,atives of the two major tendencies of Structuralist thought
L
^1 rePresenhey work in literary criticism. McLuhans original discipline
. rthenaore- * in the preface to The Interior Landscape. an anthology of
E ^ ricism his thought derives ultimately from the training which
^ literary & ^ b r i d g e from I.A. Richards and F.R. Leavis. Thus, his
* recent a_ ns )ie in New Criticism, and to compare him with the Struc-
..niledual ong'iiates some understanding of the historical relationship
"T rnt.cism and Structuralism.
5S»een can cau ciQse textual analysis comes to mind when one
Little that one {exts Qf modern French criticism, in which academic
0 s of t*ie.|m J j1|cai fSartre). and cultural (Malraux) tendencies have
Union). Phl when interest in close reading began in the fifties, it
^minated. analogous to those who had received similar atten-
ixxentrated on AmericTa in the twenties and thirties. Thus, recent
nonin Enga". p | an(j Racine corresponds to earlier work on Donne
french interes ^ ^ New Critics More specifically, the analytical
for’ Racine and Shakespeare bear striking similarities Eliot

365
 iA
inadequately researched book v
ETTER (PRE)POSTMODE RN ‘ -uP^ Fie"' ^ ' rror' Donald Thea" writes
and after rHE 1 H
*P,£ A
4 ^[McT“han) snov*>"... r i nr *
ohanl Sh0^ o..h“
ms works anv I ? 1 as
Works anv Marx is
as Ma
BEFORE A who!e of Shakespeare'sS work
Work u V 1 It and its relevance for his particular$ £ * * * for « i
. hn Ford" ,hJ„ ,his sense, not the poetry of isolule . ""e the erroneous charge of determinism
,n A is the pOCEO of ‘‘f the single figures which he created > °fving i,b rll to M cLuhan s explanation of his disdab. r ' ^not
Poem; 3 1-es or the P ° f 0 M, uron shocked the French (Raymond p j * * l‘\ t us tu assessment ol the failure of Marxism in tw Marx' an
and pas^F Vet Charles Via ^ mus, read “ the entire works of r.. rJ his analysis most untimely on the machW
matters nK e jn 196 th variations of a single dramatic * ne ^ ,£ b .,-r imploswe forms began to reverse t h ^ 1 tasthe
11 ^ ^ m u --' — «•« impression of b e l i e f * ' f 'X > 0,J er words. M arxism committed itself lo ^ ^ an,ca'
,iU ^ ? ^ d the French "™Zork forms a whole. " 'Unity, ^ K - m o*'ie of content in the E.nsteinian age of form R ^ ar"ca'-
a" on . ” ered the concept tha common device of all the new critics, o ' W n »niV McLuhan says: eternn8 to
!hev disc ( heheve ,hat this « „ vvrites Serge Doubrovsky. appa^ °r'
coherence ^ ( common P°s t ‘
Z dev ice
h New critics as well.' Arguins „ y
theatre , there are only s i t u f ^
y
^ fl,nVisUC
' , study has finally turned to the medium Of la n g u a g e ,^
rtime' arrangements of daily life, so that society heoir,
-Thereare no characters m the R ^ eve ryth in g derives ns being rroni j S
linguistic echo or repeat of language norms, a S t k «
•^ almost formal scnse o of strengths and weaknesses." Barth* »s ; like a 1,nfhe Russian Communist party very deeply. Wedded1
J n the general c ritic a l emphasis from isolates to pattern^ ^ d istur nineteenth-century industrial technology as the basis of
P hed in OnRacmc. V>shift that G. Wilson Knight did the sunie
»««10 - L nothing could be more subversive of the Marxian
He « m s to have had no kno £ ^ o f Fire (for which Eliot wrote an
t” L for Sh-kespeare m l ^ ,ong trad.,ton o f character analysis in 1 l ' ibefu the idea that linguistic media shape development as
£ ^ iCfoathehteans of production.
introduction)- Reacting aga""b wrote. "Now ,f we are prepared to sec
ch kespcarcan scholarship. ► s" ,,n area. being simultaneously aware
1,11 r l • Hidden God with these statements in mind yields
s z w
g
,hcse correspondence, l jn**■! - »sense
a new sin8i. r ie" ° f ,he «*<* « ivsis of /m
^ i s s t h e u n j q u e q u a l t v o n P sons by juxtaposing El,ot s "Tradition ^ i n g ^ ^ t h a t The Hidden God proves the richness of Marxism as a
One might extend these cornr' passages on "the h.story o f writing" iJ'^ight seem ‘but rigorous examination proves false any such idea. The
i the Individual Talent and - Todorov’s supposedly innovative Hidden G od come, not from Marx or any other ideologue.
^ r « h e % wrm-c £ £ greater accomplishment of Wayne °f T ur Tidmann’s brilliance; as George Steiner put it in "Marxism
£ £ Z - " « * “"“S r U. 'h L iu o -atio n s must suffice h e * Tha iniply fr°nl rritic ” “At his finest. Goldmann is simply a critic respond-
Booth's The M ftorK °/ F J ' 2 very little genuinely original work ,n literary %he bitem1J ' dmiration
t#l theLiterary imiration to a great text.”9
text. ' In
in terms of mtellectual
intellectual history,
Tench Structuralists hmje done ^ form ulated, more technical .id.with iaature
-*Ure ad
a, cteriZes Goldmann not as a Marxist at all. but as a "left “\eft-
riticism: they have m e r e ly w j what New Critic,sm did for English l.tera- ■f er aptly charac reference to Hegel links Goldmann to two men
iethod to do for French l.teratu ^ o f thejr extraordm ary mtellectual Jnalist ^ "T .
.-ueriafist Hegelian.m ortance
rtance for McLuhan. T.S. Eliot and Harold Innis. \nn\s.
ire three or four decades ago. ^ notable exception ot Lev,-Strauss) * h»'« - “a crucia _ j _o*or.rliivo how
crUCU! e t0 understanding how McLuhan's
McLuhan's work
work can
can exnlain
explain
-ovincialism. the Structural,s s < " fairness dem ands the immediate d provides a ^ malerjais which Goldmann's great scholarship has brought
ive no awareness of this tact- adm irers like Susan Sontag have
mission that the Structuralists Structuralists have w ritten literary Sher- Eiiot's philosophical master was F.W.H. Bradley, a
— . * * f r 'o l r S - - ' u n g n ilte m T V H M en M \ s everyone kno Ne0.HegeUan; and Harold Innis. in The Bias of
heism o f a very high oreier O work o f m o d em e n t,a s m that bte nineteenth-centi y cause(J McLuhan's thought to coalesce.
i Barthes' On Racwe can M cLuhan has absorbed and syn-
^ eHeee, (Russian Formalist critics such as Yury Tynyanov
. might care to name. But bet e|se)> whiIe the French are still
sized New Criticism (as well as * ^ C ritjcs d ealt long ago.
rt[MKJ y to H ' inat ,vork of the wemiei) I would aiSw ffi'al
*0«scdHegelmtheir» cen,ur>, 0WB , deb., consciouslv ot
r i * method in > and that McLuha„ uses med.a to expUm coltuod
unconsciously. t0 He", ' \ , . „nnrf,nt of Geist. This analogy suggests a
£ « * ■ « - ^ * * G ° id m a - n a n d ,he
lem o f Marx.

366
 B EFO R E AND A F T E R T HE L EI I I R: (P R E )P O S T M
o d e «N
crucial difference between McLuhan and Structuralism, the eirmi
technology in MeLuhan; and it suggests how Understanding Afew- sis on
. which ould not write. Any sn<-u ° ' an emn; 1Valitl
one to explain more fully the cultural process which engaged Qo/d a"°Ws and Mycenaeans to th a /o 'f fai,s: V o mWith
attention. r,lann’s pies, centralized empires have m r , Mayas- Z t *
Surely we can agree that any rich postmodernist theory must 0n\ distai— But It was not really until the n '^ u n Wr'ting t°
cessful, completely integrated explanation ol the technological a sUc tatssance that intensely unified and cemr Chani*«ion *f
which we live: yet none o f the Structuralists attempts to do So. n ° rld ««) Y Um W N eatly enrich our understanding of El,’ lued Power w f
explain this omission, I think, by reference to the elite status of n, „ ne c<tii We y press, and the corresponding 2 ^ h ' ^ y ffw
intellectual. Walter J. Ong. S.J., has suggested to me in convers,? ^ ,e,1ch ppssibiet ^
whereas no one can grow up in the United States or Canada witho '0|' ^at /L (irs,nl r . n . symmetrical facades, created an iL Z with its
some awareness of technology, the French educational system anlJl baV|"ng and then destroyed it when fragment8? - Stone of the
society, allow the gifted French youngster to do just this. (One think l ,e,,ci>
mot about the normalien: “He knows everything, but he knoWs °f the fr fZ * * <*■* — ■T"“ -
else.”) Even Marxists make little productive use o f their belief in th n.ottl'ng
tance o f the means o f production. Thus, one can take G oldmann’ C 'nip0r- $ played by print in instituting new patterns of culm
o f the rise of Jansenism, and o f le grand siecle in French literal U'1a,ysis
gut one natural consequence o f the special?! 'S not
response to the centralization o f power by the monarchy, and e l .Urf’ as 6
enrich it forms or
, forms o f Knowicugc wus th
know ledge was ail kinds ooff n™.
m at all pow!r ?8 ° ul01'
explaining centralization, and the accompanying burst of creativit " by
response to the fragmenting qualities o f literacy. ‘ 1y- as 3 a centralist character. W hereas the role of
^ ^centralist o f the ffeud^?!?*
e u d a l °" a
Goldmann begins The Hidden God with a superb explication o f 1,rf hfen in d u c e , the king actually including in h|Mni
inclusive, i m' i S ?
“ the' “tragic vision. and comments that "It „W"at lie had ^eeI . Renaissance prince tended to become „ hls
calls is aa fact
It is fact that „ i . form
that all
tragic vision have one feature in common: they all express a deep crj ■ 1S Of ^ ^ ef-n t r e surrounded by his individual subjects.1
J--- - 5 ” exclusive
rolotinnelim between man power
relationship man an/“
andf hie
his spiritual u/nrlrt
world.”199 0 Goldmann ' ^ the P‘
does not know it, but Eliot described this deep crisis o f the sevPe,,’aps’ Hidden God, Goldmann begins his historical analysis with
century as the "dissociation o f sensibility." A s we know MeLuhan 11.f^ntb observation: un th«
this dissociation to literacy, which takes language from its living ComaSCribes
renders it silent and visible on the page. Newtonian physics gives a ^ ^ if we look at French society immediately before 1637 (the
ematical formulation o f this homogeneous, continuous world to m‘ltb’ JU origin of Jansenism] the first Ihing that we notice is ,L deveT
Pascal responded when he wrote. “The eternal silence o f these infinite Vllcb lo ti o f royal absolutism and of its most importan, i„struJ ,
terrifies me," only a few years after Donne wrote o f a world in which^^ ,£ bureaucracy; of royal agents linked to the central authority ,„d
Coherence, and just Relation” had disappeared." 1 completely dependent on it.16 y
According to Goldmann, “That G od should be always absent and al
present is the real centre o f the tragic vision.”12 G o d had no real place in ti^
Naturally, literacy creates a bureaucracy (which is by definition literate both
linear, visual universe o f Newton and Descartes, o f course, but v I &
iBltegeneral sense of the word, and in the specific sense in which MeLuhan
Goldmann says in effect that the rise o f absolute monarchy ’caused the
absence o f G od he reminds one of Eliot, who initially blamed the dissoci­
usesit), and this central bureaucracy must break down the autonomy of
ation o f sensibility on the inlluence o f Milton and D ryden . Surely we must local power structures. In effect, Goldmann has given us the fust
take E liot’s attitude in “M ilton II” that the o perative forces d o not lend biographical studies that show in convincing detail the workings of fragmen-
themselves to narrow political or literary definition. lation, and its attendant releases of creative energy. Jansenism and thus
f o r MeLuhan, the introduction o flite ra c y (or th e change from one form Pascsl and Racine, comprised a response to the destruction of local
of literacy to another, as from the m anuscript to the p rin te d b o o k ), has the autonomous structures, and its members came from the ranks of those who
e/fect o f greatly facilitating com m unications b etw een d ista n t p o in ts in the uferedaloss of social status because o f it.
society. He calls this effect "speed-up,” and “S p e e d -u p crea tes what some
econom ists refer to as a center-m argin stru ctu re B y this he sim p ly means As far as Jansenism is concerned, its birth round about 1637-38
coincided with the final stage in the advance of royal absolutism.
 „ . ETTER (P R E )P o S t
a FTB* t hE
eeF°«e ' N° I the permanent bureaucracy
<ay the (or
<-„rmatic,n 0 , ,ip government.17
0f absolute g° h'vhj
that is t0 7ny systeni „fra| government graduallv „
essential • ‘ f the # portance of the o ffi c e
„ » ' « 5 S ” 'nSS a,n d 1.W" " ^ ?o\?>
S ^ s i '« .• £ % » « -■»rt,cular'
> "«
contpared j-Etat *nd
Consei'lerS* few quotations here, Goldni
cite on'y thMcLuhan’s theories in a book writ, K ,
Although 1 J e v i ^ f h^ve 0nly to put in what Noam ? u b<
together *?, £ d change “the rise of royal a b s o iS >

Shakespeare * fragmentation enrich our understand

previously- he concept 0 h he treats In It, it a,so «in8of
*>' “i t S * .* ! " * K ? S c o k e ® "* » f his' o ^ Using f e f v ,
Goldmann . tota' ,f century of Russian history as fra g m e n ^ S
underSial ^ e t the last ^ s U n and Louis XIV differ*^ V
one can n J dern sun-c g predom inated during S ta lin he
and Sta"n aspect of fragmer a pect seems to have predominated d>
d e s m ^ jP the creative Marxism would o f course prevent h i^ U/ln8

•k * •‘. ' t f S * * “ r S ’ S Stalin."19 The fact ,hal a £ * ■

“ flCkers sack as Heg* Warship could group Hegel and Engel,
rn d l " » s kriklaocc * jj L reatest mass murderer of all lime utntti, *
^ generally co"5' * ^ L b ililr of Marxists to deal w„h the ,»enlia|i
a Sad commentary o
century20 nn Racine, too, of course. In its compromising f0rma,.
Sarthes has written on R by the Russian Formalists, such as
J On Racine rather ^ ^ c h n i q u e . " The aphoristic analyses of 0n
Viktor Scklovsky’s essay• * of McLuhan’s statement, “I am curious to
Racine cry out for an app*1 were suddenly seen for what it is, namely,
know what would happen one-s psyche in order to anticipate the
information of how w
exact information tc faculties.”2
facu|tjes.”21 McLuhan uses art as cogni-
|0W from
next blow from our cown
m fw
« arjses throughout his work, but this remark,
don for the society m
bon m^whicn
which some anaIogies with Racine: “In King
The Gutenberg Galaxy, W shQWS an utter clairvoyance concerning
from The
from
Lear, as in other plays, Sha*e J 0f denudation and stripping of attrib-
precision, and increased power.-
utes and functions for the saK F ure of Racinian tragedy ..its its
Barlte. -double ^ in/ “ ‘.he same thing, because he had an an equally
.
d^rvoyantwns^onhe consequences of fragmentation.

370
 M'** lete power over B. Jc^ « u
,,Tlp ho does not love A.25 l' sm

I* 0
( increased power which ljter.
Kifld °£X|V so shrewdly used, results?./- th°ught

tfirJS Z *' ,yr“ ' ~

i p ulatilosely resembles McLuhan in ,
-h'
* * m*
V j , r y society, and his use of style B‘*° reSpects.
cfl^ .b its essays on film stars like Greta r ^ earlVv0i'S 'nt«res.

U i * » “W d° nderstanding'he
U
t l ^ Barthes’ interest in contemporary s *. ela,i°nshin P f work >
> ; 0 Marx. Lenin. Stalin eta,, do **» £ % % > eS
e^ s ,he word “bourgeois ). As Barthes s ,n his work ? hal refer
^communist writers are the only ones \ 0 ^ ' n.^ g^gh
^bourgeois wntmg whtch bourgeois wri,e " '^ T b a S l ?
aliVe„ed k>»*aga 5 ° mn,Uln,St Writers and theore, aVe « * & “*#“«
^ like Lukacs - have deep suspicions about m ',C,ans “ even th ! c°a-
and certainly about the epistem ological" art>abom***'°f
^ this occurs not because of anything sofim , mplications of P,Sych°-
, but because as newly
.^prestigious and exciting. Pe°ple’ find the® ^ t e r
* L matter of style lends itself more readily to dis "
L t; McLuhan and Barthes use it consciously m T ' T " in th« present
J has provoked very s.milar responses from hoS ^ and‘hei
f point, let us compare two passages, one from R To Prov
L Criticism or New Fraud?, and one from Sidney F \ l T ° ni Sard's
Sorsense o f M cLuhan. '" i t e m 's Sense and

This work [On Racine] disregards elementary rule, «r •

quite simply of articulate, thought. On almost ever! °r
frenzy of its headlong systemizing, the part is given for ,E!8V ? the
instance of two for the universal, the hypothetical for the Wh° C’a"
tk law of contradiction is flouted: accident is take,, f T S
chance for law/8 1 C8M;nce.
These are the forces of obscurantism. If its most prevalent form is
an assertion of the impossibility of human beings ever to know an!
thing. McLuhan can be credited with a novel and bizarre form of
obscurantism. It is that of writing a travesty of knowledge.29

371
 cluhan and fr EN c h
LETTER: (PRE)POSTM t>Df „ gave the clue to the function of ,u Cl^ A t
after tHE
bb eeffo
orr ee AND
A N D' - ^ ' h -something vit has no Uo, u
-som ething vital ,, Mil fy^es that could legitimately be „ « exsa‘ con
in Bashes and M cLuhan have to u ched }J* poetry, in the novel, and the theate ? m°deC ' e > hc
I ' ^ i n t f o f literary theory and criticis m ah0 ^ thai ^
A* * * * % % * * * a”
t0me way. with f y’-s c r itic
. , the em phasis an d virulen .
denouncing his style. C h r i s t o ? of thej
‘h & 116 I j in whose life poetry and criticism , ? e °ne
»' in tP^FUot. and Eliot wrote in The V s l Z f ^ ^ ^ Z Z the
83 While ^ c^ h/ comnton sib|y use the m edium o f the £ % ^ j S h . sensibility, such as are p e r t l y
W»s .Litions tion-
aattacks- W-J ■ M
tta c h theyfin Mr.
r M order t0
C U -^ P 0rder
McLn to speak....................
ab o u t the wlc eelec
fo ^ ^ P o .
said. -Ho#
“How can ented) '• ,f 0f the pronouncement that “ Cal>V
,fof y 'uP ''running- a"d make people see the world ^ ,UaW
Iiny ,,a
graphic. ,inJ and delivery
n and deliv^h' h' mmstumb1mg metaphors."# SSppe^c i e
stumb1mg metaphors.”* h/ t„sliyf0ra this passage Ehot is p a ra p h ra sis ’0 r c, are
fnstantaneous.
fnstantaneons- throUgh which
wh«* . .has made my own personal fav*
-..ai favor;',® of
;c viscous toe-
is a, vkrnns PiW M -*• ianguage: “The
han-s use of language: The style?
styie7 te of
stortWi"* she comment ‘""seduce
seduce our uunderstand,ng.”*
n d e r s t a n d , Pic?
| d? f ers
^ |theSar,T !icnt.on rather ' ^ 1......... V , ‘ l “ P‘ion °f I'icrate peoplc JosephF,anf|„5™ W p ,,*
tsszsss*
to rape our a
ofB»«h“ '
* * is*“«*t o “"ll,e or eU,“,' h“id habita, . 1 ufiitm ,-e« to r i i i w - - "-‘"gnt did for sk , cr read
0 -nzet The Serag'' of an egg is ovoid. The deltoid h» < t > icl,v s did for Racine- ^ akf Just this argument; FranW Speare aad
TakC What ever has tl with a habitat that has th i’iB «rthproust and Joyce undent,,ne the reader's norma, ^ tha^ od.
B ' T f o f . *'»• ** f e“ is defined "ore particularly1^ !.,slike l r —38 one cannot, in the essai concrete devel Pectali°n of
of • «“"uch “" ' l i what this c-n be and even tescle^ „en<*- ''Ilfflent which forms the proverbial chain whir?-^ detai'«d,
• 2 > " S i n k : .be form allowa one o„l, « »»»«.
i its *e*‘ , few instances of phenomena which manifa( [“ f * » 3»K-
l,0W'hl> lists' critics have even less of a sense „f ,k '* sr.J t [ st study ' « “ • no>m b . is <o sa, that ihe J " " ' Oo
Hseem that the StrucW > ^ and artistic hlstory than the ^ he ’> % .""“ay nPP,0Pri“,e « t “ Wuhan's favoh, “ '»•««
inquire into the nature of that unity ^Lage.)lf n1akes the reader participate in the argument s ?
< tia l sty'e . Q Reading Marshall McLuhan”: § "" As Sle™r
uu essay
I ^ r SeVe erceptive passages in The Medium Is A Rear yiew diJ-"1
readers a perpetual, irritating problem: that of reading
*Z ,he “ rm He further. But that is his master stroke by making of his manner a
e‘ apply to either printed or oral or even aany
^ ,U1‘ gntation •— of the anomalies which he observes in the act of
Essai concrete is mean ‘as they have the same relationship to cl0Se in the essential nature of human communication, McLuhan
mixed media forms as > J ^ expreSs,on inherent m the essay readmgc into his argument. To put him down is to let that argument
the combination of theo tQ the dialectical process of weigh-
as well as some consc.ouS es imp]jed in McLuhan’s develop­ pncb aH ^”
ing and juxtaposing or v v jn the twentieth century would have blv then, the postmodernist work of McLuhan and Barthes
men'' A tS s with avant-garde art. the development of Unquesti°na ^ modernist sensibility, and uses an analogous style for
fascinating alhntt.es w, ^ vjsua, arts> the use of aphorism grows out o s This fact signals an acceptance of McLuhan and
posters, the use of ccd.ag ^ s jn shapes. and many other analog°us pl^ ncepuuil universe in which the old, Newtonian distinctions
Barthes of a c ^ criticism> criticism and art, no longer hold. Every-
10 ,he newer am between
^ who seno J s whclt
writes, writes Barthes calls
w„ Darincb lullo ecriture:
cu u iirt, one
tmv can
vein only
uhij ask
worewhether
nuvuivi
• French still retains a sense of “bringing , (no matter whether he calls himself a scholar, a critic,
thewriter in question v-----
„,poet) uses ^ork'of Marshall McLuhan with that ot .he
r i t X S s a better u n d e , standing of the postmodernist situation as
most - * ■ < * h£ has saw - “ ‘h'"8 "
its Function.
373
372
 AND A F TER T HE L E F 7 E R (PR Ejp
BEFORE
before °Sl
___ i.,tir>nshio between
a whole. The historical relationship betw een M
ism should remind us that this situation has ^ c r,>
M /7J ShOUlu
(think
(think oo ff the -
the difference
difference in style between E//0.?0n7e
m styic I_1IO[ in , 'C's,h
s//7~/ /Jnds
' J" eu/Konh/ limited acceptance.
• _ r’? S*ePr°se
H ow eve
ever Pr°cse^ °an7">g
d , ,'
Borges as examples o f writers generally r e f ’ *<- cafl g * hjs V \
accept it; no meaningful answer seem s p o ss ib ie to a* e A X '1
TVaboArov write as an artist or a scholar j„ hj ° 9tiest;
Onegin?" or "Does Borges w rite as an Par° d i s^ s S u h " ?<f
he creates his bizarre classification system s?” p d n ,s t o r ' c CQC/)
stand fAe unity, totality, and coherence o f th e e°a u se / . 9s a V *0
ent men as Barthes. McLuhan, N abokov, a n d i T ^ ^ r / /)e,p s X
propose as a criterion o f postm odern ism th e ° rges en P H , c,° s t0 "V
oftfcriture. (Since defending an d using th is c -aCceMai}c 1 s i *u% °h '
in itself, le a n only propose it here.) B u t e v e n ' y ' 0 " ‘H /
this criterion invalid - would i t m ean, fo r ev ' ,rivesti U re0,
postmodernist? - it might help us to a sk ,■ atriple, th a t8 a tiOn al
nature o f what we are doing, a n d will b e
en t''es.«>ns 9bo *ot *

Notes ,l>(

/. Selected Essays. 1917-1932 (London: Faber and F h

2. Quoted in Raymond Picard. New Criticism or ,9 32)
(Pullman: Washington State Univ. Press. 1969) D ^ 11 ^raud?P' ^ 3 .
3. Pottrquoiia nouveiie critique (Paris: Mercure de F ‘ tr'
certain unconscious irony in the use o f la nouvri/* .nce' *W
4. Tr. Richard Howard (New York: Hill and Wane i onJ l que for c, A 66. r. e
5. London: Methuen, 1930, p. 4. 9 ^ 4 ), p trUcftJra/,j e is a

I, Understanding
7.’ Toronto Toronto P-204.
MedUoi ^ Exmsim s o f Mon (New York: McG
'raw'Hilit
l964)

} w "" <*.

Hope Nicolson, The wean. g

12. The Hidden God, V- ii-
13. UnderstandingMedia, P- y/-

, i » a i « » V ( N e w York: Signet Books, 1969), pp. 20-21.

J6. The Hidden God, p- 106.
17. IbiU.p. 112.
18. ibid.p. 119-

M C^Steiner's trenchant attack on Lukins’ rejection o f twentieth-century though,:

20' ‘An one embtrk on a vast compendium of abstract propositions about Ian-
g£ ” ar and consciousness as if Wittgenstein had not ex.sted (he ,s one of

374
 L Mc L U H A N a n d FR E Nr u
CH St R(j
aversions)? As if no chall^ Ct VJr .
icS- d»rL y of linguistic description? is if® has been ls ' Svi

t^jSilen iina Media, P- 66. b° I'es?-' a' A„h

. s- <3cilasy ' ^ 2\
f e S x ? to,’'-p' ...
?'• Tl*
r»
t y y t C^ ^ ° L tbe inheritors of the s e v e n th 4 ^ ' °
0% > v f e dZ s neCeSSfn w ith new organisms, devtsed to r e n ^ ^ t m
«P g e n c e " (Technics and Civilization VNew YorV, Harcom

'> V ' g du SeUJ c o iin S m i* (New VotV- Httt and'Wang, \%&U .7V
t f e f d h '^L erS and fevi-Strauss has a good deaf of reievance for the foWovnng

f e r ««' " a ^ n S s a r a X i r ’■*—

p»b">;;:et write ^
%Zlia''-ff0,and
)>■^212-13-

-,3 i ^Criticism or Neiv Fraud?, pp. I4-15.

& pp. 240 -4 1 .
-,5’ ofee-ri in the Rhetor;, r
36' fork: Oxford Univ. Press 1971), pp. !43-44 °f Cont"nporary r r r
*. \ e Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism

„ "Sp'Jial Form in Modern Literature.” S ettee /?„ ^ ^

38 reprinted the essay m his book The Widening Gyre ' 53 <1(H5) 227
,« ^„g<wge a n d Silence, p. 251. y e’
This essay incorporates material from a book t w T, ,
of the Twentieth Century, on which I am working , h j
postmodernist thought. 8’ 11 deals with McL,
 60
LU H A N 'S M E S S A G E
Mc
Glenn W illm o ti

in Rewrse. Toronto: I 'Diversity 0f T0ni

So««*
**»*■

The medium is rhe message reduces all meaning to the h i,,

o f meaning, at the same tim e that ,t redu ces k n o w le d g e sj.
situation itself to mere histone,ty, u n en d in g o n ly t o * of the
mechanism o f a m om ent an d topos. n o t a g en era l k n ' , \ ' he h,\f S |
historical view o f it. K n ow ledge is re d u c ed to the h i s , 8 *' °r
McLuhan called, updating E liot, 'sim u lta n eity' - a n d IOr»eity H
whose ideal form is the process b y w hich it m u st re tra c e tJ, ? C°nscio.
own necessary sym bolizations a n d in te rs u b je c tiv itie s. .e ^ ^ n 'n t h j s,)ess
imaginary, in the widening g yre o f a n 'in te r io r 'la n d s c a p e t ' ° Wn pr-,° f its
thing is a probe, an experiment, pragm atic a n d ten ta tive A ll e'ul e^"*1
o r especially critical discourse, m ust realize its e lf a s an invt • d,Sc°Urse Very*
thrown together, not merely from th e ideological hn, r""U,ry sca/Tni!^"
throwno togeu—
clichis ■—
f its culture. r° ni the ie„,(,u"col
lri?
■ • ------
cliches of its culture. modernism has come to an end in postmodJ
But this is not to say ^ McLuhan understood the challenge ,
to
criticism and * P"5 |jzing ideology to be embodied in moifcn, |
•common sense anu ^ find or invent an alternative form of critical
formalism and its ae ^ poe(jc retracing o f experience. Rather than
thought and percepuo jn|o the r0UI1ded little monad of the alienated
let this power compa ^ j( jmaginarily, as his or her own power -
critic or artist - n tn (echnics in the prose o f the world, in the techne
McLuhan sought for * n<J hjm ,n (|ie d ia lo g ic collision between the
of others in their cxi* McLuhan felt that an existential perception
techne o f electronics * P ’ j communicated, o f the simultaneous
would at last be 0f life and thought of the present.

— - * • - *

376
 Mc LUHAN>s MesSaC(
(1 experience which grou
of a* U SynT om ° r «nodSB-,t
;l,K ttCC^ ,ne to its o , Uy suC r> il
J postmodern imuts of , se»f-<l^La®
self^ < s,l4*iic
^ ipu 0
' >Uow'""*
1 1 to ,n ^ nh,.: Pftttcim
- " e,ttua| 'hus
-..US
«'<W. i
lW pvoccss. as t ~ t v e t t ^ w
.-- ul VCX'^ »A svvuttwws ^
. .ueorv forward. expand®* ^
■/V*1' V-'", d '^ V u V ta n 's °"C° ' W vViwVV»cot
N' C xl now be wvneved and|W ««A « ,
A s e ^ ' ^ tc b «Y f rn critical imaginary. McV.uhaa is uoi « v & J
V V ttfrt sostm°a uhev be forgotten. nor. worse. rediscover« a
0tft P ato u s' % ,* « be must be understood as a v\va\ it
'V 'A o ' -m\ bC \0gV ^ .- modern and postmodernistcritks, onewho
—... me nuclear iw " l'c
fIrfTted
e S’'l0U,;u'ure.
i S and a ^who forced into public vie* of
cUt ‘al as being-m-media. as a cliche antonv- c X * * * « the
f c j e n t e r p r i s e . •ts a thinker totally ^
X ioess and the -media which express this existence £.,** *** <*
of bU.,sistenC®;fl McLuhan sacrificed himself to a problem
**»»*% ! inteltoua. a r c * ,’ £ * * » , . » «
e^ mfro"1 J . „; what form ot critical discourse will be able to ^
toc* co"dU consciousness from one
. .ioUSness from one of
ot us i^01"
us to ^ wil1inhethe
another ahiml°r her""tnuni~
/< C M.ri,ictt» c0.,?^e> Today,
I Village’ Today. McLuhan
M c L u b sJ ,value
" ^ lies less in his ™n*dla of
I* jn his invention ot a duplicitously Vlt les* m hh , n*ed
<,l rand in hts o f » self-sacrifice
implicit, symbolic » * Tto*o 'the c W
T ' Dm ^ »~x 2-r .'rXnplicil
crilic«m ?
« * * of,,.itheitnpn.
critic's’.body and medium - i„ rel,,. he Problem' me cntic
4I"?- ,11U uiicMmin*n «n his
* * : $ - itself others.
and ottm
•,c»lf and - McLuhan', '» «* - „,,lICV?Q as
"Retype ,l- the
ot of _ problem
p,-0blem which com rents every Jintellectual
confronts T ^ »~t- iny^^S0T
icsire to empower, however partially, an audiJ 6CtUal ‘oday i„ J an
|,c the historicity of postmodern critical p n eti-'^ and mi,iet>'lle!"°r
-tent*for w " - “ •“■- “ ”» * f a n_ ______ ^ S f, : « a^ i«a lXp^h. t
nial individual. “J ,ucai *» im p o E
• .McLuhan thus reflects, m a hyperbolic mirror
problem stated by Lew.s so well: 'W hen the idea-mono. Perennial modern
I should be able to tell what kind of notion he is biM C°mes 10 his door
ihing of the process and rationale of its manufactu^ T know s°me-
McLuhan, playing the Lewisian double game to extinctio 'I”' dlslribut'on.’!
monger, manufacturing and distribution process, and rat , eidea’>dea-
sosymbolizes the material and historical unconscious „fa - C^ a,ld
proper to his and to our modes of contemporary critical J fm“8marypnu:tice

377
 BEFORE A N D AFTER THE L E T T E R
(PR E )p
os .
N otes
McLuhan's belief in what I have called a modernist
ri/i 1/ATrtr'o I nrtnrltFts\n •<- „ .
ecological and technological condition, is consistent !ru^>, ’
/Vy’ which Anthony Giddens has needfully distinu • the ^'r°
recent critical history (The Consequences o f M o d e r - ed ~
2 Lewis, Time and Western Man. 140.

