WK 5 Carey On Mcluhan and Innis 1967 Antioch Review

Harold Adams Innis and Marshall McLuhan
Author(s): James W. Carey

Source: The Antioch Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), pp. 5-39
Published by: Antioch Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4610816 .
Accessed: 19/10/2011 21:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Antioch Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Antioch Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Harold Adams Innis and
Marshall McLuhan
By JAMES W. CAREY
U Commentingon the abstruseand controversialscholarshipof

HaroldInnis and MarshallMcLuhanis a ratheraudaciousand per-
haps impertinentundertaking.It is also a thanklesstask.McLuhan
has often arguedthat the attemptto analyze,classify,and criticize
scholarship-theintentof my paper-is not only illegitimate;it also
representsthe dead hand of an obsoletetraditionof scholarship.I
am sensitiveto treadingforbiddenwatersin this paper.But I am
contentto let historyor somethingelse be the judge of what is the
properor only methodof scholarship, as I at leastam uncomfortable
pronouncingon such weighty matters.
Despite the dangers in scrutinizingthe work of Innis and
McLuhan,I think studentsof the historyof mass communication
mustassumethe risksof analysis.Innisand McLuhan,aloneamong
studentsof human society,make the history of the mass media
centralto the historyof civilizationat large.Both see the medianot
merelyas technicalappurtenances to societybut as crucialdetermi-
nants of the socialfabric.For them, the historyof the mass media
is not just anotheravenueof historicalresearch;ratherit is another
way of writing the history of Western civilization. Innis and
McLuhando not so much describehistoryas presenta theory of
historyor,lessgrandiloquendy, a theoryof socialchangein the West.
It is a theorywhich anchorssocialchangein the transformations in
JAMES W. CAREYis an AssistantProfessorof Journalismand also a Research

AssistantProfessorin the Institute of CommunicationsResearchat the Uni-
versity of Illinois. His researchand writing concern propaganda,television,
and popularculture.
5
6 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW
the media of communicationon which this civilizationhas been

progressivelydependent.Therefore,an assessmentof the meaning
and reasonableness of the positionsthey representseems to me to
be a principaltaskfor studentsof the historyof masscommunication.
of Innis
In this paper,I would like to suggestan interpretation
and McLuhanand to comparethe kindsof argumentsthey offeron
the role of the massmediain socialchange.Second,I want to offer
a criticalcommentaryof their positions,principallydirectedat the
relativemeritsof their argumentsin organizingthe historicalma-
terial in question.Finally, I want to recommenda directionfor
futureresearchon the roleof the mediain socialchangeand to offer
some reflectionson the socialmeaningof the scholarshipof Harold
Innis and MarshallMcLuhan.
HaroldAdams Innis was a Canadianeconomistand historian

who devotedmost of his scholarlylife to producingmarvelously
detailedstudies of Canadianindustries-the fur trading industry,
the cod fisheries,the CanadianPacificRailway,for example.During
the last decadeof his life (Innis died in 1952), he undertookan ex-
tensiveanalysisof all formsof humancommunicationand produced
two majorworks-The Bias of Communicationand Empire and
Communications-and two importantcollectionsof essays,Chang-
ing Conceptsof Time andPoliticalEconomyand the ModernState.
His interestin communicationswas not, however,independentof
his concernsfor economichistory.Rather,the formergrew out of
the latter.In his studiesof the economichistoryof Canada,Innis
was confrontedby two importantquestions: (I) What are the
underlyingcausesof changein socialorganization,definedbroadly
to include both cultureand social institutions?(2) What are the
conditionswhich promotestabilityin any society? Stabilityhere is
definedas both the capacityto adaptto changingrealitiesin politics
and the economyand also as the capacityto preservethe integrity
of culture,the continuityof attitude,sentiment,and moralityupon
which civilizationis based.Further,Innis wanted to answerthose
questionsin a mannerthat would capturenot only the majorcur-
rents of history in the West but also the eddies and tributaries,
streamsand backwatersof socialchange.1
1The literarystyle adoptedby Innis to convey the complexityof social change

INNIS AND McLUHAN 7
Innis felt that the answerto his first question-the questionof

the sourceof socialchange-was to be found in technologicalinno-
vation.He was, like McLuhan,a technologicaldeterminist,though
unlikeMcLuhana rathersoft determinist.Innisand McLuhanagree
thatwhile therearevariouskindsof technology-military,industrial,
administrative-thesetechnologieswere not equal in their impact
on societyor in theirontologicalstatus.For Innis,the technologyof
communicationwas centralto all other technology.He does not
make at all clearwhy this shouldbe so. However,let me make this
suggestion.There are presumablytwo reasonsfor the centralityof
communicationstechnology-one logical, one historical.Innis as-
sumes that man standsin a unique, symbioticrelationshipto his
technology.In McLuhan'sphrase,technologyis literallyan extension
of man, as the ax is an extensionof the hand,the wheel of the foot.
Most instrumentsare attemptsto extend man'sphysicalcapacity,a
capacitysharedwith otheranimals.Communications technology,on
the otherhand,is an extensionof thought,of consciousness, of man's
unique perceptualcapacities.Thus communicationmedia, broadly
used to include all modes of symbolicrepresentation, are literally
extensionsof mind.
Innis also suggeststhat historicallyfundamentalbreakthroughs
in technologyarefirstappliedto the processof communication. The
age of mechanicswas usheredin by the printingpress,the age of
electronicsby the telegraph.The explanationfor this historicalfact
Innis derivedfrom a conceptionof societybasedupon a model of
is a principalbarrierto any adequateunderstandingof his work. He amasses

on each page such an enormousbody of fact, fact rarelysummarizedor gener-
alized, that one becomesquickly lost in the thicketof data. Further,Innis dis-
dains the conventionsof written book scholarship; indeed, he attempts to
break out of what he takes to be these limiting conventionsby presentingan
apparentlydisconnectedkaleidoscopeof fact and observation.He avoids argu-
ing in a precise,serial order and instead,like the proprietorof a psychedelic
delicatessen,flashesonto the page historicevents widely separatedin spaceand
time. With such a method, he attemptsto capture both the complexitiesof
social existenceand its multidimensionalchange. Nowhere does he presentan
orderly,systematicargument (except perhapsin the first and last chaptersof
Empireand Communications)dependingratheron the readerto imposeorder,
to capturenot merelythe fact of historybut a vision of the dynamicsof historic
change.
competitionappropriated from economicsand extendedto all social

institutions.And in this competitivemodel, competitionfor new
means of communicationwas a principalaxis of the competitive
struggle.Innis arguedthat the availablemedia of communication
influencevery strongly the forms of social organizationthat are
possible.The mediathus influencethe kinds of humanassociations
that can developin any period.Becausethesepatternsof association
are not independentof the knowledgemen have of themselvesand
others-indeed, consciousness is built on these associations-control
of communicationsimpliescontrolof both consciousnessand social
organization.Thus,whenevera mediumof communicationand the
groupswhich controlthe mediahave a hegemonyin society,Innis
assumesthat a principalaxis of competitionwill be the searchfor
competingmedia of communication.New media are designedto
undercutexistingcentersof powerand to facilitatethe creationof
new patternsof associationand the articulationof new forms of
knowledge.I will returnto this point later.Let me only note now
thatInnisassumedthatdisenfranchised groupsin societywould lead
the searchfor new forms of technologyin seekingto competefor
someform of socialpower.
The bulk of Innis'work was devotedto analyzingthe kinds of
controlinherentin communicationsmedia.He considered,as near
as one can tell, all forms of communicationfrom speechthrough
printing,includingwhat he took to be the four dominantpre-print-
ing media-clay, papyrus,parchment,and paper.With eachof these
mediahe also consideredthe typesof scriptemployedand the kinds
of writing instrumentsused. Innis argued that variousstages of
Westerncivilizationcould be characterizedby the dominanceof
a particularmediumof communication.The mediumhad a deter-
mnate influenceon the form of social organizationtypicalof the
stage of societyand on the characterof the cultureof that stage.
Further,the successionof stagesin Westerncivilizationcould be
seen in terms of a competitionbetweenmedia of communication
for dominance.The resultsof this competitionamong media pro-
gressivelytransformedthe characterof social institutionsand the
natureof culture.
I thinkit importantto note Innis'emphasison bothcultureand
social organization.He was concernednot only with the ways in
which cultureand institutionswere interrelatedbut also the sense
INNIS AND McLUHAN 9
in which they were both epiphenomenaof communicationstech-

