“The Medium is the Message” or “The Medium is Not the Message”?: A Dialogue

Prelude

In the emergence of digital technology, scholarly research in media studies has significantly expanded and deepened. The recent publication by Portuguese scholar Gustavo Cardoso, entitled Networked Communication: People are the Message (Published by Editora Mundos Sociais), exemplifies contemporary advancements in this field. Two reviewers had the opportunity to engage in reading this piece of work and employed a conversational style to engage in the following conversations.

Ma: Good afternoon, Professor Shan. I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss with you on the Portuguese scholar Gustavo Cardoso's recent publication Networked Communication: People are the Message. Which aspect of this work initially captures your interest?

Shan: Good afternoon, Dr Ma. I recently organized my team to translate Professor Justin O'Connor's book Culture is Not an Industry. Therefore, when I encountered Professor Cardoso's assertion that “the medium is not the message,” I felt a surge of excitement and hope this could provide a new way of thinking in media research. Therefore, I would like to share some personal reflections even if I am not an expert in this particular field.

The medium is not the message?

Ma: In this book, McLuhan emerges as a significant yet absent interlocutor. Professor Cardoso posits that McLuhan embodies technological determinism. The dichotomy between medium and message serves as a pivotal element in Professor Cardoso's critique of McLuhan's framework. Central to his argument is the concept of “mediation,” which effectively repositions the nouns “medium” and “message” into a verb form. Consequently, both the medium and the message are rendered fluid rather than fixed, and are continuously shaped by the process of mediation. The driving force behind this mediation is humanity, which underpins Professor Cardoso's assertion that “people are the message.” Furthermore, the concept of mediation presented in this work is comprehensive; it encompasses not only theoretical frameworks from diverse perspectives but also various social forms within networked society. How do you interpret the statements “the medium is not the message” and “people are the message?”

Shan: I found your perspective compelling. The assertion that “the medium is the message” holds significant relevance not only for media studies but also for the broader field of cultural studies. While McLuhan popularized this statement, it is essential to recognize that modernist artists of the 20^th century had already articulated similar thought within aesthetics and art theory. Modern art, as a form of rebellion against tradition, has evolved from merely representing external objects to the presenting of the medium itself—such as words, colors, lines, and sounds. In this context, modern art can be understood as self-referential.

“The medium is the message” can be more readily interpreted as “the form is the content,” an assertion that resonates strongly with modernist thought. Throughout many of McLuhan's works, it becomes evident that art served as his primary source of inspiration, which is why his media theory is often referred to as “media poetics.” For instance, in his seminal work Understanding Media, he employs cubism as an illustrative example to elucidate the assertion that “the medium is the message.” At the outset of Gutenberg Galaxy, he asserts that he is undertaking a “mosaic” study, one that can only be comprehended from an artistic perspective.

McLuhan's argument was innovative in highlighting the significance of the medium itself, aligning with the broader trend of media proliferation in the 20^th century. Consequently, independent media studies emerged as a distinct field, shifting the focus from information abstracted from a medium to an examination of the medium itself and its relationship with the messages it conveys. Therefore, even without delving into the specific implications of “the medium is the message,” we can appreciate the importance of this assertion.

However, with the rise of media—particularly the pervasive influence of digital media in our daily lives—an understanding of “the medium is the message” that solely emphasizes the importance of form may lead to a concerned phenomenon, that is, potentially resulting in a neglect of communicational content. In contemporary society, we often prioritize marketing, storytelling, and rhetoric over the fundamental essence of communicative actions. For instance, some companies invest more resources in advertising than in product quality, fostering an extreme perspective that “the medium is everything.” In this regard, I contend that “the medium is not the message” is not only a valid assertion but also essential for reminding us that McLuhan's view should not be interpreted as suggesting that “content is unimportant.” Clearly, a television devoid of programming cannot exert any impact as a medium; similarly, a computer lacking software functions merely as an ineffective machine. Therefore, “the medium is not the message” can be seen as constituting a bipolar framework alongside “the medium is the message”—these polarized views provide necessary insights into the understanding of our current communicational crisis. I propose that we synthesize these two scholars’ arguments to articulate their relationships: the medium transmits messages; while the medium is distinct from the messages transmitted by itself; and finally, the medium itself serves as a message.

Communicational crisis

Ma: You just mentioned “communicational crisis,” and in this book, Professor Cardoso dedicates an entire chapter to addressing this issue. I was particularly impressed by a series of novel concepts he introduced, such as augmented experience, communicational capitalism, and communicational populism. These concepts are grounded in the emergence of new phenomena within the context of a transforming networked society. Drawing on numerous empirical examples, Professor Cardoso delineates three fundamental dimensions of networked communication that are distinctive: (a) communicative syncretism, (b) multiform mediation, and (c) individualized switching of message flows. He further posits that the central role of networked communication is termed “communication of communication,” which refers to practices that facilitate the interconnection and switching of messages across various forms of communication.