'1 M c L v H a k
P R E P O S T M o d ^ A S
F O R E R u ^ i s r A
F R E ^ C H O p A ^

D onaU * n w
The virtual Marshall McLuhan u
vfzool.pp- ,25- n z ’ Montr^l
andKi"«.on. M

l'iVcrSi|y

1966 I was invited by M cG ill n n -

tbeir English D epartm en t and to *n
^ n k a t i o n s . M y wife and / m * h Canada, treal t0 bec
,/» i»tos honoar “r " ? OIK or his v S r l,al1 and Co ■ ch»»or
^position m iviumrea
W »"°" “ M° " 'real- “Man a n ^ S 0 ExPo«7o?n' a8ana? 8,,l»in
hundredth anniversary).
hundredth anniversary). Monlreal "r.,Hls World- ,,b' Hr; ",ai<nice"
>myror
affinity for Marshall's wort aand
M arshall’s work n dC V r Th "S
Us ^^ b W0o'is“
^ ''b,a4^ ^
World s Fair, with
,his Worlds
this its man„
w ith its m any _
nJ ?. r h,s Playfu|
Plavr,., , 0,s
° s Writ
sPirit, Jha8.Ca"ada
. C» ^
prions, seemed to bespeak the h ' edii‘ and 0‘ Charmin,, 3 Sp<*i:
summer at Expo I was d irectin g r^ g,nnifigs 0f a kino-env8jrSyle a"
Werner Aellen, and a team ^ P ro jec^ ^ Luh^ ^
anc/ special effects engineers to d e T e ir ^ ' Phow ’^ an >5 * "

80Wrnm'"'
Marshall was warm and fr.Vn n ’ and the
- - only much later * , ™ n% although he did
brain tumor .hat he had s u ^ t W“ already suffer “1 Wr,«
operation later that year w h i i f u y renioved in . , ng fr°m the ma,
y°rk City. On that *m * Was ^ i n * « a"<l 2
Mdie’s “Habitat” o v e r lo o k T ^ r 0''evening ^ ‘a ro! ? Uni Universit
drop of the city, We spoke , g tle /a|r< Montreal’s harb°P Pat'°in Mo
378
^rathtnoommunici
379
 ........... Mc L U H A N a s 1“R |. p
,.tunch at McGill. In that summer of , * OS'M(J|)pt
' 7 Canada. and the United Mates, m fact the wor|d 96?> h, , rejected structuralism and „ KN' s ,
Montreal. Can ^ adventl,re about which MUl , 1 X , sliiOn? ., He met Roland Barthes j A crdi«xun<j ,
the verge of t - assume the Schweitzer chair Luhan , ed t0 %m ^ f i n a l l y read Saussure. 1,1 p* n * in^ Sa
MMarshall ™ “/ » * ■” tin over aa decade
decade by Ted r , - < ! ,> V hontinuing to explore further MeI , ?2- b J t
nam ed lor the 'n borator Harley Parker. Within a ‘ Penter a
pa
a
artist-designer
*5SUc; \
/fied en(j,Usiasm for M cL uhan " ,,le F x i X av0f)K
f o u r t h America, it is imPorta m , Uhan’s r0.
v in Palish
N Tijsh literature who fo , to n°te
u n d ,.,.0
found,. n«te h 'e 111 rek Un«l
^ who was neither a p e ^ ^ H ^ < 7 »( *> ° r T oro,™ £ “* « £ > k, P,
S S 5 celebrated by
Salthoug artists, activists and youths as a, " ° r «n ’S ? f communication studies in l,r*: at,:<l to^kduil,e ^kKliai,*"^
" " ’“ " . S ' S t e e from
rmm whldl whichno[
no, unul twn ^ «» optj(i..
op„ "» 0h,.
<**, I » ,« 3 . when his F o r d - s p o ^ '

— — “r
°nnree cultural objects associated with commercial exn .
h,sni.
-■«
Iggs?=ss==a5SfSi^
■th Cutset.
•illt,,e
> : supPOrt
outset, W"en
when unaer
; Sport of
under the urgine
of the
urginB ftft,
the university’s
„ f ( , n lhe Ux
u n i ^ t y vice-p^jJ1
|j ~ Uhan's , r star,
- f ^ a n ^i n ^^ u ^ ^ i p
^rtM.
- - 67
Expo *7 and with France,
Prance, the
tne United
unneu States,
auura, and
ana Canada L*° Slt,°n$
°n* i,
miter between McLuhamsmand
(„e encounter McLuhnnism and the rise of Frenc^
F r^ „ , .Ppectiv»,
ec«ve, !H^ wi'1
,) w it'1’ ' /Ford-sponsored
, Ford-sponsored seminars in P. dem, dent, C
Cl!
l-,, .g8lst E.sS o mPlex
st E
- id ^ T o t o n t o and bega^
America: the Eiffel Tower (built for the Pans Exposition of *heory ,s as
and Perisphere (created for the New York World's Fair w F ? ^ (he N°ni,
m. he was aware of ,h . maj()t* '"'h .l in,
before World War II). and the postmodern theme pavili0„ , ch °Pene , ’°n 'n APlor erging disc,Phne of communicatin'^ ars who h pllnary 1th«
> * % J , ^ Professed not to « the ^ Wor^ > al
Dome of Expo 67 in Montreal. As the Tower has fascinated a,ld the i? j"t
Rene Duchamp and James Joyce to Roland Barthes, and ,f Verj,°ne fUller l ^ significant in t a p i n g the discip,ine of th ^ 1 9 ^ ^

the utopian mediazation of the postmodern moment Whv 1°

Perisphere domesticized European modernism for the U s ' ’e Tn/0, ^
E*p0 67 ^
posing these objects of excess? Partly because o f McLul be8'n bF it ***
very ^ jS relative indifference to their work major reServ " bla^r "
d»sei , , statistical, em piricist, and beh-w k' Were relatJa at'ons, ^
studies, .n o o n t n « i i « S ^ uJ 4 ^ °
with architecture and with popular culture; the heavy inflUe S fa« C ^ * Hid interpretative
< 5 cal and inicipiciauvc vi.e., nernteneutic
(i.e„ herm ai,u han’s aim
eneutij’ au,CLuhan’s an'" m^a'nline
lin e
ings of architectural historians Louis Mumford and Sigf 0,1 his ^ ‘0n n- have used the term at that time). While 0U8h he w iE * * ^
%Id by the new cybernetic theories of
",a w c-‘i ^fter l950 he*ha?
s s not
s >n°r-
impact as the prophet of the new emerging technoculture-an'T! Giedion ? '
art. architecture, and popular culture. Expo 67 became M i 1IS interests"S 9ffl,he'dStates and England
Stales u..~
States (Norbert
- v‘>oi oert W
Wiener ir e ll°nn beinB
e ?,, ^^ en
fact openly acknowledged by the extent to which the th CLUhan’s Fair f ' evolved in the Macy conferences) he a|Greg0ry Batesol^1
•»iGreg0ry BateJn ^
eVeloped
.^m
- • „ athem atic ratherthan
mauiu------rather thanrhetorico-gramm
r h e t o r i c o - g i a1°^ cnticized them'fantl
" ’ ** lhe
“Man and His World," whose design blended Canadian hisi ™6 Pavi,ions 0r
were based on McLuhan's writings, which were liberally ° ' y and cultUl°e ,0C re was little contact between McLu8^ : ^ 1'. " ^
u,istudies until late in his life and his wri,i„gs had™" v T ?
throughout the pavilions. McLuhan's Fair marked a special'm ^ ° n p,aqul lion
.cademie study o f commumeatio,, i„ the ™ »«ly little
a year before Paris '68. on the threshold o f the popular ° menf 'n time lhe
Quebec, and at the moment when French theory was com ' tfioverrients jn enilabraced by French theorists m the late 1960s and T '1 after he 2
North America. g ,nto its °wn in froVm1964.
,964, With
with the publication of Understanding M Media
edTll 2 ^ althoag
alth^g
A little chronology: McLuhan wrote The Gutenberg Gat - • wid deeimpact in areas inside
ms.de and outside the academy H , began gan t0 have
^ a a
Understanding Media in 1964, taking o ff as international'n'* !n 1962 and theway for French theory s emergence shortly afterw-2 " PaCt par% Paved
within American academia. Other differences between ! i? “ major fac^
1965; Johns Hopkins held its conference on the structuralist ^ gUru b>' communication and those in Canada were a result of ih approaches to
the U.S. during 1966; the same year Paul de Man met D errida^,ntr°Vers3' in affiliations of Canadian universities with England or F then'dominaM
and significant that the French translation o f The Gutenber r '/ StnkinS 1950s McLuhan showed an interest in the work of R a v n ^ , ^ in the
launched less than a year later at Expo 67 - a translation which w Z r W3S whom he shared a Cambridge undergraduate educationW' T * (with
the opening o f the major debates on “macluhanisme" in Fran ° mark Cambridge doctorate). Even more than McLuhan Williams h!a ^ as a
McLuhan had virtually no knowledge o f contemporary French then >%i able impact on the early development of communication studies in r f t
1959, m a previously mentioned conversation I had participated in h<>? "
A* “ * « » * francophone u n i v e r s i f c X S ^
h'm " » 1^ Ostano were being alTected by the early beginnings of commumeatio!
 RE FORE rH B L E T T E R : (P R E)l. OS)
Mc LUHAN as PK
represented in the work o f R0|ilt,d (j STMo Dt
theoryj in ■
incut France. as. , ^ Understanding Media and con, &T
‘Ur*h,
journal MS' consciously suppressed by ... * ;N .*« C s « ^ ^ 0 ": partly demo„jc in,0 „
„t1„ H -electric revolution, bet.;* U Partlv th«
Sr " W * " ,ha‘ his « £ * *** **
***"•*■ postmodernism and poststructun ijsm ^ 's e j N s t V , an unholy modernist m e d le ^ f at,er o f \ bu'U hij
,h:‘' ^ T Z t ' H c h o l a r , particularly in c o m m u n l ^ "”5 M odernism tn arch,tec,ure aJ a^ y^ o l i st^
nonn — sudden dissemination of strn, p»rt ' VKJoVce , r'd
1 and media , ? ^ J tUdi^ E ^ S ; * £ > J
theory. fi,m prom inent"of the "New C riticism /’ ynd »rt thr° Uf ,hiS P,actice and and con^ Lah ^ > and
Mc i11-lire‘‘ han symbolist ambicuitv- ° xP|icatirsn^ ptsderi sV it
final sfa«e» was weJ| sjtu:ited to mark those n io n lLu|,;"i ' N a 1
°nit i where
i S T ^ n W ^ r u c t u r a / i s . and postmodern t h Ory
e ^ .C ^ ^
M hJ culmination o f the S e w C m , a sm should r e Bin,n tin g ’> * K * forin<»ion ° r empiric „„„ * " '« ihan
s)' a lt* it\cs into an intuitively satiric sL sgmatic <'vr,/,m' ar,ty is ,, thaa
.tractive crm asin .......— - « / ^ u t , u0sn^""y hi /s" ^
"istitUf,„
Ne« t riticism" had been entrenched, such as Yale. p.lrr ° ns w J S k C "f'VLf culture! phenomena; the gram n^l0ana,ydc (prro,'°'' du
scholars who. as students, had encountered figures such as ^ ^ t logiu ^ a P° ctK dia|ectic. becomand rhetonc ISea"oclaes.Qf
Oeanth Brooks, and Robert Penn Warren Through the . W * * - W ,> 8 So1 11X1 nd Edmund Burke s sublime of n 1108 instrum °f tlle trivi 'C*
ofM cL uhan’s books and his comments as a successful n,ed p0Pui "■ >,lTnO-instrurnC
f» o -'" s,rUn" n'al !Ub'ime
T ° f the
01 ,he mterior
interior I™
S ' al lan^
'» n cdatv
2 'or C
wuhu,
C,
pontificating about media and everyday culture, he contribute / ' ^ o n > had been strong intimations in ,he 19 (and^ P e o & apPlied to
*^ £ "the
* ' 1960s
f i l Tin LhisTbooks
T Zthat
* !his* WorW ,n articles i1f ^ rn,STT»*
,n- the groundwork in the late 1960s and 1970s in N orth A m i to
later stages o f the introduction o f French theory partially *nca that ,n sh' ,.nJ 2^-Barthesian, paleo-Derridean. pale^ ? Uld come to^ ' 0rat‘0ns
|il VWIII.ll enthusiasm
~----- forGilles Deleuze. Felix G uattari, p u u , y ed c|,!l1the r & i a n . The
The 1960s
1960s were
were aa moment
moment w h e ^ 0^,ardiap-
wheTthy° ^ . ° and^8^
Baudrillard rd would exponentially increase. lr,,|o. a„d j1'ate t ^ ! t0 what N orthrop Frye claimed
»med as his - 1 ^1e >New Cri.;„d
Critt Pa'eo-
Pa>eo-
It was not his initial affinities with Riamrus,
/t Richards . Leavis. and ean underwent a still further, m ore profound r e f " revi^ n on- Sub-
critics of the Sewanee Review that enabled him to occupy this i'he s°uthe which he later capsulated in the tit, d ^ , o n by McLulUerary
what he identified in his correspondence - already noted as ,h btJt '"ste^ but which in a more profound Wav J b°°k. From n ^ ' *
work - that to have a serious interest in his work it was essent ■, key to L (L and anarchistic nature of the poetic ' &S akin to as- C-chi 10
the works of James Joyce and the French symbolistsr Another I '° kn°w "n ^ 'S a r d ’s analysis of Saussure’s anagrams an T T hat in antiem'" 8 the
why he believed his work might be regarded as “structurar »r Suggest * 5 on "* ' NeW CriIiCiSm" Fr d's ^
poststructuralist): "The reason that I am admired in Paris a T ' ^actualK on the “New Criticism’s" empiricism and ,h' “f “ h." tn'i . g
Larin countries is that my approach is rightly regarded as Z S° me of >he 11,51 ments of unmasking. Concurrently, deconst " POetlc itself bem •
have acquired the approach through Joyce and Eliot and the $ rUCtUra,'st.' j ; < n « . first .0 John Hopkins. . n d * £ H S ! Z m 7
used it in The Mechanical Bride. Nobody except myself in the ymb°*Ists, and w base of what was by then the ancien, -„ e„ c r i r S ' t B“ * 1* S t
ventured
VLJUU/tU It/ use lllv
to Uot the Oil
structuralist
U\*IUI ClILJl or WAlOltIUIdllM approach
Vl ‘existentialist’ p .a ^e,d l|has
P 3s L e Ransom, and Warren. C,sm of Brooks. j0hn
' f/-\r r*->o s4 o i.rJinn oo c ustfhin anri
informed audiences within and withoutit the «university ___ •. _
- rrequentl
fre ° *r MilPrAot.
lnterested< As Baudrillard. agreeing with McLuhan’s own stn,
------------------------------ ....w to iiy —
their full realization of what was happening, haoDeninn leaving aside ,„ - j . n4 enty^ w,thout
^thom insisted. McLuhan was not a theorist; his approach w a s has a,WaVs
problematic equation of the structuralist with the existeZZZ ™3^ i tar his manque* McLuhan wished simultaneouslv to ,,pinc- As a satiric
;t c
phenomenological - he popularized insights, strategies, and 't T °f tlle
;s ( ihedrama which is intended to operate upon it unconsciou lv” IT ™
symbolistes, the Anglo-American w high
^ modernists W vnrlh^ Le
rrjruUnam . C S of tfle
L,,,™ „,rf,v.„i,ri„ « /,/„ „_____
Joyce, particularly Finnegans Wake, some of whom had consider., *• _, / dm Lewis, and aiing the “light to offset the “heat” of manipulating ' L L 86
OH Deleuze,
on ir)p/pii7/» Derrida,
D f*rrir1a and
a n s i rothers.
k th a r a c ^p3C t exploiting minds through “the prolonged mental ruttine” of
North America in the 1950s and 1960s, with its rising postwar ■ a„dentertainment.- Deliberately employing techniques of crvnL "'
ness o f media - the pervasiveness o f advertising, the power o f t v th nSC'0US' ,|,at purpose behind an unfathomable ambivalence McLuhan’ -
mg of film, and the recording industry, which made Elvis Preslev a m v th L interviews, like a ritual jester or a participant in the medieval c a S
med/a demi.god - is the context in which McLuhan. first i n t e l t a u S S tures pointed jokes, teasing deceptions, and devastating Witz With
academically in 1962 with the Galaxy, then mass-mediafied and popularize,) empiric, satiric poetry manque, designed for a social scientific'era the"
generating the problems and paradoxes of French theories characteris

382
 e TTER: (P R E )P o sT M 0 r.
tHEL u t>Fp
. f rER 11 . _ rN
nRE a NP AP and beyond first began
BeF° fructura,Sn1’ C' rcUlatih
nism. P05tS, . , hit Pa ris a f te r 1967’ Just w hen i >!i
po=tnlod"r"th i'11.,- ' Sellers, and Julia Kristeva
tlir0Llgwave ^ n'(a>Tcl Ql,eL ^ ’ attests to the French theoretical i * ^
The by 7 ,nientary- at , N orth Am erica, hovvever . leres. f
1970s to the 1990, as a M« - >
objeCt/°n with h* al ,tesy fro"'1 1 R that had provided t h e ^ '^ i l !
M o ^ ^ n ra l ^ ugh it researchers in hum an in£ S u {
haU k t presen^ I cy>nak,nf ; S s i o n s and w ritings o f the so c ia u > h .
unSf ° m i ia- in • ilv in the d f The debate in France in the eariv
used ' and ^ J e a c a ^ " 1^ J the French M cL uhan, reveals t h ' 7°s as
» d teud",lard —
t0 ’S V McLUha" S -in M cL uhan’s and B arth es’s interests ^
Can'enders- similar,t'eS '' were scholars c arrying o u t their . in
^ " here3r e s t ^ ,n| . r w0rk- Bot o f English a n d French dram a
. S o lu tio n o f ‘hclaSsical with the history o f classical rk Peci’
‘ ork on the J ' j j j an early in his unpublished but widei' ^
vel> Bolh O n lin e s - McL“he Harvey-Nashe controversy and
and allied thesis on whjch were published in Convnu, ^
Cambridge do* rheto ^ ^ memoire. Both men began u *
in «■* m aj° r cm,,
under '" i t s h t h S “ ll" | a n d Bt.rtl.es s M y ,h o le s ,e , - which sh '
in M ' * * * f e d e r a t i o n oh o b jec ts a n d events p »*
McLtiltitn * r s jn their co new spapers. m agazm es, f , ^ " '
striking sinnla products. sp even th e new orahty. Both Wm i
lar culture- d - J images. ^ f ^ eir pro jects anc1 th e ir activities as myt
photogruP^’jcself.exaniinat'0> / , O ur an d Barthes m
refleXiVe; h X c a r c e r ^ RMff “ here literary c ritics a n d in trig u e d by the new
,aterS B0 Roth were essayists a n d a d m .re rs o f the tradition
Barth” P l a n t a t i o n s , uou crjtics and prose poets B
inceres. t» ^ Pascal; both were M .^ o rie n ta tio n ; M cL uhan
ofM on“ L , a l ist with a "•* ^ o rie n ta tio n . W h ile B a rth e s was initial,,
was a struc wing polit M c L u h a n w a s in itially fascinated by

attracted o ( A Richar . j,, ,heorieS‘

fjarthcs. heWhile
sharedMcL* »
an into.
CK Hthe semiology chara? ' the central concern of the later hermen-
STn
% tt t • ## ’ "“
" ! X r t h ^ A n d while he overtly rejected Barthes’s
Barthes's social

“ * • P° McLuM's analyses were ^ “0 ^ the »" FFrre„ch

Ihe e n c h McLuhan"
M cL uhan” and

^Derrida bad far ' ^ f ^ ' d t a i e d end

^ iC m c I ^ ’s Ideological represehla.ion, wnnld
of writing which, to

384
 r
° » ER V,
R N 1ST
-,rency or immediacy of social
tr‘inSplf,il historical unfoldinu or ", ' elat'ons- k
/ et e consciousness, meaning, pr f nera| Wrj,-* int)eed
be ana lyzed as such. It is this truth, J °f w h i c f j
/ V (’l ed logocentnsm (D errida, 1972 ^ t,0n*i effc” w°uid 0 be
■|rlSr ^ e. “ Derrida takes up again •. 7’ 329). Yet 'ect lhat i ?n V
V'inteJ ° 1' ' )ie themes M cLuhan develo'1 again’ with 3S J°hn p ^aVe
£ ■ " » l9 5 te> i«8o 7 m r tSpr hr u^ il“ ; ' ^ S ?
hyl ,he ™ Pact o f ,|,c * ° " » « n tri4 l9« s[ai,d °
* 'V fllC linearity as the repression of p| Urj Ph°netic alph^ , the eye, th!
^ ‘‘fjthesia, etc.” (Fekete 1982, 50 67) Ahh115*0^ ^ ^ ^ uabst^
‘^ity-syn‘
pity-sy V that Derrida and ivicLuhan.
D errida anu M cLuhan. the oh- h° Ugh not m 8ht’ b simui
simul
shared a fascination wP
w P 'iosoPher-,he
'iosoPher-,ile^^ nt'0ned.
ntioned. |tt
* i Ps . fC
P f and more extensively
extens.vely the
the very
very
same ^ for
f°r Joyce'3nd tfc
I’j « >"fred L h with McLuhan.
M cL uhan. me themes tht, yce eX pi0red
eXpi0
? > f 0ne aspect of D errida’s writing that an Cte says
Vre re, mode, or tone of writing which v , PPare'
rfjp re . * ode’ ° ' , f0t Wr,ting which M cu hrent,y <*h0es
JjcVfrnm Joyce s tran sfo rm a t on o f tu Luhan had h a verv
£ « * > * ? from Lucian. Seneca, * ° rk <*
is""1! s«i(l, Sterne. Pope, a n d Carlyle.’ | t ,s ,t" d ,A Puleins , '" a " ' of
aa associates La Carte Postale and , 11S tone” or Aret,no,
he als° re,ateS l° J°yce’s Wake with ,1'C<hRf°"0wing an"re With
< i apocalypse a ffilia tio n s. Only two °f
^ . t saysthat h i s ‘ a n a to m y o f t h e - post , , s , ^ e r (0n ,P at,°ns
^ t d Socrates identifies this “tone”: “If VOu of Plato standjn„ h gUs

an3n „ „enre that is not unrelated to Mp„;„ A Clt0'^v of iu0, n

be Las. Supper and o f the Fr

f a s t ™ "
1915 McLuhan had also told his readers that p-
mentations were Memppean satires (although rather, Writings a"d
I Joyce). In his practice of this poetic satiric technique h e n T * COmP
0S to a itolerance
ttixstoa for----
w a n v ----- the anatomy” as well
c..c.iom y dS we„ as
as o thJer
J : Pe jPred,sposed
'“fosec a
course.
course. It should also be notednoted that Joyce’s Wak mode! of Meni
desofM en'Pl
Poslale through Shaun (a twin son of Ann-,
irte Postale
Cane Anna [■r 'S attll,ated
affi!lated will
w
delivering a note which, Shew, the other twin (a ,Wh°’ as F
^ written for ALP, his mother. Derrida obviously r e la t^ ? dmbolic
^st”to Joyce’s, just as McLuhan does, when The P™ r IT? “*
post-electric technological role of the postal service ! ^ P ays
orderto situate electric media as a central asoect of u;! ,as te,egra
iiology. Thus McLahan’s projecl. »ift J 7 '
ppmuit),honing and predisposing the receptionof DerlidaTc!

385
 BEFO RE and
aI I / K THI EET7 ER (PR B) >‘O s | tfc l.U II AN AS
PR|
a„j,lo.nH»J ptay wir/, p o S« teto m m u n /cn o n s, and d j , «N ^/nrnunicatio’i, djSScir)j
McLuhan. in associating Joyce » post with communf t « 9 c h n
communication*, truces the f t a t i o n o f he post win, ,u “n . ^ . ^ c t u r e , etc. Ii was these ° n- p0, ks - r
throughout North <h > S ,
w»* mxvmatf rn lit* *>*teenth f nuly by/ ",lus Scaf/gcr, ’•Pe, nj exaspenP'ng and i m p " * * >n -yv<w
Nno. of W. ^ .r / W n r a ( t ^ ) declare*: Our speech /s, a# °<» lhe U(i |
man of the m/nd. "uouKh the vrviees of who,,, 0|v, ' v « N| J A f ,)t exercise may have bee?, j( * “s t|, .
Announce, the art* are cultivated, and the chums of wi^c,,,' V '" ' ,i)i-g(,rde and mdfcal elc-me ^
men for man” fMcLuhan 1993. on). Joyce a ppear h . Cry, c | « r s A c discourse o f P r e n T tT * <he
"ien for r n" ? pears “ »
rediscovered Scaliger'* «n*IW »'. «• wrft|„8 ' ^ O S
communication, a recovery that Jointly in*plres SOIT)0 “f j j u, PoN(. ^ „
Derrida* thought. although it should be noted that while
an oral stress, Derrida associates it with his Sram m u iologj^hlU tn ' 'm(,
f "writing,
While not exactly candidates lor being "the French m
"uei.
n,0rPrc,> l l 2 n
S g S tiS a ' ......B i a sIhll'’1’S'"-K‘S ' / f *1«*
i^ldldaW 10 be thc Pr«»eh Mel',,,
Deleuxe and Filix Ouattnri spoke more positively than D e rm 1,1,1>" ,> , . . .... .. .... . m „ .........
5 y<S
and shared a variety of perspectives with him or. through , of l ^ i a i K Lm* oll-x norninulion, ax Cm y * tf) *!» fttaT . "-s
project. In Anti-Oedipus, they note McLuhun’s significance JoyB* win "1 ^ ' for understanding the r„, ■ « * ’* ' ' S .J'-k
« language of decoded Hows is. as opposed to « Biu„in'n 8,,°»Wno.. hit
and overcodes the Hows" (Delouzc and Guattari 1977 / ' that N(| ^K| J, slmllfinllcs (Oenoako C ’« O ’O
McLuhan's intuitions about a language whether phonic ° 1,1 1,1 trfj ard’Mvision
„Srd’» comemporil,....> jTh?
vl*ion ,oo ff Con,crnP,>ntneiiy »H« ,S, , ' « 2 j h At>;/
or audio-visual in which no How is privileged, they s, ',“> 1'!c, '“H IM
1»dr' 1
W lunnanixtie, xonicwhai V. /r/ ' n V-ik*
he SlJfniuCantO
significance VIof mirLsUiuin
McLuhan * sMI..1VI unnfj, me
describing liulit C', „ v l’i*c
the electric ligiu CC0() ,<|'l < »tlc Catholicism is particularly^*'*
-on."«a medium without a message, for they
lion," tliev note n,„.....
that "u(ls ‘Pure K,l'*o
PUfe ini,!'1'1** shared a faxcmatio,, and HUL , Cst,i"Je, ^
be considered a realization of such a How" indetermhuid C,Cc,ric <l0J n,#* ^ L world, he wax « r„|,y Hj|« , > C
though a continuum. It should not be surprising (j,ei) “j!Hn<*«njOrp|, C|ln < “ W M W -d . Any ^
their concept ofnomadology in A Thousand Plateaux Dcl • dise,^"1"1' lffl“Lning North America to Frcnch «f Md ,|h ^
associate that process with McLuhan’s description ofu ,, ,CUZe H,,d G uat^ C lIiN * revisionist attempt to sa n n jT ? rn'w u C ' Vtr)
They juxtapose McLuhan’s notion o fu global villi, JlW«n!° pri,ni tlvL, "c‘ idat the crux of the xtory, »jnc. ,. 'I(1*al hi<,h. -
new tribal society with their notion o f "worldwide ect ub,ted 1/ "
producing a global society of "war machines." 1110,1’Cal machj, ! , exCp|oiicu,----- norm t,1e
tedl fa#Ci,’ale<l American l ’ 4 valusiT8*a
North America^1 '^ yv*hlab^», l*!t0rV^
* .,,,.arde stance
«•«* tlascmalcd Parisian . . J n ^olariv..ln , ^ . , 4 ,,,
u a m « Pnritinn
/t is not exclusively their citing McLuluin directly th *.y« provide# n ink bMwcen man, X.
aspect of their work that of "a French McLuhan" but th • mi4hl n>»ko Johan’s empirical, pseuclo.poctjc ltnm. "nch ‘heoreticJ ^ #'"mtrt„
knowledge derived from symbolisms, modernism, and parti C^n,ral bodv 0f (> l McLuhan'# »chiZo.J„„,e„l(m, J T !*»« «
of James Joyce that they as French theorists share with ,?rly tbe wort
Ssillft is clcflrly a truc of excess
encountered it a decade or more earlier than they. For ev w,)(>had Cauirillard,
udrillflrd, to the extermination of the nam?^'if
, if 1may b ()f ^
b„?
discussion in The Logic o f Sense has McLuhancsque usncctTr'6' Dcle^e's V«'< - *<Wf yly "I. vrayedevraye
rmyodovinya lllankdcbl,
Blanks, „ r U 0° M' M. xPo’iJf ex itft"-
spoke frequently of the significance o f Lewis Carroll Wli . McLt**»«n <«»"'
„B>,o»corilnrn»l»plc" (253,33
(253.33 6,6, Md
and [,,
h iOJJ , *'"f all
?' I
precursor of Joyce, in the critique o f logic and had since hi , saw f,s« uaH
lo iugmul
oltin iI churches from hch
churchet from nii" r(488.22
behind" a w i» » 1«S11'*
j aaskinu ,„i expuiLfd
*klPgod.
into the grummaticorhetorical traditions o f exegesis and th ‘ • • y rese«^h
the connection o f Carroll and Joyce with Stoic logicians Th '""'ited id beyond the word, thc media, within the L ? h Jroun(1»‘he word
spectrum, which meant a great deal to Derrida and which n T * J°m n of the pr.sl-clccliic world. Finnegam' t m S Z * » * > * X.
nued in hts earlier works. Proust and Signs (originally n u h iit? ? * rcc°«* «*<"»• “l,d deuth Wlthni Hdesign in which Jov ““ , * .ymbolic
W w r W (originally p u b liJ n l in l m , , aononiy. contemporary science and math and th7, *ys,8ame»withpolitical
tongmally p u M u M in 1970). bore on m otift o f InIMS. (he fldeistie McLuhan, in „ letior,n ! f2 1'....c“« '» a W .
of Joyce’s poetic in Ulysses and the M,kr ricnd- notedthe darknes*
Wakens con.ituting an intcUectita,
386
387
 l E TTER (P R E )I
MCLUHAN AS PREPostv
s 1M odEr
“■'"1ST
o f her facets la re] becoming m .
r i ^ b l e s ■■■sh" nks ^ u rtin e s s ^ 3"d >^mer as ,
ideSC V chaosmos has affinities with his -u-^ ^ 298-2^-3(n m \ be
J - « £5 l society. » o l « - Developing
b^veloping and and l ‘ “ ~ « >P»« £
|,;1‘ trit>a *z 59 and ,973) analysis of pre a 1 8 tb,s notion fro* Z to lhe
°r pe°ter * M cluhan explained t h K ^ ,ouit c u & S ‘mund
^ boundless
bouu^~““ random ---------donations”
„cu,ons'(Mel has no center It
‘,“5 no
h ° ' Vthe ° r ,inn of the etym (353.22) t i b«c e ,nsists.° •on ofof this
this approximates
approximates the the twelfth-century
twelfth-cemurvA An^n" ,989- 133). His
’■pliie abn'h,l,saf Joyce’s Wake occurs in iv a , h,s i, le^P rip11'ain of
0f Lille’s description of God. God, in
i„ w hS^W
h io l^ Z*""-theological
Ala,n ° center is
!o«‘ A'a'bose is everywhere,
everywhere, and whose circaGod m l, ’S 39 inte%ible
‘Z i e 1,56 r e ironically echoing th at o f t f f V ,
pPere’ ,968. 6-9)- This situates McLuhan’s hidden or ah 'S nowhere”
,-n jo?r n’s 01051S ^ ) ' the two ^ ‘kean w° rds’ “he war" ature- like that of Blaise Pascal’s deus a b s c o ^ Z V ? 3 de,lV
U buh W /^ nnalyseS P roducing and exposing those n " u 19& Lyon0 ,\ not God. is- an intelligible
^ f jefend the C atholic l0g0, ^ cA - * hglble sphere* For' P
sphere. For ppTj'Z'
Z , for
,...,' ° b°th hold
h»t °atUr,es absolute space snfipp hpmmpc
becomes the „u. abyss «for he-sc'di,’ as
3S Jorges Luis
P e r r i n i n t n ° °: observer 1 aring a ground for radic! , > t J
porgeS med to adore God. But God was less'real to him C m(1 the
^ universe
145'59)' A n etnPir!.|itter,” ' e„ough a paradoxical move w £ . Jpd yea He was sorry the firmament could not speak- he^omn™ tkan nthe" hated
haled
role mode1' the Edw- C ^ < ‘ iverse- ri . wrecked men ___ ______ _ | island.
on a desert ia,a He felt t h espared
h T ^ our
°Mlives
'Wes
JOyeea0 NorthA0 McLuh a n S e empiric, poetic acrobatics, !thos« off f world;
tothoSewstcaV world: fie he felt confused, afraid anda n d ^ w " >n?uS3nt *W*e’ght **
theory |0get|CS ° L p e rio d t0 hts for late radical modernity of like this: “ It [Nature] is an infinite sphere, the center of whic^s
witty °P ' t> n' .j phoristic ' he message, the massage ( "d P^t.
l'isfe here the circumference nowhere (Borges 1968, 6-9). Borges al o
aK' J ^ ° < as “^ e M e o fT he crow d),” events w h o s e ^ ^ S ) ri'eryl a t according to the manuscript version, Pascal first wrote frkht- '
l i a b l e ) rather than rnfimte, reminding us of McLuhan. who L o
s s f e * « j * s s * - '"’piic,‘Hons of “syn’bo' ic o ; ful ( a e posthterate death of the book and insists on the logos as a primal
andi(Sard ^ S - ^ S o o much communication in the - fears the-.v his God ,s absent from the media world. Consequently his
r f S * * ^ 2 ^ there of silence), communicat( siting ' jnated a sense of panic to North American intellectual dis-
th ,1
r i uhan.
iihan- wh ;l(,r J°yceV S ,r delay, cconceal,
aar to J°A o n ceal, aand
n u eradicate i, visi011 c it
',lS,u jt assimtiaieu
aSSiniilated French
. theorists - first Derrida, wno who had rejected
had rejected
Mr/nerhapssl01,la
M iiy to
.0 detour,
de,? U,C l m o s to
to be
be th Jo jc a n ”ch,
e Joycean
the - i Fr°^ course aS„ and ultimately, Deleuze, Guattari, and particularly Baudrillard
can**
“ “ Ty borrowed from , he a p p « d a ,i „ of McLuhan’s
Mek°h a n he most appreciative M c L u ta ', ambivalent
ambivalea, awareness of the *
ol0lU' McL°haI1, r.uattari apP‘,re y d ln th e 194()s , “ke 'a who was W3S 1 . off evii evil and the awareness of fatal strategies and cool tnemone- memories.
5parency sonapy committed to the Vatican and its defence through a
r a- ,0 ex p l a t symbol,call “« I
^ Even thoug1 ^
« — < »- “ >*» V»f a " - >««—
actually a schizo-fideism - McLuhan chose to be of
i'£ m M“t ™ S n a world moving toward ch,M" pseud°'Th01™ crjb in g M ilton’s Satan as Jehovah, called the devil’s party;
Fdear A,len P the tension be . rror, discovers the “power of del detached what B'ake' becom ing the prophet for the global, transnational elec-
^h?whodun,t“^ P '^ ralyzed
^ S with
- i h i - interest
s t i n in t hthe1 action of the storm. simultaiie0US y hde intensifying and accelerating the hysteric broad
sailor * ttC
c fwho- m a»: ' Sf whose
„ thuS taking wl ose working title had been„ T, *11CU uidf
Guide tronic entrefP^ e insights of French theory.
observation- hanical £'7 ’ image to explain his new empiric reception ot tn ,riUard< and t0 a lesser extent Deleuze and Guattan,
l n l 9 5 '^ M CLuhan used he ^ ^ in From Cliche to Arche^ jf Viriho ana ‘ affinity with McLuhan than Barthes, Derrida, and
Chaos, •M 1996,
> Chau’’ j996, O'’
51, **- / '• hoth
th his
hjs Roman
Konian Catholic faith andt0
anato appear to have a g M cLuhanism has played a role in their rise to
,ethod ^
thod (W)l^ , ‘ ^ committed to t0 bbat chaoS js
is the devirs
devil’s world - and that jean-Fran<r0,s ^ ’A m erica because the schizoid McLuhan’s demomc
hizo-Mchuhu' •„ dec)ares th cyclical reversal that Baudrillard prominence m N ort t provides familiarity with the issues that
yce’sChC o d u c e d b y th e very tyP cra_ re sl# in g in the ecstasy of side, let loose ' n h ’S. ^ P' r_ Pol being encumbered by McLuhan s hidden
ch chaos is Pr° . 0f the sini vicom am sm . Baudrillard and Viriho ^ transformation of reality into virtuality^
fideist agenda - revea . £ svmbolists, particularly Joyce, which released
nsiders charaCbllt also characteristic o n iv a f e s q u e d o m a in o f an earth
jmiunicatiom b js th e comic, l j m it s in g t h is tendency ...to Through h is P P McUinar
‘T ' m ' S m ’sh a s fo r ov" f° ” r d " “ t o *
Ms demonic
m ik Z S ^ K 3 'l • r p a ^ s m i c p e r i n t u t t e r . . .
389
r f r r f SaSs P ^ » s p ° SS,ble- P
 ft r HE LETTER <pRE) pOST
»FFO«f ' *VJj
w h>.nv'i>. becoming-object. rhi*0m,c „ MrLUIlAN As
•'Hi poSl
inojnatx'w5
Win.-*"--'^• *P**»**>- ,acc^ r f yS ^
speedt ^ "UK.
oor- smw*K«- * * £ ^ - c h ^ s m o k m o f the 3 JJJ* 'he **
£ £ North America with the C on„ n> f i X S ^ R^ ren'ces
an HKTWtmSt' * * * £ (/ie intent of mveftmg the r e ^ J ^ U u * % «f Mikhail ( 1968) Rabe/ais
excess hut al**^ ^ and Bench theory upside d o u \ ,rnP lU ?% ^ * BM
W d "hrtdi?
t ®: MIT
- ' 1 press
««</ <s TZ ^
aHis
protect b> w m " ,L ni^mbefing h o " ,n th e ei£ h te e n th ,v and 1,1 tk* i'-*"’^ ) ProHtms ° f Dostoevski °H< If
For that « * » * • " ^ p h Addison had essentially tr ie J ? 'UrY t f ^ e S
(I -f MinntKnfn Er<
(,^rsity"of'Minnesota Press(1*««
“""--------------le|ei>e
l "i'^phen (1995) ‘Nietzsche/^ , '•>1 E
o f \lk h d Montaigne. F ^ l ° ^ W , (I-. ' ^ y (lra
m!** ,,-,he Unnamable'. Pos,„Io, j aa- B|an„, ' ur*,, ,,ran
> Roland ( 1972) '• Mi„nea
Pascal- ;n \ j j i s o n seems m ote apt than e v e n ’s a l°n a*
^ 77) Roland Barthes By Bo,and^
™ " for * " *■— * I(VW
.tn?-
^n« ,es- R l, ' *"0nd0n. , • IVw
his proper c to jorge — •
*<kl Simon and Schuster.
.. t,udi- i f such a man there be I'’1*' Gil'es
lilies (( 1972)
1972) Proas,
Pro,, and Signs ’ '* * ' *««h R "' ^ Hi,,

^ (# 0 ) The Logic o f Sense, C. Ba ' ,,rans) v,

.Notes < j ' o N e « York: Columbia <ed , M ' ^ Vork. „
Jiand Guattari. Felix ( 1977) A n d - o " ^ ^ wj,h ^
. aad Donato <19701 is a collection o f papers and discus*
1£ ? 2 d at * * m Hopkins Utm etstty m October 1966. £ °.n ^ •^ T n — ' Hurl^ ' n / ,(lran ^
poxticipaB: *- -- ,an " peseta Press ' Ma«u mi y
- McLahaa
{ S d ”» HMM to Marshall Fishvick. (31 July l 974 ) sn< "ot 3
: V ^ HMM to Marshall Fishvtick (August I. 1974). 506. *1*: JaCqp ^ 972) Marg,ns ° f Philosophy a n ‘ nneap0'is: Urj-
and the
TV toal point about the subtime and the ^interior
o M landsca^
and ■ ^Chicago ^ ^ A‘^ss ^ l,Vers,iy or
UcLfans essay ■Temnson
'Tennyson and Ptcturesque
Picturesque Poetry
Poetr\” ” in \ ic7*f* is
* exD, I ^ - ( |9S4,;. " ° °£ s or J°yce'. jn D ' Chicago- y..
to adkfitiM to thes question iversity
quest!™ ^of the
^ evolution
« olution o f the m
interior
t e r i So r j ul9<
^ >j9 «-« I S^ ‘Cl59. '* ^
im tiiw - WcLuhan s u titin ^ on Tennyson also in ^ fmT5sJL
oft^rtstory. and hence thegnosoc. o f Manicheanism. and qS ^ n' Al‘ " =»■« (ta „t l
aaa of the epjffion or tittle epic in contemporary literature < L , the P nJl0* Press. ^nicaBn. ,, . css-
Alfred Lord Tennyson, SelectedPoetry (McLuhan 1956.x xiii , ntr°d^iT"n-
5 McL±az 1951. As Greg IMhnott points out in McLuhan or " t0 h,cag0
’ 11996k tits ooeorngcommitment to this goal is attested by his « F,
record produced by cbs in 1967. paralleling the book publication °n iheZ !
l/aoote.
the Manage. ° ' Th<-kle*. n>J Roulledge- 77,e H o s i e r s ' ^ ^
6 Gordon 1997,331 It should be noted, however, that Ogden inspire 'ed><h
Gordon. T .( 1997) Marshall McLuhan • Escnn ■ "'P'osion. Londo
imom
JU 2U1efir* mriitinn —
SDCtradition —the
u«. Rrirish "«
school emarmfiner
vv' w nmauu^ jrum t~irth. a” re<^
h u ~ j u,nton f l a m e s ( 1945) Finnegans Wake, New To
ddSaussore. It should also be noted that McLuhan not only d.vt Hal,iday~th r^M i Julia (1980) n ^ ir, in Language
( 1980) Desire r ... York;c V
Viking. Toron‘o: Stoddart
Krista. „king
until tbs mid-1970s, but that in the late 1950s he had clearly reie£°!i ^ Saus^r
and would not consider reading de Saussure. ' 1 ted stru«ura|jSn.' NewYork: Columbia University
-- *V*Press
IC55. ’ *'. G0ra
' Roudi«-7T VJ( „
Ihdaey, R. and Donato, E. (1970) The / Brans).
7 The term Menippean satire became more widely recognized in V
after the publication o f Mikhail Bakhtin’s Rabelais andhis W orld ( i n ^ oifca* ifot. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins VniyersitTpT °f ^ 'he S ■
terns of Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929) (The entire 1963 text had l ' 965f ar>dPtok McLuhan, Marshall (1951) The Mechanical T l °f
'faulty 'English translation in 1973); and in Julia K risteva’s / ) J ^ n pab,'sfled ina Boston: Beacon. ' Br,de' Folklore 0f r-j
Semiotic Approach to Literature and A rt (1980) (originally nnhlkh fa — (1953) -James Joyce: Trivial and Quadrivial’ n "
1979). The term was familiar in North American criticism in the 1950 France ®
by its appearance in Northrop Frye’s Anatomy o f Criticism ( 1957, , ifSr ,denotd and Winston. New York- Hnh d- v
refers in La Carte Postale. ' ,W 7 '’ towhl^ Demd. — (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy Toronto . i • ’ ™
8 For an elaboration o f this phrase, see Barker 1995. 14 - 0 9 6 4 ) Understanding Media °f'r°rx>n,°
- W The I n ' e r J u t n d s c ^ l ^ ^ -
,m ' ° C r,,,m '" of Marshall McLuhan.
390
391
 f" ' < n7,
* M()._
/ W / w . fi. McNnmam (cd.). New York: McOraw-Hill
(IQS7) 77it Letters o f Marshall McLuhan, M. Molina
(eds), Toronto: Oxford University Tress. ' ,(). ( M qi
und Willson, Wilfrid (1970) /■><»» C'llcM to Archetyn., m "bi)„ u
and Powers. O R <1980) The Global Village, New York n V°rk ' T0 62
Wilmort, Gregg (1996) MrM a n or Modernism in v'kilu
Toronto Press T° n ni^ r J \ M ASSAG E i M

Of Remembering,, ' M As

, (WltH0Jo""1"1^minimi andv„,,
/W ,
"</«/ //,"I'm|,

, 1920s, /.A. Richards' exDe...