nology.Usuallythe socialhistoryof the West takeseitherthe route
of August Comte, emphasizingthe progressivetransformationof
culturefrom the theologicalto the metaphysicalto the positivistic,
or the routetakenby LewisMumford,emphasizingthe transforma-
dionsin socialorganizationfrom the tribe to the town to the city.
Innis,however,attemptsto marrythesetwo traditionsinto a unified
view of socialchange.Moreover,he attacheschangesin both social
organizationand cultureto changesin the technologyof communi-
cation.The generalityof Innis' argumentis seldom recognized,I
think, becauseof a failureto appreciatethe meaningof the phrase
"thebiasof communication" and the dualsensein which he defines
his two principalvariables,spaceand time.
Innisarguesthatany given mediumof communicationis biased
in termsof the controlof time or space.Mediawhich are durable
and difficultto transport-parchment,clay, and stone-are time-
bindingor time-biased.Mediawhich are light and less durableare
space-bindingor spatiallybiased.For example,paperand papyrus
are space-binding,for they are light, easily transportable, can be
moved acrossspacewith reasonablespeed and great accuracy,and
they thusfavoradministration over vastdistance.
Any givenmediumwill biassocialorganization,for it will favor
the growth of certainkinds of interestsand institutionsat the ex-
penseof othersand will also imposeon theseinstitutionsa form of
organization.Mediawhich are space-bindingfacilitateand encour-
age the growthof empire,encouragea concernwith expansionand
with the present,and thus favor the hegemonyof secularpolitical
authority.Space-bindingmedia encouragethe growth of the state,
the military,and decentralizedand expansionistinstitutions. Time-
bindingmediafosterconcernwith historyand tradition,have little
capacityfor expansionof secularauthority,andthusfavorthe growth
of religion,of hierarchicalorganization,and of contractionistinsti-
tutions.The hegemonyof eitherreligionor the stateimposesa char-
acteristicpatternon all secondaryinstitutions,suchas education,and
also leads to a searchfor competing,alternativemodes of commu-
nicationto undercutthis hegemony.Thus, the dynamicof social
changeresidedin the searchfor alternativeformsof communication
alternatelysupportingthe kingdomof God or man.
At the level of socialstructure,a time bias meantan emphasis
Io THE ANTIOCH REVIEW
upon religion, heirarchy,and contraction,whereas a space bias

meantan emphasisupon the state,decentralization, and expansion.
But the terms"time"and "space"also had a culturalmeaning.
In culturalterms,time meantthe sacred,the moral,the histori-
cal; spacethe presentand the future,the technicaland the secular.
As mediaof communicationfavoredthe growthof certainkinds of
institutions,it also assuredthe dominationof the culturecharacter-
isticof thoseinstitutions.On the culturallevel,his principalcontrast
was betweenthe oral and writtentraditions.Let me try to develop
the contrast.
Although speechis not the only means of communicationin
traditionalsocieties,it certainlyis the principalmeans.Traditional
societiesareorganizedin termsof, or areat leastseverelyconstrained
by, certainfeaturesof speech.For example,spoken languagecan
traverseonly relativelyshortdistanceswithoutbeing alteredand dis-
torted,giving rise to dialects.Speechnot only movesover shortdis-
tancesbut travelsslowly comparedwith other meansof communi-
cation.Speechalso has a low capacityfor storage; there is no way
of preservinginformationexceptby storingit in the memoriesof
individualsor by symbolizingit in some materialform. Life in
traditionalsocietiesmust be collective,communal,and celebrative
as the mediumof communicationrequiresit to be.
Innisarguesthatspeechencouragesthe developmentof a society
with a strongtemporalbias,a societywhich focuseson the pastand
which emphasizestradition,whichattemptsto conserveand preserve
the existingstockof knowledgeand values.Such societiesare likely
to have limited conceptionsof space,conceptionsrestrictedto the
village or geographicalarea currentlyoccupiedby the tribe.Space
beyondthat is investedwith magicalqualities,frequentlybeing the
home of the gods; for example,cargo cults. While the mind of
primitiveman can traverseextraordinary reachesof time, it is radi-
cally limitedin traversingspace.The hegemonyof speechis likely
to also lead to magical beliefs in language.Words becomeicons,
they do not representthings,they are themselvesthings. The care,
nurture,and preservation of languageis likely to occupymuch col-
lectiveenergyof the society.
Oral cultures,then, are time-bindingcultures.They have con-
sequentlya limited capacityfor technicalchange.The imbalance
towardtimerootedin the availablemeansof communication empha-
INNIS AND McLUHAN II
sizes the cohesionof peoplein the presentby their "remembrances

of thingspast."With mediasuchas speech,Innisassociatedtradition,
of magic and religion.
the sacred,and the institutionalization
Speechas the dominantmode of communicationgave rise to
an oral tradition,a traditionthat Innis not only describedbut ad-
mired.By an oraltraditionInnismeanta "selectionfrom the history
of a peopleof a seriesof relatedevents,culturallydefinedas signifi-
cant, and their transmissionfrom generationto generation."The
recitationof artisticworks within the oral traditionwas a social
ceremonywhich linked audiencesto the past and celebratedtheir
socialcohesionin the present.While individualperformerswould
modify an oral traditionto make it more servicablein presentcir-
cumstances,they began with the traditionand thus becameindis-
solublylinked to it.
Furthermore,the oral traditionwas flexible and persistent.
Linked as it was to the collectiveand communallife of a people,
built into their linguistichabitsand modes of symbolicexpression,
the oraltraditionwas difficultto destroy.Throughendlessrepetition
an oral tradition"createdrecognizedstandardsand lasting moral
and social institutions;it built up the soul of social organization
and maintainedtheir continuity...."
Oraltraditionsand time-bindingmedialed to the growth of a
cultureorientedtoward a sacredtradition,which built consensus
on the sharingof mutuallyaffirmedand celebratedattitudesand
values,and placed moralsand metaphysicsat the centerof civili-
zation.
Written traditions,in general,led to quite differentcultures.
They wereusuallyspace-binding andfavoredthe growthof political
authorityand secularinstitutionsand a cultureappropriate to them.
Let me warn you that Innis did not admireoral culturesand dero-
gate writtenones.Someof his languagecouldeasilylead one to that
conclusion,but,as I hopeto show,thatwas decidedlynot the case.
Writtentraditionsandtheirappropriate culturegroundrelations
amongmen not on traditionbut on attachmentto secularauthority.
Rather than emphasizingthe temporalrelationsamong kinship,
writtentraditionemphasizesspatialrelations.Ratherthan empha-
sizing the past,it emphasizesthe presentand the future,particularly
the futureof empire.Ratherthanemphasizingknowledgegrounded
in moral order, it emphasizesthe technicalorder and favorsthe
growth of scienceand technicalknowledge.Whereasthe character
of storageand receptionof the oral traditionfavor continuityover
time, the writtentraditionfavorsdiscontinuityin time though con-
tinuity over space.
What Innisrecognizedwas the hostilitythat seemedinevitably
to developbetweenthe writtenandthe oraltradition.The innovation
of writing would first lead to a recordingof the oral tradition.It
wouldthusfreezeit andmakeit of interestto subsequentgenerations
largelyfor antiquarianreasons.The writtentradition,afterits initial
contactwith the oral,would go its own way. It would favorchange
andinnovationandprogressiveattenuationfromthe pastas a residue
of knowledge,values,and sentiment.The hostilitybetween these
traditionsand betweentime-bindingand space-bindingmedia gen-
erallyled to the creationof a monopolyof knowledge.He used the
term monopolyin a straightforward economicsense.Very simply,
Innis contendedthat the cultureof the favoredinstitutionwould
infiltrateeveryaspectof sociallife and ultimatelydriveout, define
as illegitimate,or radicallytransformcompetingtraditions.Only
knowledgethat conformedto the concernsand culturalpredisposi-
tionsof the dominantmediumwould persist.In a writtentradition,
knowledgemust be technical,secular,and future-oriented for it to
be definedas legitimateor recognizedas valid.
By now it should be obviousthat Innis definedas the central
problemof socialscienceand socialchangethe sameproblemwhich
was the focus of Max Weber'swork: the problemof authority.
Innis wantedto know what, in general,determinesthe locationof
ultimateauthorityin a societyandwhatwill be recognizdas authori-
tativeknowledge.His answerwas this: That media of communi-
cation,dependingon theirbias,confermonopoliesof authorityand
knowledgeon the state, the technicalorder, and civil law or on
religion,the sacredorder,and morallaw.2
2lnnis was interestedin all forms of monopoliesof knowledge. In his teach-

ing he was interestedin the tendencyof social science researchto become fo-
cused aroundone man-a Keynes,Marx,or Freud-or one narrowattitudeof
speculation.He himself preferredan open and vigorous competitionof view-
points and felt that the reliance of Western educationon the book severely
reduced the possibilityof vigorous debate and discourse in education. See
Donald Creighton,Harold Adams Innis, Portraitof a Scholar(Toronto: Uni-
versityof TorontoPress,I957).
INNIS AND McLUHAN I3
Innis believed that an overemphasisor monopoly of either

