McLuhan Predicts Cellphone: New Yorker magazine, May 5, 1965

Marshall McLuhan’s prominence in the Sixties and early Seventies cannot easily be conceived from the remove of the present day.  The New Yorker magazine issue, May 5, 1965 features “The McLuhan Metaphor,” in the “The Talk of the Town” section. The piece was composed at the same time as the  the New York World’s Fair. 

The New Yorker journalist suggests Marshall McLuhan might be better employed as the Time Capsule for the era rather than using “cultural and technological mementos of twentieth-century man.” McLuhan actually taught us more about what was about to happen in the 21^stcentury.

My family visited the World’s Fair that year. I recall Ford and General Motors lavish futuristic exhibits. The two giant car manufacturers reflect the the mechanical age. —The exhibits imagined an automotive future with Jetsons-esque highways flying in every direction. The dioramas didn't portray gridlock, but you don't focus on the negative at a World's Fair exhibit. But McLuhan envisioned something different, an information age—and a massive change in consciousness.

The New Yorkerauthor describes McLuhan’s lecture at Spencer Memorial Church in Brooklyn and quotes several startling prophecies included in his remarks: 

“(He) predicted a happy day when everyone will have his own portable computer to cope with the dreary business of digesting information” and

“Dr. McLuhan next suggested the possibility of a new technology that would extend consciousness itself into the environment. ‘A kind of computerized ESP,’ he called it, envisioning ‘consciousness as the corporate content of the environment—and eventually maybe even a small portable computer, about the size of a hearing aid, that would process our private experience through the corporate experience, the way dreams do now.’”

McLuhan’s accurately prediction computers the size of cellphones or smaller. Marshall gets points for the accuracy of that alone, but the second insight--consciousness as the new environment-- cuts to the very essence of the present digital era.  McLuhan’s hearing aid- size device anticipates the iPhone pretty closely. Individuals study the phone and share experiences as a corporate entity creating a group consciousness. The posts are exactly as McLuhan described, personal, random thoughts offered in a dreamlike manner. McLuhan perceived the new electronic environment as consciousness— and no better description exists of the modern social network. 

.

The 1965 The New Yorkerwriter notes McLuhan entered the scene as an author, “by three startling books on Western civilization-- The Mechanical Bride, The Gutenberg Galaxy, and most recently Understanding Media, in which he joyfully explores the tribal virtues of popular culture, casts a cynical eye on the ‘classification traditions’ that came in with print and sees near-mythic possibilities in our computer age.” (The New Yorker 1965)

Mcluhan’sUnderstanding Media  examines a different medium in every chapter and chapter 31, titled “Television,” commented on television’s highly participatory nature as a “cool medium.” Television’s language contrasted to “hot media” like print or movies with their tendency for “’spelling out’ of meanings.” (UM 319) Television’s message, conveyed in low density, left much room for participation of the viewer. 

He identified participation as a key differentiating factor between the print media and the electronic media. Print media, based on the visual sense, allowed for detachment and objectivity. Television shifted the audience to a multi-sensory experience, emphasizing the tactile and acoustic, and lead to in-depth engagement.

“Because the low definition of TV insures a high degree of audience involvement, the most effective programs are those that present situations which consist of some process to be completed.” (UM 319)

McLuhan’s predictions for deepened audience engagement following the shift from print media to electronic media cannot be overstated as essential to understanding the electronic environment. The inability of individuals to separate from the social network becomes more apparent by the day. As McLuhan somehow knew-- we have become enslaved.  FOMO or “fear of missing out” is society's most prevalent psychological addiction in 2018.

McLuhan’s notion of new technology working as extensions of the human body had achieved new levels of traction in the electronic era, for if clothing extended the skin, and the wheel extended the legs’ ability to achieve movement, “the computer achieved not merely an extension of our eyes, like print, but an extension of our whole nervous system.”  (New Yorker1965)

-->

Charlie Rose interviews David Letterman

Talk Show Host as Integral Man

David Letterman’s television interview on The Charlie Rose Show on Feb. 16, 1996 begins with Rose introducing Letterman as “a broadcaster’s broadcaster,” putting guest and host in the same category. Interesting to note Charlie Rose introduced Letterman in terms other than a comedian. Yes, Letterman is a broadcaster but the late night talk show hinges on the host's sense of humor. The late night talk show depends entirely on the host. The talk show revolves entirely around the comic sensibility of the host, whether Jack Paar, Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Myers, James Corden or Jimmy Fallon.