..... ........ ..............

I Imendotaund, when rescued u ’*■ Kic|,tlr, H'»il, 01

' * £ "inertoftliecanoe r / „ ,5 * " > ''''c o ,,“ Hii„ » » .1 >

l„everyday life. He developed r g0,,4«tc viJri S|,,8ly jn..

m ,/,e milicnlions o f daily ' ^ J ^ F * * * * . * » ...C ? * «*
ingor humanistic features of the eul, ltdis'o rL , °nservlt|j®S"Ut>'ion,
1 ,„li»loflhisamnesia <«* l0, * « * « * ! • * * * £ < * ~
I criticisms. At the same time, in order 'K 110 reason *llilVc ben
/ (ontribution, it does not seen, enoufiI ? PPr0priat<-‘aid*'° ^
0 simunuficuusiy
cm simultaneously account in i„ , 0 re,,earse
eilei'rse th
n, " “^ mi s e M
McLuhan’s
cLuhan’s writings continue to in,COmP,ementaryin,C°mP,ementary ?^ Ccrilit tril'ds,„s,
*« ** *« *e" as an an alibi
alibi forfor ddis
ft ,^ ^ Ho» K S m'’ ** «*
important
™ for ^ us? ns? ToTo whatwhat extern Ussing 'ng aa confio,,
< W U, • ^ work l"ai
’i c a llv -o rie n tp /t,....... e X ,e n t it be l l ‘ltl° "
,,«PVall,.orie„,ed hnm ania™ ^',,a > "*wfc5 ^ "“»« *£J
(.n*S»i shifts. civiIiza,io„.|eve, ,sl"P-characteril. ”°*lf„“
.-pedagogy? The o b s e r v a f tL f n ? 01'' a f-tu iiS ',
-pb ien ,ary framework . ™ b e l o w are % « e»w
modern account f c 1'" " '" 8 * * 2 1 " '° * » J

392 s « f ‘= a a S S K j =s 0ns of ^ eighteenth

 .-t E r THE LETTER: (P R E )P o „ _ M A SSA G E I*
BEFORE A ^ O AFTER STMOfJf t HE
A«SAQe
■ ^ The extent to which this revolnt * ^\ f which Understanding M
and nineteenth oen[ “^ , atj0n, knowledge, and intelij gen ' ° n hjHy «h®1in and *oid u
new modalities o rrangements o f our social, e c o n o n v t*1e e»,V° l
^/ , >o '&$puh*n
Uc'Luhan touched a conten,
COnt*n'p0rJ * uUnir
Ullin 6,1*< „
" and the extent to which ft « u i l , s u b ,i Vtf* recept,on ,n university Cl^ . dr> n J ^ ^
cultural institutlons’ . nd esthetic responses have b e c o 'n,'n*l J° i V ,o 5 enthusiastic, and it js n ^d im e-
» o » «« ’««' ■ »»«. wT K S k ' S C ' ;>'1- h ‘he
•es in «» way
wa> o faoifCsa *fav^
of
n «y *ib|e. toc to in „,sfc, "'yC
pressing questions Qf these changes. In the im m m,'Tlense Pe'i ) I/
that may be implicated’n ^ y ^ ^ e|pf,f_ ^ . 1^m ediatp * j y$ '-of® * . nolanzed around his dt
£ * . i g S nSthe j J g S of * * * * 2 ? > 4 fe ^ * « .
and impact o
fnnr newly-emerging electric or electronic tech* ,i>te’ the ""iw
f o ____ incorDoration ttur®> from the spirit
spirit
PT , h their social incorporation mayroproceed
m ay p ceed p o i nno ,os,„.
t T ^ f% K l I P f y C„ la ted text. ^ 'v a O t j ^ i
jvay in "-----
* £ r r cstructure ana quality
t u r e and quamy oo.f human
mrnian inte
interao,
' I ' °“ pO
p° ssiK,l'V
s l > J'ho
<h I » Nation
150,3 environment of ei,„
uences ^ J ^ uences attached to the invention o f ° ns “‘
Pr°f°unf * SMcLuhan tried to absorb and respond to thi thi^ p ' ^ r ^ J I Z Z t Uof formal With education.° f COm Putersr°snuic
It favour!U.?8esls
h u m a n ^ o r l d on the point of evolution, and to a r t i c u ^ 0^ , ' t(iat 'vl11 make stored informt
huT * "ssures that this imposing complex o f problems n . n °rje °f 'he I proliferation of signs at Iarg
‘Vrcises on the enduring concerns in the purview o f the h u^ ° p Portu! N f ° (S n S and interrelating data ,o
exercises on he has /eft behind a ch a l , J ^ ni'i« oriit,>e$
and^nstitutional legacy. He can be described as a enginB
institutional fate is particularly interesting and instructive
intellectual project. . . . . . . . rartHnB?!s I ^ ■ not hard to see how such ^ an°rjSconfi
^
It appears paradoxical that M cL uhan sh o u ld have becom ?b,s ^ if 15 oi and professional attachment' emPhasiVrmedon^ r, n> m
most widely known and acclaimed literary scholar w hile rem ain the ^orlm
uncherished or resisted in the academ ic m ih eu w here he sp e l * 8 ^ *
I ^ l e a d y feudal division of function” ih ^ to
working life A year after h,s death, his Centre for Culture and r of ?
i^rsity structure of the 1950s, M c S di,cip f i S ^ ^
being dismantled at the University o f Toronto, and his work L nol° Z £ " i«h his vigorous pursuit of an in terd S " ^
relatively little active interest in recent years in the academ ic h ^ attr*Za
1 the humanities and social sciences, bea,?P mar>inw ,he d^ t ' n;
, 5 founded on a Ford Foundati^8 ningin 19tt lgati°n cm,
contrast, it is worth recalling how very popular M cLuhan beCa n’anit'es B
1960s in important non-university sectors including teaching t Z during Z » S S — I. P""V •Tough McUha
^esinee
^attackon the f-.do!
feudal forms - an s°'vneff^.
c----- ofeduc"„°W n^ ^0rms-ofCour^
eering. architecture business, and media-related fields. In th p ^ en©'n!
guage le mcluhanisme became a comm on noun, signjfyjn C Frer,ch ian t < ch and advocates of deschooling as ° Pressed hySuJ ^ntextofI
cultural forms In Canada, McLuhan advised the federal govf rn,Xed-media I "Itmovement. Interdisciplinary formations, ' / 5 b> a b r ^ f ^ a s
U.S.. he collected substantial fees for talking to executives o f b ' iZ ' " ’ in 'he
finable of looking after their needs, and yarest4 e ^
IBM. Container Corporation o f America, and G eneral Moto 6 Te,eph°ne
& £<■ ir^ven more s.rategicall, impon ^
observed that McLuhan’s sense o f the corporate “may even (T ^ bas been mm *> ' lassl,icatlon' dsfimt.on, and C0 . 0 ,d i„ • '
executive suite as attractive a base o f operations for him as th Z made 'he ^tech n iq u es pose a fu r th e r great challenge for T T °f ^ the eW
had been for the early humanists” (38, p.93). e tilr°ne room .yrltespecial concerns of the humanities; the c h a l l e n ^ t but ^Pect^lv
Newspapers routinely referred to him as “communication •hat are and are not technical problems and to
“media guru,” and Toronto newspaper coverage alone o f M ^ropflet” or ioschuman functions-from the phatic to the vah,° he VaIonza>'on of
1223 column inches in 1964 (36, pp.31-33). H is face a ppeared on d, 3n Was cognitive—for which technology cannot substitute bT ^ “ d u ally
Newsweek, and Saturday Review, and m aterial b y and abou t , .£C0Vers°f j functions are essential to the interpretive and commun'^11^ ,bese ^uman
vast and varied audiences through new m ass circu lation organ 'p , reached lieformation of human community and in the intersuh'03-1'6 dimensions in
Vogue, Family Circle, Fortune, Life, Esquire, P la y b o y, N ation al * '■®L°,°k’ I ^land cultural goals (39, pp.5-7). The in fo rm a tio n ^ v lf^ T '^ ^
Yorker, New York Times Magazine, N a tio n a l C atholic R eporter and 7 ’ Z " all its perceivable pressures and unforeseen fallout o h J T l ***
Photography, as well as radio, television, a record, a n d film s M ri 1 , •iththe full force of all their traditional concerns in a s t r a t i S humanmes
McLuhan’s recognition of the education,, S
took advantage o f the rise o f the m ass p a p e rb a c k , a n d published "" °
over a tarn, m into the resistance of scholars to the primitive contents“ h,

394
395
 \ ETER THE letter , P R E) Po;
before AHD
TMOof
media. His polemical attacks on the m0„
Z d o n thr
the extent
extent T r> <
to >
wh/ch t ° ^^ '> o f tf)
r™ch'n^ a^ '- tc be passive consumers o f unirornUv d,,,°na, e bo0,
polemically rejected by academics in a d e ^ W ' N l *>
t.6. ; f.irther from the institutional norm* , ■eg- ')
a"dL. d4 t 'rihntion
n S o n ooff information
informationbyuy playing
F'<v'"i= to ad mass aud, °e n. Jre >.«
and hjs ^ nous underestimation o f universu;e<f nce ' / X ,11
cultural and intellectual values which i s Z h ^ of Z ‘n
exploratto <• simply further strained his rel -f*e O’arjd c>V i'
the end. the a c a d ^ " ’
Z Z ie a e e with his provocative formulation o f a V l a s s r o ^ '* * * h i V
and ,ts central recognition that, in the e le c tro n s '"form at? * ,thou, e >e,'
learning occurs outside the classroom. at,°
2 As proportion and propriety are closely linked, so a
volume o f information outside the classroom and , he ^ o n
KIcLuhan. through the Exploratrons period and thereaft ° r^ a l a °n %
high-culture provincialism that -everything connected Z , Z ’° Z Z fctf
m en* sport, and popular entertainment is merely VU| J r . %
came to define culture as a communication network with ° 8- p oKCo,»-
and activities have some kind o f relation so that -there ar t>bk* all Z ^
areas' in society (19. p.191). By shifting attention to fQr "° «on
the formal continuity oorf cultural articulation i„ in a* mu,V
- . 7 °-’’ he
ne af,
atten7 Ura/
_ r'Ufai
When McLuhan linked profane culture to canonical cult 'Plicity of f '<>
that the new media were “serious culture" (21, p. 7} Qr {h Ure- and PrQ >el<k
symbolist techniques to create communal participateZ advenisjnJ’0**!
institutions of national brand commodities such as C o - ^ If)e tote" ^
he was taken to be heretical with respect to the n 3 Co,a (20 ! 7 s,ic
p r is o n s cano"fai I
Now »e can recognize such arguments as belonging n,,les
complex concerned with reducing the distance between th° 3 ,3rge cultu
forms of life. Northrop Frye’s argument for the formal ^ ^ 3nd 'he Z Z
tive across different discourses, the universalism imp/,c,tCOnt'nu,t> ofna^ er
the rhetorical stances and conventions that both oreaniz attention *
writing and cut across disciplines, the structural or semi o f dlSClp,,ne'sPecifi°
stgns throughout the social domain in networks o f cony ,C.8eneralizati0n r
and the post-structuralist development o f the productiZ'0031 for™ation!
and genealogy all parallel or confirm McLuhan’s a ^ n° tl0ns of ^
around tf a politically democratic intellectual and i n s t i t f r ^ Z 3nd create
was unavailable in the 1950s and 1960s. which is more ? C,Uster«hic|,
synchronized with — the widely
-----v variable icuievai
retrieval and
and recently
r ■ rea,‘st'ca//y
in the contemporary
/n the information environment
contemporary information ^m ,v„-------- and
‘ . in, P '0n conditio
. ecePf,on COnd'"ons'
can be fruitfully resituated. What the traditional humani L ' l d \ McLuba"
ist social sciences still need to introduce into s u c h d t h e h u ™n-
configuration in order to assist the active appropriation o f p Z t l T ^

396
 MASSACie , N

. „ and agency is. ,a) a re '■!.

jd eC‘S,0exPloratiOn that the open f o r ^ ' ^ <* iv
^ l ‘c -0n of the ways in whlc. ^ of it*' *** vaW .
of mass culture may be ««
J j ^ i o n of the sem.ological f,eld ^ * * 4 * £ ;< «££**• <b, a ,
ZfS^Zx. and (d) a n em ancipatory , ' lV* £ ? * '* * * (m
^ setnioticized social universe *
i0 lh ,rast to the deeply rooted def m' (* ( L * 11*-" ol
fin with their received « $ £ * £ * ^ *
'piaOitt he social order or disorder or ^ 01 %au , '* ‘he tr a
Sis J pro»rammal,ti,lly ,he t- _ > -»
»"<i ■»»'. »'*' « £ * ■«. pS l " o2 5 £
PmctiCtyOperates in T ' ! ,p,e ways with the i."****9"'* n j f w*Wing a
J d ^ p o r a r y world (17, p.xvii, v i ^ ^ f c ^ a c t U
< -nhe
die ***
m -the technological bias of the age”
afe- ^„ t, 1,kt ^
1* *riv W?>i»> «* <*
of
,.tncked the
,he electric media as hopeful f e L a t u ^ V '1'!* 1«* * * " had
W
d e < , 3), and to claim that they resolved the tradt '*e >houu T "* to
healed ,he prtm'“ ' *rlit
(* ^^technologically-effected resolution 0f Droh, * ^ W
SUf f sensibility that preoccupied T.S. Eliot is a par> S the d,ii<X;
a ^ l r v superord.nat.on of the world of h u m a n e ^ '
d*510 hine and it was bound to evoke nervous 10 ll* world of
^ ^hum anities- with justice in so far as any d i s t m ^ ft°m the *d-
*0* between technical potentials and the contexts S T m McL^ n s
*Til,ng But it is noteworthy that elements of a\\ of M ,Ul?an reH»nse ,s
elustvC- Uaborated in this reversal. The search W T * S humaT''«
C L influences such as G.K. Chesterton. Hilaire h,s
Ca*01 an openly technical turn in Teilhard de Chart!n t
U"lSuradidonn of t f Lewis Mumford. until the U late ^retractions
r e S ^I '?^ . 10* -
lJSl£a served as the motive force of the renewal of ctvifoation S ,
• f C r u t u r i s m and Dada.sm Cubism and C . a , ^ ' »
■ * im i s description of the newspaper
ripuui. v*t —"-v~vn-t as da new
„ „ torm
fom of0, communalJ
“T ”i«-i3132. PP.5-21
2 . pp )■ McLuhan found, to
o-21). to adapt
adapr a phtase „f m
phra, of an £t £,..1
afned Giedion. that mechanization took command of the imagination
i t Fn°lish traditions of praise for the miracles of the machine ao back to
The J n-S -Locksley Hall,” Carlyle's description of locomotives as 'out
Tenn' " md Shelley’s description of the scope of technical power in
^meiheus Unbound.
P haps most importantly, the Anglo-American tradition of critical
. of which McLuhan could be described as a culminating figure
l^ ; 3°5v in its strivings for totality and order, from LA. RichardsandT.S.
Eliot through the New Critics and Northrop Frye, developed an increasingly
 m assa g e in tup
BEFORE AND AFTER THE l e t t e r ( P R E )P O s tm
S *g E
I •cent, it passed unnoticed thai k
i " t oto recapture for humane *1 McU ha,
> 1 ' P « ^ e s and a*0
■ being rapidly claimed by t h T l 'Vhich haJ ou*r
" k on the rise after the 1939-hj .P°Sltivist <d aba ? 'be
US ^ n T ^ S ' ^ " n^ nf in Ihe option pre. •ts to I - , disarmed; they c o u ' f c , E v & ^ >
,- VJ Lulian hoped, in the control tov 'der thai w ,he hul hai
* 1 * Z thus acquired greater r e s p o n d °f s o Z >
.- t-enfuries o f mechanization, which link him with a variet l!> t"'s crir **°f ^ W'1',renter range o f questions. b,l,ty. i.*
ie *- *o na,,
£ 5 £ V a ,.n a tio n critique. and also tended to o ^ f
greater gate ^
lrt S interdisciplinary . worldliness w»„
-"-•■ ness Wftc CaPacit>
f i l i n g humanist scruples ,n h» m e th o d o lo g y , asserti ° ^ h e % iF
lVCi ullh:
h*1'1,d*. many
nv pubhc
nublic supporters,
suDnortf.^, u. n was-
e l>ln fact-
fa, eXcem
need not be accepted as a late (26 p.76) h,s warning , hat * a t c J “n. Mil'1' *!' the social sciences were DrtVl med in aii P '0r hk r
work very hard to retain " the achieved values o f the Gu ten h e r ? niUS, ' > V a flS!ific disciplinary standpoints to X ^ ly If h*
culture (26. p 125). or his repeated comments on the statUs > .«* » IN consideration £
as consisting o f probes, not fixed formulas. The held o f a ' hls <*vn > 1 ■ > ‘^m ental elements would cause alarm ncal- 'echn pS
from both a humanities and a soctal science tradition as we n ° n * * > *
arts, the set o f problems and resources received from a literary * V he W ? O b je c t around twhich
V i c the
h ^ strategic
r , ,o • " moves
£ ? £ s* 5
the moral orientation supported by a Catholic religious traditi diti^ ! N inthe preceding decade or two developed
McLuhan with an anthropology o f man as “ the to 0|-n ' " c°mb,npnd ;rarv k " u| 'be
whether in speech or in writing or in radio" (26. p.4), to c m m 8 * n i£ ? < > 1 0 - . —cjuai^ ,nsl
hutnanitities
(‘ <,t a different strategic stage of instin.t;
hich. taken as a whole, but read through the e C an
moment, was bound to be almost im possible for liter, ^opened to intertextual configurations wim ' develoPmem t
accept.
1y nu L results from the structuralist and post ? ' n the exPanded r ^ ani
l,niunists ^ a g e paradigm (see 11). New
4. McLuhan's “worldly turn." as it might be called, reversed
isolation of the literary humanities from social currents He tl Systemat 'V‘‘ ill l’tive interpretive norms and assumption^ COn,e*ts (soc 'fa'10n
a two-centuries-old critical strategy adopted under the hostil C°nfr°nted Sonant! reproduction) that impinge m t r m Z ^ *
industrial, commercial, and political developm ent. M e t* ,Pressur*s of ^ sive direction and support, moreover from ,exts <s bejno
relentlessly that the age o f electro-magnetic inform ation pro argue<j iffta s Miche! Foucault. Stanley Fish an l nSUch divergent I ? * 0
dentially capable o f satisfying without exception all o f the ^ " l8 Was ten. f p 41). It seems much more likely that MeLah^ 01111 ^ l i a ^ S
humanists had demarcated for two centuries as their basic de C° noerns that or deviant in such a conligura,i„n
less in critical opposition to the system o f the world. In e(pands more or S - « « * for h,S “ n “ r n s a P '“ “ o f im p o r ta n c e i„ a hearing
declared that the culture-society, or cultivation-calculation ^ ^ L'Lu^n njraii«m
iiigtn-. oadl>- ecumenical
-—mciiK
Romantic origin was terminated (10, p.8). an d he used antag0nistn of Infact. McLuhan s work remains one of the best ii v •
developed in literature and critical theory for the analysis o f - appari|tus forexploring the nexus that bears his mark: interpretation’" the hunianibes
and social relations COrnTriunicativc toiwminily. It links him to pragmatist traditions as mu h
In as much as his arguments abou t a comprehensive ’ editions. The context of reception belongs to both an l u ! ° hermeneutic
environment left no place for privileged isolation o f th e h u n u i n t ■ rmation m. senseof a mass audience that he believed was too nu , , han's endur-
objects o f study, McLuhan was sim ply takin g n o te o f D ! 'es an<*^ if pattems of the cultural environment to be aware of t, , bythe habi'ual
cultural realities that the humanist were unready to accept a ° ess,0”al and aroundit gave him the broad theme of manipulation in ? , "ges
turn, the political economists. The general p rin c ip le here is r ^ ofii. Fromthe Richards-EIiot tradition McLulvm h. i ■ u -t0 take account
privileged, self-determined, stable spheres o f se p a ra te d hunvi e .8.of in the manipulation of in,pul*7 7 ^ *• «» « « .
Nevertheless, the skeptical response from th e h u m a n itie s involved * equilibrium. Manipulation and massaee tt K ormat,0n of a
concern that McLuhan's im patience w ith m e d ia tio n s m ay erode rfiidi some of the stimulating elements in
more necessary humanistic opp o sitio n to th e im p e ria lism of instrumental ifviewed—elements that may still be usefnllv to.mh i k ay ^
dimsions. 'y t0Uched 0,1 ,n contemporary

m
399
 SAGE IN T H E MAS S AGE
before and after the l e t t e r <f r E) i, 0 s t
„ aS a general theory of objectivation has •
The major opening image o f M e e h a n 's 1967 text, The , ^ ,.irs I* * :,,,,. In this sense, media are not vehicle S ce,lt^ a
Massage (29, pp.4-5). highlights a^/.fe-s.zed hand cuPping £ yC ^ m e d contents, or co-efficients of ideofog' ™ean* of
the barely visible side ot a head. A lock ol hair, a patch of f ar attyc/ v % tpso f acto dreCt"rS ideol°gy and so;-althre;r very
dim suggestion o f a cavity to house the eye add fragnieiUs ° / J r eh ^ h ed *
/U '0 t\^ 1 that they compel involvement and panicfoL e' at,° ns
so/e caption inquires: *\ . •■the massage?
™assa^ ’ The most part ° P
™ost part|- i ct j l **KI
. ,le fo||0. h McLuhan characterizes the electric age (i] pat,on- t h e
.. . here
display . .L nrnhlemiltic
the central problematic o f in
o f M cL uhan's M te
cLllhnn'c .... _ ,e U,e*«
rro g ^ ,'Set>"o|0
^ 'n e nn tt ootf the
' t n ie me earliermprint-dom
- i- u o m in ainated period J ? trast to
te d periods 10
tactile held dominated by the hand. t.e. the universe o( man ’ !,S; a f *i| |tf(i< J d e tach. is that o f a receiver, this is evidently the L h f much
The controlling focus o f the image ts a receptive Ee",PU,at<on C°9 h I * that
.cimofa ntionreT er’ this is evidently theorld of
oo ff signs, d l r uch
attention. In mapping the held o f attention, more broam of am , X > "5 , consumption signs, consume*;__„
consumption of meffia uni­ r Uni'
t’s inquiry into wny
is’s why we attendaucuu to the me things to ?Ju- ‘^ u,«n
9 rfS l themselves take on, ,n their very 0ne rI t C° rre-
Innis
n xvii) McLuhan expands a problem in the p sy
(15. p.xvii). s ycchhnon l o J ” lch vve ;*ro|u I fA . * * , 1 the form o f the unilateral gift, the massage S’ the
perception toward the articulation o f an ecology o f sense ? ? S°Ciol > < ^ < 1lard’s account, if one agrees to understand commu
organic and social sensorium such aspects o f sense as sen* ^ !'n8 frr.°^ °f 08ud,r,l(lra n s rn is s io n -re c e p tio n o f a message" bTt a ^ ti0 0 " 1'1111'1' 03'
sensuoasness, sensibility, apprehension, affect, percept c o n " ' *ei,, (|'e PL ^’ J b i libiW
i t yr (not
t " '-’1 psychological —
or moral, but persona"?1
n .o ia i, DUt P ersonal *0031
As their ratios change. M cLuhan says, people change (29 " Cept- ratioUa,'ty, ,n
> C „soonhange)- then
then media, as M
media, as McLuhan
cLuhan accurate,, _ 3 ' mutual
accurate?, presents"!?3’
The gesture o f amplified auditory attention, especially a 1 na,ity ^ ' " comm unication, preventing response, and ‘W hem’
favour
tavour no particular
no pai ucuia, point ot view,
P.....------- rests
--------- on a poostu
“ D^siure f t0rer-.io f torr , ssa^
e‘*r is $ ^ :a‘e 110 'L n g e inipossiuic
.hans.e m tne
impossible (except in the various fo
forms
rm s S ? ' " 8 6 a"
an
t/v/ty
tivity adjusted to the anticipation o f an acoustic or oroi oral ' Sensorv
Se,,s°'y rj;"d lo < s o<>fe( *^ JcZt vesS interpreted in the transm ission p r ?o ,-?? 5?f resP°nse
means, for M cLuhan. not only spoken o r verbal b ut total of the com m unication intact).” A system^ f H1S leavin8
PJ ). In fact, the verbal caption, . the massage?”, evei, a J 2’ uem , •",0 ater» naU ' ,U1S coded
coded in
in the
the abstract
abstract social
social relations
refufon c f s"UU,
° c,al c«n-
ai con'
earlier cybernetic formula— -the
eauici —- m---------
edium is me messae»
the message -W11 , .,ower is th_
U eclioe
CL,'oes’ ,26- _r u.v • ellotions so estahlish„a
introduced in 1959 (23; see also 24, 25), 25). exceeds that
th a t fo i \ *t,1at
1at Mel
J an<l P°'V
Mcf,.S:,, " 1 m the light of his tribal optimism, McLuhan's D ? abl,shed
entendre provides a dual hermeneutic specification o f m ' mU,a- Its ,/f? n
' p-’^ sage is clearly not a critical proposition, but it is e q ? . ? ? ' 0,"
f f > n’ considerable analytic value. equa"y Nearly
communicative paradigm, historically drawing attention to t ? 86 wi t l i i , ? /e
its mass culture, and behaviorally, to the sensory massage T |e ° lass a8e < dScLuhan’s reading, media processes do not serve primarily to
echo, in their verbal synergies, o f course further exceed the - ^ Pun- a n d ? >
[ formation but to reprocess and transform the factors o r y t0
The punch that comes from the media environment t l ? Pr°Position? e * « “ ke"
ten we pasl " * « * « * of -reprKentation
- o and the
- e — v..,union and ,1K confer,
comet
the anticipations; its gift saturates the receptive horiy ^ malies good , ten d on , of .^.gni Sign, are separated from .ra,Bee„dent";
i and
U1"' , uJaeq« Der"da ™ uld
According to McLuhan: ns °f exPectatj0?n do-aura,ized. as Waite, Beni t„ m
* * * , t]Bt is. stripped or intrinsic finality and implicated in a t t ' a
All media work us over completely. They are -;Ml3tior., » political epistemology, a tactical disposition a coded t
their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psycho/ , ? Vasive in 2 Bis at tilts P0i"‘ that MoLulian finds a provisional terminus of s o r t
ethical, and social consequences that they leave °glCal’ ni0'al, JpWtltetranscendental ends that are lost to the media massage by wlv
untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The m edium is t h e ° P3Ft Us ;«wrse to nature, especially the sensormm: “All media are extension^
understanding o f social and cultural change is im poss h l^ 8^ ' An>' jtfflchumanfaculty-psychie or phys.cal ’ (29, p,26), and extensions alter „ur
knowledge o f the way media work as environm ents (29 p 2g'thout a Ottosofsense perceptions and thus the way we think and act p 9 p4n
„ would be important to study the extent to which this phantasm of
ln massage, everything and everyone is c o m p letely worked I t)m which draws body, technology, and social form into a simulation
manipulated. We are here in a world o f m ass m ediatization f ° T altered' I modelof the penetration of the nervous system by cultural process can bear
tion. universal imposition o f models. We are p a st a w orld SOcia,l'za- fruit under investigation into the connections between organism !nd social
are significant, or even where form s disp o se o f relative se lf? ^ Contenls organisation. It is possible to criticise (10, pp.168-170) the ideological char
h is noteworthy that we seem to have here a regulative n ? m,natlon. acterofthesubject-object identity which is postulated here by McLuhan and
productive paradigm. The m edia are the p rocesses tin t effeZ ^ "0t a ■«, fromgenetics to socio-biology, philosophy, literary theory or physics
scale or pace or pattern" in human affairs (27 pp23-24) “°f tspart ofa complex contemporary strategic configuration. What is Jonh
»ot,nghere is that the sensormm serves, on McLuhan’s account, to provide

401
 , th e c o d e c a rrie d a n d imposed by ,h(!
the ^ a b ^ o f «» method of information p r o c c s ^ V ,.
, Z ^nsory W* ... . . regulatcs the process o f *,nK f;,w 1 u
a r tic u la r '" c‘iiur" s0C, 0-cultural system has no fu^ t,0n aru/"^ J S
C con^uence. f ntja( values and McLuhan. a *f
* * ^ fi£ £ * l * » " * Y " interplay Of
t he ^ k o f h ' o n c o v er th e other. Indeed he defincs ** <> P P o J S ,J
« * £ £ t£ . - ” "■ * *
sense f26, pW/-
McLuhan 's prophetic stance is accordingly
de Chardin’s cosmic optimism (26, p.32), to t h e ^ in " ^ r a7
ex,cn'
C*,e'" ‘hat*'hJ'5c
o f electro-magnetic technology an era „ r iar.il.. ne''fee T*ilh
, I'hiiMc
find.
• - right that a period o f fragments taC,i,c Co," rm lnj Uh 'I ii,
McLuhan, 'X o n 7 » h a i he calls a visual p e r i o d T ^ 8"*1 2 ? . 1'
sepuentia consider that just at the point where touch k u'"«- «lta?N
intriguingsensory
to w -value
—
separate as a factor in physical »s b
spondingly, its value in classical pol/t/cal-econ ?’‘',.n,'Pt"atio!'°8 <C
recategorized as a general sensory interplay ch ,c ,Cr»Hs • 8n«l ,
manipulation and plasticity (2, p. I00). McLuhan' ,Cris,'c ’ r s,1o’u h c-
attention within a constellation of similar argnl * ar8‘"t)cni °' gehcril, **
movement of information increasingly exceed ■** to tljc 'JJ.er'lsSeN
meat of physical materials. In his description V " ■'*«*«Can, 1
*-------. *•„« * „ «tactical
....- beconi
""Native universe
v.. imvi iocc. oi being jn
simulation, one might^f
A ~ s S L S 7 ~ * whcre a
h0^ !. and organizational elements into a,..;.
"McLuhan thus brings neiiher tcrm stublc or, rather, institutesbotS
.lationship «n a way than rcIatjonships. |, ,8 of part.cular interest that
,h ough t ^ structure of th ^ the kcy to hls ecology of sense, with a
a egsult. he moves o ^ ^ (26 , 06). ln ^
n w historical edge, th e * «Luhan eombines a medieval usaaeof.u_
"ussionofthesensonum,
-- Ov '-'I II
— -" , o f the individual mind that serves as the common root or
egory, as a facult_y °' information of the outer senses, with the category 0r
the processor ol tne (ha( fountjs community. This latter usage refers
common sense as the s ^ tiBnnaitinn * f~—
to the common world, predisposition, most general frame of reference or
I f l i n n o f an epoch ora culture, which has served through the centur-
in oftfte commercial-industrial period in Vico, Shaftesbury, the Seoul*
Mrj.(, or ihc Germnn pietists (sec 14. pp.l > ->). ns a defense against
nrivation usually as an ideal norm to the extent that a broad public sphere.
Z T Z .ir n a substantial community, were not given in empirical reality.
Kant had demarcated a space for this problem in his discuss,on of aesthetic
judgement, and any attempt to maintain the subjectivity of taste «h,Is
S g the traps of idcosytteralie subject,vtsm must come to ten,.

402
 MASSAf;,; lN „

„ with ^ effectively sh ** A(i,

J&O* a* even higher coaniii. a,rn«nti
€ 'onC l ^ ah'Csubjcc,ivi‘y. « h i , w Unc ti..J '» ou,
ib<'r,fl^eetns indispensable fCr r,tal tr) n <*>!**. %
->£***
^lion ° >uU.
his connection that Mar
*»
m... .
< 5 u,1t s ?tk r k N
U,ic th? '* *n»„■ -m.
<» i A . io . f t k ,....v >
S ‘ $ ,„ « rp rrta n o n o ffo rm, >J n o * «*. ^
> ghi,oecificat'°n is to f,nd in e l * J ^ * n d . ? ^ i t J H r l.
T ronic community, made inte
40 S
> Clta n e o u s processing o0ff infor
iltancous J n, Pcn^
inf0rtT^ d en,
n, bvPr<W "‘ MclT V
S slf .„iv
U|V reshaped at the level oorTh*°n
f? h* ° n in a JulrV^
} ^ ' n ,^ ‘ha^'‘n'*
N ^ * ’*
y * S & inclusive mode of awareness
yfP ,ed modes of consciousness jn a* °Pp<,v.,p,^hc ^
technologies. Like Freud or MaJ ’*r 'ui, * a S>!
^ n d reference to psychic organizati rcu*. M c,^
1& L be of interest in other context, tha, <n < g £ fr;
11S a l electronic village community i n ! >, >r'
^||,lSZ ic/ed
d ethos (31, *70). sometimes, m0rehC
(31. P-70), mor7 lCrnis
,er*» ofa„
of a^C eS
,Luhan*
ntes|lZ
r ^ ' lrnn pluralistic eros (26, p.3l)p.3l\ f * rar«‘y. in til
,k u,tra-co«.
libcrl‘‘ I religious
tiifll ,,.ii<Hous apocalypse (31,
(31. p.72)
r, l d Som etiJ c lcrms
* 2 here, partly a strategy of ambivalcn« ar*1 ^
atPradictions to reduce the vulnerability to r?f buHd» i
< l i n t of view. What matters m ^ f Uta,ionor ir°'he^ (
^ /insistence on the question of a ,he m0m(,n, y,ha>a
<*nl\ e a sensus communis at play at the ,W[ati°nality h0!!Mcl
r^hnicul organisation:
andted
Ourr extended senses, tools, technologies th
closed systems incapable of interplay or c n | J lh' J8'U
me electric
in the c iw ,.. age. the very
.v.j, instantaneous
msiantaneous n , aren<
am ong our technological instruments has eJ r m
aong eS*
/ ? °f 1Co‘
human history. Our extended faculties and *i,Cris '
inhuman
.inwle field of experience which
asingle which demands
<1™..... thn nT
s< / 0
lively conscious. Our technologies, like our n/ ,
demand an interplay and ratio that makes ratio
possible (26, p.5) 1n‘

MoLuhan’s central contribution th e n is to contemn

* » * r *n * * * 10 ,h e over
iklacticsofsocial organization inatnetile communicative e c o lo w S ™
isaw conscious rationality,
,.Bw.w«0 — co-ordinating
...... j, vW individual
-vr.u...uu„g m r d1liberty w8ith
uwKiual culture an
collectiveculture and mythology in the light of day (26, p.269) Theissuehcrc
is one of proportions, or rather, of disproportion^ and reproportioning.