time or space,religionor the state,the moralor the technical,was
the principaldynamicof the riseandfall of empire.Time and space
were thus relatedas conjugantvariablesin which the progressive
presenceof one led to the progressiveabsenceof the other.The bias
towardtime or spaceproducedinstabilityin society.A stablesociety
was possibleonly with the developmentof mechanismsthat pre-
servedbothtemporaland spatialorientations,that preservedcompe-
tition betweenreligionand the state,and that preservedindepend-
ence and tensionbetweenthe moraland the technical.In The Bias
of CommunicationInnis commentedthat
in westerncivilizationa stablesociety is dependenton an appreciationof
a properbalancebetweenthe conceptsof spaceand time. We are concerned
with controlover vast areas of space but also over vast stretchesof time.
We must appraisecivilizationin relationto its territoryand in relationto
its duration. The characterof the medium of communicationtends to
createa bias in civilizationfavorableto an overemphasison the time con-
cept or on the spaceconceptand only at rareintervalsare the biasesoffset
by the influenceof anothermedium and stabilityachieved.
ClassicalGreecewas such a rareinterval.The relativeisolation

of Greecefrom the older civilizationsof Egypt and the Near East
enabledher to developan oral tradition.The writtentraditionwas
slowly introducedinto Greecefrom theseneighboringcultures,but
it did not destroythe oral tradition.The traditionwas committed
to writing,but the oraltraditioncontinuedto flourish.For example,
the dialogueremainedthe principalinstrumentof Greekculture,and
an oral literatureconstitutedthe commonmoralconsciousness. The
written traditionwith its spatialemphasisencouragedthe growth
of politicalauthorityand allowedGreeceto deal with problemsof
administration.Eventually,writing triumphedover the oral tradi-
tion in the latterpartof the fifth centryB.C., andthe spatialbiasgave
rise to a divisiveindividualism.
Generalizingfrom the experienceof classicalGreece, Innis
arguedthat a healthysocietyrequirescompetitionnot only in the
marketplacebut also in ideas,traditions,and institutions.Typically,
mediafavorthe developmentof culturaland institutionalmonopo-
lies. Unlessmediafavoringtime and spaceexist as independenttra-
ditionsoffsettingand checkingthe biasesof one another,the society
will be dominatedby a narrowmonopoly.In such biased states,

politicsbecomessacralizedor religion secularized;sciencedestroys
moralityor moralityemasculatesscience; traditiongivesway to the
notionof progressor chronicchangeobliteratestradition.
The historyof the modernWest, Innis argues,is the historyof
a bias of communicationand a monopolyof knowledgefounded
on print.In one of his most quotedstatements,Innis characterized
modernWesternhistoryas beginningwith temporalorganization
and ending with spatialorganization.The introductionof printing
attackedthe temporalmonopolyof the medievalchurch.Printing
fosteredthe growth of nationalismand empire; it favoredthe ex-
tensionof societyin space.It encouragedthe growthof bureaucracy
and militarism,science and secularauthority.Printing infiltrated
all institutions,being the majorforce in creatingwhat is currently
celebratedas "the secularsociety."Not only did print destroythe
oral traditionbut it also droveundergroundthe principalconcerns
of the oral tradition-morals,values,and metaphysics.While print
did not destroyreligion,it did, as Max Weberhas argued,transform
religionto meet the needsof the stateand economy.Ultimately,the
obsessionwith space,with the nation,with the moment,exposedthe
relativityof all valuesand led Westerncivilization,in Innis'eyes,to
the brinkof nihilism.The deathof the oral tradition,the demiseof
concernwith time,not only shiftedthe sourceof authorityfrom the
church to the state and of ultimate knowledge from religion to
science;it alsoinsistedon a transformation of religiousconcernsand
languagefromthe theologicalandsacredto the politicaland secular.
Innis viewed the rampaging nationalismof the twentieth
centurywith angerand anguish,attitudesnot untypicalof contem-
poraryintellectuals.But his emotion-chargedwriting should not
obscurehis centralargument.The primaryeffectof changesin com-
municationmediais on the form of socialorganizationthat can be
supported.Social organizationproduces a characteristicculture
which constitutesthe predispositions of individuals.The centrality
of communicationmediato both cultureand socialstructureimplies
that the principalaxis of change,of the rise and fall of empire,will
be alternationsin the technologiesof communcationupon which
societyis principallyreliant.
There are many similaritiesbetweenthe thought of Innis and

that of MarshallMcLuhan.Although I do not intend to obscure
those similarities,I would like to emphasize,at least in this paper,
some significantpoints of difference.The questionI am asking is
this: What is absolutelycentralto Innis' argumentand how does
it comparewith the centralnotion in McLuhan'swork? Although
McLuhanhas occasionallycharacterizedhis work as an extension
of Innis', I want to suggest that McLuhanhas taken a relatively
minor but recurringtheme of Innis'work (perhapsonly a sugges-
tion) and made it central to his entire argument. Conversely,
McLuhanhasneglectedor ignoredthe principalargumentdeveloped
by Innis.
Both Innis and McLuhanagree that historically"the things
on which words were written down count more than the words
themselves";that is, the mediumis the message.Startingfrom this
proposition,theyengagein quitedifferentkindsof intellectualbook-
keeping,however,and are seizedby quite differentkinds of impli-
cations.
Both McLuhanand Innis assumethe centralityof communica-
tion technology;wheretheydifferis in the principalkindsof effects
they see derivingfrom this technology.WhereasInnis seescommu-
nication technologyprincipallyaffecting social organizationand
culture,McLuhansees its principaleffect on sensoryorganization
and thought. McLuhanhas much to say about perceptionand
thoughtbut little to say aboutinstitutions;Innis says much about
institutionsand little aboutperceptionand thought.
While McLuhanis intellectuallylinked to Innis,I think he can
be more clearlyand usefullytied to a line of speculationin socio-
linguisticsusuallyreferredto as the Sapir-Whorfhypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorfhypothesisproposes that the language a
speakeruses has a determininginfluenceon the characterof his
thought. While it is a truism that men think with and through
language,EdwardSapir and BenjaminLee Whorf proposedthat
the very structureof reality-if I may use that grandioseand over-
workedphrase-is presentedto individualsthroughlanguage.When
a personacquiresa languagehe not only acquiresa way of talking
but also a way of seeing,a way of organizingexperience,a way of
discriminatingthe real world.Language,so the argumentgoes, has
i6 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW
built into its grammarand lexiconthe very structureof perception.

Individualsdiscriminate objectsandeventsin termsof the vocabulary
providedby language.Further,individualsderivetheirsenseof time,
theirpatternsof classifications,
theircategoriesfor persons,theirper-
in
ceptionof action, termsof the tenses,the genders,the pronouns,
the pluralizations thatarepossiblein theirlanguage.This argument,
then, largelyreducesthe structureof perceptionand thoughtto the
structureof language.
McLuhanadoptsthe form of argumentprovidedby the Sapir-
Whorfhypothesiswith two importantmodifications. First,he adopts
a quite unorthodoxcharacterization of the grammarof a language.
Second,he extendsthe "grammatical analysis"to modesof commu-
nicationsuchas printand televisionwhich are normallynot treated
as typesof languages.
McLuhandoesnot view the grammarof a mediumin termsof
the formalpropertiesof language,the partsof speechor morphemes,
normallyutilized in such an analysis.Instead,he arguesthat the
grammarof a mediumderivesfrom the particularmixtureof the
sensesthat an individualcharacteristically uses in the utilizationof
the medium.For example,language-or better,speech-is the first
of the massmedia.It is a devicefor externalizingthoughtand for
fixing and sharing perceptions.As a means of communicaton,
speechelicits a particularorchestrationof the sense.While speech
is an oralphenomenonand givesriseto "ear-oriented cultures"(cul-
turesin which peoplemoreeasilybelievewhat they hearthan what
they see), oral communicationsynthesizesor bringsinto play other
sensualfaculties.For example,in conversationmen are awarenot
only of the soundof wordsbut also of the visualpropertiesof the
speakerand the settingof the tactle qualitiesof variouselementsof
the setting,and even certainolfactorypropertiesof the personand
the situation.These variousfacultiesconstituteparalleland simul-
taneousmodesof communication, andthusMcLuhanconcludesthat
oral culturessynthesizethese variousmodalities,elicit them all or
bring them all into play in a situationutilizing all the sensory
apparatus of the person.Oralcultures,then,involvethe simultaneous
interplayof sight, sound, touch, and smell and thus produce,in
McLuhan'sview, a depth of involvementin life as the principal
communicationsmedium-oral speech-simultaneously activates
all the sensoryfacultiesthroughwhich men acquireknowledgeand