Here's the YouTube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IYekI7ldSI

Letterman begins by saying his team reviewed the Steve Allen shows done for Westinghouse as a guide for developing his late night show. 

Rose asks about Johnny Carson. Letterman marvels at Carson’s ease of presentation: “It’s so easy, it’s so smooth, it’s so measured… he’s not breaking a sweat…. It’s just Johnny…”. Letterman pointed to Carson’s skill at bringing the audience into his most minute gesture. TV is the close-up medium: 

“He’s so comfortable. Here was a guy that understood his limitations and stayed within them and exploited that part of his personality to perfection. And I think that was the appeal of the man, night in and night out; it was always going to be Johnny, you could tell if Johnny would raise an eyebrow, oh Johnny’s upset, Johnny laughs, oh Johnny’s happy.” 

Rose presses the issue looking for a more analytical explanation for Carson’s genius. “What was the genius though?” Rose pushed Letterman further to explain the genius of Johnny Carson.  “What made him… that he could do that night after night?” 

Letterman adds little as elaboration, “He never tried to get out of what he was good at—Literally, “Here’s Johnny!” …

Letterman may be evading the question. Perhaps Letterman feels his own humor far exceeds Johnny Carson. If that's the case, I agree with Letterman. His rapier wit may be the best ever seen on the small screen. Rather than criticize Carson, Letterman attributes Johnny's long run of success to his ability to stay within himself.

                                           

Charlie Rose’s vain search for an easy explanation for Johnny Carson’s thirty year run of success highlights an interesting comparison between Charlie Rose, the interviewer, and Johnny Carson and David Letterman, the comedian/late night hosts. Charlie Rose cannot easily understand the comedian.  To use McLuhan's notions-- Charlie Rose embodies a very literate, literary, fragmented, rational style of communication versus the comedian, the integral man, the spontaneous, non-rational, intuitive, comedic style of communication.

Letterman creates Carson’s milieu, describing a minimalist world of television performance where every gesture moves mountains and the face tells everything… “Johnny raises an eyebrow, Johnny smiles…” as his explanation of the Carson magic. Dave Letterman prefaced his remarks by establishing his credentials in a modest manner,  “I know what it takes for me to get through a sixty minute effort each night.” In fact, Letterman is one of the few living humans who can speak knowledgeably about Carson's job description, the late night talk show host/comedian.

Letterman marvels at Carson’s mastery of the art of putting on the audience. The performer, as McLuhan states, must wear the audience, put them on the audience like a suit of clothes. Rose struggles to understand. Charlie Rose is a another breed of broadcaster, a documentarian, a writer of history. 

The comedy host works from the intuitive, right side of the brain. Letterman’s thoughts leap forward in a discontinuous manner, painting a picture in the cubist style without all the connections in place. Charlie Rose, on the other side of the fence, organizes his thoughts, lines them up in a, b, c order, the outlook of the literate man.

Letterman the late night host, the integral man, organic and post-literate in his outlook, responds from another perspective.

The Meaning of Commercial Television (1966)

The Texas-Stanford Seminar (1966)

The Texas-Stanford Seminar on “The Meaning of Commercial Television,” a gathering of television broadcasters was held by the two universities in 1966 with the ambitious goal "to help bring about the general improvement of television.” TV Guide sponsored the conference. Marshall McLuhan was one of the headliners and Stanley Donner, a professor at the University of Texas, documented the seminar for a University of Texas Press publication.  McLuhan, not surprisingly, blew the assembled minds and Stanley Donner does a nice job capturing the process. Donner reviews describes McL’s demeanor and impact on the conference with a nice freshness. The information which follows comes from Donner's work. I’ll quote Donner from here (The Meaning of Commercial Television (1966)-- pages 108-110):

Marshall McLuhan’s unusual views of the electronic media and their effects on society evoked considerable interest among the broadcasters.