403
 . UTER TH E LE7 I ER : ( P R E ) P o st »
before a n d a f t e r usi m
°E>fc
------- 1S he claims electronic culture rejects, the Pro
. he rejects, as rationality.
as much ^reeffected by VISU the forces shaping human Dt.'Po,'His »
°f theclosur q( insight (see 4, pp.157-202), to th!
FOfu mms, l'ke Wal 'r Symbolist and modern art and Po ' PafieIIK
McLuhan tu areness f V tinction from the products. |n t. y- >0 th«
andnie‘^ f he Process ■ts^ 'nt£ French symbolists, he find" ^h,68V i
contour of h PRuskin and t j js characteristic of McLuhan' Cs ‘0

procedur that he jnte||jgence and is prepared to with! bi,sie

,i0nS Tents of a people”. In a discussion o f f c ? T
COmTinevitable scorn ° f v£)gue Qf the Goth.c romance was c0nc ?lhic
aln1° ‘ue he notes that peop|e” (26, p.266) in Blake’s time
8r° T d ridiculous by se P for a unilied mode of pereeptjL C°Lu|d
s s ~ w ? * - -* *
hcld ’rl.MU all his life- won Rimbaud’s and Proust’s
“ Sjjin* descripti»n' * 0f breaking open the closed
prints .he the “regi™ ° f Renaissance ^ and ™«

. the expression, in a moment, by a senes of sym

A fine grotesque's' bold and fearless connection, of truths
bols thrown togetn g ,ong time ,0 express m any verbal vvay,
which it wou'd have » js |eft for the beholder to work out for
and of wh.ch the con by the haste of the imagination

. „ source of Rimbaud’s technique of vision in his

McLuhan finds g ,jne t0 Joyce as well, in as much as Joyce accepted
Hluminations' an c ‘ . Df broken or syncopated manipulation to permit
2 g r o .« * "a? “ « « p .io n of a '.eld" (26. p.267,. T|,e
inclusive or simultaneous p- Qn jtse|f but this time as a resource of
world of manipulation ** here may be read as analogical ratios rather
artistic 3<?,’ ^ ,,
than as the coordination o Rimbaud s painted slides" and
We might draw ,urinc Hnkine a French poet and a German cultural
Benjamin’s dialectical im g ’ ^ and the Frankfurt School’s commit-
theorist, or among K e d l s „ Jf a sub|jme defence against the pressures of
ment to fragments as ancno rationa|jty. The point is that McLuhan is here
single vision and ho™0&e™ d ‘ configuration that also includes the struc-
workmg deeply within a ^ ^ and the Brechtian theatre of
turalist attention to gaps and unique in history but signifi-
cant in our time, is* to
%rune
£ & il^ u n u ity from .he muUi-cul.u,aU,chi»

404
 MA SSAG I; |

es0urce °f i"uminati0n "5 Am

)111f. own pedagogic art cmp|0vu,0n0r efui|y ^

s . * ?°:h. j s -

,f.ir ante v‘'"" "isists,K a

cO
’5' in
theform
* nat i on movement
ation movement and
a„., ,u
. tl,at
at «nder au^btu..'°
^ T ic a lity are WC' served by th: an in,erri h«i^tdi

- -hew ai.u me suspend^":^’t '''* k ^ l 4 I ^ 'm h

< <
< . TS, PMC* .Bte (26,, p S w>- ‘i Z < > ^
o'" ,enu"7 i judgment deconstructs the vi ' °n Mg ^ r y of 7
|«l>{,,it in process
*he“ eSS through °the
v hopen
e * * « « * *? an''
im«-•p'sthe Pr0LfL- i.Mv-ug.. me open “field"vip\» and
u,^nce
C 'de,ad
5^Co
0$
I'1"0 the category of participation, f o AT " 1' Pa*<
’''^negative capability”, and therefor- McLuh»>- Usl r'‘~
" ^.ertan'D
ofun<, context (4U, pp. 334-338), a siko'”"U w'Hiam7‘ ,ac,'ve r>7"'a °n

53y P,,imstances and thus deprived 0f a n ‘ ther»tic jU(, maVbe a n n a

otnci - ‘-gunient mav andPoin, l0red
range
* * *of normative considerations,J f r s S ? : » ^« »
, open-ended,
en' pluri-d.mens.onal life.stylen “* *n* of0r> doors
of how to redeem value discussion , d th«s to ! ma,i°ns
°" froni the J a most ur,
loralism- . ,ne grip orTJh?1""
InJoycean stream of consciousness, or in oth " IS,lne
McLuhan sees a transformation of an impersonT"^?0^ techm
S involves active reception as Joyce expre >°] ^
5 - » « r !? » * * * « ■ A » n i s
,* ,trn.inacy o r undead,,b,I,ty, McLuhan a ll, “o f , ! '*- "L« realms of
.....w- ...vi-unan calls for an expansion of out
5" " ....d u a l ity , s o that v is u a l seq uence may
maynonoi„
longer monopolize ihe
norms ofra 1 and that much of what modern discussion regards as
rational n°rrn n_\0gical may be seen as features of "the ordinaryUansac-
irrational or 11 gelf and the world, or between subject and object"!
,ions between rat\ona\ity would thus be a larger rationalityinwhich
v12isu
6mp.278). iac ’ ‘ ,hers
... ............*»v»uiu Would W
ue suspended. behen
suspended.
Derrida•"W ’" Derridawritesof
""hen
deferring linguistic closure as long as possible, it is dear that T ! °
structuralist investigation or the trace structure of.......-
language.......
andMcLuhan’s
viudyof the strategic methods of inclusive awareness have important points
ofcontact within the single web of the modern informationenvironment It

wypKtinvrwsjm
 and after THE LETTER. <PRE)P o St ,
Ill-FOR I
'« b MA s
Is a l l “ ” d
.,,,1 organisation are
",0 lta" r »f . "*N f<1lllrrid«- “nd r°ri" rir> N , ,. Ss 4*,
» » v » ■- ^ jzzzssslz .... i* . : • n .
7 t,„cgories. co m p a re U)
111,11 idnnent. but also „ h? *hio|,
Uw
-c,'S
,;

""Cning to prominent'........ st°rieui

mpwmmcnWana^ M \. on. to „ Poj,"u
J S n T ^idcaacoasuvctiom not only to the e x te n V I h ;/'^ ' ,Hf |,,,n s anticipation| Hicre
„ [cvfniil closure within the language p a r u d i g n Jls '■ lotted 'H,' "iatehnow«imiliUr . l ,l» l,l^ W ;
„« )’), but also to the extent that it proposes a h'niit|c!' ^ ')' ,i|, , 'X . Pri.
matologieal traces. The McUihiin emphasis in oogMj,jv„ J’S or'' % .It' I i nlter-euo nn.i Utl liiti.n ' 'n in.
• . n»ionyc“te,
moment of analogical Vision of ^seont.m.ons frng,nc,n 1r««tiCc N . *5. tl,c C ;
moment of analytic fission (.«. PP funs counter k t'o,,owilllf0" 't or . 4j f .i C S .h V 1....
emphasis on fission, on the unrestricted digital p |tty o f » he (y
Ai writing, communication ir " » C >. ' h.-v „„ Hd,
whose concrete, transcendental closure or lusion. it is “J«t l\„,c, % of transference of me«nil ‘ ' ^ ''Ctll
deferred as long as possible (6. p.46). lie New Critic<lj „ ' ,ld> ■h0||,.N» m$ ouf,>ir dire], discourse, e, t Hi.
the Catholic traditions converge in McLuhan s orientation i ^,>,b°list ^•Weurewitncssi'.g U
of intelligibility in things, by analogy, in the exterior „x i x*« ml \"Hi accord with McLuhan's iUe * »nd of eill|C i 'H,n
hindscapc. Hnt the methodological action in both McLuhan " 'e im . ^ 0r an...» immediacy
inimpilmpv/ to social . ,0filC4|JOf W|
to dervify closed. Used forms, in effect by way of fresh rel,„i 1,1,11 ^ ei- '0r powerful *historical
w « t a l cxpi,„sj(l .. ...
Still, in a theoretical climate stamped by the Donnie ,,, system ol speeeli. conscious,.!’ 11 ^‘iic r|''liCr".h*,C > - i't
are likely to be new barriers to a reception of McLulu,,, vv,'"t"",k''it. th would be only an effect. ilnd n®8s- mellni
crly ___
there might
_ be interchange and mutual reWsion. revision Empiij,. g .... ,ere Dior.,'..
. ^ n,°re' Plot, ere exposure rm/.v^ev, (, UV(l] oflJ »hou,:ro 1«uld jbc“,* JnKj. P * ^ 0' ^tlC|, ,h
and inclusion pull in different directions, although the co»,.«CS diM\','!' lanocentrism (9, pp. 194 |(>5; me. 7.J 8 e|iect ,i1,..#y«eti tr‘"1 etc.,11
... the
in ai... interval, the inin file
,l„> gap. the sn iie e noff rdiscontinuity
space l i V n n t i .. ,. : .. tl,U| l l o n n 1on P.^2)* tha‘ I
>hc
together. Perhaps if we concede that the world is still gjVen H0WClose together or far apart „
of actual pluri-dimensionally circumscribed conflicts and , , - ,le torn, „
ultimately harmonious prhance, nor as ultimately inditl'a f '0nS‘ nci,l>C erns seen. not necessary h e r e " nl?rn,«ti0
may agree that the appropriate interest in the bias o f c o m ,i " ' ^ ‘rw kv\ We Mitral 1
Rida's terminologies analyses UIU| IKjllllic»t
opening to the material rationalities inscribed in operative 1UniCa,l°n, in nn „Vwilluminations may e n i u V X U|f ,nc|«*loI,t‘w*c« Mcu,1"?to bi
plementary to and as deserving of attention as the critical ? r° Cesses>is com. eum, Dringingd'etr texts into dia |ogUc ( | 11
............................... .................................. ..................................
struction, in an opening to “the play o f the world and !!'Ur.c s l'« decon.' ofiiuiuiry,
rsfiiiqm 'ry. and in an ecumenical Sni,;.y®
becoming" (6. p.427). e "Wocence Q|. trssasked bind as much as the 7
I il.
There is another fundamental connection between Mel uh ppM ssible
lW®to join in the hope that of„s °.f|l,n»Wer» 1 questi,
1 “, S
The binary opposition between two technical forms, speech Derri‘•da. ritng.eading.
w c‘11fay he'
equally the structural underpinning o f both grand cul t unl \ i ' " d i s mud, deeper understanding. g’ "stc,,|n« a ,| "
frrn m m n tn ln ttv fR) n n h h \h n /1 in JQA7 m.. a i H"d t0UchingtJr-a'iCm ,natt
#tter»
Grammatohgy (8), published in 1967, Derrida takes up *; >■ nes' ,M In t K..
the In this connection, it is noteworthy ,1 “rc br»ught to
without reference to McLulum, the same themes that M c L ? Ugain- Derrida's list of the ellects of a oen„.y , U the■technique 0f,he,
throughout the 1960s: logocentrism, phonocentrism the eve11,] 111 deve,0ps in lire lengthy |isls of‘ 8* ™ wr,,i"« k * Z Z ?
nics, the impact o f the phonetic alphabet, abstraction writing r teCh* ammnehed to McLuhnn'i L i e n c d t . ' l ' . ! ' " * bu,fc,J!!2
“the repression of pluri-dimensional symbolic thought ” (8 S’ '™m y n the suggestion here o f a place for , a Sl8niflers (e.g. 31 nwo1.1■JL8"i,i*
tw it,. s y n a e s t h e s i a . e t c . In Derrida.adiscussion'J'™ apparatus
1' of modern scholarship T u .ff1111!011, ^Perbole, in ^ rh 'cri:is
rhetorical
mg. speech, and other basic communicative technologies that miti n iM11'
on or pva,Ms Hegel's rP rio n s expands beyond
......; r -rr a,,d •<* £ E
snsemble of relations among the detail ! ° the^ « . that is the
t e r

the point where the divergent natures or written a n d o r a l f o r m s o t'ltio u g h . McLuhan’s usage, especially ^\hh Wi,h >
lias become known as ■ 8 d t0 statemenK ■
technological determtnjsm^for M|)re”'n®*hal
example, in the
406
407
 BEFORE A N D AFTER THE LETTER; (P R E )P O S T ^

eHi OD
statement about media n ia ss a g e th a tj connected with Mass Ag E
examination—it is possible to ddler from those who co niD 'le te*, 'N
formulations unfavourably with the cautious qualifications o f Mc , N « r 8te ly ,‘‘not inside. |ike ' THE
vent,on. The effect or function of such exaggeration can be r Z ^ ^ S # ght it out only as a 8lovva ^ eI
logical and meant to take account o f the co m m u n icati0nJ ' rdeil J * c0 s
n 8 s < ° h> ,
addressed to an audience presumed to be asleep or h y p n " < na?.e
imprinting and hence in need o f excessive address to , 0 ° ^ by J ' I. \ e|<>Pi
Barthes Roland. M y,ho, N0, 'nS.he
It is also enunciated from an epistemologtcal position th Z ' he * ' 0 % L naudrillard, Jean. L ’Ech, 8 *• tran ^le Hich
subvert its own status, call attent.on to its h yp o th e tic * '* prZ Z S f Baudriilard, Jean. For
propose itself as a probe rather than a theorem . Fin a „v £ •' Charles Levin. St. LoUjs. T "'9ac- 0/"f e>It,ifVers. 1
juxtapositions generally, it invites engagem ent with its Z r M c i^ N . Benjamin, Walter. /llWl,.„eio*PrtJ !** p^do,
taneously reproportioning its proportions and the p r o p o n i ^ i t y % ’s 1 y0rk: Harcourt. Brace & S ’’9*1. "c«l oJ.-(V to,
more than it invites outright
ouingm acceptance ui thee outrigh
or m o u trig h t re' • ° f the-v uSlftlll|l* ? Marshall McLuhan and u,mp K Bond , , ° V ea , e
frequently heen its destiny o f academic reception.
n i iv been " Jecti on . Vv°r] p err,da. Jacques. ^ E c r i t ^ l f m ^ K ^ «■ Na„
McLuhan. in fact, seems to use a complex rhetorical a ™ , Derrida. Jacques. Marges f ' dijfl ■(>,„ £ h Ar,rendi.
reduction of his text to a single point o f view. in c lu d in ',? ,^ ' to res 1 Derrida, Jacques. yjj q
8 Bainmtmt
Baltimore
B and London-
a ltim o re and Londr,,,. J. n.°'"«i«/o/.
rondo,,: Johns h '," u o/o«V Ha
" a ,oloB,
energy of Nietzschean aphoristic fragments; analogy ,, ’e ,ndeIer'S‘ ‘h,
rtartTHa Jacauec “c:_. "* HoP k iS \.*rV ' > « t , l i t
semioclastic techniques (see 34); and undecidable probes d e '^ 0^ ’ and '"’3'' • Event r Un'versi, a^tr
dictory directions—even on matters as basics as whether ■ ° pecl in c °,|,ef Feke«e. John T/,e e f i f f > 7 2 - , , 0 . . ^
10- American
we are likely to “live in a single constricted space resonant the e,eetr°nira' Literary Theory- f V u . f sam„-,6. y
or “live pluralistically in many worlds and cultures simultu tribal d^ 3ge Routledge& Kegan Pau|, jo,'"0'" E/i0, f ,0'miu,
Felete. John.
Pekete. John. Modernity in .. ,0 At.,
-c*.Lld^
One miglir say, ultimately, on the Barthesian or D e r r id Z ° Usly" (26 ^ ^constructive Encounters J a L',erarv t l
«eo/0
every model is its own norm, and in recognition o f the Z '" a.r£umentP^ - Stanley. Is There „ y " ,e " e ^ f ^ r y , ” ^
Fish. Stanley
tion. that McLuhan’s model, relying on com m unicative a a? abi,ity of re,,lat Communities. Cambridge- H a ^ ' s‘nK,u
tion as its referent or alibi, is full o f informative surprises °f S° c'al °rga ^ Foucault. Michel. “Mon corn!^3rd Univers^
capable o f receiving it that way. For others, it m ay take S ° f t,lQse whon,Sa' ----
^ ' Pan_s-’ ■ W- 2 . PS’ ce rPapier,
cicr,c, «/ /fl,
,4 Gadamer, Hans-Georg r-.,,, , U' A p r w . etPreiiye
shape. On this account, McLuhan’s inconsistencies « m°re pred'ctak[e JJL Innis, Harold. The Bias o j e ^ MdM e ethod
, hod . 'X,0Historicd
abilities work fo r him as much as against him. and one VaS'° ns’ undec'd 1964. U" m Wcwot,
"h c c u J , TrT^iSeah hUe
basic respects, as finally a tactile theorist, that is a te See him 16. McLuhan, Marshall. “ M r Cn 0 r°nto: UniTe^ l975.
structural analyst, with cultural texture as his object, a i ^ Z rather than"1 January. 1947. pp. , 6 7 - ^ 2. C ° nno,lV and Mr, Hook „ ^ ‘tyofT o r o n to ^
o f pedagogic art, texture also as his product. ' ’ by Way of a ^ *
17 McLuhan, Marshall. “IntmH. • Ue Sewn
Loi;d 0 "’ 19^ - PP- X i-xxii. tl0n ” Harad0x ' ^ ee 55
This is, to be sure, a generally friendly hum anist readm e |g. McLuhan, Marshall. “Defrostin „ bv u
close to the agnositic spirit o f the Russian harlequin in C McLuhan. but March 1952, pp. 91-97. 8 Canadian p„i ' Hugh Kenner
Darkness who holds that Kurtz, for all his sh ortcom in gs e °,n rad’8 Heari of 19. McLuhan, Marshall. “Technolo Ure'” Ai„eri
Summer 1952, pp. 189- 195 °8y and Political Ch Mercury 74
The culture-technology nexus, the rationality problem ' a n d f S the mind
20. McLuhan, Marshall. “The Aee of a , ange ” ln'erna,iona, ,
form-content matrix remain open and strategically Ur the strucfure- II. 1953, pp. 555-557. gCof'Advertising » Th onalJournaiy
whose elucidation McLuhan has m ade m em orable c o n t r i h T questi° n to 21. McLuhan, Marshall. “Sight ^ a ( io"»>ion,teai 58 &
broad constellation o f cultural inquiry in to which M cL uh ^ There'sa 1954, pp. 7-1 1 . ght’Sound and the Fury.” n Pmber
ably and honourably welcomed i f we are less d a zz le d b v h ^ be profit' 22. McLuhan, Marshall. “Verbi-Vom v Conu”o^ l6 0 , April 9
23. McLuhan, Marshall. L
and more open to his points o f access. M cL u h an i L m °f excess pp. 339-348. y h and Mass Media.” n j ’ 3ctober 1957.
untypical narrator o f the crisis situation o f his cu ltu re a ^ an 24. McLuhan, Marshall. “Around the w , * 88' Sprin8 >959,
on a great adventure and poised for great changes th rZ , e embarked Summer 1960, pp. 204-205 H W°rl'd' Ar°and the Clock ” *
25. McLuhan. Marshall. “The Me,r - *"***» '2-
, [I0 JiSt°n) 3>Summer 1960, pp. l ^ J ‘he Messa8e" F°rum (University of
ofM rto*. so ,0 0 ihe meaning oT McLuhan’s wrRing can he L Z t 26. McLuhan, Marshall The r,,, I „ university of
Toronto: University of Toronto P r e ls ,^ ' Makin« °f ^graphic Man.
408
409
 BE FOR E A N D A F T E R T HE L E T T E R ;

21. M cLuhan. Marshall. U nderstanding M edia: T he E

°s-
O,
New American Library. 1964. X' c»sio„.
28. McLuhan. Marshall. "Classroom Without Walls ■ °f M
c a n o n , ■sAn
cation. x m w ' & s - Boston:
t n sAnthology. Beacon *
----------------- Press. I1y9(^)n 'n r'"
w_i ..I_- hMarshall
29. McLuhan. farvhatl anrl Quentin Fiore. The °»\ PPp
and Dll&ntfrt n 1-31
lO,j V
Inventory o f Effects. New York: Bantam, 1967 Mec/,‘o>, X
30. McLuhan. Marshall with Harley Parker. Through
Poetry and Painting. New York: Harper & r oiv
31. McLuhan. Marshall. “Playboy Interview. ” p/a 'vh V<5S- -g
32. McLuhan. Marshall. The Interior Landscape- T t°y ' ^ arch 0
McLuhan. 1943-1962. ed. Eugene McNamara \ \ C *~ilerar IN T H E
33. McLuhan, Marshall. Marshall. Culture is Our Business \ r e'v Tort - S r' t , ' / >P- S') '
34.
4. McLuhan. Marshall. From Cliche to Archetvn,, V? y° rk: \ f lcGra,'" ° f aV I
35.’• Radnoti. Sandor. “The Effective Power Pc..w o f A , n . n ew Y o r l f ? P ra w X X li% /,
Jr\hn Fekete. Telos49,
John 7b/s)CAQ Fall Full 1981, pp. 61-821Qft 1 r \ n ’ '- 'H P a . - , -•* j Jea n ° f ? »_
lnjam/
36. iwviwjiau,
Rockman, finiwu. i*Mi,i*uiuuubin: The^
Arnold. “McLuhanism: I \l.
N c t-u
Pnchis\n MF'n/'nnnfesr 7/ lA/-n *•1 leS(hp 9^- 97°'
ne!lo theo^ S
Fashion."Encounter 3 1, November 1968 nr, n o ™ 1 Histn
37. Ruskin, John. Modern Painters. New Y o r k n -v Of Nf
JS. Theall, Donald F. The Medirun is the Rear i £ . Utt.° n B^ r v n. ao :,on
Montreal. McGill-Queen’s, 1971. "’Mirror: f/ a°. n
J9. Theall, Donald F. "The Electronic Revolution- As ****»>ojL yarce: Assemblage I O( l 9g9).
Soctety, ” Appendix tx B to "A “A Progress p d i_ ' ^Maan n anH . '
University Affairs." Peterborough: Trent tin P° n to the J ¥ achin %
'■ Williams. Raymond. Politics and Letters- / ers,ty> JanUa ° ln;ir i X "> t/,
London: New Left Books, 1979 " //,fer,'/^iys , 982° C°u,,
Williams. Raymond. Culture. London: Fontana, , 98, Left '

A few years a g o an eve m ,

City. It came at the tail e j ° ° k PkCe
at
f1979- 86) of an artist £ S the~ ^
graphic work for a Dor ”0’ °nly a .Sa,|e exhl' ne)'M
Useun
of the fastest rises to na ; ”.°8.raPhic „,decade ear^ tl0n a major'0
pa'tnerly
/tse/f The event / re f l n ter,y sta r d ^ ! 8azine a "c,; *as d . -
BAUDRILLARD. SOl n ri° wa s an in at> art ^ h? " 8
diagonally across the 0 (J^- “S0]f)n°Unced ben? ha* had I"11
TO BE A N N O U N C E S And < * C " <^
th^ry. The day may co m ^ 1*’ We J S again in b f i * JeAN
new show: K E T R 0 S P e C t ] Z in '999 I,"1 a" age o f^ 'a 'Iy ^ T 16' ' ^
TOBEANNOUNCED I VE - W O R * f* ' a n l T0"'C
/ do not know what r KS Fr°M i q ^ will ann Speedy
* 1 , it m,„ers very Spole To!»l. ^ *
illustrates one of Bandw..; T.he Point k ,Lb°ut at 'ST
replacedProduction a l ^ " wh»i * l"ln'X ana nlti
- » ,e has gone be; oa'd' ' « n ter o f ^ » » 4 f ^
Menon — 3 distinction s n ' l ' MactS'n that
todemsm a„d mass * » « the ha r , “ "» ^ W e a c C ^
'arge. Sign vaiue is in tt, and opera,. Adorno’s frozenI Uedis-
at the Whitney obvin ^ Case’ the caTe r L °n(he basis of! 'a,ectic of
signified unit that a t t r ^ "ame Va,Ue the n the ^se JfJ.Va,UeWrit

,east"> a BaudrilhrJbn Retro^ i v e fTOm? ? t0 «lv«atopic; w e S f f

— - - h a ::
4 /0

ammm
411
 b efo re an d a f te r THE LETTER ( P R E ) P o STm

in front of hiss jtUUlbiiw

or m e liv e r th e ^g o o d s . In the schem-
audience to d-----
of course, the body as referent becomes so much • ^ nen,e o f-
appears as a large useless body."' A t best, it ™uid
porting the system s need to simulate the real. So r See° a s 6 Cal •\
ar the Whitney, does that m ake him complicjt ' . d ril|a r ^ ' ^ e ' ^ t
scheme to simulate the real where there “really" j S 'n la te ° sbon_SV
Baudrillard’s theory o f sim ulation express the post-l9fio° real |er!*P,ta/!'
French intellectual that there is no real Left left') d e s P a ir 7 ° r 7 1!
Baudrillard’s lecture never took place, that “Sold O ~ ° r c ° U lij° ■ e I ^
poster from the start, and that therefore no one eve" Was 'nscr 1! %
And yet the annals o f the museum would now C a n ie t o h ' b ed ohN
Baudrillard, such and such a day. 1987. This sc rec° rd: lect * a tj
better
better with
witn the
me theory
mco.y o f simulation, o f the m e n a r i o w OU|d U,re by , eb
* _ ®m aap precedin ^ larK
P P^Cedins> y 0
rather than representing it. But this is still America, the cou g tbe ter W
its obsession with “the real thing." and there does exist a n p'1? fan,0l"rito l°r.v
.c w»/»nlv imnlicated. to he --------- aa political
1>ated to be sure
sure, in in processes ofPolitical
signifiCati„ USf0|.
of culture, deeply ""P1* . reducible to them. To see the entangleme ***
simulation, but not. 1E m u la tio n s designed by the system to feignl °r
the real as no more than a referent, a real, is a form of ontolLj*1
omething is there, a Pr ps_ nothing so much as a desire f0r the ?ea
simulation that betrays. P of simulation, which has at its c e^
nostalgia * * * . * % £ la telematique (a neologism from telev,sion *
what in France « call ndabie fascination since , seems to accoUtu
informative), exerts an,u encies of contemporary culture, extrapolate
for certain
them veryy. real
polemical $ them jn the evolution from the l960s of

telecommunications. theory of simulation and of the simulacrum, as

O f course, Baudrillard ^ Qf writings from the “Requiem for the
Lelaborated over a decaa
'Echange symbo/ique el la mort^to In the Shadow
Econoniy
o f the Qf lhe Sign through
Silem 'br<
Simulations, is primarily a media theory. As such, its rece ■JOr'ties LMedia” in For
.... ,.o .tccpnon is b ’Echaneesvntb
means limited to artists and the contemporary art scene, even though i,
United States in
in recent years that is where its strongest —> mough in the
effect seems
strongest effect seems to have
precisely the notion of simulation in all
n in all itsits breadth
breadth an.and impli-
canons that accounts for Baudrillard's cult following
llowing in
in New
New York. on the
York,
C r o n s , in Australia in Rcrlin — in ~ Frankfurt,
—
^ " ' : r ^ Rprlin o and
f even
Ador„ ------ , . u where
o - s ,i,i wuere , , tus
^ ^wrhis writings
can be perceived as true to the spirit of Adorno’s evil-eyed critique of mass
culture. And it is exactly Baudrillard’s status as a cult figure on the fringes of
the academy and the plain outside it that makes him comparable to another
prophet of the media in the United States at an earlier time. Marshall
McLuhan. Granted, the parallel is not quite persuasive in purely quantitative
terms. McLuhan’s Understanding Media sold well over a hundred thousand
copies, a figure o f which Semiotext(e) and Telos Press, the two American
publishers of Baudrillard’s work, could only dream: moreover, Baudrillard

412
 SH^ o w
,d s till nave 10 appear jn Mc<-uHav
‘> r . - >•» "*» f t * „
H ich ^ * 9 * * F
this essay 1 would like to exm ms high,; "'■'‘"'f,
. „ theory, which in its . 0re the u 8Wy anlikely.
^ than a theory o f images ^ Cal and SOci^ dea referei
and s<^iaiden referem ,
Cerent :nt of
o f Baudnllard’s writing ma8 e^l^Plicati^Baudrilia,
B audrillard’s writing" P
P eercr J?
c ePlicat'ons°u
p t i o n s Ba^r,hard.
Daudrillard’s
J ter *»• B audrillard’s texts are
all. Baudrillard’s * less h ^ T T* T« be
be much
* s clear, however, ts what this a p l ^'erences
^ c e s .^lh;m " ssimJ.
4 V f„6 te*tual
teXtUal
'U l l y means and what kind of , PP °Pnation of\ McLuhanP* °rg0l'en
S n a postmodern recycling of McLuh^ 011 it is^ Uha" C J ’Much
‘re largely forgotten and his name f o " for a prl 5 ,he theory 1 / . 80s
> oans such as “the medium is th m°sl corn,,! m m Miichl f S'mula-
formula of the global village? Doe's 0r ‘S n° *<>re
f theoretical pastiche based on amnP dr'"ard- in oth Sage’" °r the hj*"
fascination with McLuhan suggest thatch?." d<*s 3
U twenty years later become 3 ^ P n tfjjjS * * " 4
altogether r ls s°methin„^,cLuhan has
It would be too easy to speak of a retUrn . 8 else at stake
theory and then to use the timeworn McLahanm.h
both. The critique of McLuhan from thET*' °f ide° l o g y . f °f Fren^
and critical theory as admirably articmat^ f f int^W estern'S ™
Twilight, was surely important at a nerioa J John dele's ri Marxism
Jral government of Canada and moved 1 , ^ 3 " ,McUha" adv^d S ' f J
of Bell Telephone, IBM. andGeneral MotorJ n d ^ ^
cult swept the major mass emulation ma2a2 neS r 5 Veritable McLuE
Sion talk show, Hts unbounded o^ J ^ T Z I ' T ^ - £
communications on human community and his hi nH ^ of electronic
between the media and economic and political ? Ithe rela‘kmship
an affirmative culture, as an apology for ruthw " ‘*"U ot"V be read aS
tion. or, at best, as naive politics. At the same time S modenilza
theorizing of the media on the political strategies orthe wS* °f McLuhan’
were anything but merely affirmative. Today however MC.0 T ercuUur
McLuhanacy. as some have called i, is „„ lo„gcI , msjoi *
discourse, and media cynicism (both affirmative and critical) seemsTh '
thoroughly displaced the cosmic media optimism so typical of a certa
communications euphoria m the 1960s. In this new discursive context t
ideology critique of McLuhan’s work, though not invalid, seems 1
immediately pressing; casting aside McLuhan’s social prophecies that
electric age is said to entail, we can focus again on what McLuhan actui
argued about different media, media reception, and media effect. In
Medium is the Message: Ail Inventory of Effects, McLuhan wrote q
persuasively:
 B E F O R E A N D A F T E R THE L E T T E R : ( P r e >„
OSTm
A ll m e d ia w o rk us o v e r c o m p le te ly . T h e y a r e s o rv>
eK'
e rs o n a l, political, e c o n o m ic , a e s th e tic . P s .\v h o lo » jcr. , ? asiVl
ppersonal. .-------------->ugica
"> th
eal. and. social. consequences th a t th
that e y lea\i>
they leave no „p.art . f . o f_• '" o r J f etc
et
uunaffected, unaltered The medium is the m assage.
i w n c o s u . -------------- — Any
a n v ■ n^ cU
- ch .
che<|
M l o f social and cultural change is im possible w ithout •, i f
oH h e wa> media work as env ironm ents.’ a k"o>.,
lo"leq '§e
, , ,,,.issaee works, how it operates in social i„ .
To understand ion o f gender and subjectivity, how it j und
perception, m th e ft - disembodying the real and how i, i t s e l f i t s
message into the ^ power relations, what ,ts effects are
an apff.ratus o f n * jzed discourses - these questions c e r t a i n ,^ '
practices and 'ns!'“ ," uhsin today, and they remain central to any Z * *
from a reading o f ^ world. And it is to Baudrillard’s c r e ,!,- or
the in ' “ S 3 o f S I , * * * " . .1 * » on e o f C & Y
apart from the ^ ' jt o f French post-M arxism and poststruc,u? ,fe"
major figure m centerpiece o f his theorizing. Here, ho * hs«i
.1... b » ion about Bttttdrill.td. W hile
must as a !*»” <• 111 the hi,
analyses may still * studieS- the very structure o f Baudrillard's
minded, for furtJ*dj y ing in its r e d u c tio a d a b s u r d u m o f the power J f J l
izing is ultimate > ^ sj|ent mass o f spectators disables any analysis !
image- His notio" °' ‘p^sj'tions in the act o f reception. Any 'e c o n o m ic °f
heterogeneous suhj y ^ apparatuses o f im age production. ine|udin°;
institutional a n a ^ v^n wj(hin western mass media soceties. is rende^
national s notion of an almost self-generating and monouS
obsolete by dissemination. The history of the media is reduced, as
machinery of image- jma^ an approach that seems to have moretodo
will show, “ stages tjan traditjons than with any historical understand
with Platonic anta Qr premodern. Any ideology critique of represen.
ing of the media. of ,he politics of imaging the various worlds of this
rations jdef),oey critique, even when truth and the real have
world is disabled bee to reJy on some distinction between repre-
become unstame. > d r varyjng relationship to domination and sub-
sentations and to a 1 y f interest, and desire. Baudrillard’s society
jection. their distinctions, nor. for that matter, lot
of simulation does ‘ ,f (he 1960s gave us «the end of
the viability of any r p us the aIIeged end of ideology critique. To
ideology, the !9S( s 8 f t the ideology critique of Baudrillard’s
put the shoe on the P_ P the theory of simulation offers

irtfctaghttB|l * ^ * * Pof them °k vShidS

L S r a f t e r ' a l l . may simply be the latest version of the
ideology of the end of all ideology.

414
 IN THi
SH‘Vb
„ w ere B au d rilla rU 's O
- rp ..
A n i e n t m a d e b y p la y fuily * « * * * . CUjH
* ^ „ d u d e th a t a s s im u l a tu " 1^ W
* ^ t i o n s of a s y ste m th a t, * * « * * J ^ o f S hu, v
o P jJ iH w i" th e s ta tu s q u o .
<° * m erely b e c a u s e ,t „ th e ^ Wd an
c**!', in d e e d s e e m th e o n k f f s«ntui ! ,h*
,,g th e g r o u n d to s ta n d Posi > C j £*.
'f 05 de <>f simulation is no 'on ^
f l u t e s like th e q u e s tio n o r G ^ 8er ^ 2
I f , Oo t to b e d i s p r o v e s 0 r * | ° r the qUef > n J , ^ lhou*h
^intuht'eJ to ^"eeal «he . r u t K > ' ^ > t b ^ n ^ ' ' f
^ Silence t h a t B a u d n lla r d h,, *"at ther* l^ f o r » ^ *HHtw f*al
- d
& ; Ecclesiastes, to proceed , m° M in fl^ t* ^ * ^ trtak'f110
f f f S . It is th e s im u l a e T m 0[ r 4

h:n, I f h a s o n ly e v e r b e e n his own he S1mu|ac^ ^ t h e

^iconoclasts' rage against
' ^ n a t i o n e x e r t e d b y s im u la c ra t h f ? ^ ^ d a t ^ t t ' U n f f , ' ^ ' God
critic, though th i s s h o u ld b e th e f ?h ,he ages. i f * ^ p ™ °®10 “*

* , h th a t th e r e ts n o n e , th e critic otJ f PUal ^ u l a ^ ^ ' i n v o S " 0*

I t collapse of a n y d is tin c tio n b e t S * ° u< 5 S ? **» S ,
5 a p p e a r a n c e , t r u t h a n d He, a £ * * real « J £ 1
" if not as d e m y s tif ic a tio n s o f M ,r! ' ho* are ’“■“‘bled, e - J z
I t of c h e r i s h e d c o n c e p ts such as
^nscious. the real and theimagin ^ ^ J use
dons, information, and s o o n . We h a v e ^ ^ P o fitk J ^ ^ «*
aporias have never y e t p r e v e n te d theories 4 * ^
•hat matter, from grasping something ^ ^ 8 s tro n g ^
might read these texts as clairning that the **™»»wh '4
indeed ptirt of our reahty, represents, as i
c ^ n t state of affairs, the result of acultura, t S l T * * * «*the
what is often called the postmodern condition£ ? ™a*on**'■spaces
mass culture, and commodification. Although ea^ r*ge°fiwdia,
Baudrillard’s basic claim that the simulacrumhas b«n 8 v'ouMrei«t
anapproach more appropriate and fruitful preciselyhT* ‘°?*L1findsuch
flp at the outset any notion of the real. Against a certS’l l ^ ^
Ni.nscheaii.sni, it maintains the lension betweensimulationanchroiwma
ti„„. a sine qua non for critical media studies No, t a „ b, J ™
Baudrillard s dictum, abusively derived from Benjamin, that “the real is not
only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced
The hvoerreal. .. which is entirely in simulation."*