It is evident that the essence of this idea lies in the transition from “communication” to “communication of communication.” Do you concur with this perspective? How do you interpret this shift and its implications for the resulting communicational crisis?

Shan: The concepts presented in the book you referenced are highly insightful. In the chapter titled “Communicational Crisis,” the opening assertion that “crisis is synonymous with rupture, but also with change” made a profound impression on me.

Throughout cultural history, numerous significant scholars, thinkers, and artists have remained largely unknown or overlooked during their lifetimes—Vincent van Gogh being a well-known example. These individuals often obtain the recognition, value, and status they deserve—or sometimes an exaggerated form of it—only through the retroactive construction of tradition and history by subsequent generations. Such cultural figures can be viewed as transcending their own times, embodying a distinct rupture from the era in which they lived; this phenomenon can be described as a “communicational dilemma.” By analyzing and studying this dilemma, we can develop a broader understanding of the characteristics inherent to specific historical periods.

Let us return to the current “communicational crisis.” I believe the term “crisis” is particularly adequate, as nearly everything and every participant in today's society is interconnected or mediated. This results in a paradox where, on one hand, media has become omnipresent, while on the other hand, genuine individual communication has become exceedingly challenging. Individuals have experienced varying degrees of powerlessness in their communicational behaviors, and this condition can no longer be adequately described merely as a “dilemma.” It can be asserted that the “communicational crisis” represents a defining characteristic of networked society.

Gustavo Cardoso (2023) characterizes networked communication as “communication of communication,” noting that the distinction between “communication” and “communication of communication” is articulated through the concepts of “unmediated” and “mediated.” In other words, the primary characteristic of networked society is this “communication of communication,” which is predominantly mediated; I interpret this as indicative of what can be termed “indirect communication.”

However, a pertinent question arises: does “unmediated communication” truly exist? According to the definitions provided in the book, face-to-face conversation between individuals is classified as “unmediated communication.” However, the very possibility of our communication is fundamentally rooted in the fact that it is mediated by language, which does not belong exclusively to either of us. In our interactions, whether consciously or unconsciously, the discourse of others has already permeated our communication. This idea has been extensively elaborated upon by Saussure, Wittgenstein, and Derrida. Therefore, whether “unmediated communication” truly exists remains a question warranting further investigation. If such communication does not exist, it may be worthwhile to consider substituting “unmediated” and “mediated” in the book with “mediated” and “trans-mediated,” respectively. The former emphasizes engagement within a specific medium, while the latter highlights interaction among various media. The prefix “trans-” can also imply an active role for individuals as participants. This is merely an idea that occurred to me during my reading of the book; I present it here in hopes of fostering discussion among all of you.

Let us return to our current context. The communicational crisis within the networked society, as Professor Cardoso has asserted, is systematically shaping a new mediated culture. This aligns with McLuhan's assertion that the modes of communication prevalent in a given era—such as oral, print, and electronic—constitute the frameworks and logics through which individuals perceive and comprehend reality.

Mediated culture

Ma: You raised the issue of mediated culture, which is also a matter addressed in Chapter 3 of this book. Cultures such as open production culture and cloud access culture involved in this chapter are undoubtedly events taking place in our present time, and they are transforming our lifestyles and modes of thinking. As a highly experienced scholar of cultural studies like you, could you, in conjunction with this book, briefly discuss whether the culture of Chinese mainland is also undergoing such changes?

Shan: let me further elaborate on the communicational crisis previously mentioned first. Professor Cardoso posits that crisis is synonymous with change, and this assertion holds true. As he noted, mediated culture has significantly enhanced individuals’ agency, representing a profound transformation brought about by the networked society for all of us. Anyone who wishes can express themselves through various media, which constitutes a positive aspect of mediated culture. However, as discussed in the book, communicational populism presents a challenge faced by all regions with developed internet environments, and China is no exception.

In my observation, as traditional mass communication declines, mediated culture has exhibited a certain diversity; however, moderate neutrality is increasingly unpopular in the networked environment, leading to a transformation of this diversity into polarized forms. For individuals, the most profound change resulting from this polarization is that it externally shapes a performative identity influenced by others. Internally, it appears that we have expressed much yet conveyed little of substance, and the ensuing sense of emptiness serves as a symptom of meaning loss.

How to address such a crisis, in my view, is a significant topic that warrants further in-depth research. Ultimately, questions regarding the authenticity of messages, the necessity of communication, and the content we wish to convey can only be answered by each individual. This understanding arises when one knows what they want and can express themselves honestly. As long as our expressions remain mediated, our responses to these questions cannot be deemed fully authentic. Moreover, there is no absolute authority that can legitimately claim the right to dictate what we should or should not say. In this context, the assertion that “people are the message” holds considerable importance. The critical question then becomes: where are the people?

Ma: Thank you, Professor Shan. We will conclude our discussion here for the time being and hope to continue exploring more specific aspects of the book in the near future.

Shan: Certainly. I believe this book is exceptional, and engaging in ongoing discussions about it is both enjoyable and essential.