sharefeeling.
However, speech is not the only mass medium, nor must it
necessarilybe the dominantmass medium. In technologicallyad-
vanced societies,print, broadcasting,and film can replacespeech
as the dominantmode throughwhich knowledgeand feeling are
communicated.In such societiesspeechdoes not disappear,but it
assumesthe characteristics of the dominantmedium.For example,
in literatecommunitiesoral traditionsdisappearand the content
of spokencommunicationis the writtentradition.Speechno longer
followsits own laws.Ratherit is governedby the laws of the written
tradition.This meansnot only that the "content"of speechis what
has previouslybeen written but that the cadenceand imagery of
everydayspeechis the cadenceand imageryof writing. In literate
communities,men have difficultybelievingthat the rich, muscular,
graphic,almostmultidimensionalspeechof OscarLewis' illiterate
Mexicanpeasantswas producedby such "culturallydeprived"per-
sons. But for McLuhanspeechas an oral tradition,simultaneously
utilizing many modes of communication,is almostexclusivelythe
provinceof the illiterate.
McLuhanstartsfromthe biologicalavailabilityof parallelmodes
for the productionand receptionof messages.These modes-sight,
touch,sound,and smell-do not exist independentlybut are inter-
dependentwith one another.Thus, to alter the capacityof one of
the modes changesthe total relationsamong the sensesand thus
alters the way in which individualsorganize experienceand fix
perception.All this is clear enough. To removeone sense from a
personleads frequentlyto the strengtheningof the discriminatory
powersof the othersensesand thus to a rearrangement of not only
the sensesbut of the kind of experiencea personhas.Blindnessleads
to an increasingrelianceon and increasingpowerof smelland touch
as well as hearingas modesof awareness.Loss of hearingparticu-
larly increasesone's relianceon sight. But, McLuhanargues,the
ratiosbetweenthe sensesand the powerof the sensesis affectedby
more than physicalimpairmentor, to use his term, amputation.
Mediaof communicationalso lead to the amputationof the senses.
Media of communicationalso encouragethe over-relianceon one
sensefacultyto the impairmentor disuseof others.And thus,media
i8 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW
of communlcationimpartto personsa particularway of organizing

experienceand a particularway of knowingand understandingthe
world in which they travel.
Modesof communication,including speech,are, then, devices
for fixing perceptionand organizingexperience.Print,by its tech-
nologicalnature,has built into it a grammarfor organizingexperi-
ence, and its grammaris found in the particularratio of sensory
qualitiesit elicitsin its users.All communications mediaare, there-
fore,extensionsof man,or, better,areextensionsof somemix of the
sensorycapacitiesof man. Speechis such an extensionand thus the
firstmassmedium.As an extensionof man, it castsindividualsin a
unique,symbioticrelationto the dominantmode of communication
in a culture.This symbiosisis not restrictedto speechbut extendsto
whatevermediumof communicationdominatesa culture.This ex-
tensionis by way of projectingcertainsensorycapacitiesof the indi-
vidual.As I havementioned,speechinvolvesan extensionand devel-
opmentof all the senses.Othermedia,however,are morepartialin
theirappealto the senses.The exploitationof a particularcommuni-
cationstechnologyfixes particularsensoryrelationsin membersof
society.By fixingsucha relation,it determinesa society'sworldview;
that is, it stipulatesa characteristic
way of organizingexperience.It
thus determinesthe formsof knowledge,the structureof perception,
and the sensoryequipmentattunedto absorbreality.
Media of communication,consequently,are vast social meta-
phors that not only transmitinformationbut determinewhat is
knowledge; that not only orientus to the world but tell us what
kind of worldexists; thatnot only exciteand delightour sensebut,
by alteringthe ratio of sensoryequipmentthat we use, actually
changeour character.
This is, I think,the coreof McLuhan'sargument.It can be most
convenientlyviewedas an attempt,albeita creativeand imaginative
attempt,to extendthe Sapir-Whorfhypothesisto includeall forms
of socialcommunication.
Let me attempt to illustrate this abstruseargument with
McLuhan'sanalysisof print.Print,the dominantmeansof communi-
cationin the West, dependson phoneticwriting.Phoneticwriting
translatedthe oral into the visual; that is, it took soundsand trans-
lated them into visual symbols.Printingenormouslyextendedand
speededup this processof translation,turning societieshistorically

dependentupon the ear as the principalsourceof knowledgeinto
societiesdependentuponthe eye.Printculturesareculturesin which
seeingis believing,in whichoraltraditionsaretranslatedinto written
form, in which men have difficultybelievingor rememberingoral
speech-names, stories,legends-unless they first see it written.In
short, in print culturesknowledge is acquiredand experienceis
confirmedby sight: as theysay,by seeingit in writing.Menconfirm
theirimpressionsof Saturday's footballgame by readingaboutit in
Sundaymorning'spaper.
Besidesmakingus dependenton the eye,printingimposesa par-
ticularlogic on the organizationof visualexperience.Printorganizes
reality into discrete,uniform, harmonious,causal relations.The
visualarrangementof the printedpage becomesa perceptualmodel
by which all realityis organized.The mentalset of print-the desire
to breakthings down into elementaryunits (words), the tendency
to seerealityin discreteunits,to find causalrelationsandlinearserial
order (left to right arrangementof the page), to find orderlystruc-
ture in nature(the orderlygeometryof the printedpage)-is trans-
ferredto all other social activities.Thus, scienceand government,
artand architecture, work and educationbecomeorganizedin terms
of the implicitassumptionbuilt into the dominantmediumof com-
munication.
Moreover,printencouragesindividualismand specialization. To
live in an oralculture,one acquiresknowledgeonly in contactwith
other people, in terms of communalactivities.Printing,however,
allowsindividualsto withdraw,to contemplateand meditateoutside
of communal activities.Print thus encouragesprivatization,the
lonely scholar,and the developmentof private,individualpoints
of view.
McLuhanthus concludesthat printingdetribalizesman. It re-
moveshim from the necessityof participatingin a tightly knit oral
culture.In a notion apparentlytaken from T. S. Eliot, McLuhan
contendsthat print disassociatesthe senses,separatingsight from
sound; encouragesa privateand withdrawnexistence;andsupports
the growthof specialization.
Aboveall, printleadsto nationalism,for it allowsfor the visual
apprehension of the mothertongueand throughmapsa visualappre-
hensionof the nation.Printingallowsthe vernacularto be standard-
ized and the mothertongue to be universalizedthrougheducation.
While the book usheredin the age of print,developmentssuch
as newspapersand magazineshave only intensifiedthe implications
of print: extremevisualnationalism,specalisttechnologyand occu-
pations,individualismand privatepoints of view.
By suchargumentMcLuhaninsiststhat the meaningand effect
of anycommunications innovationis to be foundin the way it struc-
turesthoughtand perception.The excitementwhich currentlysur-
roundsMcLuhanderivesfrom his extensionof this argumentto the
newermediaof communication, particularlytelevision,and the effect
thesenewermediahave on the veneratedtraditionof print and on
the mentallife of contemporary man.
For McLuhan,the civilizationbasedon printis dead.A science
basedon its assumptions, which searchesfor causalrelations,encour-
ages orderly,non-contradictory argument,fostersthe specialization
and compartmentalization of knowledge, is obsolete. Education
whichrelieson the bookand the lecture-itself merelyreadingfrom
written script-and the traditionalmodes of sciencesis likewise
obsolete.
Print culturewas doomed,so McLuhanargues,by the innova-
tion of telegraphy,the first of the electronicmedia. Radio further
undercutthe hegemonyof print,but the triumphof electroniccom-
municationover print awaitedthe permeationof the entiresociety
by television.We are now observing,McLuhanconcludes,the first
generationweanedon televisionfor whom the book and printing
aresecondary,remote,and ephemeralkinds of media.It is not only
that television,as StormJamesonhas recendyargued,leadsto a de-
valuationof the writtenword.Televisionis not only anothermeans
for transmittinginformation;it is alsoa radicallynew way of organ-
izing experience.Unlike print, televisionis not merelyan eye me-
dium but utilizesa much broaderrangeof sensoryequipment.That
televisionmarriessight and sound is obvious; but McLuhanalso
arguesthat televisionis a tactilemedium as well. Television,as a
resultof the scanningsystemon which it operates,is capableof con-
veying or eliciting a sense of touch. Thus, in the apprehensionof
televisionnot only the eye but the earand the handarebroughtinto
play. Televisionre-orchestrates the senses; it engages,if you will,
the whole man,the entirerangeof sensoryqualitiesof the person.
INNIS AND McLUHAN 2I
Moreover,televisonis, in one of McLuhan'sinimitablephrases,