415
 HFKOKt VM ' \ I 1 I R MU I I I I tR
tip
But I Jo not mean tv' read Baudrillard against n
_. rather
essay is .,,rK.vr to show hiHV !
how some of U*e ' '"e gr5»in ' ,JU
McLtthan's media theory resurface in Baudrin *B*esri ^ st„ N
sratitialh altered form. The purpose of th,, rJ's t a N t %
Baudrillard plundered McLuhan. than to do, ,everc'se K , l*»ou„N«J*«; ' N ™ F Sha
me media optimism of the l«**)sc to an eou- ,r,*etorJe* 'o§h '**- «t ■ u u » O f McVAJHUN
,n the I***. a QTtidsm that has cut its |lnj\ V * ^ n w f*H .,*% V ^•,s m essa« — beyond th a t o f tb e medium — » as vunpte feet
search of apocalyptic N.s^ I take the theory ' r " en»'«h,^e a n x ie tie s . su rre n d e r to th e m ed ia. stay co o t, a n d ev ery th in g
pv>rnt Of articulation of that cynicism, an enli h iL H ^ \n v b e P la y b o y in te rv ie w o f b e s a id .“t t 's m evitsW e th a t
which IVter Sloterdyk has cogently anal\zeil 'g ' tened l° be Z 'O * a '6 * ” 1 -e\ectro n ic inform ation m ovement w in toys us a lt abouthVe
post-sixties era.* o O 9 %t° r K msce atb. be up tro
i fc w
e ses Va eep
s i t oh ua pr pc eonost d—
tositu sgatb
u rin n de d escen t in to tb *
To begin with, it might be useful to remember ■ Nw„ . t ' t - ,i rVs
n c oon
m a estormy
th ro u gsen
h "* W ith B a u d -"
— h ap p en s to t _ — can d o
__ ___ . . i , v n ro u g b V »itb B a u d rib a id « e a re n o t b e in e to sse d
came out of literary cntidsm. He was a prof ' hat Mcl * tk . — o n a s to rm y s e a ; c o n d itio n s h av e w orsened, a n d w e a re b em «
Toronto. Indeed, his method of reading soei-ri ef>SOr °f Enf>7uf,«n . * • '^ u t l'^ e ^ _ p y tb e n o to rio u s b tacV b o te , im pfow on tb e a stro p tn sic a l
media technology, as Fekete has pointed o ,., ? en° n»ena _ ,sf> lii fijfe ' Uf “e n tm lfm e n t" in th e N ietzscb ean d isco u rse o f m ass c u ltu re
-t- - V I-.., je_._ Ul> IS - and the k'SI
- - and
criticism from R ichards strongly
Eliot infom
to J51' stio w n e lse w h e re , is p e rc e iv ed a s a fetm nm e th re a t to * reaT
o f ^ a s 1 h a 'e L iW e n a ria n “c o m in g tb ro u d i” h a s b e e n rep tao ed m B au-
trajectory of the New ^ em p h al,c foregrounding o f myth > d > « * dm* , disaster
F n t a n d shares with o f con su m er an d m edia culture in ^ The oocalyptic vanishing act But the images and metaphors of
^ .,a riJ b y a n a Y n (J a s tto p h s s ic s a b o u n d in b o th M cL u h an a n d B au d rS U rd
* j L faced with new ica, W estern M arxism , up lo and Z j H
!,racked the di«*W"J ^ vvith the help o f structural lingu,sties
f i m D e b o r d ’S S ,tU i i k e w i s e . M c L u h a n a t t a c k e d t h e hostility o f S ^ - — warningM«&
Xfter three thousand
- h e v ey years
te rm sof
o fexplosion,
rilla rdbv
B a u dWestern means
's rh e to ricof
a pfprear
^— -, *
m o d e m t o tio n a n d in sis te d , h a , t h e h t t ^ “ > and mechanical
J ^ r b a p technologies,
s M c L u h a n s mthe
a jo r w orV '
humanists to media a n a
was ^ literary study o f classical or modem * *
hU more than just * a d o p t th e a lo o f an d dissociated r o fe ^
During the mechamcal ages we had extended our h o d i T i W
that
“S> ” . »
literate »» f” Baudnllarhs Today -• " e have extended our central nervous system itself in a
global embrace, abolishing both space and time as far is our pfeja
lte Westerner. niedia were for M cL u han s cultural c r it ic ^ H concerned. Rapidh we approach the final phase of the exteraions
„„.,r culture an d in - discourse o f their respective divs- of man —the technological simulation of coosc>euw«
r ° P ? „ attack >h e th e end of classical —^™>KHsnessL n
S i n Jn"ard an d'SClD T h e n o tio n t h a t te ch n o lo g y B a n extension o f i b , k
M cL uhan claimed that t h e a g e o f l i t e r a c y , t h e G u t e n b e o P ° li t'Cal e ? P 541
from a n th r o p o lo g y a n d th e histo ry of techn 'k - v w y ,T &n ^ 8 6___ _
to a n end in the electronic a g e . W h e r e B a u d r i l l a r d f o c u s e d 8 3 *3 * *
is th e c la im t h a t w e a r e w itn e s s e s a woridwbfc M ® V <L ^
vf processes of signification .n language and image— first toonexpand
theimport^
thec£ sio n a n d e x p lo s io n t o im p lo s io n .'fro m an c w t w n ^ T ^ * * fn*
^ Marxist critique of re.ficat.on and commodification and ultimate^ in w ard . F o r M c L u h a n . th is p a ra d ia m shift B a 1 b® a*
d ^ p it McLuhan earned cultural ent,asm mto the realm of ^ jn e c h a n ic a l t o e l e c tn c te c h n o lo g ie s H e p ro ceed s f u n h ^ - ^ X ^
Z Z e . abandoned literature altogether, and yet remained true to his *, in te c h n o lo g ie s t o a n o t h e r b .n a r e m , th a t ta w e e n h o t a J
i ht'rincre in privileging the medium over the message. d is tin c tio n t h a t im m e d ia te ly c o n ju re s up th e L e y v - S n * ^ ^
^MtoLuhan SoCTized correctly that critiques of technology and ofm^ betw een h o t a n d c o o l (m o d e r n /p r im im e , sexieties H ot an d cool ^
,he nart o f humanists more often than not came out of an affect « ea ch o t h e r lik e p r i n t a n d sp eech , ra d io a n d th e telephone, fifa, - c -.e e i-io
T h e r a t io n a l e t o r th e s e d is tin c tio n s is o fte n eccentric a n d c c n trad k x o n e>
° n im e n r and out of a total identification with literary h ig h culture. He
in g D a n ie l B ell t o c la im in an ti-h e d o n tst d esp air th a t reading M c L a ta a
^ • , in the late 1950s and early 1960s was to understand themed* like ta k in g a T u r k i s h b a t h o f th e m i n d Z
“ K w ^dism iss .hem The media never representa,h» B u t th i n g s a r e n o t q u it e a s steam y a n d unsettling in M cL o h in a fte r :
rather than > ff d f conservative cntics as well as Iron
W h a t e m e r g e s q u i t e d e a r l y is th a t th e tw o sets o f b m a ris n s iexp*os»
im p lo s io n a n d h o t / c o o l ) le a d u p to a large-scale h isto rical yericyfizatK-o
c u ltu r a l s t a g e s w h ic h M c L u h a n c la im s are effected, even determ ined,
o r - L a n d i n g could hardly be dislinguished t a c h a n g e s in c o m m u n ic a tio n s tech n o lo g y . T h e an th ro p o lo g ical n o o o n of t
tu r e a s a sy s te m o f c o m m u n ic a tio n is rew ritten m te rm s o f comeragvoi

416
417
 aF T E R the L E T T E R : (P R E )P O S T M O D
BEFORE AND
. and it results in a kind o f technologic,,,
communications techm Kj in Baudrillanl. McLuhan iSO|, Oeisi-,*$V
“primitive." tribal society. a ,s°l«tes
^ tv,'
•our
stages o f cultural h> « ^no,ogy 0 f speech; two. a hot visual culm - le
culture with ^ * ritins; three. an even hotter visual culture w"?,h a
technology vi
mechanical o» yPhl*** * print
------ of
technology ri„t (,he Gutenberg j.....
(theanuuhhimp galaxy); and (four, „ re.,,h ‘he
.. uiiu
audile-tactile culture with
a cool culture on a higher level, an audile-tactile culture wim
technology o f television and the computer. in
The persistent issue in this scheme is the rise and decline ot ™
McLuhan associates visuality with linear continuity. uniformitvV'Sk",i,>’* an
and indixidualization. This culture o f visuality is characters t ^ ' h ' o n
ation, distance, alienation, and the dissociation o f sensibility _ by sePt,
as the early Baudrillard would call it with Lukilcs and Debord r!^l,’C||tioh
o f visuality. m odernity in other words, is about to be superseded ,lis Cul,Hie
o f instantaneous inclusiveness, a m ythical and integral eulV .a cul(„r '
"electric speed [brings together] all social and political function'"0 VvbiCh
implosion" and in which "the electrically contracted globe is „ 11 sUdden
village"1'O bviou s difficulties arise in follow ing M cLuhan’s elm' "l0re ,, '«n
sion som ehow initiates the prom ised land o f an audile-tactile "" '*!at •elevj.
ture. One could claim, as Jonathan C ra ry has done, that M cL°?,V'*Ua*cul-
definition o f television as cool was fo u n ded on features o f a i ! j,Bn's I^6()s
its infancy: the low delinition o f its im age a n d th e im age's smnl|U 'Uni S,'H in
that would no longer pertain in an age o f h ig h -reso lu tio n TV ^ fca,Ures
hom e screens.I'1 But another fa cto r m ust be considered here tl ° f large
nun It, film which, according to McLuhan'Ll?* to do
with reception. C o n tr a r y to film, w m c n . a c c u . u . . , * ---------- 1SU ' isolates ihA
s p e c ta to r, television has the power to create community; it retribalizes .......... . i
me
SPoCrld
w rVr'Features mm by
. F e a tu re s that were attributed to film oy Brecht
o.«m and «...u Benjamin under mi
world. Feature ■ - receptjon
minn resurface in McLuhan’s
McLuhan s scheme •in
" te " “ T o television except that the socialist vision of collective reception is
relation to
replaced byt an idea of television
television as
as tribal
trtoai drum.
u.u.... There
. is a constant sliding
oreplaced by i_
f categories iihon from
in McLuhan from the technological to
,he technological to the
the isocial and vice versa
that produces implausibilities and contradictions galore. But, then, at stake
here is not really history, neither a history of the media nor a history of
human culture. At stake is a “mythic pattern of fall and salvation,” to quote
Fekete. Ultimately the four stages o f cultural history can be reduced to three,
collapsing the two middle phases o f visual culture (the phonetic and the
Gutenberg) into one: the age o f literacy. We end up with a trinity of tribalism
(cool), detribalization (hot), and retribalization (cool). Television ushers us
into the age o f post-literacy. Implosion and feedback loops replace explosion
and linearity. Integration replaces fragmentation. The culture of Western
humanism, which, after all, is a culture o f literacy, has disappeared, and
McLuhan is happy about it: a technocratic version of antihumanism, which.
however, differs greatly from the structuralist “death of man.” Thus in the
introduction to Understanding M edia we read that

418
 <N the s „
*bO\V
*sp‘ret o n o f our « n * for M '
■ vl,ess «s * natural »dju r * h < W
‘" ‘,aenly e**er 10 hl've things >n? «'*ct^ >\«hv
ftct* is « deep faith to t* <t*p,h of
.corn* thc uU,niate hu,m V £
Elicit this book has been ^
’ ' "'let
..... mythic
thc nwthic pattern nr
or r.,..
faU " faith'”
, -m “« wpenmem in ^'vtvti0n ,
.♦'I'0 pjr medium read Goa, «nd e\«ctd”v ** t«k«n

•naixi's engagement with MeLuh.... ' " abou*

p r e v ie w e d the French translationoVKb**»»sW ,
'vl’Ca nai L'Homme el la **«,#. This £ 5 * » '%7.
* K contain a seathtng cnttque of McU»l !‘^ » h 2 awtheWt
iK*s ’ . point of Marxism and historic,. ' ns "tali# 56nc" only
* * * % » ° f Buudrillard's t a J S ^ ^ b S ^ > S
disp“dtious- T,'is fascination comes thro«at '? ^ Mel 1? • n,rcn^ 1
alegies rather than in the argumS " ^ C f e 1
! of'c# a,|, he makes McLuhan speak out .lS*f>Rndit show! •*T ' thcl-
1 i0 " tie s ’’ of European mass mediaiogucs t S - "'c
A w W t> ed a*™“ W W ,
•C i” 1 « “ "y "s“"',s' ™ * C S . 1t > * * » 5
a ? of wplicil |KV" V“ S u M l m r . o » f t .
^prom ising and relentless: rUK»uc of McUhan ^

Evidently, there is a simple reason for this [McUhuu'sl anti

t founded on the total a,lure to understand hisJ S ' T ' t
’ understand the social history of the malm11 * p”c'wlf

„ focusing exclusively on the I n f , wolmtom „

cLuhun ignores, according to Baudrtllard, ''

,|| those historical convulsions, ideologies, and the remarkable per­

sistence (even resurgence) of political imperialisms, nationalisms,
,nd bureaucratic feudalisms in this era of acceleratedcommunication
andparticipation.11
• tion here, of course, is whether this pre-1%8 critique of McLuhan
cannot be raised against Baudrillard’s own writings on the media, whether in

4ll)
 rFB rHE LETTE* (P«E.POST Vf>DE » .
BeF0 «E *fTE .
_* ,j,e Silent Majorities ire himself
n- in in ii* -*“"* * I«i -this mo* pasa.tmne and most .
Sinmauie^ ^ in ^ 7 [he notion that the medium „ ^ r-
J3P'lU^ o x ' m whole crimps* of the V laoist ^
aiL , f V i s i o n as a culturally
1X^ 1 nresunm ^ ^ . ^ ^ n o n -consum ption or object, » ; n'
?M7“n?^ j j s anaiv** * “jn - immumtanon through which a renr„ n
- the** that t h e J S ' - -
^ ’^ m m u o u a o tu d ie o f e x c h a n g e » ,th :h e ^
R a tio n is ornwi,> ^ en j u * as use value » h e ld to a„ * £
d* l » concomitant hscovero sf ^ '
ie°_ZZ. .aiuc m c®***31 VV “ «*, with us proposition that the
^ T ^ H U O U ****** ^ n lie « » l ,ystem, nut that he
f o i m . ® Pn^ 1 ^ tearr i f rhecommooiry form: up -p ms !hp.,r
" ~ a® -esiao B hever and any political economy h'
j j jasiaatioB :la* fln,u lw J(,iiiicai. -heiocai all it this rheor,sgn, ,
^ p th e^ e ee n . h e ^ ^ hflUI ^ m 0 a cr „f 3* * * £ •
mrt®**** 1 ® T " ^ n t i aid nach.net- h -amulahon M e***,, ,, f
-aeao ensnxm * lows ifasBHfcannn «"*• n to m a n o n v,,h h»
- * , « « * to* ~ m s a e v m ain s : h e - e a t war i f sa m m o d itie *
„ xarowdiim:- a® » a nam m a ^ »«^ i e semen hat njfer wll
m ujfi^ e a ta rxssnsn^ n = _ • ts P t n o i o e u ^ i te re rro in is w ,
a. o te r BE^ S: r i nnro:> m m aicaie.'L li.in *fc t> d ia n „ Us, Irtty •" ™ ■-P^ustion n th eeo ^ Z T
e a sn a m u tS. n te td n iw ^ h e m . and p o litic o - -tsrsf. or » £T ^ horjed i Wtn4 ^ *ej **w J*
^ T w a tt W i« " a*®® «»* •«* &«* „
^ %^ Z ! L « B is » « n : m m « - *m u**m i ^ a Sl* « 0nr,TUm
50p««“ «« ' **» * ^ •« « -he jpfw u ■
uMprivj „*^ r , t ^ 7 '«***'■>**,.
******
Aacwr a***1*' (&urwtn mtU fc "»«" >m,Jir n _ *ttf *^ete lotVK cnKhed
« e lows crashed and he - 1 ? * ’** ** ^ *
f^ jta s t sto m a x* - ^ «s> p f ft tts t y ' *.h v u o flirts« JB*
$B » *,rrt4R fe*wtrt»Wd ^ ‘B^'fsrd- fees** nrr^t,.ri.'f '"^'* ^ -4-V Wih
Vcame Ttereswn.r t/im
* r <f * p tttUtU0n^ Z v ,Cpp''-nmar-urodity
a t^ w a !* ';' aand
n d alietaimn
d ie ts !in n w mo ^ .„rr'
rt v» rr(, * T"1 ‘^ ' 4^ tie
tie f«otk-
_ nTj - ^ ^ * |top;r ^ ^ a^jsnmlsiidfl
t m a a r t w ^af rtMmme* ?mdn«d p m H m m«* ? , ;J V ***
n» Uhur m
-as# Hn»* 11 ^ ^ VuuiA*nfite h„ $v/«wlm v r ^»u
\4«H ^ ,., 1
f ,^ ,'J>1 t ^ ^^
* JS6C- t«R — __ aidirf-e•««»
-«*—tnadsiK* ! « » « * ^ ^vy.duyiar ■ ^ ^ deftnn*«
me * inc-inwpdiu. m-icnos; atortim«not T^Ih . u .^ ,
saSX* % ja s r ^ iiruiia.; * 1«rr :m a » mwle^iuds p' a ibw -ta* ppm * m tW ^ K >(l<( -v I T 1
vhfPMtner Meery ^ * 6 av * * * * * * .w nm nat urn -te w ur # *** ■w ^twawJSS*
tape, vxm vez i s e 'ia iT t-rtiL gaegs ;s*
jjjssg* * "'vvaa tt t-rawt
a v t t d^«5»
r o a -v'
i f ttie
i e IitaniiiwiMt
fe n a te ia iif c ->
^ t * i5t:gtl'
•% >
F 'j yiKtwtndtU-d y .re J ffteirfi in tiM ie * w m m a tr iy ^ te e ia srp ta h a t * * i- y fe« , v ^

aa eaeesauyi tf niimHa> ttr-Eecu iwlrtea niertresdf tie iisaigma m tf lite iBtalKw. e i«we *.
t uerear nested sa >igi tn-am jmiytgitvu: n in: vrsament y' te «tar c ruti»aMi: to. wn*.
w> - tm nen^asr* nerdum psr ps ttstsu----- re------
mi- -itittT b « « 1. •*«-
i TTidimri tie w ere-, -p,
nsn B TTdPtrtl
■- . . aW
r«*.l w
i^DJCC L
uj«.f «! to.
i,ir- eittUW
-.ncuu.
^ hw KfS v»jer o' Mir«!ft>. f»olc iKJti witrsuaii n mhi. tattasv * ; rrojtttivt
ea^leacef* ;p«p a' lie liiiSdium o’ powr Tie isx: maXttt& ftrai^ti ocwtoj cyn-
am ariCappryva! ol tie siieidx ol tie sien wa#»my Sajjasaflairtsa^
fa a im d a rtf. s a a r is e w m rf *nam auw «*» n iS S S :t ^ ^ “ * ' ' ^ wi Tsvea bauffnlfetTO still mvsate tie aknte o: tat raase. wii rmouatv-
taeh » r _ rjf h e s r u s t u v x u s : jn y y y s r tiy i. c*
-KBhiiim. a® adtt®ww: *mt **»ps. »

421
 ai TEB the LETTER < P « , P O . T M O D ^ t
BEFORE ai "HD*FT The m asses are to him Pa
, *I and i H eg Io rifie s th e irre fu s a lo < mea>, ' “Hi.
notions f ^ tifai,h. He describes the desire o f t „ ^ a
transcendency jon by t h ‘ * ^ tive b ru tal.ty " o f ind ^
refusal of r o ^ nf fiction o f any real exchange, as a
forspeCr 2 « ^ a t a l e n t that the m odern m edta per se i n h ^ t
Silence he se cknowledgen1 ;patjon.2 1an<|
based clange resP0" Se,’,a S s paradoxical validation o f the si|ence °fthe
prevent exchagforBaudn||ard P eaning jg most clearly and
The raU° " f their defiance ' $//*«/ M a jo ritie s in the brier Ve|*
*"? 1 1 * Here B aurlrillard t a l k , X „ >

z z £ r * z
,he one hand.
iubj“ ,s and- on ,h'

they obey- js today unilaterally v alo rized , held as

n e resistance as subje &| sphere only th e p ractices o f
positive — Just a S expression, an d c o n s titu tio n as a p o li,ical
ation. emanctpat.om an d su b vers.ve_ B ut th is ,s to ignore
subject are taken to b > superjor im p a c t o f all th e practices-as-
,he equal, or perM P? . o f the p o sit.o n o f su b je c t a n d o f mean-
object — ■!*Iv the S i of >1" 1iT-
f » nwhich « ’
jng^ __ exactly the P,a us terms of aalienation f i n uriH ,
and passivity,
forget under the cent P w one 0f the aspects of the system,
jhe liberating pract'c ^ make of ourselves pure objects, but
to the constant ultim ^ ^ other demand, wh,ch is to constitute
they don't re s p o n d a o u r s e lv e s , to express ourselves at any
ourselves as subjects- ^ speak, participate, play the game - a
price, to vote, produc . just as serious as the other, prob-
form of b l a c k m a i l a i T q a s y s t e m whose argument is oppres-
ably even more seriou strategic resistance is the liberating claim of
sion and repress'0". rather the system’s previous phase, and
subjecthood. But in d^ j{ fe no ,onger the strategic
even if we are still c argument is the maximization of the
terrain: the systems uctjon of meaning. Thus the strategic
word and the max of meaning and a refusal of the word -
resistance is that of . „ of the very mechanisms of the
S is a C of refusal and of nonrecep.ion “

IB political implications. s, of the sys,em. And even if

^ J S S l S S critique of a certain prominent romanticize.™,

422
 ,NTHE*HAI)0^
afl}inality or oibcrncM, "
/ l ® n g . n' a“ refusal a, | j j j ‘ «h«h

^Jsses a full understandingVw fr«m M , **Mar< S S * f<"

^ £ and. simultaneously, a c o n i ^ h a S S b . wh f<"
stick with this position fQr J u‘ r<WiUl b««* p^ 1 h*- ascrib * es to
^ u l a c - a ” a ^ notion of resists V‘°ng C? * ,0 ‘K■jposnion ab o u t tb e
/ S'^0|,thic vision of contemPor nce has d ^ 'n ly , £ * * . b
»Reversal ; .McLuhan, m—pMcLJh
io n o f c o n tebut o13raiary
n cceuh ltu
a silisa
re thpapt e ta ^
„™
,,i 'an"d, " «Vl<:Pt« * ssioith
? ' 1« W* t*w'Wn-
n
-{S'*'0\s ti'cof Vf M cL uhan, b u t M c L u hC a*l1"*
n n c vt he Jn h e-^ *nV T . TO0,e'
ifl'L McLuhan s euphoria” ( “h,,n neveJ
/ ° e v e f s9 ' l ° l a n 's “ e u p h o ria " co m e s b a c k a s th e
*> s,rw 4 w «

l(y ( c tr ik e s m e a s a W end o f D ionysian cw Y ' ^ ,mm u'u ta '

w h 'c b T e c h n o lo g ic a l d e te rm in ism ru n s a m o ^ uansU
k r e ^ ^ m a lo n a o f th e s c r e e n . - V transform ,nfe itse lf

iOl° a P u n a h a s C h a n g e d a n d th e F a u stia n . Prom ethean (perhaps

c o W ^ f l e r i o d o f p r o d u c tio n a n d co n su m p tio n gives way to th e
n e d iP a ' ■ - e r a o f n e tw o rk s , to th e n a rc issistic a n d p ro tean a re a o f
fO iean ' C c o n t a c ts . c o n tig u ity , fee d b a c k a n d g en eralized in terface
P tin e c t'° n l Vi t h e u n iv e rs e o f co m m u n icatio n . W ith th e television
c° t g o e s w 1' QNVn b o d y a n d th e w h o le su rro u n d in g universe becom e
> „o,£ - ’

a ___________ j s a y_ ^“h“a t';iap B a u d,.rilla rd

h e re Preceding , ~~~* wnat
theenterritory.
a cts w h at he preaches, the
h e preaches-,
Rather th e
than repre­
ss 0 « - :. utv,
o n e his
c o u text ^couldmbe a pread
p re cas
e d simulating what
in g th e territo ry . is stillertothcome
R ath But
a n repre-
0 f c° ^ le s.itwould
^ptingre n n 'a c rU
say ’that
cq u W b e r e a recycles
it rather d a s sim what
u la tinonce
g w hwas.
at is snamely,
till to comthee.terms
R ut
jg » ° {; reaW V - t h a u t r a th e r re c y c le s w h a tonce w ,— - >- '
eVeHthen. large-scale periodizing and his notion of the worid of com-
e ..-I "ha° S
0f McLuhd as a tactile world of contact, connections, and feedback, rather
world of, in Baudrillard s terms, the scene!seenor the mirror.
han a v'sua to see how McLuhan's grand historical scheme is reworked
H is strik'n& mid-1970s on. In his 1967 review of McLuhan.
in BJ UJ arldstill had this to say about the Canadian-.

Every ten years American cultural sociology secretes « a

directional schemes in which a diagonal analysis of all dviliSon
ends up circling back to contemporary American reality as imWicit
telos and model of the future.27

Ten years later, this kind of American cultural sociology has evident
caught up with Baudrillard himself, and the European phantasmagoria
•America” d o m in a tes the Baudnllardian discourse (enhanced, no doubt by
jet lag and its effects on perception and experience). From his discussions of
Disneyland and Watergate by way of the twin towers of the World Trade
 , , flM' i* * *')*•>*» * H , h ,
„ t*l
Ill I otc<
'>•" A* »r vm A w n w e, the „)((
/ h ?I|HIWW* >*,h®' or "»*r a hash; »*aht/
( I" lien » P ^ lgm T U/ "*‘ Un iIk.1*' *«(
"ai ■r*/ / ' /,7 :;" r ; ! i,,u^ m u ....
)rililaii"« ',J 1 11-| «<**rur <rffWnwIacrti
i n n H’e ln,r>l r h e l'W th(. ^ m iU tu v m , ju st a* m * .|,1(|)
,,S then M»'n media technology, What »# J’ '•*i
0** tat soil/*1"I 1 sappos* w ,. V',J '<• -a,
- 1 ^ ........... ........ & * IjJ ^herne is less Historic#, ^
«s ■; u »«*«»>* — r ,v" "i «tu; / hi <*2 J» with a »/y <A £ * *• -hi .
* ........ .. r~ ^ < o f the sacratoem. .Im e ^ , ,4 ^- ^ y ^ Z Z
are . the tw o '*"em e\ T h c ° » »hc <*Z pf simulation #,«1 tMf <t,M„ .,,^ 7 ; ' “« » 2
I ....... ... , v.rw‘"r 'll.. 7S,h«nv> (,7 ' ,wo>a»*4*»»,# « £ £ • 7^ ; -v,
o( *i m u w ^ 7 //ul Th'* distmciMw f.„ ,,_f7 ''''****>«**{' . ...
following "** , lBCr(J(t), parallel to the mutation# of1'h e low SUifeaW* With !'i' 1/ M
* ■ - «— Th« hr** {reflection and masking of
pf value. *»* roil fcheme of the 'cla^lcar period, fr„ ()(trtith and secrecy (Ur which the
The second (masking thc absent* <ri a *u« . Z „ ' °
' in.ta to i.1 ,i„ri| inaugurates an age <,t simulacrj, #,,,1 *11y*«4 p>rr. , ‘ ’
separate true from alse, the real ffom iu„ *^ ^
control everything is already dead and rise,, rsw" w ^ ,« lw
,tr0" y , .i-uiacrum correspond to three phase# in in the
, *c* of
three pha»es of the. |()C prc'capltallat phase of ",cDie n;,"ir;i1
natural lawiii fC gaudrillard's discourse leaves thc realm «f ya*
f,'r* 77,lie
»/■" V t i J law «fval,(C
of value ht'»|.
?„.r 0r Jvalue;
, , . second, the capitalist law of
o| v#|l)e ,urc altogether and somersaults into.kind
history " . i» (h e e a rn ,- , , u a liin n ( llte u m m iiu l iii .
mz i J » i:""’ " ,!’erAoi ,hc ................. »»»».. 0 leave us forever, I presume, with simulation, t h e ^ ,hal
vl> , bribed hy Mar*.» 'vV,1ltl , , the phase of what Baudnllard call# the , vUemOf floating wgnifters unchamed from any rcferwS* ^ ^
’’‘ fuauate it* use value; au< J ' jn ,, kind of linguistic combinatoire I n indeed. A melancholy fixation on the Ir n T Z ^ l T * ™ '
1 1»»l w »' " * ? £ , f ^ .ll^ liW -P “II the earlier detominadon, „r
5 . » • * ? -* ^ " » W ta T st* .
. h*?in» l‘>"‘’u' ,rc nroduction *>r meaning, pnrpiiw, irulh.
" *«y naiure a* “/..a Emulation In which capital funclloniw 2 #fc« * » » » [ ° h“TT * * * * * M ~ I» M M
.... Mcl.uha.1. thr.iugh h« mcd». s„ «|la, », . „„ * *
j j i i *• £ S S S t - W S - r f . •* -» » »f > M # t a a .. 1(),plosion, "inside the black hole about which Baudrillard keeps fantasia
, L a * machinery «, *»J“ dcvc|„pm«,t of capital i., of m ine, a th„,r, J n perhaps a postmodern potlatch in a global village. Hut we will never
tl,«y..l'h cl«'«i‘,^ ; i ; , a Nici/tchcan nihihtm. come into too™ know, since the black hole will have absorbed all light, alt images, all Simula-
Mtuttrophc urid ° . y y ^.rct.|i and thc computer, lions, Iconoclast!) writ large will have won thc day, or rather; thc mght when
McLuhan, until one remember, t at television has finally gone off thc air,
rim m y all *<uuid very unmw_ hjcu jn thc usual sense of the
rI,,',ion for Baudritlfird is ' > redemption in hyperreality.w
lord, but suggest* aomethinjg r, continues in the second scheme ol Notes
A„d the rapprochement with M ^uW e j# a dincurstve shift ,n nik Wtt„ commissioned for the conference “High CulturelPopular Culture;
t t o l of simulacra. A s ^ ;jes o f po,itica. economy, even m ! t e p « i “ to>n of the Other," held * the RocteWkr l™»d..W. M »„
Iiaudrillard’s theory ol sum, at.o™. T J yre rep!accd by the language
the political economy of (he sign. 425
 Ill I O K I AND AMI R I II I I .K rrB K (P R I :) l , O S T M ( ) „ .
RN
... . Center. Belliguo. Itnly. 27 FtebrunrjM Mmvl, |g Ku
eesshniis %
>l ihe conffenwiky will In* published in K<'p>rxvnr<in'on\: <>,,l Phi.
Wwr.
a >/i t\l John <' H anhardt and Mcven D. Lnvlnc, " <,"//i
t/.vA/ 7'A *«•>»/
■ loin B utnliilliu'l "The I csliisv o f Coimminfc«(lon." in 77,n Ami
A\v,„ > . « r\*m»xi<r* <W rwv. ed. H«l Foster (Port T bw nsem l; Buy
l« **> l9«,u
John I Hct<\ /»<• ( > v W ( I I'lidon; Routlodjje Keg,m l>„,||'
I M nshall Mol nhiin. 7V W n to n t* the hSUMg* ■<» tomuory ^ K h Z , 1
Voii: Bantam Books. 1*67). 2h „ ‘ ' (fs|etv
4 Jo,in H .iii<trilhm t, " H ie P ie o e w n s n o l M im i n o rii, m s „ i l l)s ,
|V,„, i',,i,on. ,111,11'lnlip BeiK'hman ( Neu Mirk VHIIOIOM(C). K s i , <s lsiSv
s Mwvruiiotc on Iho Nick cover ol
o IVloi Sloiorvlnl < o' <T>'>vt/ AY,»o«(M,mieiipolis I l„hv N ,
0, 01.1 Piv„. I °S -I Slorwxlu'k |> more sinvessftil in his critique ol'« p o s i e n i i mi1-
o\nioisin (hull ho is in his piO|vsnl ol countercultural oynienl ttlterinmv, , * mehei1
7 lekefr, <Vi'fhW TM/iyhi, M°
8 M,iish;iii Mol uh«n, Vmtmmtmg Unto*: the ExHmkmx <>t ,»/,w (N
Median-Mill. | s* m >, 30, ™dt
O "M arshall Mol uhan \ 01111, 1.,! Conversation with the H igh Priest o r
.in.! Mot,iph> sioiiin of Media “ /Vor/sn (M utch lOrcJ). 158, v *v «lt
!<> \ it. Ino.., Mm won. "M uss C uliurc ns Woman M o d ern ism 's O th er." in j ,
( d m , a v a T t ( Bloomington; Indiana I hiiversity Press, IMfc), 'v,<1 "i'­
l l Mol iihnn, I 5M»!m. 1
12 Mantel Boll Itx ( V r W < oam siVnirtm l (N ew York; Basic n .
IM7M. 7.1. ‘ " ks-
15 Mol uhan. 'A - m , 20
14 A siuthnn O w n . ‘TeKpse o i'ih o S iw tnoio," in An .{rlei U.'.tcrmmt Kahini
<\l Brian Wiillis ( \otx York: Hie N ew M u seu m o f t'o n te m n o
Art 1084). m 1 mrv
15 M ol iihnn, / Jm Wsj .k*.j'»i,o ,1/otV.t. 21,
le Jean Baudrillard. "M arshall Mol uhan; I n*irrst<mxt(n<: / ffonm, ,,»
u s ttW 5 (.Inis TveptemN'i l% 7 ): 22», '«
17 IN ,1 .2 5 0
18 IN ,I
l*> IN J
20 I o i soiiip o t.rllo n i ilisonssions o l' IN tn lrillim l's c u ltu ra l jv litio s, see \ lu( ,
I5hiiIiom i,\ t\ l , ,m,i JbmAvtfiJ: / 8 c .V.vw, (V ilclv S to n e
m oss S en io rs. l y S4h o'|voinllv the onmi\ I" M cughnit M o rris, " R o o m IOI . V
R m VU'rsl Itiings in th e WoriO," ' 1 '*
21 lenii H m nlnllim l to <V ' snioii o / tV,SV/<w I/.f/N i/tt v m; / 8 c / i W n / r/ic v . »,w
(N e « Vorkc S em io te\il(e ), I'W.U. 40,
22 IN ,I,. 15,
75 l liis is ill,so th e .iijom icni o l'U iim liillim rs ossm " R e q u ie m t;,, ti,e M « J ln ," in 7;,,
.1 O . .y... ,*r M ilfoil /SVtvtis-(ii' «y'/ 8 c AVcn. tr a its t'lin H e s I evitt (S t. I o u is
lohvs Ihcss. IW D , ,1nil its c ritiq u e o f B tvchi u n d I n .- r n lv ijje i's (v u ad ititit o f
( »i/utitrh>nkrm(i;. o r reu tiiiratio n ,
loiin linudrillurd, “liuplivsioii ol'Mettniiqt in the Merlin," in .v/u/oir (y'/hc .VtVNu
l/.th W /tc , III? A',
5o.ui Ramlull,ml. / o AWtm'vMt Athi/rM(IMris: Orasset, |si,s'5)
7o Btiudrillunl, "The Ivstn.w ofComimiitictiiion," I.to.
7 ‘ Rtnidrilluixl. "Mmshnll hid uliiin,"22 *
25 Jean Baudrillml. "I 'Ottlre des simulncras,” in L'tiekmg* m iiM w # h to m m

•120
 that v*«* ' v4
in favour *
64
Ts^^Aional content . *<#U, * twa*
F A T A L F O R M S cemceptA
J ^ ^ rn m e h a n ,fe ""St-***, £ 4
*s strong flavored by
, .n e o ) f o r " » l s o d o lo g ic a l th e o ry Of
conceptuahmum ,A p***N**W ^ * 3 1 ? * * *
To-fvtrard a ( n e 0 fw e d ja c u ltu r e ' ^ S i c t z s c h e s Phihnophy.
i'dtui the ^ruvyu. . 'Or* >KjL^ '
, c M r if e cmd M a r m r e te J. E p ste in vantage points from ^ T **1 * t>*»
Jonathon S. &P
* s S - * f “» « » J S£
ft*® ,-»■"» that mark the mdtvidtjaJ ^ '•'s . . , ”*’■ a «***.,
, 4 cancel Reeder, (Hford «****,, |y,
<
» *SS w* * ra »~d
“ i t'°r; spimusl
s f * n j J ''" S
• « , J ? s s ‘ - - ' t„
Soxft^ 1X1
pp religio0*wttK^s at the '^me time
< l l need* Once developed, m o d e r ^ ^ ^ *■*:.> * **** 4
< f t h a i counters the elements *
m question initially aro* | v fr,,.
„ ^ it to Offer the b e g in n in g , o f a fo rm a l v>c,(). that ultimately can place »twlf»-viotet,,*,,,‘? w* -sek ,^ 2 * *
of thit
Tbe p u rp o ^ u w ill b e o u r i n t e n t , o n t h r o u g h o u t , hH 5 5 - »*«"“*"
freedom^ andthr :community
^ r *•“««». i S s s S '
2 2 - 5 theory o f the nut* JJ* d e b a t c d | h e o n e i Gf t h e m edia, th a t of
^ l h T t » o o f the B a u d rilla rd can be u n d erw o o d a t
'* homogemzauon, or leveling, of frK rte F o rfa S
S a i l M cLuhan f dJ ^ rk o f S i m m e f * f o r m a l s o c i o l o g y I n o r d e r to ^ c o m m ° n denominator. ^ tads to ^ T fc
nictating within the fram^ f t o 0 t ) j„ e SimmeVt f o r m a l s o c io l o g y , d e m o n - ^ j l e most sociologists accept socbWy klJ lhln ,
2 e , h i ! argum ent, we will « M c L u h an , a n d t h e n p r e s e n t it s e x te n s io n , Jtim m crs enthusiastic and u n a p o k ^ **.•
T one it* P'e*ence in Z w o k o f B a u d r i l l a r d . W h e n u n d e r s t o o d in th e ^.rschean thought into his social theory av , A IUs*B* 486
through M cLuhan- m to the a n d B a u d r i l l a r d h a v e s ig n if ic a n t s£ £ r y a» best. Not surpns.ngjy, o n e ^ n m e t s **-
L t o f format tociol^ ^ ^ | o g y o f c u l t u r e . B a u d r i l l a r d . in p a r tic u la r , " Emile Durkheim who criticized Simmefs use <a
*5 ^pts form and content which were explicated by s T u u S ^ f S t
Contributions to * * * * * t h e s h ’T t i m ° t h e P 0 4 1 " 10^ " «
offers a radical form al sou > A p p r o a c h , matemb hastily gathered and not rip m m b tta S ^
thefinde slide. ^m efs philosophical orientation, for Durkheurc did n o ^ « ^ e
-the realm of soaology as a science This is a chuosm nfecfc »a%^
formal sociology
Sim m el: Led by Max Weber, who nevertheless found Simm^s soaok*. to be of
r i themselves and for their own sake: they highest intellectual order, and
ihe hign *^1 1 -. -
based
,
his criticism‘ on the
UK
of the
« u*
They come to play ^ " rja)s {hat exclusively serve their own r:__ .s*inn” as a primitive
f* d. “interaction” Drimitive term.''
term.'
produce or make use o^ *°Simmel conceived of social forms as being the ^neral m«ardung m& i
operation or realization. i, the specific patterns of social interaction unify and create social strut-
. ln_, u. categorized into three types; general "® porms arise out of teleological necessity and thus ait rooted in the
Simmel proposed t t o and formal sociology. It is his formal lUre ntion that sociological phenomena move toward specific goals, for syt-
sociology, ph.losoplr.ol'■»”* „„ ,hc discipline of sooejogy. The 2Sfif nurposes9 These forms provide the necessary framesoilt for the -social'
sociology that tes had tte l»ge» % disIinc,ion between the form, o, to'wxur "These goals and purposes organize themsebes rnto^-grammatkal-
P ™ j ^ o / / " ' t f r ' p e c i f . c “ccntent” of im eracon. I. was