The audience was particularly impressed by the concept that our present total environment is invisible and produces a nostalgia for past environments—thus the popularity of Bonanaza and, on a different level, Batman. Final judgment was suspended, although many were persuaded in part by compelling arguments and equally compelling examples from film, radio and television, and from cultural and social changes in current society. The listeners were not sure where total agreement might lead them: what kind of commitment they would be making. Also, there was the suspicion that, although McLuhan’s argument was plausible, there might be some hidden fault in the scheme which could nullify the whole theory.

McLuhan assisted this suspended belief by not requiring any particular action from the audience. In his view whether a person favors or opposes his ideas, or whether his ideas are considered helpful, is completely beside the point. We are in the midst of electronic circuitry where everything happens at once and the influences upon society are inexorable. McLuhan’s concern was the description of electronic circuitry, not its evaluation: and he described with considerable clairvoyance what is taking place in our society at present.

The discussion developed into a further explication of McLuhan’s ideas. He held the position that in the electronic age no one is responsible and he used Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood as an example. This view was disturbing to some in the audience, since its acceptance means that the development of events in time must be denied and it would no longer be possible to maintain a clear relationship between cause and effect in the fixing of guilt.

McLuhan spoke of the possible future of television in the world of electric circuitry. The television would become a work force rather than consumers of programs as is now the case. Problems of any kind could be presented to the audience and possible answers obtained through the use of technology, which is even now in experimental stage.

In response to a question McLuhan described LSD as a dislocation from environment, in a sense a medium. He did not, however, advocate its use.

To a question concerning computers, McLuhan maintained that computers are really a method of discovery. The use of computers to catalogue and categorize does not belong in the world of electric circuitry, but rather to the world of clear relationships of cause and effect of the nineteenth century. McLuhan also dismissed the rating systems and the “numbers game” as belonging to nineteenth-century cataloguing, and thus not truly relevant to television.

To another point McLuhan answered that the only audience participation in television and movies is fantasy. Reality in the old art sense of the term is meaningless in the electric world. Reality of the outside as compared to inside fantasy has disappeared, since the concept of outside and inside no longer exists.

McLuhan Predicts Cellphone (The New Yorker, May 5, 1965)

Marshall McLuhan’s prominence as the world’s foremost intellectual  cannot easily be conceived from the remove of the present day. A piece from “The Talk of the Town” column, at the front end of the The New Yorker magazine issue, May 5, 1965, entitled “The McLuhan Metaphor,” was  composed at the same time as the  the New York World’s Fair. The author mentions the Westinghouse company’s plan to place a Time Capsule for future generations at the World's Fair and suggests McLuhan himself could better serve as a time capsule. 

My family visited the World’s Fair that year. I recall lavish futuristic exhibits sponsored by Ford and General Motors,  two industrial companies representing a mechanical age. Their exhibits imagined an automotive future with Jetsons-style highways flying in every direction. But McLuhan envisioned something different, an information age—and a massive change in consciousness.

The New Yorker author describes McLuhan’s lecture at Spencer Memorial Church in Brooklyn and quotes several startling prophecies included in his remarks:

“(He) predicted a happy day when everyone will have his own portable computer to cope with the dreary business of digesting information” and

“Dr. McLuhan next suggested the possibility of a new technology that would extend consciousness itself into the environment. ‘A kind of computerized ESP,’ he called it, envisioning ‘consciousness as the corporate content of the environment—and eventually maybe even a small portable computer, about the size of a hearing aid, that would process our private experience through the corporate experience, the way dreams do now.’”

McLuhan’s accurate prediction of computers, cellphone-sized and smaller, merits no further explanation but the second insight--consciousness as the new environment-- cuts to the very essence of the digital era.  The hearing aid device anticipates the iPhone or other mobile device. Individuals study the phone and share experiences as a corporate entity creating a group consciousness and posts are exactly as McLuhan described-- personal, random thoughts offered in a dreamlike manner. McLuhan perceived the new electronic environment as consciousness— and no better, more succinct description of the modern social network has ever been offered.

McLuhan’s notion of new technology working as extensions of the human body achieves new levels of traction in the electronic era, for if clothing extended the skin, and the wheel extended the legs’ ability to achieve movement, “the computer achieved not merely an extension of our eyes, like print, but an extension of our whole nervous system.”  (New Yorker 1965)