a cool medium.By this McLuhanmeans only that television,like
the cartoonand line drawing, is low in information.You don't
merelywatch a televisionscreen.You engage it; you are forcedto
addinformationto completethe message.The capacityof the screen
to transmitinformationis determinedby the numberof lines in
the scanningsystem.In Americantelevisionthe scanningsystemis
particularlylow, 525 lines, and thus the mediumis low in informa-
tion relativeto say, movies. Thus the viewer must get involved;
he must fill in auditory,visual,and tactilecues for the messageon
the screento be completed. Becausetelevision appealsto all the senses,
mediumin frontof which
becauseit is a coolor active,participational
a viewercannotremainpassive,a culturein which televisionis the
dominantmediumwill producea personcharacteristically different
than will a culturebasedon print.
McLuhanobserveswe are now witnessimgin maturitythe first
generationwho were suckledon television,who acquiredthe con-
ventionsof televisionlong beforeit acquiredtraditionalprintliteracy.
The generationalgap we now observeby contrastingthe withdrawn,
private,specializingstudentof the fifties with the active,involved,
generaliststudentof the sixtiesMcLuhanrestsat the door of tele-
vision. For the characteristicdifferencesin these generationsare
paralleledby the differencesbetweenprint and televisionas devices
of communication.The desireof studentsfor involvementand par-
ticipation,for talkingratherthan reading,for seminarsratherthan
lectures,for actionratherthan reflection,in short for participation
and involvementratherthanwithdrawaland observationhe ascribes
to the re-orchestration of the sensesprovokedby television.
The conflictbetweengenerationsof whichwe arenow so acutely
awareis ultimatelya conflictbetweena generationbredon the book
and a generationbred on the tube and relatedforms of electronic
communication.The generationalgap involves much more than
politics and education,of course.In every area of life McLuhan
observesyouth assertingforms of behavior,demandingkinds of
experience,which engagethe total self. Danceand dress,musicand
hair styles,must not only have a "look"; they must also have a
"sound"and aboveall a "touch."They must appealto all the senses
simultaneously. It is not only that youthwantsexperience;it wants
experiencethat unifiesratherthan dissociatesthe senses.Moreover,
in the new stylesof literaturewhich destroyall the conventionsof
print,in the new argotswhich destroyall the conventionsof tradi-
tionalgrammar,in the new stylesof politicalactionwhich demean
the traditionallyradicalforms of ideologyand organization,in the
demandsfor changein education,in music,in art,in dance,in dress,
McLuhansees the re-tribalization of man restoringhim to the inte-
gratedconditionof the oral cultureim which the sensualcapacities
of men are againmade whole.
This re-tribalizationpresumablyinvolvesthe extensionin space
of the entirenervoussystem.Sight,hearing,and tactilityderivefrom
a nervoussystemoriginallycontainedwithin the skin. Each of the
mediahas in turn extendedthese mechanisms,these aspectsof the
nervoussystem,beyondthe skin.They haveexternalizedthem.The
book and cameraextendthe eye, radioand the listeningdeviceex-
tend the ear,televisionextendsnot only the eye and the earbut also
the hand.Electriccircuitryin generalrepresentsan extensionof the
entire nervoussystem.Think, for example,of the imageryof the
computerwith its networkof wiresand nodeslinkedto a television
system.This is the sensein which communications mediaareexten-
sions of man-extending with the aid of the computerthe entire
sensoryand neurologicalsystemof the personin space,heightening
the capacityof the organismto receiveand digestinformation,liter-
allyturningthe personnow extendedby his technologyinto an infor-
mationprocessingsystem.
It is throughsuch an analysisthat McLuhanarrivesat or ex-
presseshis centralpoint: everymediumof communicationpossesses
a logic or grammarwhich constitutesa set of devicesfor organizing
experience.The logic or grammarof eachmediumwhich dominates
an age impressesitself on the usersof the medium,thus dictating
what is defined as truth and knowledge.Communicationmedia,
then, determinenot only what one thinks aboutbut literallyhow
one thinks.
In the expositionof this notionMcLuhan,of course,treatsmore
than printand television.These are merelythe endpointsin an ex-
positionthat includescommentaryon films, radio, cartoons,light
bulbs,politicalcandidates,and virtuallyeveryother techniqueand
folly of man.Butin eachcasehe attemptsto determinethe grammar
inherentin the technologyof the medium.While McLuhannor-
INNIS AND McLUHAN 23
mally definesthe grammarof a mediumin termsof the senseratios
it elicits, he frequentlyresortsto the more simplifiedmethod of
designatingmedia as "hot"or "cold."A hot medium is one that
presentsa lot of informationin one sense; it bombardsthe receiver
with informationor,in anotherfavoritephrase,is in high definition.
A cool medium,or one in low definition,is a mediumthat presents
relativelylittle information;the receivermust completethe image,
mustaddvaluesto whatis presentedto him and is thusmoreinvolv-
ing or participational. The halftonephoto in four colorsis visually
hot; the cartoonis visuallycool. Printis a hot medium,televisiona
cool medium. The quality of having temperatureapplies also to
personsandcultures,danceanddress,autosandsports.Temperature,
then, is anotherway of designatinggrammar.However,it is the
least satisfactoryof all McLuhan'sconceptsand arguments.This is
unfortunate,becausefor most criticsit is the terms"hot"and "cool"
which aretakento be McLuhan'sprincipalcontributionto the study
of media,and a lot of unanswerablecriticalfire can be heapedon
McLuhanat this point. The terms"hot"and "cool"are appliedin
very haphazardways. Media that are hot one minute seem to be
coolanother.It is impossibleto tell if temperatureis a absoluteprop-
ertyof a mediumor whethera mediumis hot or cool relatve only
to some other medium.And the classificationof media into these
categoriesseemsto be alwaysquitearbitrary.
McLuhan'sargumentdoes not, however,stand or fall on the
usageof the terms"hot"and"cool."One can simplyagreethatwhile
mediado possessan inherentgrammar,the exactstructureand logic
of this grammarhas not, as yet, been particularlywell workedout.
Somelatitudeshouldbe allowedMcLuhanat this pointanyway.He
obviouslyis doing a good deal of experimentingwith the classifica-
tion of media.There is little resemblancebetweenthe classification
one findsin the "firstedition"of UnderstandingMedia (a reportto
the UnitedStatesOfficeof Education,i96o) andthatin the McGraw-
Hill edition currentlyin circulation.His argumentmust, I think,
be assessedin termsof its most generalpoint: men standin a sym-
bioticrelationto all media,and consequentlythe dominantmode of
communicationdictatesthe characterof perceptionand through
perceptionthe structureof mind.
At this point I would like to make some criticalnotes on the

argumentsthat have been presented.My only reluctancein doing
so is that Innis and McLuhanpresentratherconvenienttargetsfor
criticismif only becausetheirargumentsareso unconventional. Also,
criticism,let us be reminded,is easy.It is still harderto write novels
than to writereviews.Further,not only the structureof McLuhan's
argumentbut alsohis currentpopularitystandas an incautiousinvi-
tation to criticismand thus most criticalfire that I might muster
would inevitablybe aimedat McLuhan.MarshallMcLuhanis, after
all, not only a socialanalyst; he is also a prophet,a phenomenon,
a happening,a socialmovement.His workhasgivenriseto an ideol-
ogy-mcluhanisme-and a mass movement producing seminars,
clubs,art exhibits,and conferencesin his name.
Besides,I'm convincedthat a technicalcritiqueof McLuhan
is a ratheruselessundertaking.If RobertMertoncannot dent his
armorby pointingout inconsistencies in his argumentand lacunae
in his observations,I'm quite sure that my own lesserintellectual
luminosityshallhavelittle effecton McLuhanor his devotees.I am
thinkinghere of such inconsistenciesas the fact that while he is a
seriouscritic of traditionallogic and rationality,his argumentis
mechanistic,built upon linear causality,and illustrativeof all the
deficienciesof this type of analysis.His terminologyis ill-defined
and inconsistentlyusedand maddeninglyobtuse.Moreseriously,he
has a view of mind, directlyadoptedfrom the tabularasaof John
Locke, that is not only simple-mindedbut contradictedby much
of the work currentlybeing done in linguistics,psychology,and
psychotherapy. But I sensethat such criticismis analogousto criti-
cizing Christianityby pointingout contradictions in the Bible.
McLuhanis beyondcriticismnot only becausehe definessuch
activityas illegitimatebut alsobecausehis work doesnot lend itself
to criticalcommentary.It is a mixtureof whimsy,pun, and innu-
endo. These things are all right in themselves,but unfortunately
one cannottell what he is seriousaboutand what is mere whimsy.
His sentencesare not observationsor assertionsbut, in his own
language,"probes."Unfortunately,a probeis a neutralinstrument
aboutwhich one can saynothingbut congratulateits inquisitiveness.
One may resisthis probesor yield to their delights,but to quarrel
with them is ratherbesidethe point.
Despite these disclaimers,a manageableenterpriseremains.I