428
 „ T E R T H E L E T T E R : (P R E ) P o « - r
BEFORE AND AI Mo ,)Rrk
categories,
--- or
categories, forms, which
or -onie ,K.r allow
into a« lor
. the-----------------------
unified inherent
whole ,™ m y , "....an?'"'*'1*
e ill..si,"*u,,|rity ^
phenomena to come together Cu(wrft n s im expression of th e. so ■
ar«
expressed through f gl logic. Mn|’’ bJ hV
definition, also follows ' ^ collectl0n or forms through whicll
Culture, lor Simme'. * Among thesc expressive forms wcJ l,re
expresses and technology. Cultural forms always express thc “n.
religion, science, jthin )in epoch and the struggle that resu|,s r^ '
,n,| idealiztil'on such. For the Greeks, during the ela ' 1'1
the particular den^ ' ° as M „g itself, for the eighteenth-century vonil ^ "
period, this central '‘,e" fo||OWed in the nineteenth century by n,lc
iMwas nantre and ^ £ ^ tury .,,c/efv Sim m * however,
and finally at the «“»„ ' of the latter, since society, as a central conee' '
lent regarding th e elite y ^ ..jndivitlullr into the social as such Cl '
demanded submerged, eflrective jn offering a unifying position
sequently. this concept psychological. moral and aesthetic value,- J
it neglected the .n.ie' ^ n^ work. for example, sociology can be seen as one Jr
experience." In form science, which specifically arose J l
many contents of the c of socjety in the |„te nineteenth century,
expression of the idea a rcflections of lived experience. As a grammar
As expressions, lorn jn tha, ,hcy both dictate and guide the contend
forms are in one sense . content. the expression of idealizations 0f
of culture: form.^ ' f hv the form. This seemingly contradictory relationship
life that are spedheooy fl| t 0 the logic of formal sociology. Cultural
between cause and enec ^ not share what Simmel refers to as “the
forms, while arising out^c L.(.e -opposes for,n in its fluidity. Forms are. f0r
restless rhythm of lire. own ,ogjca| space. Life contradicts and forces
however briefly, hxeu ■' an(J even,ua|ly replace older forms. History,
new forms to struggle fc rimari|y concerned with the changes brought
Simmel notes, as a scienc . ^
about by th e s tr u g g le b ^ * e " for s i m m e l . b e c a m e m o s t c l e a r l y v is ib le jn
T h e conflicting n a t u r e ’ b e t w e e n c u l t u r a l f o r m s t h e m s e lv e s w as
the modern ci« e r a ...
m w•-----
h ie ‘ ” jf c a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f f o r m , b e t w e e n th e
replaced with a struggle between life and the principle oi lurm, oetween the
replaced with a s t r u g g such. T h i s c h a n g e in o r ie n ta -
need for life
i; r - to
f n find
find expression a n o the form a s such. This change
e x p r e s s i o n and f in orienta-„
tor m e 1 0 —r
needlijoc
tion was af, result o f the increasing speed and efficiency of or the
me transmission of
an‘l m ade nossihle onl,, K„
both the content and the form across social space, and made possible only by
the belief that cultural forms have been exhausted, leaving only remnants in
their place. This logic has been noted by W einstein and Weinstein14 who hold
that Sim mel is the m odern sociologist w ho m o st clearly anticipated the
postm odern shift. A s Sim m el stated,

M oralists, reactionaries, and p eople w ith strict feelings for style are
perfectly correct when they com plain a b o u t th e increasing ‘lack of
form ’ in m o d em life. T h ey fail to u n derstan d however, that what is

430
 r
Ftlm.
n n e n ln g IS HOI only a ..„ Ms
1,111 L b u t sim u ltan e o u sly ..8‘u,v«- piK .
l i v e l y re p re s s in g these for^*'!* h»su> dvi
|ltt .ni a n d in te n sity , d o es „ ThiMs 7 ? 01,1 of ,
’"'r'licw forms’ il mukcs u
i u S rom » sim p ly ur n ^ U ^ h t i , ^ is

**» ® ,”i>“ " 'v » » i

, . notion that cultural form*, " ^ ^ 'n i i ^ - ^ v
11 ‘ ,iion
io n that
t h a t Simmel
S im m e l was
w as „a cm.,
CuUn* 8^'ven ,U j
*^ < y. Simmers
Simmers culture
culture isis aa cultu^'i
cult a. rW
Statist.
a'«t. iV *lo Vesi,tes ,
util*v
»*2 J'to . establish
« the
>*• form
te' » of --no f’n ru'ns, in ^ H e n ^ 10 the
dfltfji* Within this framework, Ctth^ ' thect h|''tli5 JiV cer'
jb ifju ltu ra i fo rm s and “come to play?'**«*»iu S L

^ . T T « S J S r f S s s f e
tl,is1ifalso possible, however, to read Sim ***'* « £ j j
11 ' chean optimist. The exhaustion 0IT"* n°l »» a r
H'etZ, as the beginnings of triumph of fot Simt! ^ '» W as a
vie^ard life- No longer would the f°tm' andl!' '***' m fact.
< d o m i n a n t . In m o d e rn ity , Simmel t V i s i o n o f T ession of the
life b c . its e l f in a ll its cultural L n S ^ ' h« W ^ I
< < m tl s t r u c t u r e . 1" It is important ’ t t J S L ' * . ft« to I
,l°c a b s e n c e o f fo rm was possiblt f t,s J S J j I
>*■ l K s o c i a ' w a s « d ° * d W e m a b a r s e w ? ” “*■F ™ . S m . u a ,
„ • • » w h ic h » r e p re s e n te d lh t » « « . « « ,, „ „ J *
p r in c ip le p e r f e c t i o n o f fo rm u ,h t „ r ,v
f o r m s a r e n e c e s s a r y co n d itio n s for foe 7 ' v ™ ” of truth.'’2'
r e p l a c e s f o r m , th e re ca n be no
is m o r e lik e ly t h a t th e events to which « . , " * s «twaelian
fr8mCc p n te d a s t r u g g l e b e t w e e n fo rm s in which no c le -u 'T ^ tespond®8
^P re ru ed S i m m e l , t h o u g h a n tic ip a tin g foe T M fotm ^
’" ^ r c e f v e d t h i s s h i f t , s fn e e h e l & U
S e l life. H e w o u l d h a v e h a d t o have been , * „ „
e nd th e t r e m e n d o u s changes m e , e , , d » , life f t , ,
S sia would bring. As such, his optimistic attitude was based on the
^ ibiHty of a different reality from that to which he was responding. With
emergence of technology as the primary cultural form in the mid-
thC .ieth century, form now constrains life, a reversal of SimmeVs concep-
tWCnof modernity. It is with this in mind that we turn to a discussion of
Marshall McLuhan.
 CR T HE E E T T E R : ( P « E , P O S T M O d E r n
fore and a f "
befo R . form becomes content
IVicLuhR"- kind o f m assac
, media ‘-•»ange “ the
accelerated
innocents' theorist Marshall McLuhan was
„ as ;
r . ,e Canadian me ^ decades after hls death, his J nu
During Ids H*** n,edia star- N • weH-known and few studentskRhe
tural sensation niessage is n° q{ ..m edja an d m essage.” kn°w
“the medium » tral conceP cribed as a fo rm al theory o f
His name; of to M cLuhan. is an ‘‘extension o f m a n ? a
M cLuhan s t .um according . a , bem g in the w orld. For McLuh
culture. Any n dhunian a n im * * in history, so th a t p rin t te c h n o lo ^ 0
extension o H corresponded gbe a rg u ed , th e current electronic medf
these e x ten sm ^ odernityi a nd, i rnjty M c L u h an em p h asizes that “
correspond ponds to P° . r contracting energies o f o u r w„ ”
a"d traditi°nal Patteri1s of 0Tgarf
^ w £ the M old Z ' S n e a t e s the th e .mode'.”
m o d e r n is
:f.tt and
and P
p o^« "n », od2 J SS ;;
" 0W c,* , t is this c l a s h ‘ 0Ut M c L u h a n h e ld th a t : “ t e c h n o lo g i e s o f COn
iz at,o n ' As K ro k e r P ° ,n ® ° “ ’ o v e rth ro w th e p r .v .le g e d p o s iti o n o f the
position- A e lectro n ic f g ^ n e w s ig n - l a n g u a g e o f r h e to r ic a l -,,'1
m u n icatio n m e d ja , su b sti i e n c lo s u r e o f w h o le s o c ie tie s w ithi
■” * £ £ £ S i . a n d o f M E D , A [sic ] - As -e x te lS *
Sym J d environments, o f met P h | y f r o m its c o r r e s p o n d i n g b o d ily co u n -
d esig n e d d iu n l e x te n d s g. y beCo m e s a n e x t e n s i o n o f th e f0 0 t
:Z ': A •J S S to 'L b o o k s a n d t h e p r i m m e d ia , r e £
he ra d io b ec o m es a n ex ten -o te Ie v is i0 n a n d c o m p u t e r te c h n o lo g ie s
th e rau .6 a n d th e c e n t r a l n e r v o u s s y s t e m .27 | t
eXtenS,OI,for McLuhan, an extension oTJh ^ 28
S ig h th e se e x te n s io n s that c > Understanding Media, M c L u h a n p re s e n ts
In his m o s t well-known w o , ^ t h e j r c o n t e n t a n o t h e r m e d iu m . (T h is
th e a rg u m e n t that a'l m e d m ^ h ^ ^ f o rm s h a v e a s t h e ir c o n te n t a n o th e r
Irhoes the S im m e lta n a s s e r t' ° o f t h e n o v e l is p r i m a r i l y la n g u a g e , a n d th e
fo rm ) th is manner th e con ^ ^ s to ry > o r p I a y r e g a r d l e s s o f w h at
c o n te n t o f th e m o v ie is P " ^ M *L u h a n , t h e a c t u a l n a r r a t i v e c o n t e n t o f a
th e screenplay is abou • For t h e m e s s a g e t h a t t h e m o t i o n p ic tu r e
m o v ie is a t b e st a d ,s t a f ° ag e th a t linear, p r i n t - o r i e n t e d c u l t u r e h as
m e d iu m ' « U f “ " * ^ m e o h a n i z a i i o n . » I t can b e argued m . h i s fashion
readied .H e p o m t o f P ^ ‘ " B<. h n o l o g i e s a n d c o m p u t e r technologies ,s
th a t th e c o n t e n t of m f o r m a t i o m e d i a t o r o f e x p e r i e n c e , o r , a s A r th u r
te ch n o lo g y - Technology b e c o m tech n o lo g y is r e a lity . A s K ro k e r
Kroker w o u ld have o fa s o c ie ty t h a t h a s b e e n e a te n by a

p«n» « ^ a tta s actually vanished into the d ark vortex o f th e

electronic frontier.

432
 Baudrillard: speed and reversal
.. startingfrom McLuhan’s formula the medium is the message the
consequences of which are far from being exhausted.58

French sociologist Jean Baudrillard is among the most influential social

theorists of the current era/1’ Baudrillard’s theoretical orientation rests on

433
 FFFOftF W O » m * FNF I F IT F * » » ..

«*M»I isf> issjiinrtx'os rejMnfcnjt tfce RfLuionshm tv_ ** \

r^via »ftv* «*g«df tfccra. **fs* Kiinlritkmf nr-fi-f>. , ' f^ w
H» <v»es is strvwg* ocw»«d ro«ani VtcLuhan s -jf,thc "m-T 4 ,Vf,.
aaevia ts t«*- atessafr " ui»hke McLuhan r J ‘
NtF^.xsx'a o f efce » vm I tVv'CQrft tlx- meviu lo Kf cvmu qTUvlr‘Il*ni ^
cess of wwpiBiKK'n tro tfse global but n ®o ' ^ s .jT
wro rite "sikkA.'ws oftfce srfcnt nviNvjtv" the "ilejrk " * fur»otls a jJ *
*d-vtrie «a«i supenfcwt ctepch o f meaning in the nwit '* ^ soci^j^'Cs.-.,
------ --------- ------------l■*-. ^ ^ '*h*.u It5;
R
t yv p Riuvin/Jani
g t M p i m u . the sw itl cotnes into tvmv> ,k W
“ —
atlrm 1 (ivmsv These l*rx^ iv*
lorms ________ _ ___
extended through the media ^ a n r f S
_.
, - specific ,-> it Like both SimmeJ
to
> Simme! and \ i -i ... J n^j ea'-T*s-1 a,
* i*s that it is the specific form, and the uikov -
R iu v in f la n i h o A S '
that is o f itrrortanee to sociology As an example, . - it -1 ^
can ^.er,n?
be s Loo f..'cs C^*rp
S^
- *--• W'K
mat a « “" C to ^ d n lU r d s final in-depth critique o f Marx.st th? that sh u JS > •*
*****««»
'l^ jjie m rest^of .he assumption that Marxist methodology e x a m ^ J ' h.s
h*
areument rest» -production. leasing production a s ^ 0nt'

“ ’S 'llie fc n . fw
m
“ ''i
under the fi ^ P v r K s p o n iiin g technology arose. A s his thJ C°'D-
m^ T t v c a m e d e a r to Baudrillard that the r e v e r s a l of this f o r i f ”8
T ° th e on m ao o f p r o d u c t i o n , w a s actually the c a s e “ C o n i m u n i c a i 0ri-
^ tb m o f media' te c h n o lo g ie s e c lip s e d "production" to b e c o m e t h ^ ' ° n '
m th e h 41 B a u d r i l l a r d s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e implosion o fCr>d°m'
.— 1 Kellner w h o p o i n t s out that Baudrilla* 2 ? * *
b ^ n n o tS b x
-U ,t0 3 model o f the media a s a black h o l e o f s i g n s a n d information ' £
a b s o r b s a II c o n t e n t s i n t o c v b e m e n c n o i s e w h i c h n o l o n g e r c o m m u n i c Z
£ „ i n r f u l m e s s a g e s in a p r o c e s s m w h ic h a l l c o n t e n t s t m p l o d e in t o fo r £
J T t h u s 's e e h o w Baudrillard e v e n tu a lly a d o p t s M c L u h a n s media theory*
. 42

^ The ^mass) media, for Baudrillard. have become the dominant cultUrai
form in the late twentieth century. In agreement with McLuhan. Baudrillard
holds that the content of a particular med.um is always another medium in
the Baudrillardian argument, however, the media implosion discussed by
McLuhan absorbed the whole o f the social world in its vortex. The media
have "evolved into a total system of mythological interpretation, a closed
system o f m odels of signification from which no event escapes."41 The fact
that the mass media form has created a total, closed system coupled with the
speed (a critical variable in Baudrillard’s theorizing) o f information trans­
mission has led to a blurring o f the relationship between cause and effect.
between the subject and its object. T he relationship between the extensions
of man” and the media becomes obscured.44 Baudrillard asks the reader to
consider the possibility that the relationship between humans and the media
is reversing; the m edia are no longer an extension o f man. a la McLuhan; the
media now extends in to the social, in to the domain o f the human45 in the

434
^ ^ b u n g ro fc o f^ ^ ***»*«
equivalent lo THE Fv®,

**. products, postmodern^ * <*

" * l proliferation of signs.
W jnB tfd ‘n,er?rels
^ .n cat'o n - mechanization. t e c h n o W * ^ ^ Ut^ '
f ^ ir3St to postmodern societyS J J g »*

i^ S ^ s z a » * s * ^ f i i - 5 a i s
s s — m,,i'‘“ 'n' j *» « * » « « 3 > ^ r t^
^H ard's prognosis for the state of the
B»ud grim- The global village, which W V 01 satec
^ exists sociologically speaking, only «*» to * th
**?ticS that flash by each day on the evem na^ °£nkm* * »
statists content of the media technolo-v form a ? * **
bec^ individuals watch the news in onkr t0 di^T Baudl*ard *ou
b** fhe causes to "believe” in. and. most ^ ^ tet
tit"1 * Qf course, within his logic, all of this is quite b J X l
lJcnt mass can ultimately do is absorb informationin ^
g s s . a <* — " °f ani f- » ^ f s a s :
possible-

Discussion: fatal forms

Simmel’s words, ‘Negation is the simplestthingpossible.11

erican novelist Tom Wolfe once asked of MarshallMcLuhan. "what

The Ame. «4S -p^e same question becomes an important one regarding
if he >s rl“,,^ forrnal sociology. What if it is right! Has the social imploded
Baudnllat existing only as a response to statistics andopinionpolls.
into the maSS^ here does this leave culture! Indeed, where does it leave
and, if s0.

435
 koRB aN,J A| I| K
, be a fo rm a ' s o c io lo g y o f m e d ia c u l m ,* „
. . C a n <l'c* Enterprise in its analysis? u'«« iW
socioloR. ■ ^ . ^ l o g i c a l * * c u l tu r a l s o c io lo g ic a l s tu d iCs S
Jest my c the mag • 0f formal sociology, uu. ' x> Mum
By * noT 't o rmal sociological fran iew fi ^ «f
tV n,tih .lc use w ith '" y u d e i s t o o d b y a n a n a ly s is o f th e i,
very . .. m s c a n n o t t iK. v ie w e r to th e p o i n t o f n o n ,.. Uc" t m b-
c ,,ln '^ , , ple. tc |<-'v isio ,' ‘' o f t |,e i n f o r m a ti o n t r a n s m i t t e d v ia t h c S ° n *ivC * -
^ S T o n h e P 0 lf C i , i v e v e r s u s n e g a tiv e " in llu e n c e .
th e d e b a te s * [ J ^ e lv es. fail t o g r a s p t h a t t h e e s s e n tia l > ^ sib s
sl,t 1 jn a n d of v is ib ility o f r e s p o n s e . W i th in th e tv Ccl ° f n,
S i i i n is m " eg; ; ‘Cs js n o t g o o d n e w s f o r th e t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i o i ^ 0* J
li r ,l sociology- ,h ' s. ' lo u v a s it c u r r e n t l y e x is ts . ,s c o m p r is e d 0 f i t ! ' d ««t u
i,’ fact th a t ^ s ‘ SOby d e S t i o n . a ll s ta t i s t i c a l l y d r iv e n a n a l y ses a * a «»ly*
d c o n te n t. I" »•«■*« ** A s s o c io l o g y h a s s tr iv e n t o b e c o m e u -
toward c o n t e n t ^ 1, ‘ , . B u u d r i l l a r d i a n s e n s e , t h r o w n th e b a b v Q> " i (
m y luivc. in « m a n n e r n e g a t e d a n y c h a n c e o f its o w ,
th e b a th w a te r a n d in jo |o g y b e c o m e s a s h a d o w p l a y in w h ic h , * >

n e s s iiith e * • a r e "* “ * and J * *

of culture, whether Simmelian. McLuh.„ian

A formal soCI° is concerned primarily with the uncovering i ?f
Baudrillardian in "a • . through which social structure L ,llc
'"'"“ '" o . * , ! I '* * " '1* ,llis fonml rri,"";w" lk » P » 5 2 5
‘»|J “ S l a i media. While this particular tom is
dictated by tech"® °gi never „re) the speed at which technologic,
atic in and of J^ 1 has caused this cultural form to approach critic^
tr a n s m itt e d amn d b
transmitted g

mass. Mewton’s third law. for every implosion/explosion there nmust

A ccording to N^wu jva|cnt explosion/implosion. Conseque,
nsequently,
be ai, corresponding
be w ..- r | oi'tne “implosion
m ipiw *.v of
— meaning in the media"
media" im,
impues
Baudrillard’s
Baudrillard s metapiH
nietapi ^ explosion
an exp|OSion following the “implosion."-
implosion." T|,is
that there must have ^ he does not use the term), can best bc
explosion. Idi *111 t0 w|iat he has termed the precession ol simu-
understood with reiei whjch replace “the real" in terms of function
lacra,” the simulatioi n> for BiU,drillard. is manifested in the “sub­
in the mediascape- (|)e rea! itsolf. that is. an operation to deter
stituting sign^M he it. double. .. .”49 This is the territory of

“hyperreality" with sl"1“ 'a.!'° '11A n a ly z e d historically, that stretch from the
Baudrilim'd oilers lot • ^ ^ be argued that Baudrillard offered
Renaissance period to Kt ltement, discussed previously, that Marxist
this framework in response tc ‘ m o fth e form “production," “leaving
methodology only examined ^ jHanJ describes his scheme as such:
production as a form intact.

436
Once, out o t some obscure ...
a c c o u n t o f vnlue: « mUu , ™ ,0 classify .
(exchange value). ,mj n <«* v„U,,i “ »*uwnta
tinctions are Jornu.l titnUca adifii*?* W » raC) s"'S*
the distinctions between the Dn5 ?***• of course ' ' " Thw« chs-
up with. A new particle doesVm d e is ts L of
simply joins their ranks, takes it B,Wp'* e lh°se dsaccJSiS* C°mm»
me introduce a new particle i n t o t m 11 h^"ietical rtj?r*u
after the natural, commodity and ,. CWphvsi«of'imuW °, Cl
the fractal stage. The first oHhese stages of vftw™, M
value developed on the basis 0f ml *** had * natural raferem’" ^
“ * " * * Tht
» r k' T ' ° « f «* j 4. v* «
code, ano
code and value
va.ue ddevelops
ev e lo p s hhere reference.m ,mW
ere by reference’ "K ',sS ®
Bovcr«cd bv a
ov*m ed by
f o u r th , th e fra c ta l (o r viral, o r r a d i a ^ W . ^ ° f modc^ M th e
<* ««
p o in t o f re fe re n c e a t all. a n d value r a d i a t^ h t all *i' V" 'Ue' « no
a il in te rs tic e s , w ith o u t reference to uiw .hi, ^ ' w n s , occupying
p u r e c o n tig u ity . T h is is th e of
c u r r e n t p a t te r n o f o u r c u ltu re 5’. e and hence the

i. is h e r e , in B a u d r iila r d 's discussion of m ., ,

- S S S s S ? “ rresponds w * - * • S S v i S S S

d if f e r e n tia te d a r t ic u l a tio n o f th e se elem ents, th a t have becom e alien

„ t c d f r o m o n e a n o th e r . T h e th ird is a new unity, the h arm onious
i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n o f th e ele m e n ts th a t have been preserved, however
in t h e i r s p e c ific c h a r a c te r s .55

Baudriilard's firs t th r e e sta g e s o f a p p e a ra n c e reflect StmmeVs three stages

o f h is to ric a l d e v e lo p m e n t : B a u d riila rd 's " n a tu ra l" stage and StmmeVs
“ u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d u n ity o f m a n ifo ld elem en ts ” B a u d riila rd 's "co m m o d ity "
s ta g e and S i m m e r s “ d iffe re n tia te d a rtic u la tio n o f th e se elem ents, th a t have
b e c o m e a l i e n a t e d f r o m o n e a n o t h e r ;'' B a u d riila rd 's " s tru c tu ra l” stag e a n d
S i m m e r s " h a r m o n i o u s in te r p e n e tr a tio n o f th e elem en ts th a t have b ee n
p r e s e r v e d , h o w e v e r , in t h e ir sp ecific c h a ra c te rs " (i.e.. in th e fo rm o f a co d e).
W h i le S t m m e l ’s t h i r d s ta g e o f d e v e lo p m e n t p ro v id e d a n ac c u ra te d escrip ­
t i o n o f t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e o f th e s o c ia l w o rld th a t h e w as a tte m p tin g to
c o m p r e h e n d , n e a r l y a c e n t u r y 's w o r th o f te c h n o lo g ic a l tra n sfo rm a tio n s a n d
th e e n s u i n g i m p l o s i o n o f th e m a s s in th e m e d ia c u ltu re have re n d e re d th is
s c h e m e i n a d e q u a t e . T h i s in a d e q u a c y s te m s fro m th e triu m p h o f fo rm o v er
life , i n w h i c h f o r m s n o lo n g e r c o r r e s p o n d t o th e life fro m w h ich th e y a rise .
 ,RE AND AFTER THE LETTER: ( P R E ) p o

— r for
account - 5detachment
" the T of C
tornt rrom lireS that X
co^ e Isl"'s S bi|.
co|,;
the free p/ay among the forms as such For example, BauZ f - aH minds o f those who k ,• ' A1 p 0 r
that the form 'sex" is no longer located in sex, but can '" a ^ r> . no longer plural; it fbe !CVe t h e y r_ MS
everywhere else, the form "poUt-cs invades a , other forms. J ° 'h .. village is homogenb „ , S!n8Ular a Sp°nd to „
science and art.54 This free play is the detachm ent o f fV! h ase d aO ' The traditional d ; 'ndividuai'Sp'.te the o '".y ° n e 0r
/onger do the distinctive human qualities discussed by Sim ^T , froh1° ,'N ic!1 ing an inventory Qf °8'ca| stud? is e*Pectedati° n >n Co* ° 'her CU|tu
alone direct, the creation of form. These have becom e fa ta . Contr,, e- ly' work. In this m anner J * '* T lT T ' )
sign of technology. Fatal forms are posstble according to H *V > o f sociology, but to thePr° Videsa vb,i ''Vin8 with" ^ «nUeJ Uaran> 4
form al sociology-* insis “Ul,u* * £ % * * * * £ ? „ * asProv,d.
Udri"focl,ertC the cultural con ten t. Ce on ,u which it ; ’ n°t onh,. mal fran,
When
w n e n things,
inuif* — o"- or actions,
signs . are freed front their
” icir |-e,-_ passes him /herself by0 " ® c° ntinuil|ChPriniacy ofSfc° ncerned ° ,he discipij,^
concepts, essences, va/ues. points o f reference, orig i,ls „ ^ ‘'Ve ido on the phone is genemn"9'^ «alkinb#sis The° nf° rnt. we D e£
embark upon an endless process o f se lf-rep ro d u c tio n ai*»»s. , phone call in the first ? not i n t e ^ 'he c o ^ ' ,ndividUa| wj,'ive with
continue to function long after their ideas have ci,*s ’ ^et tM iey in which the possibilitv r N° r are 'n 'he Cu i,1 ,hat hUs* ,? embar-
they do so in totai indifference to their own content T , Ppearet|
liowevcr m o m e n t a r i l y ^ '1’6 Phone c ^ J ^ l l y C°de ^
fact is that they function even better under these circun Para<Joxi d em barrassm ent. M ost , h°w to ‘,r° se. T hL Ccrne<J with 0 ,he
s'a nces" tai o f form. M ° st o f us are deal with * < £ * * '" be qu ' « * form
/\r the level of content, one o f the most dramatic result Placing Baudri„ard wj °n'ent a"d
form is the curtailing of personal social interaction. The - °' tlie W more com plete analvd 1 n a fornv,i ng quite „ ' ng
that we all watch on television do not pertain to us as i d ?U.es of„, ' tyof ceptualization o f ° f his w0rk w "0ciologica| f naWare
entertained by the news and absorb it (and are absorbed £ . duals. W vy^ Hee has
has elaborated^'
elaborated |,e ffnm°dern
"l0dern ccu|t^
u | , ^he"
e.n vieW
Vleweded^‘inn T
'^ evvork
i ? 0^ allows
a,l°ws for
f0rH
p m odern sociology can n "lal the0l! e S , becomes Z re mapner. his ° a
often no impact. The fatal form is divorced from ljfe an b"t
abeyance as a result. All methods o f human interaction in , We are C l? 's « R e w o r k i„ much His termino,noenta,ion within^ l 1ders,0°d
are mediated by. or replaced with, machines. C om m erce)s i ' n8 seXu',. 'n fram ew ork for earlier SocL * W;l>' as Ma®' Ca" be viewed Ch 3 pos' :
as witnessed by the proliferation o f bank machines and drge,J' electra 'ty so cio lo g y is p iagUed with m ° 8'Cal analysisM?.rx,st 'e rm in o lo l^ providing
S im m e ls form al sociol,, " y o f the sam , ' ,0Wever, Ba° ' ^ Provided a
machines; our grammar is checked by a software package |lU-°niated mi'C'
mon to speak with a machine in the absence o f the party ' IS not Unc er Baudrillard elaborate a m8',? 1 Work- NeitheSh°ertC0min8s that 3rd'* formal
* « forms £ * * * » S S t £ * « ■ »
reach by phone In an ironic twist on this relatively 'ny° U are trying”1' strictly descriptive, SUch- at this Dn be Ut,lized for conr ha"’ nor
machines frequently call you. generally during dinner. F o rtl * Phen°nien '° Yet, formal sociolOBv - f°rnia' a"aly'
do not find this particularly alarming. Our basic m odes o f * ™0st Part u” human being. It allows fiT th ^ 3 Strate8y for . rema'ns
steadily being replaced with technological su bstitu tes all ,nteraction are that guide and shape both T explicat'on of ,hf aSpi"8 ,he compiexi,v f
progress. ' ‘ ,n r,>e name * Baudrillard’s perspective ,7- hunian interaction tultUral forms U , \ of
When forms become fatal, technologies becom e ob of forL to thrno,S
fection ^ « S « 2 S**
become a physical reality both in terms o fin v e n tio n and before ‘hey paper we have outlined the"Vof in 'he p ^ ^ f ,ated by the pe?.
For instance, the 80486 com puter coprocessor, which was ^ Product'on Cleorg Simmel, Marshall McL.d 0rienta'ion of ,i scene- In tThs
1992. was rendered obsolete before it went into m ass p r l ' T marl(eted in show how all three thinkers w a"d Jean Baudrill5 ? S°Cial the°r>sts
announcement o f the Pentium coprocessor which has at r il° . UCt,0n ty the of cultural forms and ShT ^
Just become available. ' tlm e ° f writing mgs of Baudrillard. Formal ^ ^ 'rect Simmelia„ J t he.Uncovering
A t the level o f form, what is im portan t a b o u t these examples « for the grammatical framework'Sf Ca" be ^ s t o o d Z ' " t h e * ^
manner it stands as the n^ h * mak« the sori-,i the searcb
which they proceed. Culture is becom ing m ore im p erso n a l becodeh
proper. Fu„,re s.udies to S t S c S T * 1
ous. all encompassing and interconnected, c o n stitu tin g a closed an°nym- an awareness of,he formal J""lre « « bene®J X ’T
no longer possible to distinguish between high a n d c u ltu r e .™ '
'-Acepi m the r i = approprialdy for . h e t r s s t r J H

438
 BT T E R : ( P R E ) P O S T M o dr
a Ft e R th E
befo re a
nd aP
" Notes
lhank Jerry M. Lewis an d D o u g ias
Ke"ner ,
Kun h. wOIfr (Np_
■ — K"n H
1 Lir" '■* ,a»ion

5 Sociology ° f Ge0TS ^ Realnl of Sociology as a Science. Social For<

Pc«,
* ,ile o u " '—
2S
-XI)»If0 ^f i f7»><.nre
* Max vVeber’ Ge° rS
'
sr Simmel as
Sociologist,
Experience
“ “ ™ rai
* • " 5" ” re>» . 2 '">72,
experience and Culture:
Culture. The Philosophy
IS5 - 1« - , h Weingar,ne.r' o Wesleyan University Press, 1962 ). ° / G<
,e°9>
; » * * * «• • ^ s s 5 r w ” ” **
9 % m e H ^ ^ ^ S i n m > el’ Vl Modern Culture and Other Essays, traps
K pete,
If
C e? r^ NeW York: i « “ "~
Eizkorn (l'lew
Ibid- 11-12- „ nstein P ostm oderniiing S ia m ,e l (London; R0 |

S ^ e lS o c t o lo g l 16- 19 .

,bid Vi
S jfl? , ofGeorS S i > n M ^
■!Sel: c S ! c f ^ Z l ^ "* * * T,'e EXtenSi°nS °f M a" <NeWY°*:

£ . , 47 . technology ‘In d ^ Y° * Sai" '

r"!U|984) p. 54 . . n o f the effects o f p rint on hu m an development see
an extended discussion o f ^ flb fo y v T h e M ale, n g o f Typography
: 5 M a r s h a l l MeLu,hv 0f p r o n to Press. 1 9 6 2 ). In this text. M cLuhan outlines
rberi *o* University ot lor , j prn electronic m edia proceeds.
T n S r o m which his analysts o f M arsh all M cL u h an with Quinton
^ New York: Pocket B ooks. 1 9 7 0 ).
\e From Cliche’o A r c h e ty P J ^ th at in th is m an n e r media
m ed ia become
become
f l X a s led some soco og.sts to one^ o.
gf ^______
ear,jest djscussi0ns see
lest discussions see Jerry
Jerry M
M.
' P - (S, o f —social- structure
. . ai„ ,| In [terpp retatio n ,” in T h e H u m a n itie s as Sociology
Sachin™
t ^ A SM S « ' f - 213'
h d e r s ta n d in g M e ^ W * a lity A n d r o id M u s ic a n d Electric Flesh,

aint M artin Press, 1993) P- ]5 -

440
 FATA1- fo rm ,
31 For a detailed discussion
Catholicism see Arthur k ? ,he relat,
\fc£athan/Grant (New Y o rU ?^ ’ 7ed,w °"sh,p between m ,
34 McLuhan, Understanding u ',*}.'01 Martin’s S and ‘he r an .tLuhar> and his
35 Ibid., pp. 36-56. * " « & » . P. 20. S Pre* . 1984,. Mmd- t«usl
36 F o r a critical and in-den,h
Mode o f Information: *CU!*i°n of ...
University Press. 1990). uc,uraHsm and s L P°,SU,on ** Mark
8 S P S S 'S 2 »ae

41 For an elaboration on this reversal see Ch P°S'er-<St- Uuis'- Telos

42 Kellner, Baudnllard, p. 68. ** Chapter 2 by Stev«, D
43 jean B audnllard, For a Critique o f „ en Best in this volume.
Charles Levin (St. Louis: T eW p ^ le Poetical Fm
44 Jean Baudnllard. The Evil D e tn o n V T ^ ' P' ,75- °f Sign- trans
(Sydney: Power Institute Publications m a lf ' trans- Paul p ,„ nn
45 It is here that Kroker has focussed h ;? * 1 ' and Pau' Foss
spaces of the “ Baudrillardian Scene" wh£L°St j ecent exP'orations of
46 Kellner, Baudnllard, pp. 67 - 8 . h h ls described in Arthur K *1“ farthest
47 Jean Baudnllard, The Transparency o f Evi, , ' Spa™
4 Verso. 1993 ), p. 72 . P CV oJ £ "'- trans. James Benedict in „
48 Tom Wolfe, “what if he is right? what if he is the m
newton, darw.n, freud, emstein, and pavlov-whlt ifT e '" T " ™ ‘"inker since
E. Stern M cLuhan Hot and Cool (New York-Dial P 'S, I?8"17” b ><4 ed„ GeraW
49 Baudnllard. Simulations. orK Lhal Press. 1967). herald
50 Baudnllard, Mirror o f Production, p. 17
51 Baudrillard. Transparency o f Evil.
59 It should be noted that McLuhan offers a similar ain,„ u ,
discussion of historical stages of development based'n gh less,c!eariVdelineated,
technology in Understanding Media, p. 19 ■when he states'.Pe°P e S re'atlons"'P t0
After three thousand years of explosion, by means nf r-
mechanical technologies, the western world is and
mechanical ages we had extended our bodies in sduL T,vf ° p™8 the
than a century o f electric technology,
system itself in a global embrace, abolishing both space and fime as far
as our planet is concerned. Rapidly, we approach the final phase of the
extensions of man - the technological simulation of consciousness, when
the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately
extended to the whole of human society, much as we have already
extended our senses and our nerves by the various media.

