McLuhan's oft-cited maxim ‘the medium is the message’ is examined and it is argued that, although McLuhan can be read as a technological determinist, it is also possible to interpret ‘the medium is the message’ from within the context of a social constructivist understanding of technology, which sees society and technology as mutually shaping phenomena. Inherent to such a reading of McLuhan is an understanding of technology as the output of social processes, in which humans have agency. These themes are addressed through a review of scholarship that suggests that McLuhan is a technological determinist. an examination of McLuhan's work and those who challenge the dominant understanding of McLuhan as technological determinist. Previous research about the use of computer networks by women is used to illustrates how McLuhan can be read as a social constructivist. It is argued that communication scholarship might benefit from reliance on a broader understanding of technology and society that draws more heavily on insights gained form the social studies of technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderC.1974, ‘Major Changes in Environmental Form Required by Social and Psychological Demands’, in BlowersA.HammettC.SarreP.I. (eds), The Future of Cities. Hutchison, London.
2.
BalkaE.1991, Womentalk Goes On-line: The Use of Computer Networks in the Context of Feminist Social change, unpublished PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
3.
BalkaE.1993, ‘Women's Access to On-line Discussions about Feminism’, Journal of Communication. vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 66–84.
4.
BalkaE.1997, Computer Networking: Spinsters on the Web, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, Ottawa.
5.
BalkaE. in press, ‘Recipe for new directions in communications research: Take one feminist, add an interest in the social aspects of computing and shake; finally, stir with communications as an area of study and serve’, Australia and New Zealand Communications Association, The Australian Journal of Communication.
6.
BenstonM.1988, ‘Women's Voices/Men's Voices: Technology as Language’, in KramaraeC. (ed). Technology and Women's Voices: Keeping in Touch, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
7.
BushC.G.1983, ‘Women and the Assessment of Technology: To Think, to Be; to Unthink, to Free’, in RothschildJ. (ed.), Machina Ex Dea: Feminist Perspectives on Technology, Pergamon, New York.
8.
CareyJ.1968, ‘Harold Adams Innis and Marshall McLuhan’, in RosenthalR.B. (ed.), McLuhan: Pro and Con, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
9.
CareyJ.1970, ‘The Electronic Mythos’, The American Scholar, Spring and Summer.
10.
CareyJ.1981, ‘McLuhan and Murnford: The Roots of Modern Media Analysis’, Journal of Communication ‘The Living McLuhan.’
11.
CareyJ.1998, ‘Marshall McLuhan: Genealogy and Legacy’, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 293–306.
12.
DeMott1966, ‘Against McLuhan’, in CastyA. (ed.). Mass Media and Mass Man, vol. I, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
13.
DicksonD.1974, Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change, Fontana, London.
14.
EllulJ.1967, The Technological Society, trans. WilkinsonJ., Knopf, New York.
15.
FeketeJ.1977, The Critical Twilight: Exploration in the Ideology of Anglo-American Literary Theory from Eliot to McLuhan, Routledge, London.
16.
FergusonM.1991, ‘Marshall McLuhan Revisited: 1960s Zeitgeist: Victim or Pioneer Postmodernist?’Media, Culture and Society, vol. 13, pp. 71–90.
17.
FranklinU.1990, The Real World of Technology, CBC Massey Lectures, CBC Enterprises. Toronto.
18.
GordonW.T.1997, Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding, Stoddart, Toronto.
19.
HeyerP.1988, Communications and History: Theories of Media, Knowledge, and Civilization. Greenwood, Connecticut.
20.
HeyerP.1989, ‘Probing a Legacy: McLuhan's Communications/History 25 Years After’, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 14, nos 4/5, pp. 30–45.
21.
JamesonF.1981, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Art, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
22.
JeffreyL.1989, ‘The Heat and the Light: Towards a Reassessment of the Contribution of H. Marshall McLuhan’, Canadian Journal of Communicationvol. 14, nos 4/5, pp. 1–29.
23.
JonesP.1998, ‘The Technology is Not the Cultural Form? Raymond Williams' Sociological Critique of Marshall McLuhan’, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 423–54.
24.
KatzR.KatzE.1998, ‘McLuhan: Where Did He Come From, Where Did He Disappear?’, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 307–19.
25.
KrokerA.1987, Technology and the Canadian Mind: Innis/McLuhan/Grant, New World Perspectives, Montreal.
26.
KuhnsW.1971, The Post-industrial Prophets: Interpretations of Technology, Harper & Row, New York.
27.
MartinR.1995, ‘On Becoming Internetted’, Queen's Quarterly, no. 104, pp. 877–91.
28.
MarxK.1975, ‘A Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, in Early Writings, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
29.
McLuhanE.ZingroneF. (eds) 1995, Essential McLuhan, House of Anasi Press Limited, Ontario.
30.
McLuhanH.M.1964, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McGraw Hill, New York.
31.
McLuhanH.M.1988, Laws of Media: The New Science, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
32.
MolinaroM.McLuhanC.ToyeW. (eds) 1987Letters of Marshall McLuhan, Oxford University Press, Toronto.
33.
PrecodaK.1996, ‘From New Criticism to Cultural Pluralism: The Southern Legacy of Marshall McLuhan’, Mosaic, no. 29, pp. 1–14.
34.
RosenthalR.B. (ed.) 1968, McLuhan: Pro and Con, Funk & Wagnalls, New York.
35.
SlackJ.1984, Communication Technologies and Society: Conceptions of Causality and the Politics of Technological Intervention. Ablex Pub. Corp., Norwood, N.J.