would like to judge McLuhan'sargumentnot in absoluteor uni-
versaltermsbut only in relationto the work of Innis.If we can for
the momentgrantthe centralassumptionon the role of communi-
cationstechnologyin socialchange,who has presentedus with the
morepowerfuland usefulargument?This is a questionboth man-
ageableand germaneto the paper.Lessgermanebut at least of im-
portanceto me is the concludingquestionI wouldlike to raise: what
is it that makes McLuhanan acceptableprophetof our times? I
think the answer to this questionwill also shed some important
light on the argumentof Innis.
I have suggestedthat Innis arguedthat the most visible and
importanteffectsof media technologywere on social organization
and through social organizationon culture.Radio and television,
I assumeInnis would argue,are light mediathat quicklyand easily
transmitlargeamountsof information.Moreover,electronicsignals,
while highly perishable,are difficultto control.Unlike print, elec-
tronicmediado not recognizenationalboundaries,as the Canadians
havediscovered.Thus,the effectof the electronicmediais to extend
the spatialbias of print,to make new forms of human association
possible,and to foreshortenone's senseof time. As spatiallybiased
media,radioand television,evenwhen usedby religiousinstitutions,
contributeto the growinghegemonyof secularauthorityand to the
extensionof politicalinfluencein space.Further,they have contrib-
uted to the weakeningof traditionand to the secularizationof reli-
gion. Or so Innismight haveit.
McLuhantreatsquite a differenteffectof the media-the effect
of the medianot on socialorganizationbut on sensoryorganization.
As I have previouslymentioned,Innis and McLuhando treatboth
kindsof effects.The effectof the mediaon sensoryorganizationis a
minorbut persistentthemein Innis'writings.3McLuhanalso treats
3Here are some examples culled at random from Innis' writings: "Scholars
were concernedwith letters ratherthan sounds and linguistic instructionem-
phasized eye philology ratherthan ear philology."(Empire and Communica-
tions, p. I59) "The discoveryof printing in the middle of the I5th century
implied the beginning of a return to a type of civilization dominatedby the
eye ratherthan the ear." (The Bias of Communication,p. 138) "Introduction
of the alphabetmeanta concernwith sound ratherthan with sight or with the
the effectsof mediaon socialorganization,as the previousdiscussion

of nationalism,specialization,science, and education illustrated.
However,the majordirectionand thus the implicationof the two
argumentsis quite different.Moreover,McLuhan,deliberatelyor
otherwise,confusesthese two quite differenteffectsof media tech-
nology.Much of his evidenceis not directedat nor does it support
his analysisof the sensorybias of media. Ratherit supportsInnis'
claim for the institutionalor organizationalbias of media.For ex-
ample,xerography,a processwhich very much interestsMcLuhan,
is an importantinnovationin communication. While the innovation
is basedupon discoveriesin electronictechnology,its usualproduct
nonethelessis the orderly,lineartype of the printedpage.The effect
of xerographyis not on sensoryorganization.However,by increasing
the rateof speedat which informationcan be transmittedand repro-
duced,by allowingfor the rapidrecombination of printedmaterials,
xerographydoes encouragethe creationof novel vehiclesof com-
municationand novel groups of readers.That is, xerographyen-
couragesor at least permits certain structuralreorganizationsof
socialgroups.Developmentsin offsetprintinghave a similareffect.
My argumentis simplythat the most visibleeffectsof commu-
nicationstechnologyare on socialorganizationand not on sensory
organization.Much of McLuhan'sevidencecan be more plausibly,
directly,and productivelyused in supportof the form of argument
offeredby Innis. I will subsequentlyreturn to this point. Here I
much want to suggestthat Innisprovidesa moreplausibleaccount-
ing of the principalphenomenain questionand is of greateruseful-
ness to studentsof the historyof mass communication.My prefer-
encesfor Innis are partlyaesthetic;they stem partlyfrom a simple
aversionto much of what McLuhanrepresents.In additionI feel
that Innis'argumentwill be ultimatelyproductiveof more signifi-
cant scholarship.Finally,I feel that McLuhan'spositionawaitsthe
samefate as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesisto which it is so closelytied.
The Sapir-Whorfhypothesis,while it is a perfectlyplausiblenotion,
ear rather than the eye." (The Bias of Communication, pp. 40-4I) "In oral
intercoursethe eye, ear and brain acted together in busy co-operationand
rivalryeach eliciting, stimulatingand supplementingthe other."(The Bias of
Communication, p. io6) "The ear and the concernwith time began to haveits
influenceon the arts concernedwith eye and space."(The Bias of Communi-
cation, p. II0)
has never turnedout to be productiveof much insight or research
or to have particularlyadvancedthe study of language and per-
ception.
The samefate awaitsMcLuhan,I fear,and stemsfrom an argu-
mentativesimilaritybetweenthe positions.For McLuhanstateshis
caseon verygeneralgroundsand defendsit on verynarrowgrounds.
Becausehe views the effectof the mediaas principallyactingon the
senses,his entireargumentultimatelyrestson the narrowgrounds
of the psychologyof perception.This is, I think, a very weak foun-
dationto supportsucha vastsuperstructure. This is not only because
many of his commentson the psychologyof perceptionare highly
questionable,but also becausegiven what we know aboutthe com-
plexityof behavior,it is hard to understandhow such a vast range
of socialphenomenaareto be so simplyexplained.When McLuhan
is writing aboutthe oral traditionand aboutprint, areaswhere he
is backedby the extensivescholarshipof Innis, his work has a co-
gency and integrationand is sensitiveto the complexityof the prob-
lems at hand (for example,in large portionsof The Gutenberg
Galaxy). When he probesbeyond these shoresinto the world of
televisionand the computer,the watergets very muddyindeed,for
here he attemptsto explain every twitch in contemporarysociety
on the basis of the sensoryreorganizationbrought about by the
media. I do not have the time, nor the knowledge, to examine
McLuhan'stheory of perception.However, a couple of problems
should be pointedout.4The phenomenonof sensoryclosureupon
which McLuhan'stheory is built is a very primitiveperceptual
mechanism.It is foundin all experimentson perception,thoughnot
alwaysin predictableways.Moreover,the gestaltmovementin psy-
chologywas basedupon the operationof this mechanism,though
it was largely limited to the study of visual closure.An obvious
strengthof McLuhan'sargumentis his isolationof this primitive
and importantperceptualphenomenonand his generalizationof
the phenomenonbeyond visual closure to include the relations
among all the senses.However,the assumptionthat the patternof
sensoryclosureis dictatedby the structureof the mediaseemsto be
an unnecessaryand unwarrantedoversimplification.
4HereI am indebtedto Sidney Robinovitchof the Universityof Illinois.

For example,McLuhanseverelyoverestimatesthe inflexibility

of mediaof communication.While any given mediumconfrontsan
artistwith certaininherentconstraints,media still allow wide lati-
tude for innovationand artisticmanipulation.McLuhandoes not
consider,for example,thatanymediumcanbe used,in anyhistorical
period,either discursivelyor presentationally. Speechand writing,
while they have a bias towarddiscursivepresentation,can also be
used presentationally.It is difficultto imaginewhy McLuhandoes
not utilize the distinctionbetween presentationaland discursive
forms,a distinctionof someimportancein modernaesthetictheory.5
Elementsin a presentationalform have no individuatedmeaning
but take on meaningonly in relationto the whole. Elementsin a
discursiveform have individuatedmeaning and the elementscan
be combinedby formalrules.Ordinarylanguageis highlydiscursive,
but it can be used presentationally. And "thisis the distinguishing
markof poetry.The significanceof a poeticsymbolcan be appreci-
ated only in the contextof the entirepoem."
The samecan be said of otherforms.A given mediumof com-
municationmay favor discursivepresentationor the presentation
of perceptualgestalts,but they can be and aremanipulatedin either
genre. These media are, of course,constrainingforces: they limit
and controlto some degree the expressivecapacitiesof men. But
the historyof theseformsis the historyof attemptsto overcomethe
deficienciesseeminglyinherentin mediaof communication, to make
the media bend to thought and imaginationratherthan allowing
thoughtand imaginationto be imprisonedby them.Thus,metaphor
and simile, incongruityand hyperbole,personificationand irony,
are all devices,imaginativeand productivedevices,for overcoming
the formalconstraintsof speechand writing.Similarly,while print,
radio and television,and movies have inherenttechnologicalcon-
straints,artistswithin these media have constantlystruggled to
overcomethe limitationsof the form through invention of new
modesof symbolicrepresentation. Think only of the historyof film
editing.
While McLuhanfrequentlyexcludesartistsfrom the laws of
5Susanne K. Langer, Philosophyin a New Key (Harvard University Press,