53 Sociology o f Georg Sim m el, p. 19 .

54 Baudrillard, Transparency o f Evil.
55 Ibid., p. 6.

441

mm
 6?
,C 1 0 N S I M U L A T I O N a n d
I.M PL 'H E PSE U D O -E V E N T
T A ^ o q u c o f M c L u h a n

ii UIum M e rrm

_____

i d e a r e s t i n M a r s h a l l M c L a h a n 's m e d ia tiw x
***** i „ r^ - S0 CKO and culture is more reoC^ '
5*gl rfn ? , y and his influenoe is discern:^ i„ ^
* * * * £ Zm * • ^f'S n k efS and .n the a x K W m a . m t r e ®
^ * * * £ £ * * * ! ^ A e lx x i s n o n idennheanoo ol tern Baudriiu^T4
^ ‘* * * ^ 5 * * ^ ^ a f c t n i s t s . and even as th e French McFBhin
** l i d o * , evtension. radicafeanon and reversal *
e r e Ct?* * * . " ** [b e w o r t o f Dan»d B o o r s n n . B atadriH ud ,
* * * * S S S * Of McLuhans conclusion* Thrs cnl
S S S S ^ s S ; t S £ 2 <* ^ ^ traI concepis r f * ■ * > * ;

nd fan by now. well known. His public career

■IjrJull McLuluns ^ success of 7*c Guieuieij(19e
.ih n e d “ P " ■“ > h is “ ten sio n o f » « l of
„ j r « « » f c KJ ^ c o n t e m p o r a r y e l e c t n ' n i c i e e o l u n o n a n d i ,
, n d H n e k e i * ? * 2 L ! « n j . sou n d b ite-frien d ly s o l e which m as.
m rt arc*. hb r e o e i f 1- ’ fik a k b r i t j an d a o o u m e r x a d n m l gun,
fcnned ban inn' bed. * Iike a d d . lo o p e n th e d o o r s o l pe«*pnoo
• * o « < l* ^ " !“ if n i S p o s u m stm p lificatton . n t.sq u o.au on and,
collab orative b o o k s later, by the m neorh a
^nes o f pood} n ^ « d . m<iiniy > a n d h is w o rk . a lw ays under sus-
^ , m . M c W -. ^ , e d ,o i.s era. B y m i * .
pW o. » 4 t ‘ ^ S S t i . t i K M c L n h u . o f . o d a y - . h e i n n n e d n K h

442
 i(|rV OS, 0 K- SIHULMION ^ O I H I
^EtDo.
T >^*^ ^> ,0 fu fl s**
.» t bdo. ire - unv
As Geaersko
e books
,1*5* ' T,rv . w iueacrr asd popwfax ^
ip p sa i oo th e * eb « s »s » , -c
_ jo o 1 9 9 'i t be b e p i* * Xo. ^ . — *01
**»
.gS*- . ^ c iib i digests o d i as lie fm Bermmm n d f:n n ■O n
--o#s ,n i£ncs (Gocdoii IW b H a ra ii 3*fii a d x sa te -o B e i
M cL A w is c o o fU iM d ato * i a i Z eecee W K t a
^ released. as e an la fc n iw k n iicLakm t CD-SOM
<„xomrs»n>T
**° O?- slo
?*«5>. coeec-triji.'™^1*
ssv coSee^afcfe P « « e *N
* ^~ \ T k ~ - » » -t
"« , « I ,. , Jfcw ^
ag*»n. * '-be 4 o f Hri *
One reason for this reversal is the —... * 0 °»<
#*"■ * * J ^ lh° r de' eteP ^ t m t ^ r ®«ha * * .
pjpuUr prohteration together «*£„. **»» and the* ^
McLuhan s taork. For Lesinson. Mcj^.v.J-‘' * resurgence of
ated in his lifetime as. for most people. W e S * * f*v
efectrona: term, an eaiis mass electronic - "V e rte d the
our current etecmmic digital ® M r o n n > e r . ^ - ^ t e S
therefore, m which the prescience and ana vric „ • B «t*» « « * .
finally be recognized ,199*. M . l§_i9> \ . M;L^ ' s wr*tc«
•to some extent ttme has caught up wllh M 1 ^ 7 *°* Ctehm « P ^
more understandable than thev were three iecafe **“ «
dated- gnomic utterances now W m in s e s s e n t a l ^ ^ ooot'
Utis emerging cvber-world with McLuhan himself
magazine as Us patron saint (Gordon 199~h - \W f 1 9 * 7 * ^ - w
But McLuhan s return abo owes much to drakes m the
reSUU OfJ heSeJ ranS,0rmatK^ “ «* RMmed
j ^ d e s before have smee attained an acadenuc respectafeffitv In
of electronic media, their impact and the new electronic crime thev 7 -
nse to: in his discussion of the global ullage of instant electronic aciss.
contact, participation and empaiheric rather than rational responses, at his
ties', of the implosive, /ire. shared experience of world events - of a world of
^IFat-onceness’ in which we are propelled into the event itself, in his tracing
of the multiple transformations of culture, values and attitudes, and of cotv
sciousness and experience itself b> electronic forms. McLuhan s work
anticipates key debates and motifs in 'post-indusxmltsm'. 'posmxdermsm'.
•olobalizaticn'. "the information society', "new media' and cvbetcuhure' If

44?
 v 2 a
a l l - § i f s | 5 .-S I 3
^5 J*
s § ^ 1*1 i i i * 5 s
^ = I 84 r - a i •£•■- l » = - i | a
c - a J 'a £ 1 S »
« C? C X S C. ?» *1 f i a S
a -3
3u ='
= J/> *V ~
k c

— 31 O^ O - > ~ “ U ^5a. ;
2u -oH:££ i - * 3 l ! ' ! i s s*^ C. —» c ti » $> C st

i*uwm l l
^2 -r' «.*
j.-1 IT
•? ^
>%£
l U
2 3 TL w S ■£
C. C X "3 . _ ^ 5? ~
i Sa ^O '3c —
1a l 4»Y! ^3
1 ai isO
^ S5. Jy>
5 *«a e<!a 'T
r£

a. v«» S
s s r s ^ i i i i i f i n c— =i**- rr~s. k a ©
5 5 = a ^ —
r «t V
X98jc cr ■° ^T3 4* «* t“h a3 « .it ?S
f
4 i i l l | , | 1 | l l
s -a
l lt i si t ' l l ' J M
%
s l vl \**

l:lftt I ® •.
£ 3I I | s i'
 „ a Np * - « ' THe LBTTER, p— - ODe>
BEF0.total fie,d |°fnvolv^®"^.’^ th e ^ 'v e sZ f *3) 1^thel^1 Pa’% I M P L O S I O N , S I M U L A T I O N AN
roduce * nj a tota " organic social bonds as ‘the ^
(1994: 248)chnology Pr°, f l994: 172). Here, therefore, we r,nu \S electronic media produce not m PShlJD0-EVENT
nreanic teC jbe aga"1 ( transformation of dimensions . he real ^ily sacred, but its electronic amp,ifi 7 e'y. a rediscovery of the n
P "’cation into the sacred PZ Durkheimian
S S eS°"lo^n' aS’ ^ ‘ t jist physically, but also
ing of ‘,WP we tec0X e wear all mankind as our skin’ (i994 cl< V d *r
Nations, ai that we ts there too. This is an aee of < 7) he *1 N ... ,, r Arc fricnds electric?
Baudrillard s first response to McLuh
S S » * f d' S ? « . <3ed relationship ,o .Ire h = o & > t S > translated Understanding Media (R»,.a -n ~ h,s 1967 review of .v,
Mr e s ^ 0 which• * * ' „ „ and meaning (1994: 2 2 - 3 , , an ambiguity t o w a r d s 'V
critical, repeatedly reproaching McLuhan foVfaili Baudr,1'ard «* extremely
wch"” KC" “Cdy’' fUneral (1994- ica, and social context of media, and fohi!m "!, ° C°nsider the Mstor-
•technological idealism’ and optimisrn (2 00 ,a Itr u mental de’erminism’
that Baudnllard has already begun to adorn 3)\but a c'°ser reading reveals
M<Tu h a ,iied P°werf fT„ -an entire population in a ritual Cr„ S J taking on board his discussion of the memine McLuhan’s ideas.
'the r e c e s s ' un,fS g passivity, television, he says, e n ab le ^ f (1< non-Western cultures (2001a: 40-1) and h k 8 ° ' Weslern technology and
c o tn ^ fro m ^ l e group emotion. It s like being at a b Pe°Ple form. Baudnllard easily co-opts this approach"^£*,“ v Up0" lechno'°gica'
337!oS ^’^ n d enjoy he98a:g3). McLuhan, noticeably, d r a w ^ S analysis, seeing the message of television as Ivino ^ °Wn sem,0'°&'ca'
images and content, but, following McLuhan Z ? transmiUed
SeI ^ em°tl0n (Z describe these processes, referring to lhpP°n key and perception that it imposes’ (2 00 1 a- 42) a n d new modes of relations
big 8 ofogica' termSu es upon its participants (1994: 336) and , Sa<Z replacement of lived relations with semiotic relafio^THr0^ ' ® 'tS
anthrcter televi^ion j ^ J a s a ‘tribe’ ‘ ' " Z ^ aUW u s > ’ result (if not function)', Baudnllard says, 'is ^ I
charal r reuniting-^f and aS ‘hunter-gatherers of informafi0n eventful character of that which it transmits, to turn it into a disconZous
charact ’ , /1998b: 4 -5) therefore a retribahzation and a r 967 ‘•message a sign which is juxtaposed among others in the abstract dimen­
’S S ^ ^ J T S S i — »»"<“ • •» • * . A > » sion of TV programmes (2001a: 42). From the beginning therefore
10O-')- , experience an jntense communal rites and festiw- * Baudnllard adopts McLuhan’s ideas, but only to turn them towards his own,
ill * ! 't ’l S m » " 8 a,<1r"fm in d i.iJ.'d ' profane life raising h «« very dissimilar, critical project. Far from transporting us into the real for
Baudrillard electronic media represent a process of semiotic distantiation,
tnba -*Derience and fee g TV, for McLuhan. brings the same, with McLuhan’s 'the medium is the message’ standing as the expression
1995: 213, 2 ^t,;* critique of Eliade’s Durkheimian T h e s ^ of this process and consequently as ‘the very formula of alienation in a
technological society’ (2001a: 43).
^ n t o ^ dem0ti<^ 7 o T lt s pessimistic interpretation of the loss 0f ^ T h r o u g h The System of Objects (1996a), The Consumer Society (1998a)
Z the ProPne (lf a„d profane here are not metaphysical categories, a n d th e e a rly e ssa y s in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign
t e d . The sacred ^ ^ t s of our technological extension and mode of (1 9 8 1 ) B a u d r illa r d b e g a n to d ev elo p th e cen tral critical o p position which has
Luhan argues, but P ^d ^ the sacred, modern man, since ,he in f o r m e d h is c a re e r - th a t o f th e ‘sem io tic’ a n d th e D urkheim ian-inspired
d S o r e S s of more than . o c n W ,^ g o , is inve s „ „ 8 ‘s y m b o lic ’, th e la tte r b e in g a m o d e o f relatio n s an d m ean in g whose p a ra ­
ectromagnetic r archaic man plus ( u. r d ig m a tic e x a m p le is fo u n d in M a u ss’s gift relatio n sh ip an d which is tra n s­
th all the dimensions of ar sacred M cLuhan himself was a Catholic f o r m e d a n d r e p la c e d in th e c o n te m p o ra ry d o m in atio n o f the sem iotic (see
Despite this secular basis f an am bivalent theology influenced in M e r r in 19 9 9 a ) . H e a p p lie s th e se id eas to th e electronic m ed ia in The Consumer
° and his work d e n l? n catholic, evolutionary, technological mys- Society ( 1 9 9 8 a : 9 9 - 1 2 8 ) , d ire ctly e x p a n d in g u p o n h is earlier review and
r e t a in i n g h is c e n tr a l c o n c e r n w ith th e tra n sfo rm a tio n o f experience. A gain
'rtbv Teilhard de C h ard in s between a celebration of man’s elec-
‘w e h a v e t o a c c e p t . . . M c L u h a n ’s fo rm u la th a t “ th e m edium is th e m es­
f m y H is comments veer acco d g . ^ unjfied c o n s c io u s n ess roaming the
s a g e ” ’, b u t , a g a in a ls o , th e m o s t sig n ifican t effects o f th e fo rm involve th e
n!c extension and the Poss,bl' y , M cL uhan and Zingrone 1995:268; d i s a r t i c u l a t i o n o f th e re a l in to successive a n d eq u iv alen t signs■ 12)
m become closer to god ( ectronjc simulacrum of the mystic , .liv in u ‘th e liv e d u n iq u e , e v e n tu a l c h a ra c te r o f th e w orld (1998a. 123)
r 9 °8) and the P < f * * * ? ^ m a n if e s ta t io n of the antbChn,
" c t O r i * # £ * * £ % £ 1998: 254). In one reading, h o *
A-oom fl/. 1987: 3/0, 447

446
 consume today a ‘fragmented. Iilteiwi world'. 'i n j . °l;>.
media into sign material'(199Sa: 124). * nally p
From the beginning, therefore. Baudrillard's ^ | c l ' Cexseq .
technological form is subordinated to his ow„ ^ U har»*st e 0
describing and opposing the contemporary r e d u c t j ■>' <-'ritj ph« « ^
semiotic. His primary concern is with the sign f o r i ' " 0 f , , 'e s ^ * Pr.y V
and the only effect he is interested in is its j " ' n° t '
Hence. e\en when, as in the 1971 essay 'Requiem for f, Uefl'°H o r '! 0 ,°j>\ th
Baudrillard positively employs McLuhan (despite ^ i a ' r , e s y />(>*
reservations), he transforms his meaning. n jo v in c;t ^ *: I f o H 'e '
message' to his own claim that 'the essential m e t ’ r0,>1 ‘t h e *<s,' c p,» *•<)
that the most important process is the production'1 "1 '* tf'e
dominance o f semiotic models in the code o f ° / ^ l e si... >wd e|- *s t k
77»/s fead s /u'/n (o the anti-McLuhanist c o n c / u s i o n ^ ,,,< ic a f,° n ! ,f° r n > 1 i\
municate but rather, in their very form, abolish v V ' S t h a t P ie d . 9 8 ,: 17 - "'e
in terms of that symbolic, bilateral mode o f reb, ! U° P o / ' N .
leges (1981: 169)), and that the only ‘participation - o ' ^ ' P « a . H ( u ' )d e J 0'l>-
one o f pre-programmed feedback reinforcing ,1 ■ ey “ N o w i« 1'“ . t u N
and unilateral nature (1981: 170-1). " ,e ,r f u n d s ,, 8 ^
Baudrillard's McLuhanism, therefore, leads ' e ,,t“ | ^
development evident again in his 19 7 / e ‘ ° P P o s ii,„ ,,0f»c
( / 9« /. /* 5 -2 0 3 ). in A /s d is c u s s io n o f a n / 0,,^ % )n
Genosko says (1999: 64-76), has a f f i n iti e s w i t h ’ M
massage. both describing _______ the working over 01
s *"« o f our
v s^sory
M c L u , > a i , \ * ' Wl'd ,
psychj’’
technological extensions.
by o u r o w •n T^hnologicai extensions- For For B a u d n ^ however.
Baudrillard, T * “ ” d ,semiU 0 rg
' ,7of
byOUrT v S . oSyone medium - the s.gn - and w.th its more p e rn ^
concerned *.th only ^ meaning of the symbolic into simple, ,1
effects in reduc!"f withj„ ‘the general code ot signification’ (1981 )87'
- r S S n g . therefore, the violence o f the semiotic upon
7 " heme absent from McLuhan s work. Even when, in the sanie
sym b olic - a hen McLuhan’s descr.pt.on <albeit in the exalted
essay. Baudn^ J ‘environment’ as a product o f our surrounding
mode’ (1981: 202) I oM (McLuhan 1994: 295; 1974) - as ‘a network
commun.cat.ona ^ g branch and product ot ‘mass communications’
o f signs and nies~* ‘ ds the sjgn and the post-Bauhaus ‘semiotic revolu-
t on ’1ratTer thaifelectronic media, as the constituent element and cause of

this environment. ..... therefore, is witli the contemporary reduo

Baudrillard s cen semiotic system o f a mode of relations and
• » « < r r f rcC c a s T -b o lic exchange’. The fac, .ha, he »
meaning that he ch . the primary agents o f this semioticization
the electronic medi fo McLuhan. although his claim that the
places Inm in star PP ificatory content o f the semiotic (1996a: 200)
interpreted via McLnhan’s belief .ha. every new environ,«e„, ,ukes

448
 *real
vent
eal ex
s «f (lie I
whole nee. Bi\u<_
semiotic '(nutation
__ , is f— • ■“>« ns ims
•is abolisi v of th * 1 h,C,!y,T'holic re«''ty itself
thing, th ,y of the model (I998n: Fvcrv.
can be si Baudrillard says (1998a: 126) but <s
this cone , , 5 " anthropological influent
We
of his critique of W< 10 l'mhroP°'°8y basis
tribal
_____oral societies ....____... |%2: K r i " ? UP°" Coro,hers' » * on
of a loss of the sacred, seeing instead a c o i t ^ S ^ X ^
that mode of hie and experience (a view of the media's unificatoryp^r
especially at times of national crisis or significance that has since become
commonplace). Baudrillard similarly turns to anthropology for his erit oue
of the contemporary semiotic system, similarly identifying a mode of reh- 1
tions. communication and meaning in tribal societies which he sees as
superior to that system; however, he draws instead upon precisely that
Durkheimian tradition that ai gued lor a contemporary waning of the sacred,
extending this to see the media as the primary contemporary mode of its
destruction and replacement.
In this tradition, in the work of Mauss and Hubert, Bataille and Caitlois,
we find a common concern with the value of a mode of relations that
described by Durkheim as the sacred and the question of its contemporary
survival. Mauss, in The Gift, for example, saw these once lost 'ancient prin­
ciples' making their presence felt in his own time and society, hoping they
could reform that privatized, rational, utilitarian ‘calculating machine', homo
oeconomicus, raised by industrial capitalism (1966; 74). The 'College of
Sociology' expanded upon the historical processes of its loss, with Bataille
tracing this to the development of Christianity, the Protestant Reformation,
bourgeois capitalism and the rational-scientific world view (Bataille 1962,
1989 1991 1992). Caillois agreed, arguing that the outpouring ol energy
[•the paroxysm of society’ (1980: 125) - the sacred and its festivals

449
 - ^ part ot a =>u«uegy 0f pu^. *■»>,
65 ** J d isco v erin g reversal a t th e lim it of d e v ? '*’»
. «b s » * « ^ * * “ " M c L u h a n h i m s e l f . T h i s a d o p t i o n , e x t e n d '
r e '^ 1 - i n B a u d n l l a r d s t r e a t m e n t o f M tL ?
* acts* to McLuhan s view of implosion?1
of * . . ^ u i t of electronic technology. Baudr®** *
*»* ^ .K>n and collapse of differential poles (1%^ *
^xpcoG- ^ first to the sign form bom from an o n ^
IV He * * * * ! £ relationship (1981: 65). and later describes 5 *
« o f the - referent in the structural revolution i» ^
~-rji imp*081®® " becomes the product of the play of
^ s f a s r»ht> en riUanL therefore, implosion is a
— i^ 3 c -* V R sim ulation begins (1994a: 31), as the scow*
L i fldeevl rs “ n^ r . ted upon these prior implosions and a *
-c x ibe real e 2 f \ xoeriential implosion of real and Tie
• a fu rth e r nicrnedia which represent he says *
^ . ^ h i s a r n q u e o f^ .m plosion (1983a: l(»)«l»ampon^
^ O * - * 00 a sim ulacrum that implodes the
^ the real * * ^ and falsity’- Thus implosion becom*

in Baudritlarcf be cautiously understooi a

45 0
 IM PLOSIO N . SIMU 1-AT

oonsequences of whit* are far

meaning "must be envisaged at it
McUihan' (Genosfco 1999: 77) I
sion results in the very disappear,
medium hself in the real, the im pb'Z
nebulous hyperreality where even a _
medium are no longer distinguish*® mF iml the
sides the Ires formula of the era p ro -
the abolition o f the ‘traditional s la t? “ 11 9S 3t|H -ribing
reality with the implosion and mut ~>edia asH over aml
fTuvion into -aer « the
medium and the message such that ^ r Z T , Tr°
able as such- (1994a. 30, So. for e x a m l T L ' Vno longer
- sdemA-
the Loud family (1994a: 27-32). ^ o d n n a r d * ^ "«*'«> TV
-dissolution of TV m fife’ and drssohmon of Me i T w
medium not dissolving awav to ove a dirw* ^ a : 3G|, wufa the
Z X : hT ,
imnrastng development or p e r fe c ts of dectromc t e c h n X v T Z
evolutionary movement towards what Levmson describes as
biologK3l commumcatxm or the hearth of natural c o m m u m c a tt^ n ^
52L would not validate McLuhan in directly producing or m m a«rl4 the
reality offered by the media Baudnllard argues instead that the closer oi*
gets to reality the more we merely produce its ever more dSeaootn siroji.
lacnim : ‘the more doseh the real is pursued with colour. 4^ ^
technical improvement after another, the greater does the real aosence from
the world grow (199&a 122(.
B audnllard. therefore, extends McLuhan's mu«to mar. the r e i c s s
production o f our sensory and cognitive expeneace. to probtemaize the
reality offered by the electronic media as not ‘real but smulacraL and eves
-hyperreal This hvperreahty is a product of the reproducirve mwhnaa but
it b again a semiotic one: marked by the reduction and transfcrcanoa of
the sym bobc retaltonship. the elevation of its sennotic replacement as the
referential real’ and the technical perfection of this reprodaeaoe to the
point o f eclipsing its original symbobc referesiL Far from the dectromc a s
seeing the dom inance o f high panidpatsoo cold images as McLnbaa vle-
gESled . B audnllard. therefore, sees an increasing toss of parsapaoon. wsh
ivery developm eni in technical reproduction distanang as from the reaL
and w ith the bvperreal image also abobdw g any real symbofec retinccsisp
o r participation. We can hare no possible refanoosfap with then a ria e ra l-
hv and excessbeh realized hsper-hdehn. be says « * -£ * >
add nothing to give m exchange' 11990a 30t beta? ra k ssd . * * * » *
vssitors to the sculpture exhibition « writes « “
and dum bfounded' at the empty banahty of the reaL ^
sniffing th is cadaver-tike hyper-sim ifande' and -haBucmamg on p * ® &
<1983b: 42-3).
 * I 'li |
N„ ai "'H
nn ^ “ I'K
in 1 ,,l<l .. . ,tfvtfi»H* 1,1 Mel-uhwn, hi>wsVtl, , .
..i (1‘JH tu) whose '"iih.i
Unudr'11"^1* ,/„ ■ SlW * {''(!|„im that «•»« electronic meihamm' k l1'
A ....... Z l i t - w - -■
nt|eei|,,n “L,lld r«lt',|o,,M!I,iuiiiloii. I'"' i‘"‘l 1,10 oppoiiUo* n .JKt
ad^clJv0 lit“' , „hniii l,lH‘ I.,Until develop* here I""1 *WIK nil)., •'Hi,
111, «oi g R o ry whh historical ,rJ * * ^
/Mlho****1' . . 1062) 1,1,11 ..jug their•conclusion* dlller, Mc| ,U|, , "llX
Mil "l"'" iijoii* B'H1 ",c1' ,L »epurution ol privatized. IHeruia , " •%
in hum-m as ending J J S l w i seeing i c o n i c i n * * * >uj
elecimnw l m ^ K'u,l,t^ J , already ulmulacral sociality ( i ^ n*
ilw* «> /MJioi«liiy. ithe ruins’ ol symhoHc aoc'ciicn «„U Us u lei^ 1)
' jorniiy 1,1 .‘h83ll. |6. 65). Representing. therefore, |Hl N
produced h* "LionlhlP* 1 J' ,ion of the social t 1983a: 6S) Uic c, J l|'e
merit fo ri,!’ , ' ,ion and ^ ‘JiuWy only exacerbates us implosion tte‘0|"«
mod« of — th!ViS S « ? 66). Even Baudrillard*. f i g u r e ^ ’
media s «1,e ja) marrow . nd jls initial McLuhanist delinitj '
ing its. massed m^ ae8a.ul
i's/ ^ h e •nui«o»’- (McLuhun 1967: % 'H“
i d their speed (McLuhan
impiosio'1- ‘ |oCtronjc medi of neutralization (1983a: 3, 4 , y,
product < k |l0|c' “n^ | troying ‘the electricity of the social' (|L
become « e#rthjng and d deniZCns of a global village hu!'’";
producing uprising uni • , ultimatcly coalescing and impiouj*
1-3). anf" ® ss created by. r e f u ^ „ (I983a: 90). BaudriHartT. J B n«
w i d f 'S circuit ni°/ss; g°e"’X re lb re . departs significantly from McLuh„!
•mass (ag^ ,s of experiential reality and meanini!
('!r uamlrilluid's pW«re ° [ J death, his warning of the possibly ‘f t j
fv points towards a mod uncontroIled implosion (1983a: 58 61) anU
alre«uiences for our society of .cold- tropes echo this. As in McLuhan,
C° rk.nuof McLuhan s ho of relationship to and degree «r
his rr k' X used to d«cr|be he 10^ reverses their meamng
(heSe n uion with each mediu«n. • , scene of highly participative symbolic
partiup* , for t|,e draniatu g phase of .. • mass media culture'
emp oymg
, |d- for the Prebe

Seduction, for
, e,ations, meaning and participation,
re,fli f 35 dominated by s.mttlac t£ “ emotional charge’ of the live event
event’ (1990a: 160). We attempt,
contrast!1g procesSed. televlb . d simulate the energy of the sym-
Wlth t lt , says to reheat this s o t. ‘ which themselves produce the
do » through using ^ ^ ti0„ of nseaning (1983.: 35, -
of every message and tl which tried 'to rekindle
r l,is critique of the German T mKliuni. television . . . for the

Iig1" ' of ,,’a' 'colli n,ons“ ' of

452
 IMI'I ONION, *>l MII | vr l«,». 4kll

,» w r m ln » H » n '. ••te v W o n (lW 4 # v> m , , ,

t#coine* u Mmk metaphor i,„ B(U *"^rtHwd, ih*,«tm«, ; , m
anil wpwtaiiw. and ultimately, of ky,n')"t" "***"»
ihorefor*. aMand not ///,., a. Mci tJ} * eUt'r‘">^ madia

‘TlR-Hlm,!,,* *w,t Iwcnm# th« sulratunee, , ,*

ifie association of MoLuImn and Unudritlar.i
juatllled. in> McLuhan'* depiction of the electrout t" . ‘!K,U' lo ^
i„d hi* own outlaw position Clearty a n ^ S e L nM.
Buudrlllard's work and hit own Intellectual .talus a i V< “"?• co"Um l,t
1 - ,*?. J J S ^L u ,r ^ ; n J : : i ^ ' 2 S : S
through the 17 •* and curly IWO*. s o too does Itaudrtllard's strategic read-
ing and reversal of hi. work with hi. aml-McLuhanism developing. there­
fore, in direct proportion to In. McLuhanism. It should he noted however
that Bnudrillard s reversal is not simply a product of a critical reaction to
McLuhan. but rather represents the positive influence of another thinker
upon his media theory. This is the influence of Daniel J Boorstin, an influ­
ence which has to date gone entirely unmentioned in the critical literature on
Bnudrillard but which plays a significant role in the formation of his critical
approach to the media. Although later references to Boorstin by Baudrillard
are rare (see 2 0 0 1 a: 72. 2 0 0 1 b), Baudrillard’s first major discussion of media
in The Consumer Society draws very heavily upon Boomin'* l%2 book The
Image* and the latter’s ideas become central to Baudrillard’s emerging media
theory and also to his critical reversal of McLuhan.
The Image is the only book on media written by the American historian
n-iniel J Boorstin, standing as an idiosyncratic, now neglected, but highly
*mailing text at the margins of both his own bibliography and of North
American media and communication studies. As one of the first books to
*V>» rlrn m a tln ru*r„»W,~l ----- ~r ‘

453
 V .D - 'F T E . T H . L E T T E ,: ,
bef° rI °Si
epistemological imp»“ creating ‘a t/iicfce(
sions'which have come to replace reality for Us “ '" e a /. |
* the dominance today of pseudo-events’ ( l9 9 ( ' ^ 2 : 3\ *„<,
for constantly interesting and spectacu lar diVeJ^?: 7 44)' 5- 6 j % , ‘V
««»»** P ' ^ o r incited . . . £ « * » * (l & ? 4 f e Of..
being r e p o r te d or reproduced, being a r r a n j ? i J * 9 j S , \ \
experience. We fill our lives*«»iON
not .AND THE p c c , lrv
r e p o r tin g or reproducng m e d ia , a n n o u n c e d . f° r pSEUDO-EVENT
already occurred, and judged for their SUc - ^ 'n ad^ co„, fe b, h \ i of e*Perie"ce (1992: 252): a statement thafemu* bM Wllh «* images
Boorstinofs Baudrillard
•how widely it is reported’ (,992: be£ * * ' summary s own position
own prescriptions for ch- d !>erve equally well as a
ante w the news (1992: 12), spawning o t l ' 8 trUe ir ^ Of °f
progression (1992: 33) to constitute an p , ' Psen<Jo epfs 'I t liberation in which we must try to rediscover ,Z r6Sting on an individual
(1992. 260-1) - are a somewhL ^ o n d our images
e x p e r ie n c e (1992:12), as ‘t h e work o f the whn f grea ter^ '1t/> % r ^ S
36). B oorstin’s theory explicitly serves as th ^ h i n Pr«nr, "> 0f also drawing attention to a grey area in his I , 6 SOC,ety he describes,
0f this reality, as at various times it has eith that °f the exact fate
analysis of the produ ction o f contem nor ^ bas,s , ef> 0N % V ‘illusions’ of our ‘unreality’ (1992- 250 24(0 .mereWteen hidden by the
theory of sim ulation (1998a: ,25-6). ^ e nts f°' or it has been definitively eclipsed by images wWu S° T®* StU1 ^ recoverable,
h>s s Ov would explicitly adopt and make his o«m, > ^ m aphrase Baudrillard
Although B a u d n lla rd in c o rp o ra te s B o To ” K" ^ ^
on the contemporary semiotic destru ct!°rSt'n "Uo l- (1992: 249). More radical and more sensitivl ^ than the reality’
treatment of McLuhan, this does not ° n ° f (be ’s 0Wn"crg Baudrillard cautions us about Boorstin’s disc ° ^ r prob'em of simulacra,
and the ’artificial’, having n o w p a ^ ‘^ n^
philosophy as both share a concern w i n ^ T ' ^ a n y ^ 0'*
and reality and with the increasingly sim , , h e ,Qss 0 f °,ebce ,HfreN simulation (1998a: 126-7). Despite this, howeve^ BtudnOa d ! T°
not altogether avoid the problem of the real as alth ®d ' a d scrwork does
- IVi...-----* . « . ^
goorsim « ven(, structuralist critique of its referential I h v J l I T w ®P°St’
any event impossible to trace (1992: 19), w i t h t h e ' ^ '"akes '‘,ca'a k""<* with the symbolic - those complex relationships external to th e ^ n S b
event in its reporting thus ’reshaping . . . OUr v PSeud^ n, ‘0^gin, S 143-63), the latter still come to play the residual role of lived ‘reality’ and
205), in producing ‘new categories o f experience * C° ncePt of beconi/, °f critical ground for his attack on the semiotic (see Merrin 2001), leaving tom
open, &s in Boorstin, to accusations of nostalgia.
&we *y the 0,d common sense tests o f true a w ' " 0 ,0,’ger 'ru'h’ Oq ^
the media erase these hav' ^a,Se> U
( l999g^'rnPly c/g .; Arguably, therefore, in their shared critical content, methodological use
. .e distinctions
distinctions ((1992:
19 9 2 : 229)
2 2 9 ), having—‘a~revolutionary
2 : 21 f i e>
“5
of contemporary examples, extreme interpretation of evidence, caustic tone
'hemed,aeraot,on of reality and truth (1 9 9 2 : 2 1 2 ). In being planned J and engaged, polemical writing style, Baudrillard’s affinities with Boorstin
on our concephon o jnterest, reproduced ty and dom ination, tll surpass those with McLuhan. Despite Baudrillard’s obvious method­
maximum P“bl,™y’ a sifnulacral power to eclipse ordinary events ( 199-, ological debt, in his advocation of ‘theoretical violence’, of a ‘speculation to
pseudo-events also n BaudrjIlard WOuld also later argue, complex exPeri the death, whose only method is the radicalisation of hypotheses’ (1993c: 5),
37, 3M0). reducing, 1f e^ sjmp,ified images ( 1992: 185- 94), w to McLuhan’s ‘probes’ (McLuhan and Zingrone 1995: 264), his primary
ence to reasSfU" n® 4 and more persuasive than reality itself (1992: 36). aim is not, as is McLuhan’s, understanding and insight, but, like Boorstin,
vivid, more attract. ^ / ^ e , Boorstin finds evidence of this defin- critique and transformation, aiming ultimately at a final reversal and implo­
Again andagain, t ^ f the ^ o f a fallen Platonic world, ‘where the sion of the semiotic system itself. Even if Baudrillard and Boorstin do not
ing simulacral usurp orjgjnaK has become the original’, where ‘the share the same philosophical conception of the real, they share the belief
image, moreinterest, g (1 9 9 2 ; 2 0 4 ). But this involves not an
that something is being lost in the social and technical advance of the con­
temporary media, which do not merely transform experience but kill it. It is
shadow has becom hvoerreality, as the image determines experience, no coincidence that, whereas McLuhan reads the Narcissus myth as
unreality but a form ^ fonned into the site o f box-office films (1992: explaining our numbing by and fascination for our technological extensions,
with histone ates n° ‘ transf0rmed into ‘a disappointing reproduction Boorstin emphasizes instead Narcissus’s death through this fascination
107) and the Grand cany j4) A$ jn Baudrillard, advances in tech- (1992:257). .
0f the Kodachrome ongina ( • ’ picture, taking us further from not Boorstin’s ideas were enough of a threat for McLuhan to make a point ot
^ o n ly H u r itfh e r th a n s h a ^ ^ P ^ 2 |3 ) The ^ of these targeting him in the early 1960s. ‘Professor Boorstin’s literate and learned
closer to it m its techmca pe re,atjons a n d lived experience, for, status (Moos 1997: 32; McLuhan 1994: 52; Molinaro el al. 1987: 506) is
sufficient to expose him as an outdated, backward-looking figure responding
B S y ,tV m a tw e seek, and finally we enjoy, the contrivance of a., to the changes of the electronic world with a ‘moral panic’, charting what he
“ s i s a lamentable decline in values’ (Moos 199T. 29). Xs a dttect rebuttal
454
 pTT P » :
. HrpP T,,t'
— .«-.«■- s s « r « ^
, , .....- s - S S f e 1' ^ s v s ^ s c ^ t ^

r r & ^ ~ ,r s « ~ " i » ” "■*• °f *» •«*»— ~ 5 c « «

S^ £ • * • - '‘nd',,,'"'“l "“ ~ * - S
!$.4 199), McLhf* X ° 'e c'ron'C,Cphfl*'8 upon "ie ePistemol°gica| Con
* „ l i i r m e d in , h l h ,.i r s h a r e d e n i p d :fl this McLuhanist critiai, ° n ‘
in te r e s tin g ly . y e le c tro n ^ ^ d . Hence, i n his sketch J 5
sequences of co"JJ"Pqua|ly * e" t0J d their transformation of ,he rea>
^ - ^ , £ 5 teclinolog'es 5 0 _ 7 6 ) Baudr.Ilard does privilege a,
history o f ; - serves as a, now reduced or qe
Symbolic a n d this syn o)rers a competing history of „
a n te rio r " m y M ^ h a j £ w e r s < 1 9 6 6 b : 1 0 0 - 1 ) m our e x te n ^
t r o y e d . pn* .^ u latio n ’ of h °£ a" P 45) (which, significantly, has ;|,M)
te c h n o lo g ic a l s as ‘idols (' . (R,es 1 9 8 7 : 7 3 ) ) . However, |,is
‘images’ « * £ £ * ^ Greek* any era.serving as an implicit £
been tra^latfd refuses t o Pr,v fna) and pr,or, now lost, reality, being
history of sugge*ting ar <> t of thjs transformation,
tique ofany 'h ()]e recurring complicates this In privileging t|le
•ensitive instea eadingofMcLu y scene |atcr ,ost with teehno.
Except, a eWorld he does frequently resort to those value judge.
oral-acous „ and he di , rje|iart 1997: 147), in, for example
logical develop- ^ ^ (Benedein <m ^ Even the view of his w orlds
mentS|ehbra1ion of electronic critique o f electronic media and the
his celebrat , uate given h s . Qf hum anity and destruction
‘° ptimisn: h eT r^ in carn atio n -" d J , 976; B enedetti and Dehart
‘vioienCeA I identity and meaning position> o n e th at, at least, he
0fa f n dW ) These themes all imply Satan c o u ld be at work here, the
199 d privately admit to. electrical e ngineer' (M oH n.ro « a,.
W t o f this world’ being a ^ f e jc technology is sim ilar to that
( - Virilio ,997, and Baudri„ard
of - os of Boosshn - . no,.