'957).
perceptualdeterminism,he does not excludeaudiences.However,I

want to suggestthat devicessuchas metaphor,simile,and personifi-
cationareusednot only by artistsbut arepartof the linguisticreper-
toire of every five-year-oldchild. They are devicesthroughwhich
all of us attemptto overcomethe inherentconstraintsof speech.
Thereis, I suspect,muchmorefreedomin perceptionand invention
in everydaycommunicationthan McLuhanis willing to admit.To
proposethe audienceas an empty vessel,a black box, that has no
significantautonomousexistencebut is, instead,filled or wired up
by sourcesexclusivelyexternalto the self is not only to denyan enor-
mousamountof everydayevidencebut also to casuallydismissa sig-
nificantamountof reasonablysoundscientificevidence.The empty
organismview of the self is, I think, not only perniciousbut also
unsupportable from the evidenceat hand on perception.
But the most importantcriticismto make of McLuhanis that
much of the argumenthe wants to make and most of the contem-
poraryphenomenahe wants to explain-particularlythe conflict
betweengenerations-can be more effectivelyhandled within the
frameworkprovidedby Innis. Furthermore,the utilizationof the
perspectiveof Innis opensup, I think, a numberof importantand
researchable questionsand puts the argumentonce more in a his-
toricalcontext.
In this final sectionlet me tentativelyattemptto bring Innis'
argument uptodate;thatis,toextendit fromtheearlyI950's, where
he left it, into the I96o's. You will rememberthat Innis arguedthat
Westernhistorybegan with temporalbias and was ending with
spatialbias.I want to suggestthatcontemporary developmentsin the
electronicmediahave intensifiedthis spatialbias.Electronicmedia,
particularly with the innovationof satellitebroadcasting,
increasingly
transcendall nationalboundaries,therebyweakeningnationalism
or at leasttendingto undercutthe parochiallimitationsof national
identifications. Further,suchmediaare a potentforcein generating
a more universal,world-wideculturewhich is urban,secular,and,
in Innis'terms,unstable.
Let me put it this way. Among primitivesocietiesand in earlier
stagesof Westernhistory,relativelysmall discontinuitiesin space
led to vast differencesin culture and social organization.Tribal
societiesseparatedby a hundredmiles could have entirelydifferent
formsof economic,political,and religiouslife and grosslydissimilar

systemsof expressivesymbolism,myth, and ritual.However,within
thesesocietiestherewas a greatcontinuityof cultureand socialstruc-
ture over generations.Formsof life changedslowly,of course,and
the attitudes,hopes,fears,and aspirationsof a boy of fourteenand
a man of sixty were remarkablysimilar.This does not mean there
wereno conflictsbetweenage groupsin suchsocieties.Suchconflicts
are probablyinevitableif only becauseof biologicalchangesaccom-
panyingaging. However,the conflictoccurredwithin a systemof
sharedattitudesand valuesandwithina systemof mutualdependen-
cies acrossage groups.Suchsocietieswere basedon an oraltradition
with a strong temporalbias. The continuityof culturewas main-
tainedby a shared,collectivesystemof ritualand by the continuity
of passageritesmarkingoff the entranceof individualsinto various
stagesof the life cycle. In such a world, then, there were vast dif-
ferencesbetweensocietiesbut relativelylittle variationbetweengen-
erationswithin a given society. In Innis' terms, temporalmedia
producevast continuityin time and great discontinuityin space.
The spatialbiasof modernmedia,initiatedby printbutradically
extendedby film and the electronicmedia,has reversedthe relations
betweentime and space.Spacein the modernworld progressively
disappearsas a differentiatingfactor.As spacebecomesmore con-
tinuous,regionalvariationsin cultureand social structurebecome
ground down. Further,as I have alreadysuggestedand as other
modernwritershave persuasivelyargued,the rise of a world-wide
urbancivilizationbuilt upon the speed and extensivenessof travel
and electronicmedia have progressivelydiminished-though they
have come nowherenear eliminating-spatial,transnationalvaria-
tion in cultureand social structure.It is this fact which has led
ClaudeLevi-Straussto re-echothe traditionalkeen of the anthro-
pologist that primitivesocietiesmust be intensivelystudied now
becausethey are rapidlydisappearing.
If in fact the spatialbiasof contemporarymedia does lead to a
progressivereductionof regionalvariationwithin nationsand trans-
nationalvariationbetweennations,one mustnot assumethat differ-
ences between groups are being obliteratedas some mass society
theoristscharacterize the processof homogenization.As Levi-Strauss
hasargued,theremaybe a principleof diversitybuiltinto the species
or, from our standpoint,built into the organizationof man'scom-

munication.I am suggestingthat the axis of diversityshifts from
a spatialor structuraldimensionto a temporalor generationaldi-
mension. If in primitive societies time is contnuous and space dis-
continuous,in modernsocietiesas space becomescontinuoustime
becomesdiscontinuous.In what seems like an ironic twist of lan-
guage,spatiallybiasedmediaobliteratespacewhile temporallybiased
mediaobliteratetime.The spatialbiasof modernmedia,which have
eliminatedmany spatialvariationsin cultureand social structure,
have simultaneouslyintensifiedthe differencesbetweengenerations
within the samesociety.The differencesin modernsocietybetween
a boy of fourteenand a man of sixty-differencesin languageand
values,symbolsand meanings-are enormous.It is modernsocieties
thatface the problemof generations.It is not only thatconflictacross
age groupscontinuesbut therearegrossdiscontinuities betweengen-
erationsin culture and symbols,perhapsbest symbolizedby the
phrase,"Don'ttrustanyoneoverthirty."6This inversionin the rela-
tion of time and spacein contemporary societyseemsto me a logical
extensionof Innis'argument.The inversiondependson the obser-
vationthat spatiallybiasedmediaobliteratespaceand lead men to
live in a non-spatialworld. Simultaneously,such media fragment
time and make it progressivelydiscontinuous.Temporalmedia,on
the otherhand, obliteratetime, lead men to live in a non-temporal
world,but fragmentspace.
I thinkit is importantto rememberthatInnisarguedthatmedia
possesseda bias or a predispositiontowardtime or space.He was
not arguingfor some simple mono-causality.Thus, if generations
have becomean increasinglyimportantaxis of diversity,in modern
society,the causesincludefactorsotherthan the mediabut to which
the mediaare linkedin a syndrome.I cannot,of course,attemptto
trace out all such factorshere, but a couple should be mentioned
60f course, generationaldiscontinuityis a universal of history. Normally,

these discontinuitiesare explainedby the periodicand randomshocksto a sys-
tem caused by relatively unsystematicvariables such as wars, depressions,
famines,etc. I am suggestingthat generationaldiscontinuityno longer depends
on these randomshocksto the systembut that generationaldiscontinuitiesare
now endogenousfactors,built into the normaloperationof the systemand very
much "caused"by the bias of contemporarycommunication.
if only for theirsuggestivevalue.The importanceof generationsand

the phenomenaof generationaldiscontinuityis linked most directly
to the rateof technicalchange.In traditionalsocieties,societiesthat
changevery slowly,the old are likely to be veneratedas the reposi-
toriesof the oral traditionand, consequently,as the storagebanks
of tribalwisdom. In societiessuch as ours, where knowledgeand
techniquechangeveryrapidly,the old are not likely to be so vener-
ated.It is the young,the bearersof the new techniquesand knowl-
edge,thatarelikely to haveboth the powerand the prestige.As the
transmissionof this knowledgeis in the educationalsystem,it is in
this institutionthat generationaldiscontinuitiesare likely to become
most apparent.Also, becauserapidlychangingtechnicalknowledge
is difficultto acquirebeyondschool,the old arelikely to be continu-
ally threatenedby competitionfrom the young, to be subjectto
fairly earlyobsolescence,and conflictsbetweengenerationsbearing
differentknowledgeand differentvaluesare likely to becomea fact
of life in all institutions.
This conflictis mutedand disguisedsomewhatby the reorgani-
zation of the age compositionof society.Some 4o per cent of the
populationis now under twenty, and within the year 50 per cent
of the populationwill be undertwenty-five.With the rapidexpan-
sion of the economyand institutionssuch as education,the young
overwhelmoldergeneratonsmerelyby numbers,and thusthe inten-
sity of the conflictis freqentlymaskedby the ease of the political
solutions.One thus mustnot discountthe sheerfact of largernum-
bersin youngergenerationsin heighteningour awarenessof genera-
tionaldiscontinuity.The proportionof youthin the totalpopulation
is also intensifiedby the progressivelengtheningof adolescence;
that is, one is young much longer todaythan in previouscenturies.
Finally,the weakeningof traditioncausednot only by the media
but alsoby the paceof technicalchangeand progressivedominance
of the educationalsystemin the socializationprocessintensifies,I
think, generationaldiscontinuity.I am led to this argumentby the
belief that structuralelementsin the societyare less able to provide
useful and stableidentity patternsto youth. Religious,ethnic, re-
gional, and classidentificationsare weakening,and they are identi-
ficationswhicharenot temporalin character. As religiousand ethnic
traditionsweaken, generationalidentity becomesmore important
as a meansof placingoneselfand organizingone'sown self-concep-