1 ,. traces on a monitoring screen’

( Roorstin for his critique of McLuhan.
,f Baudriliard is W * * devclop his laser work? In a 1984
U ,hen does,his b,fl«nce and c n j s^ ^ ,he best analysss of Ik

"’“de ° " ‘he teSiS °W" m° "

456
in»«r«»tU5' r«#4»w m vybMh i/uni **
inverts the hypoilntsis' aW 3a’**,? a“ 4*fenue o< m , ,
90). A lthough there are | CVlC1 / fcv«r-w: 0 * eHeuis ilc a . ' " ^ ' an- 'J'“-
J * . i- •»»■»». — r , 3 S r u- ‘^ - i S S K T *
foreground tire eleclronk media an i , *speclally «. HaudrtUa.d °
^ , r "•**■ »“ • » S a n a
Tl)ub, liom / ulul Siruieyiiei, (1 ut ,
description of our contemporary ‘^ r i i U r d .•
tial growth of ils systems U99(k 32i * l,'.artm8 th« meiastatK;' exponeu
cuits and ‘obese’ overproduS n °f a"
of the media in this process and B a u d r .l l a X e m l ^ ^ The «»trality
effects reinforces Ins McLuhanism, although u' * Upon the,r fo»"
in terms of their destruction of the svmhoU **'" thes* processes
sequence of the global village is indeed the in t**"* U9%C'‘ 55> lhe con-
places, and experiences, but. for Baudrillardth aVa''abll,t> of *U limes,
leads to the erosion of all meaning, relations an. n ,oW n,:' ^ansparency
the symbolic, therefore, is replaced by ‘the sm o o th ed T " ™ T!‘e sceneof
communication’, reducing us to ‘terminals of \ f ? funcUona' surtace of
Assaulted b , ,h , W p . o x l 6>-
of Caillois’s schizophrenic psychasthenic (Caiiiois unuu ^ Ilca vli,s“J1’
« . ....*• »tr >>« s s s n s
environment as a pure screen, a pure absorption and resorption 2 ( T ' {
the mfluent networks (1988: 27). Although McLuhan had begun to suggest
thls (1976), Baudrillard s reversal is clear: today we become the extension of
technology. Indeed, most ol Baudrillard’s later references to McLuhan come
precisely from this attempt to push and reverse McLuhan’s concept of exten­
sion (1990b: 110, 1992a: 17; 1992b: 12-13, 1993b: 30. 117, 1996b: 35,71),
and, although his many comments fail to cohere into a final critique, his
questioning ol McLuhan’s ’subjective’ interpretation of technology is still
important.
Baudrillard s most important later critique of McLuhan comes, however,
from an extension of his earlier critique of ’communication’, in his
unpublished 1992 lecture ‘The vanishing point of communication’ (1992b).
Beginning by rejecting the idea that we have always communicated - tribal
societies, for example, having neither the word nor concept, do not com­
municate, ‘they just speak to each other’ (1992b: 3) - Baudrillard argues that
‘communication’ is ‘a modern invention’, arising oniy when speech and
symbolic exchange are abolished (1992b; 3), constructing a formal ’appar­
atus’ of communicational media, ’a huge network of information’ which
organizes and regulates all exchange (1992b; 4). Thus, returning to his earlier
conclusions, he says, we must never forget of the structure of this communi­
cation that ‘its very essence is non-communication’ in replacing human rela­
tions, and that ‘this has consequences for the future of all human relations
(1992b; 4). Again, the electric media represent both the end of relations and

457
 «\|> w rr* rn r u m * .
lint io»rrectx>o•»a '»n«g<e s t n ^ t i w * \
uwM im'. *0*1** i*f jvtewoaf»iofctve' ofjfc*, ** "<?^
W sw »«■ - V t v v r - . ><f. .r w .'c '.v re v ersal o f \ , c t V ^ n g e ’ *«**.*.
«*™d w hf«v f'V*** N <w media. thaH ^n * >*0*0 , ^ 5*
coacact »trt> rhe smgat*rw> vVthe sefr and am real. ^ ,f>*m u 'rflL.
P«SS. *e hied natietes oe o a r povrummevi and in ,**'**» ex0^ HVV,'
'V> ,\ I* Riudnfbrd > haer discussion o f tk l !'’viu»l tr, 'i'5§e '
>Af-rxviai reversal o f \*ct«c>,an s gK->hai vill^*.-. J s g ^ ^ ' ^ c r '
dtewaws tie « W svtttSVv snorting in the *n»ji>,, ,laM ^ S ‘
M<fsncr» caftures and >ati>e osarais. from the A N ^
c-aa*: cahure, -»oh II M) CtescnNno the \\« t <:f n*' A i^ ^ w
aocvporMe these cultures into its ov»n heswinviic *Sto,>S»| , ,
* Atoorsr of daferetxx echoing that o f the ^ s.'steJ'^fH
m edia a s co n m N irin g to w a rd s th is g lo K .i .7* ° * * # * ™
aWlV •'**•»■ '-> N fc£ufc^r' ' ^ ^ S t ^ 5 5
* “«** this ^-mvnvgloh*/ v,7fc<ge(McLuhan and ? a °n a«j
Bxm M bid its KcteoftgK s bring nor, aw » nttribaluai,
of.*. | off^ r- 1,1n° " !but
' " a7 f r f ^Ktfof
o
-rn ^rf; imunand ttvorpotarson o f the global 'other' tern-Jtv
Hence m oMo f BaudnTtird's titer work on the ejectro
Wciuhuwf concerns and anh-McLuhanist reversal
iaxli_.» IV *v« c<iiri Cn>ed«a tk~ i .
\ • v u ii^
vleLuhx"^ < = - ■-—° ^ !>l^
c~™ »r*l rckctronK-implosion
^ aod in r tm ir ,m^ ° . ^ a.l fountf
nepe^
' S S V » «’* * * V communicarion. parncpanom sooa,lt> anJ
>h the abohW* « . , re recent "Tilings such as The Perf ^ ,

rr— r ****'■*" - tfljs period (such as m Zurbrugg 1997,

£ Z « r *"? S u a l reality techno log y - that assem blage of
« 3 'h « ,0 . ’^ e s "i»ch produce the vtrtua izat.on o f the
" dav ekctm oK , ^ . r j m c for the unconditional realisation o f
nvcid and o f o p * * * * his d ls c u s s .o n of th eir effects even when i, «
reframed
r i « -around
' ^ the la i ^r f 5 u . - . is c° nsistent wiih an tha* ha$
In contrast, although rarely referred ta Boorstm s ideas continue to p|av a
nosime role in Baudrillard s later work, especially in his increasing interest
m the contemporary media non-evenf. In his first discussion of Boorstin.
BaudriUard explicitly appropriated his theory of the pseudo-event as the
basis for his o»n discussion of media simulation - of the production of
events from their models as semiotic artefacts ( 1998a: 125-6) - and this is an
idea he returns to and develops in his work of the 1990s. though suitably
radicalized now to see all events as non-events in their instant passage into
the media, rather than, as in Boorstin. just those produced by and for the
media. Today we face ’the radical irony’. BaudriUard says, that ‘things no
longer really take place, while nonetheless seeming to ’ (1994b: 16) - a dis­
junction between the spectacular dissemination o f apparent ‘events’ and
their lack of meaning and significance:

458
 IM P L O S IO N S IM U L A T IO N
'N O t h e p s e u d o - e v e n t
In eartKT tim es *n exeat
** i o " w h ' n * ^ a e v l to «
“ * “ ■* * " * ' ' * » o f
tB audriS bni 1993hc 41)
T iw p ro d ig io u s event n o lo g g e r c o s t s . he savs I l « 4b „ k - r ^ ,
sy m b o l* -sce n e - as lived, O p e rie n c e d a n d even
its o * n r h \th m »rwt t ___*■ ,,- r - PanKtP»Qts. ••itJj
^ a n d untbW mg. h s o a a W and g f c ^ . l a d ,
o w n h isto ric a l significance a n d im pact - a x e s wax like t u , „ „ - ’ ~
Benyimin's art-woi
to th e event as already r t p n d c o / I I W f e 21). M sem o tk aB v R ^ d ^ l
rically realized sur
la c ra . >uch events h a \e ‘n o m o re significance th a n their j
th e ir p ro g ra m m in g a n d th e ir b ro ad ca stin g ' (1994b- "*lv. "tveanme.
A s in in ru ro p ro crea tio n : th e em bryo o f th e real event ts transferred m to
th e a n i tx ia l w o m b o f th e new s m ed ia' (1994b: 19- 201. in a com bination of
artificial in sem in atio n a n d p re m a tu re ejacu la tio n ' - producing a calculated,
m o d e lle d , fo rced , in s ta n t ev e n t, sp ectacu lar in its explosion o n to th e screen,
v et so m eh o w , ultim ately u n satisfying a n d unconvincing (1996b. 31). In their
p ro g ra m m in g o r in s ta n t in c o rp o ra tio n in to th e ir m odels, these a re predict­
ab le. em p ty ev e n ts o c c u rrin g w ith th e stran g e afte rta ste o f som ething th a t
h a s h a p p e n e d b efo re, s o m e th in g u n fo ld in g retrospectively' (1994b 191. T heir
p re -p ro c e ss e d m e a n in g a n d sem io tic realiza tio n rem oves any possibility o f a
p e r s o n a l m e a n in g o r relatio n sh ip , w hile th e ir real-tim e occurrence an d
im p lo s io n e ra d ic a te th e possibility o f any h isto rical m e an in g o r significance,
g iv in g a m a x im a l d iffu sio n b u t z e ro reso n an ce (1994b: 5S). Instantly
re p la c e d bv o th e r ev e n ts, su p e rse d in g ea ch o th e r in sp ectacu la r procession,
e a c h a im in g t o b e d efin itiv e y et ea ch h av in g less a n d less m e aning , 'th ev
h o llo w o u t b e fo re th e m th e v o id in to w hich they p lu n g e ' (1994b. 19). b lazin g
m o m e n ta rily u p o n th e screen o f th e m e d ia to leave barely a retin al
a fte rg lo w .
Reversing McLuhan again, instead of the media as our extension mto the
real. now. BaudriUard claims, the real - the site of the event - 'becomes an
extension of the studio, that is. of the non-site of the event, of the virtual site
of the event’ (1994b: 56). Again, implosion leads to simulation and undecid­
ability : the scene of the event becoming 'a virtual space', 'site of the defini­
tive confusion of masses and medium, of the real-time confusion of act and
sign’ (1994b: 56). In its real-time appearance the source and its information
are too close together, ‘interfering drastically' and creating a feedback effect
which. BaudriUard argues, casts ’a radical doubt on the event' (1994b: 5-6.
5 7 ) 'The real object is wiped out by news.. . . All that remains of it are traces
on a monitoring screen’. BaudriUard says (1994b: 56). Here, therefor implo
sion does not take us into the event, it is the very process of its abolition, of
its nassaee ’from a historical space into the sphere of advertising and spec­
tacular promotion’ - a media sphere where it exists and survives only as a
'synthetic memory’ (1994b: 23).

459
 Ill I OH I <NM M i l . . . ..
. " " ,*N
HlWIHlln'n lIll’OI
(li'itinlOi * M rv ry\ >»
” t ....
lilt 'I'H’llllll
, tw i l l I||(
I,n lUiiHlrilhml's
(in llmnlrilliiiil* Him iii’ii .’UWII'
i'u'iii which
"hi./i i /inlli’iiy(.NM
^ ,,i
■ > - vv.-nm’ hi. .... iim1im
thin H'xhnl 1*1*-*1. iHun
Imi I*(!.•
lit iikhIIh iiIIow
mmllii allow H i,,,..
11 1,1 h n i,,. .t. '"n
u,„n,
mul ihn iih i'\jh*ii.'iin'.l l>* ah mill Him they mriir«|/iiH|y 0 , " ll’ <nN( ll’i
uiHih Mi Hit’ll i’I.s imiiitiH/* cwlanded mul l/llked u i i . I I p ( ' jU n N(| "ly
ihat o II” .'Will ”11/1 //I- n/miifncnim, Imploding Hit diMln...! ’"'"Iriii, . 1
mi./ ininyi’ HI.-V..Iii.' iimI mtilliiiii, mi’/ */t” mi.l uludln | ‘||,.( 11,11 "I r,,
niyiiiiiiiilh cMtiniihl experience, mill hnllvUluul viewer* »ln, "v
us /iii.’/.’fti. .i//v mediated experience. avoiding nil contact ‘"'••M |n
it ii” tfmiv.l imllly, mill the \ Icarioiw . oiiniitnpr(<>,» N, ' ‘'miiip,. ((l#h'
Hie .'<»inf.*ii of one's dlxlnnce mid plenum* of Hieii gunrnm °* ,||p i”i,|'1,1
with Hi” indiildunl pio/H'llal mi then noth mu l/v* mio n1(, .l1'* r*'l”it.|| 1,1
info
IH' flii ’IMii.i'tM.ui
IIVWmMt i. ”1 —. t/v.
, fm'ii/m innigex mul non ovcm* u , ' <l" l>U| l)l' P'
conicionsnev'
uiM ii’iiMic's «”i >i awareness only 1n1 real-time
awnivne.x.x only reid-tlnie experience mul
.... i "v lo, —■Ho n
moaning find■shun - - ciiculllngi..., historical
It/.vf<)ii”n/ le.xonmice,
resonance riieiv
IVioiv i|N
! T|U'ne
J u 'y h lt ^
”ii/\ if' 'iniii/Hi'Hiiii. consumed with ii detached fascination ,,vOlvei
‘ 1 *,,,,J.... •«*« Rniulrllhinl sins: ° r 'I'*? i*m

^vision inculcates indifferencev dlshince. scepticism mul unooiuli.

, «,v.tliv Mire.# .1.” mul. . becoming-Image. „ ..„.,eS(he,|8es
he imagination, provokes .. sickc.iejl Hbre.iction. together with ,,
'L e oZdirmilin which indues tot.il dl.lll.isionmcnt.
(Hnudrillard I944t>; ^

This total disillusionment’ stands ..s the Antithesis of MeLtihan’s elect,onic.

ally rstribnlimi family of man.
Kor Hmidrillnrd. paradoxically. it «s the most heavily mediated and aPpilI,
enrh important events, such ns the Cmll ^m. that constitute ‘non-events’
,'tv Baudnllard IW), Mis reasons for then non-occurrenee me complex
mui fis we have seen, amtie upon the issue of then production and electronic
nialiation rather than upon the idealist denial ol the physical world his more
simplistic critics insist upon (see Merrill IW4), being more concerned with
flow 'the imace consumes the event, that is, it absotbs the latter and gives it
Kick as consumer goods’ (2001b). Hence we can recognize that, however
many died in the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, no war was ‘happening’ for the
Western audience their electronic extension entailed no risk and no actual
experience, instead serving up the scopic thrills of live CNN coverage from
Baghdad, grainy, smart-bomb, nose-cam footage, military briefings, and stu­
dio speculation, virtual maps and sandpits, all for domestic consumption.
From this perspective, even the September 11 attacks - which Baudrillard
himself sees as ‘the absolute event’, as a pure spectacle and symbolic chal­
lenge (2001b) remain a non-event in their live passage into ‘breaking news’
consumed by an audience in no danger o f losing their own lives; in their
transformation into images, edited and repeated endlessly in a rolling
 ................... AMI......... .
M i n t o i vi n i
viivei'Hgu uml available ttuu|« ,|u. .........
wraparound vuvarn.mill!ilia ' l .My 1,1 "l,|J *»>
"III' "iwwupttpmt, on du'ii
.......‘'" m “ ,'Hrowu» '"»«’ ihmmKl,,;» 'I I''';; mwi.",u ...
says, wlili the mUied t h r i l l I)u. iwi| i w * g * H" '"»«»• »«ud.Uta,U
n*wv* "vch.ll .low,, ........ a. , l,1VuU‘* .... . ""V
•p o rnouiiiphli’’ m edia ,,„ h ,w , , ..I
c m m im p tlo n ol ,|,« ' ' 'K "»*' 'I-.- ’thrill’ .„ imt
•HMnwJtiilinBble " " y Bnd "l mu dUu.no.

.... ? .....r " * »"■ i»

Hu..... '"minimal expend “ .S J ' 1T " 1.... '«*... ' ... .
lion or the I hirkheimlnn Z n d h . , * ‘,v#,y mul «'"P»l,ca
' 'W Indeed. the emotional rcpon*to tiS e r e Z u X c m i T .
sadness al the death of the Queen Mother in Mureh W and the even
piea ei oiit.pmirlng ol public grief following the ilonth ol Diana In m i
wo ,1. a seem to contradict Uaudrlllard’s claims regarding the apathy
a . Indlfleienee inculcated by television. First, however. ttaudrllWtrd’s
Mi l uhanlsm leads him to see such Involvement as an elVect ol die medium
l athei limn ol its content anil any relationship to the hater. As such, it is a
luxury ol our distance anil of our consumption of the content as a simu-
Incitim; u is a lonn ol pleasure mul catharsis icipiiring only a suitable soap
opera, film, news story, celebrity death or reality TV show as iis prompt.
Second, Itaudi illaul is uigiiing that this involvement is predicated on a prior
separation and distance from one’s proximate experiences hence the
emotional response is indicative only of one’s simuincrul ’participation' in
the world nod corresponding ’indilYercnee’ towards any actual symbolic
relationship or experience.
I'lnally we can see that this conclusion is one McLuhan himself suggested,
in his own reworking of his concept of the global village into a
•global theatre' in which we arc all actors (Benedelli and Dehart 199T. 6$).
Bandi illard's reversal of McLuhan ends with his radieulizutton of this con­
clusion. Acting and speelulorship. and event and mediation implode, to leave
us all ‘full-blown actors', taking part, with Diana, he says, ‘in what amounts
to a positive reality show of her public and private life’ (2001c. ID). This
show continued after her death with a simulacra! grief an efficacious pro­
duction and public performance of grief for the cameras itself tor a figure
known only as an image, as an ‘idol’ or ‘icon’, and reproducing a mediatized
public model of mourning in the flowers, and teddy bears, and gifts, balloons
mul condolence books which have become our obligatory public spectacle
I Merrin 1999b). And London itself was transformed into just such a reality
TV show with the public as stars and audience, many turning up to the
funeral to watch it on television in Hyde Park (an act itself shown on the
BBC) appearing before the cameras, with their own Rich Luke style u\p-
t o ('Mother of two'; 'HIV positive’), to deliver their own eulogies, gushing

I 461
 before and after THE L E T T E R : ( P R E , P O S T M O D e

confessions a n d sound-bites: lights, c a m eras, e m o tio n ! ‘A ll a r e '

th e sa m e reality'. B audrillard w rites (2001c: 138). b u t th is is n o t ' \ ' rriersed
electronically e x te n d e d reality, b u t th e e x te n d e d s im u la tio n o f a uj , *c L u h ar),.n
B audrillard. th e re fo re reverses M c L u h a n in to th e sim u latio n " ° ° a l t *>ea tr S
ing
th e hea rt o f h is m edia theory. ° P e ra t'

jX ofes

I So. to take one exam ple the richness, com plexity a n d m e tap h o ri ~
M cLuhan's im plosion' becomes, in H a n ey, the fa r sim pler co n cen t ■>£/■ Va,ue f
com pression'. an idea he generously acknowledges M cL u h an recognized ' tim e' s Pa v
paucity o f references to M cLuhan and lim ited explication o f his "idea - ° ugh t|T
m inor significance he is seen as ha\ing for H a n e y 's ow n concern
3S3). P M t i a r v$e 1y ui strate , ke
g g jj .^ th e

References
Ball. E. (1987) T he great sideshow o f the S itu atio n ist In te rn a tio n a l', F
Studies- Everyday L ife 73:21-37. ‘ h
Bataille, G. (1962) Eroticism. L ondon: M arion Bovars.
------ (I9S9) The Tears o f Eros. San Francisco. C A : C ity L ig h ts B ooks.
------ (1991) The A ccursed Share. Vol. I. New York: Z o n e B o o k s
------ ( 1992) Theory o f Religion. New York: Z o n e B o o k s
Baudrillard. J. (1975) 7»e M irror o f Production. S t L ouis: T e lo s
------ (1981) f o r a Critique o f the Political E conom y o f th e S ig n . St. L o u is: T e lo s
------ (1983a) In the Shadow o f th e Silent M ajorities, N ew Y ork. S em io tex t(e).
— ( 1983b) 'W hat a re you d o in g a fte r the orgy?' A n fo r u m O c to b e r: 4 2 -6 .
------(1988) The E cstasy o f Com m unication. N ew Y ork: S em io tex t(e).
------ (I99()a) Seduction. L ondon: M acm illan.
-------(1990b) Coo! M em ories. L ondon: Verso,
------ (1990c) F atal Strategies, L o ndon: P luto Press
---- (1992a) Transpolitics transsexuality, transaesthetics’, in W. Stearns
W Chuloupkn (eds) Jean Baudrillard. The Disappearance o f Art a n d p0t ' "l
London: Macmillan, ppt 283-302. '•
---- (1992b) 'The vanishing point of communication’, lecture. 18 Novenil >•
Loughborough University of Technology, unpublished text, c. J. Baudrill t
provided by M. Gane. Iu '
---- (1993a) Baudrillard Live: Selected Interviews, ed. M. Cane, London: R o n d o I ><
(1993b) The Transparency o f Evil. London: Verso.
- (1993c) Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage.
( I994u) Simulacra andS/nnt/at/ott, Michigan: University of Michigan Press
---- (1994b) The Illusion o f the End. Cambridge: Polity Press.
(1995) The Gulf (Car Did Not Take Place. Sydney: Power Publications.
- (1996a) The System o f Objects. London: Verso.
(1996b) The Perfect Crime, London: Verso.
(1998a) The Consumer Society, London: Sage.
( 1998b) Paroxysm. Interviews with Philippe Petit, London: Verso.
 I M P L O S I O N . S I M IU
E M U L A T IO N and the p s t..* .
• ME P S E U D O - E V E N T
------ (2000) The VUa, Ilbaion_ ^
------ (2001a) The U ncollected B a u d * £ LtUv^ > P t®
---- (2001b) The spirit
of
WWW.jl
6 436>
------ (2001c) Im possible Exchange London
Benedeni. P. and Dehart. N. (eds, , )9o ,. J " 0
R eflections on an d bs M a r s h a u t l ^ l
B o o r-tin . D. J . (1992) 77* , ______ ? ,T —
Bracken. U 1 1997) G uv D e W ^
R erolutvnarv. Venice. CA: Feral H o u se
' London ^ ,
-(1984) Mimicry and legendatv psxchasthemV ' i ,n.-
D atis, L (1998) Techgnosis. London: Serpent's Tail Press. ~32'
Debord. G (1983) Society o f the Spectacle. Detroit: B bck and Red.
De kerckhovt, a (1995) The Skin o f Culture: Imestitsuim. ,be S c Ehcmrnic Reufi,
Toronto: Somerville House.
D urkteim . a (1995) The Elennrntan Forms o f Rrlhtiom Life. New Y « fc The Free

Eliade. M . (1959) The Sacred and the Profane. London: Harcoun. Brace.
Jovanovich.
C ane. M . (1991a) BatuhrillanTs Bestiary: BaudrUlarJ and Cuitwe. London Routledss.
(1 9 9 Ib l Bamhillard. Critical and Fatal Theory. London: Routiedee.
G enasko. G. (1994) 'T he paradoxical effects o f McLuhjnism: Caeeneuve. BandriRard
an d B arthes'. Economy and Society 23(4): 400-32.
------ (1997) 'W ho is the French M cLuhan'?'. in N. Zurbrugg ted.) Jean RanJ-iiari.
•4ri and Artefact. London: Sage
------ (1999) M cLuhan and BautHttaed: The Masters o f Im pkw k*, London Routledge.
G ordon, \V. T . (1997a) Marshall M cL uhan Escape into I'ndnsM nJw s: .4
N ew York; Basic Books.
-------(1997b) M cLuhan fo r Beginners. London: W riters ifc. Readers.
H arvey, IT. (1990) The Ciuuiilion o f ftistmtnfernity. O xford: Blackwell
H o rro ek s. C . (2000) Marshall McLuhan <tn,i I "iMiwtiiiy. Cam bridge: Vcon
llu v x sen , ,\. (1995) Twilight M em ories. L ondon: Routledge.
In n is, H . .-V. (1950) Empire am i Ccvnnmnicuiions. Oxford: O xford Vnixersrtx Press.
(1995) The Bias <>/Com m unication, L ondon: The Vnixersttx of Toronto Press
.lapiH'. A . (1999) Guv Debars!, L o n d o n : L'nixetsitx o f California Press.
K ellner, IT. (19S9) Jean Batnirillanl: From M arxism to hvitmodermsm aM Re\\w»4.
C a m b rid g e : Polity Press.
___ (e d .) ( I W 4 ) BamtrillanL' .4 CHnYoi R o sier. O xford: Blackwell
K rttker. A. (1992) The Ptasessed Ituiivhiual: Technology ,m>i New Fhmh TV,w.
I ondon: Macmillan. . .. .
_ m i \ Cook, a (eds) ( W M ? V »Vsim.hierH Scene. txxremenM i kVnure ..n.i
i{\ttcr~ A e sth e tic s , London: Macmillan. „ . . ,.
I Militant. R . A. (1995) T h e E lectnm ic Hotel: IVmoomev, I'ex-W oRv m i the A
Chicago'. Universily of Chicago Presx
1 ovinsnn, P. ( I W > T h e S o l ) E d g e . I ondon, Koullcdge.
^iggg) Digital LotkAon' RoutreuS^
 , ........ Im tcrsta m tin g it i f M essage^ T b r o n .
£ (|(Ws) E teca ic I* * " * * run«o: St
.Mcl.utw k.
_ .u*w>
_ ***•" ■ kJ.tjJutn. London; RoutleUgc.
Martin >Press Es.rmmt, .1
tcLuhan. L o n d o n ; R o utledge.
and /Jnsiw H '. f - Oahrvy. L on d o n ; U n iv ersity o f T o ro n to i»
M clu h a n . 1 ' ' ©rid o f M arshall M e l u h n n '. I a g u e A u g u st; 7(>
(jofxvil •T heall-at;"1' ^ ||ll|X,- j„ f . K D ech ert <ed.) 7'/i<- S o c ia l /, '
’O -hernatio ^ 0f N o tre D am e Press. pp. 4 5 -1 0 8 . "p ,,,i <»/
Cybernetics. London. • . & T. D o n n e r (e d .) T/m M ea n in g r
— U * 7) reteviston m o f Texas Press, p p 87 | „ 7.
"ten*"' Te/e\ <>"«. OI *‘ i owr(,eated image'. PAiiVxm’December; i i | ,
I\^ in /r K u « n ik .h e p la n et b eco m es a g lo b a l t h e a , ! ^ :
— «|07‘4) ' x, rors only actors*. JournalgfConmumkmkms Winter; 4 8 - ^ " *

'« ■ ... .................................

m 4'-
I n" ? m t n , £ * , * » Is !h! s»„ Francis; h . , * ^
P. (I9S9) M arsh a llM cL u h a n : T he Mediant and th e Messenger. Cambridge,

M m I ' . M 0 9 6 6 ) The G ift: Form s a m t F unctions o f E x c h a n g e in P r i m i n g S o v i e t

Merrin. N. (1994) 'Uncritical criticism.’ Norris. Baudrillard and the Gulf War'
Economy mu!Society 23(4): 433-58.
___ ,iW l) •Television is killing the art of symbolic exchange: Baud riIlard's theory
of'communication'. Theory. Culture and Society 16(3): 119-40.
__ (/ 999 b) ‘Crash, bang, whallop, what a picture. I he death of Diana and the

__media'.
(2001)Mortality
‘To play4(1):
with41-62.
phantom s: Jean Baudrillard and the evil demon of the
simulacrum’. Economy and Society 30( I). 85-111.
Mevrowitz, 1 ( 1985) Mo Sense o f Place, New York. Oxford University Press.
MJ/ier. J. (1971) McLuhan. London; Fontana Press
Molinnro, M., McLuhan, C. and Toye, W. (eds) (1987) Letters o f Marshall McLuhan,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moos, M. (ed.) (1997) Media Research: Technology. Art. Communication: Essays by
M arsh all M cLuhan, Amsterdam; G+B Arts International.
Plant, S. (1992) The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationist International in a
Postmodern Age. London: Roufledge.
Postman, N. (1987) Amusing Ourselves to Death, London: Methuen.
---- (1993) Teclmopoly. New York: Vintage Books.
Pone, B. W. (1995) Outage: A Journey into Electric City, Toronto: Random House of
Canada.
Ries, J. (1987) ‘Idolatry’, in M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopedia o f Religion, Vol. 7,
London: Collier Macmillan, pp. 72-82.
Rosenthal, R. (1968) McLuhan, Pro and Con, New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
Stearn, G. E. (1968) McLuhan: Hot and Cool, London: Penguin.

464
 i M i n O SIO N . SVMUl AVION ANW 1111 l'S\: VI HO-1 V1 N I

VlrtH°» *’• V'1*'11' Sky, London’. Verso.

W lllli'""' R. 0990) I derision: Technology mid Cttlnmil Form. London; Roudedgc
nVoK, G. (I'WM ‘The wisdom of Saim Marshal). the holy fooV. Wired January. 112- 5.
V82. IM>.
Wotlen. P.0989) ‘The Siumtionisv International', New Left Review mtMnreWAprily.
67-95.
7 tirhmjut. N. led.) 0997) Jean BiuMllanl: An nnd Artefact. London Safe.

465
 n i l OKI AND A P T H It TU I! L B T T B R I PR B fP O B T M0 |, „ ^

66
M c L U H A N & B A U D R I L L A R J3

Notes on the discarnate, simulations

and tetrads

J o e (in I b o

Source: McLuhan sunlit'

Si I (I'MI): IN '°7'

Bringing McLuhun nnd Baudrillard together need, l/ tle J u .tlflcittio n .

there ,* considerable overlap between the two. Baudrillard draws some o f h,;
own provocative ideas front McLuhan and readily ucknowledgeHh i, j cb( (<)
,l,e ( anadinn thinker. Though art,ciliated in d le rc n l styles a m t w ith varied
em phases a n d conclusions, both have argued th a t in fo r m a tio n it. n o |0 „ gcr
„ „ instrument for producing ideology but that ,t b i n id e o lo g y |„ itKclr
Laced with a communication network that is expanding n n d In c o rp o rm h ,,,
the globe Into its semantic structure, we wait lot an understanding of ||,js
process with bated breath. Hut w h ereas Haudrillnrd sees little that i, p 0 | | t| Vc
about this transformation and sp eak s in apocalyptic Iones o I th e n u b ju g m lo n
ol humanity to novel forms of control, McLuluin concludes linn with the
rise of the mass media an innovative wny ol existing, capable ol s ee in g th e
world in new ways, comes into being. I lie (Jutenherg subject dies nml
W~ new form Is being born.
I would like to single out one crucial asp eel of this new culturtil environ­
ment. dilfcrcntly explored by both Hniidrilhml and McLuhun. and organize
It around the idea o f the tetrad. "The study o f the media," wrote McLuhan,
"begins with the observation o f their effects" U .filers o f M arshall McLuhan
41H). Similarly, linudrlllnrd begins his investigation o f one of the major
cllects of living within an electronic environment which lie culls ttimulutlons,
Simulations, argues Baudrillard, entail the process o f duplication nml repro-
duction that occurs in our media-saturated, image laden environment. At it,
most extreme, simulations involves it peculiar relationship between the ori­
ginal and its reproduction: the original is evacuated o f Its m ost idiosyncratic
and unique qualities which are replaced with the mere stylistic cllects of the

466
 MCLU,,AN * I I.AMl»
origin"'- At this stage. llic simulated image b e a r, no retationsMo to the
origin"' b"» “*'*'* "H“ ’^"’■referential entity. u» p,WCr lie* in iu ability to
It1l„k the hict that the substance of the real has disappeared
McLuhun has a much more rhetorical anil perhaps more fruitful desenn-
tlon of thin phenomenon Without delving too deeply into the metaphysics
of simulations, McLuhan realized that the reproductive thruat of our elec­
tronic environment ia cleverly parodte. Parody ia one roail running along ante
another (pura luitlwt). Il invoivea. wrote McLuhan in Cliche lo Archetype, a
Ixwia Carroll world in which a fake world ia preaented "aa a reahatic
acalc model" (160). At the bottom of both Uaudrillard'a almulatlona and
Mcl .uhan’a prohea into our parodte world of electronic culture lay a number
of compelling ohaervationa about the tranaformation of our political and
social world. Applying the tetrad to the idea of simulations allowa ua to
postulate four verifiable statements:

1. Wind do simulations enhance or intensify’?

2. What do simulations render obsolete or displace'?
V What do they retrieve that was previously made obsolete'’
4 What do they produce or become when pressed to an extreme'!

A brief exploration of the ideas of both McLuhan and

pertain to the phenomena of simulations is in order betore we can apply the
tetrad lo simulations.

The simulated body as electronic parody

Scholars have only recently focused their attention on the history of the
human body, and concluded, with little surprise, that the human body Vtas
been variously perceived, interpreted and represented in different epochs and
within widely dissimilar material cultures, With the full entry of the elec­
tronic media into everyday life a new interest In the body came to be tormu-
Witcd. Some ol the early meditations on the body can be found in the work of
Marshall McLuhan, who in his usuui maddening style, lit up parts of the
new intellectual territory and left it to others to build on his foundations,
Within thin new discourse, the body becomes the arena in which society’s
anxieties ubout fnkcry, decay, corruption, the blunting of sensibility, and
most important, about titc nature of consciousness itself, came to be
expressed. Otic of McLuhan’* central metaphors, technology as an extension
of the human body, spoke in a double sense about how technology both
colonize* the body und transforms the host into a servo-mechanism ol the
new electronic environment.
The technological extension of the human body aiso brings a new to m
ol discarnate existence to the foreground, being discarnate, argued
modern condition. Wc arc accustomed
Mcl-uhitit. is very
 «» t'O K t v \ |> V1 1 ( K I M l I I I I I I* i I’ K I M 'O S I W ( ) | ) | k ^

to ta lk in g w ea c h ort»» across h u n d r e d o f m ites o n th e te lep h o n e. {„ lv»

js s 'j'V nwaxke o u t living roo m s a n d net vxnts s'M o m s ilu o u jji, ( , "
a:-.i rete»Mon I hr\M«>'h oV cnoiiic m ed ia, d is v a tn a ie man |.v#c] c a n t v ,,
x v ;.\i !!! dtllotv'lll phvVS sim u ltan eo u s!) Ik v a u s e it lx linages m , " by ws'ixts mm imi)Jlv l,Uc'1""r, i^"'"<i „
Nvfv. th e >.•;: s n o l.uigei ph>sieal b « t rathoi si p a tte r n o t in tb rin u tio n (>, '
>v| ojhv'i p a tte rn s ot't'nK v'tnaiion \ p h a n to m N vlv p a ra lle l to i |lr lv ‘J
b x \t) . a paroxtk' extension. '*
xhvmmation „ k 'h-n ,h„ ^«i i,llx^
the senmlno ,hc (brm , n,*xt ,,r 1>l" m »s , ’
From (vanxl) to irony
fhv* txleiMtty ot' the discarnate imlivkltwl exists in what McLuhnn called "
fdMittotn x'kvtromc vwtM” which is more than a succession of ohkvt'* IX'PUIXXM(ho old I- ...'rise or .... 1'"c m invoi,.
HK'nrontsot MKMMHtt It >s •<simultaneous barragepi electronic Simulation* ,he. n't,,eri«'s thm S t mul >C2i2jc«te«
n,(',eri«|s that 'C ntr'^hi'n m n, ' "X‘al
wInch iwpniws an intense invx'ivement on the (vti t ot the heater, listener, {||. . intimate world m «■„,,, lx'niu
lx'nio ,,, c,,'eiu>
’^ n iV1Vr,'
ri' Jn*»nt«jn ..
vtewer who is fi'utKt in this new em imminent, ' of intcrioritv, p,-J the \vv,t
T h e effects oi'vhsoatnare existence ate intricate and complex, t'or it' ,|, , literate wxvrlxl whom n N,''Hv- and i**U,,lrV.and m'’ KMif"tivin IVx'"«'l'
discanrate wxhM is one of high invxvlvemcnt, it is also a wv'ild of protbun t
irom and mtclbcttmi xiisteneing. Hits paradox has to be seen to some extent the >acanian minv Plnx-c o r sl,hject/ow.tMcl-«hait ,et'' * "'"W
as a swusoqucnce x>f Kxinjjt at the intersection between participation with u, - the non-tenexive -C , ^ ilR S ”
eJ,v::onic-inedia on the one hand, and the decline ol an older, private idem it \ untold ftmidri»M|s» ' ^ °n Nvhich \i ^c,)li,’c'U»on N CNV<C,X?
on the other fhe ejectioiik' vunld. which Mcl nhan suggests has retrieve^ being the u l t i n S , ' ' ' ^ «h«,'t T"x'«h ^
noth and siinultanet'O* has also xlisplaeed private persxvnal txlentitv ana
thus xN.isod some of Ihe olvlci tvfvgmphic.-il qualities ol'seriousness. clarity
linearity ami the vahreoffMiWicdiscx'urse,
Map) o/' the results of the tension of this jxiiadov aiv discv'mforting \\0
arc xV'iirted with images \Wf know at some level that we a re being lied to
the adu'iusing ittMgvs that we eonsiime and that much of telex isual inforinu ■a » .. ....... in >C!
itv'ii is v/,voiiiov(unli.~od and fiagmentexf Ue even congratulate ourselves on the message. The ril„K i , Hv,l0'v" (| .. **nVNCI"e.''VM,.. .. ,f'«l of
oui ability to see tho'ugh the hokum o f VR image management. We pnj 0 aiv translated into (J V,lla-w also BcI k
ourselves .m our mental sui'enoiiiv At the same time, our direct and intense bexwmes inibrmation i ' iVs ;',H* '"h'lnviti. \\i '
invWvement with images makx's us vulnerable to its exhortations. ( inliko dis- H I* !,nd Hn " J ' * « **»
cuisive language. images do not make .ugumenis or state propositions; tho\
convey a mood. a feeling. a sense of well or ill-being without a clear cut ,»vn UMranicilh id, J . , vvn.u„| , : Sxx'inc,
,v t iail.ition o f am issues flic image work! is esseniiallv iixmic. Like othci .... * ....r ....................... t
tot ms ol'iron\. imugcs say what they do not entiivh mean. Nobody is •• ">' lwa> I* K-m« 0 * 1 “ ' ^ ' « » Kvn*. . „ ,
obliged to take them liierallv. and this cumics a false sense of detachment It IvsiimMon, wvvrlvl w l ' s * « « * J" «
is a ;\ir.ixlovical form of fvetxx'pfion which can be ideniitied as delachcxi
mu'/ventenl. Images make us think we ate detaehexl when we feel htghb I acanian notion of mix ox, V <lk water of n u, i..n , hv,' SV;U'hei.
inwWved, own. tlm. lu, »»"'«■ <kv n,*,l,„ ^ " hW' - tt.
,'ivnilo, „„ «

Itiimlrillnixl and Mimilarioiiv - ......... . w A r j i ; :

Itnudiitlmxl addresses a similar issue when ho nigues (hai we have Mv'l nlmn exhorts ns to esxittino tin, „i,
Kvx'me fascinated w ill) the inaha ivl'eivntx lo human avalion as an endless as ttttmtr amt .vitwnou which S t J * * » JaVc.™ lu
ttits-iwvjtnjtjon
4h$
4b<)
 B E F O R E AND A F T E R THE L E T T E R : 4PR E, POST MODE * N

Z
comtamly'im pel on ward toward, their transformation. I, -.McLuhan',
homological model that is so central to (he teunstjc °Hhe
/f we apply the tetrad to simulations we can ask some relevant question,
about the’eognitive processes that are te,n« ex‘" <^ ^ ^ ” “^ |hnology If
simulations enhance a discamate existence of intense involvement and iromc
distancing, what do they retrieve? What do sim ulates obsolete? What do
simulations turn into when pushed to an extreme. These q u«fons are to be
viewed as the beginning o f a provisional analysis, many of the ideas gener.
ated will be self-contradictory, but they are a useful aid to the study of ,he
media and its effects.
Enhances: Extension of body, parody, irony, postmodernity,
recombinant style.
Retrieves: Tribal bricolage. Eclecticism
Hips: Erasure of body, makes power structures more transparent,
and intervention more plausible.
Obsolesces: Private identity, the idea of authorship.
/. Simulations enhance the body through extension and duplication, and
transform it into a phantom body. This body is at the same time a parody of
the real body and an ironic restatement of the original.
2. When pushed to an extreme, simulations contribute to the virtual
disappearance of the body through technological colonization and erasure.
3. Simulations make obsolete the distinction between private/public, and
subjecUobject. Simulations militate against the idea of authorship. One of
the interesting effects 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 “original" are a matter of subjective intervention
and affirmation. Simulations shake these very concepts to their foundations.
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. It reclaims a form of tribal
bricolage now associated with aleatory writing, pastiche and parody, and
which we currently subsume under the term “postmodernism.”
5. Simulations enhance the play o f surfaces and styles. Deliberate cultiva­
tion of surface is evident in the “historicism” o f postmodern architecture
which shuffles and staples together shards of distinct historical periods. All
styles are to be recycled. The postmodern style is one that raids and ransacks
the great data bank of art history with increasing playfulness. Simulations
enhance a recombinant approach to creativity.

470
 Mt L U H AK fc HAUD(tl(.I.AKD
6
p h e n o m en o n p re y e d to «* o tre m e (the flip, 1 w nr*ed h » the v>c«l and
political bo d y is c d o n tzed and erased through technolog, O n a „**e
m i '1*0 n o te th e VCT* U chno*°W '■*** permits th n tore* of cowtrol aho
offer* resource* for identifying th e processes through which one technology
in co n ju n ctio n w ith certain social group*, dominate* other* The electronic
e n v iro n m en t by its very nature decenters political power. It m a te , power
stru ctu re* m o re tran sp aren t by giving groups who hold power greater
ex p o su re a n d visibility. If social power can b e identified, and its operations
ex p o sed , it ca n also be challenged and changed, thus making possible new
co llective strategics of political intervention.

Works cited
R audritlard, Jean. Sim ulation. New York. SemiourxUe,, m i ,
M cLuhan. Marshall and Wilfred Watson. From O tdti u> Archetype. New York:

MotoMOBM ati^.'Srinne McLuhan and William Toye Letten of M arM l McLuhan

Toronto. Oxford UP. 1981.

41\