tion. This is truenot only in the societyat largebut also in all sub-
ordinateinstitutions.The importanceof generationalidentityis en-
hanced by the decline of ritual and passagerites which formerly
servedas devicesfor confirmingand symbolizingstructuralidentity.
In addition,thesestructuralidentitiessimplycomeinto conflictwith
one another,they counterpoint,and the young arefrequentlyled to
rejectall pastidentitiesand seize upon membershipin a generation
as the key to understandingwhat is happeningto them. This is a
phenomenonErik Eriksonhas usefully analyzedunder the label
the "totalism"of youth.
I am suggestingthat generationsare becomingmore important
sourcesof solidaritythan other social groups in spite of Harold
Rosenberg'sobservationthat being a memberof an age group is
the lowest form of solidarity.The spreadof a world-wideurban
civilizationbuiltuponrapidandephemeralmeansof communication
ultimatelymeans that individualsof the same age in Warsaw,
Moscow,Tokyo, and New York sensea membershipin a common
age group and feel they have more in commonwith one another
than with individualsolderand youngerwithin theirown societies.
This is a phenomenonwhich Innis did not anticipate.When Innis
spoke of competitionto establisha monopoly of knowledge, he
normallywas thinkingof competitioncoming from institutionsor
structuralgroups: competitionfrom the clergy,politicians,or the
middle classes.Similarly,when other scholarshave spoken of the
role of groupsin socialchange,theyhavenormallythoughtof struc-
turalgroupssuch as the burghers,the aristocracy, or the Jews.The
implicationof my suggestionis that the bearersof social change
are increasinglyage groups or generationsrather than structural
groups.Insteadof groupsrepresentingindividualsof all agesbound
togetherby a commonstructuralcharacteristic suchas religion,race,
or occupation,the most importantgroupsof the futurewill be those
of a common age who are structurallyvariegated.A generational
groupfindsits solidarityin a commonage even though some of its
membersare Catholic,some Jewish,some Protestant,some north-
erners,some southerners,some middle class, some working class.
If this is correct,then politicalconflict,to choosejust one example,
which we have normallythoughtof in structuralterms as conflict
between regions, classes, and religions becomes focused instead

aroundgenerations.If I correctlyinterpretthe behaviorof Robert
Kennedy,he is awareof the phenomenon.
Now, unfortunately,things are neitheras neat,as simple,or as
true as I have paintedthem in these pages. There are still strong
differenceswithin generations.One must speak of generationsof
musiciansand novelists,physicistsand sociologists,northernersand
southerners,Catholicsand Jews.Obviously,one has to pay attention
to the intersectionof structuralvariablessuch as class and genera-
tionalvariablesor the entireanalysisquicklyslidesinto a tautology.
But I do think that in modern society generationsbecomemore
importantin all spheresof life. Thereis a competitionto namegen-
erations,to symbolizethem,to characterize the meaningof a gener-
ation. There is a competitionwithin and between generationsto
choosethe cultureby which the generationshallbe known.Further,
there is competitionto impose the cultureof a generationon the
entiresociety.And this,of course,is what Innismeantby a monopoly
of knowledge.It was only a few yearsago that David Riesmanwas
suggestingthat the media, particularlytelevision,were devicesfor
imposingthe cultureof the middleclasson the entiresociety.Let me
merely suggest that the media, particularlytelevision,are devices
by which the cultureof youth is imposedon the entire society.In
the competitionto determinewhose cultureshall be the officialcul-
ture and whose valuesthe officialnorms,the axis of conflictis be-
tween generations.
These perhapsover-longnotes on the sociologyof generations
illustrate,I hope, Innis'centralpoint: the principaleffectof media
technologyis on socialorganization.The capacity-ofInnis to deal
with suchphenomenain a reasonablydirectand clearway leadsme
to preferhis characterization of mediaeffectsto that of McLuhan.
However,this does not mean that Innis will ever have the social
impact or perhapseven the intellectualimpact of McLuhan,for
McLuhan'sappealand his meaningresidenot in the technicalqual-
ity of his argumentbut in his capacityto be an acceptableprophet
of our times.It is with an analysisof the basisof McLuhan'ssocial
appealthat I wish to close this paper.
Perhapsthe mostinterestingthing aboutMcLuhanis the degree

of successhe has enjoyed.Criticismof his positionusuallystartsout,

as doesthispaper,with the admissionby the criticthathe mayrepre-
sent an obsoletetradition,that McLuhanmay be right in claiming
that most scholarsaremerely"prisoners of print."Criticism,suchas
it is, usuallygives away the game beforethe playersare out of the
dugout.No useful criticismcan be made of McLuhan,I am now
convinced,on technicalgrounds.Thereis no way of applyingstand-
ardsof verisimilitudeand verificationto his analysis.The only criti-
cism of McLuhanthat can hope to be effectiveis one that admits
the possibilityof a systemof valuesand meaningspreferableto those
implicitin McLuhan'swork.
It is unfortunate,I think, that someof the daringand exquisite
insightsMcLuhanhas into the communicationprocessare largely
vitiatedby his style of presentation,his manner,and his method.
The meaningof McLuhanis not in his message,his sentences,but
in his persona as a socialactor,in himselfas a vesselof socialmean-
ing. The meaningof McLuhanis, I want to argue,mythicaland
utopian.Consequently,one cannotask whetherhe is correctabout
the effectsof communicationtechnology,for this is a questionirrele-
vant to his message.One can only determinehow one feels about
the attitudestowardlife implicitin his utopianprojections.
Unlike the traditionalscholar,McLuhandealswith realitynot
by trying to understandit but by prescribingan attitudeto take
towardit. McLuhanis a poet of technology.His work representsa
secularprayerto technology,a magical incantationof the gods,
designedto quell one's fears that, after all, the machinesmay be
takingover.Like any prayer,it is designedto sharpenup the point-
less and to blunt the too sharplypointed.7It is designedto sharpen
up the mindlessand mundaneworld of popularculturewhich con-
sumesso muchof our livesand to bluntdown the influenceof mod-
ern technologyon our personalexistence.The social function of
prayeris, I suppose,to numbus to certaingrossrealitiesof existence,
realitiestoo painful to contemplate,too complex to resolve.Ult-
mately,McLuhanhimself is a mediumand that is his message.As
a medium, he tells us we need no longer ask the imperishable
questionsaboutexistenceor face the imperishabletruthsaboutthe
7KennethBurke, A Grammar of Motives, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, I945, p. 393.

humancondition.The fundamentalproblemsof existenceare to be

solved automaticallyand irreversiblyby the subliminaloperaion
of the machineson our psychiclife. McLuhanrepresentsan apoca-
lyptic vision,an eschatologicalpredictionaboutthe futurethat can
quell our frequentlyambivalentfeelings about ourselvesand our
inventons. He representsin this guise the ultimatetriumphof the
technicalover the moral,for he tells us that concernsfor morals
and values and meaningsin the age of electriccircuitryare un-
necessary.
HaroldInniswantedto preservethe oraltraditionand its char-
acteristicconcernfor valuesand meaningin the face of a rampaging
technologyfavoringthe demandsof space.The oral traditionand
moral orderwere importanteven if contemporarymedia did not
supportsuch concerns.For McLuhan,on the other hand, modern
technologyobviatesthe necessityof raisingmoralproblemsand of
strugglingwith moral dilemmas.When asked if one can make
moraljudgmentsabouttechnology,McLuhananswers:"Does one
ask a surgeonin the middleof an operationif surgeryis ultimately
good or bad?"I supposenot. But thereare dayson which the pro-
prietyof surgerymustbe questioned.If we had raisedthesequestions
some time ago we might have avoided a generationof frontal
lobotomies.
Letme be clearon the utopianandmythicalaspectsof McLuhan.
While McLuhaninsiststhat he is not attackingprint and he is not
an enemyof books,his publicmeaningis unmistakablyas follows:
printinggave rise to the Age of Reason,to scientificlogic, and to
the liberaltradition.The liberaltraditionarguedthat human free-
dom is solely the result of man's rationality.McLuhancontends,
however,that the overemphasison reasonin the liberaltradition
has resultedin man'salienationfrom himself,from othermen, and
fromnatureitself.This is an importantpoint,of course.It is a theme
commonto many criticsof our civilization,is centralto the argu-
mentof Innis,andis expressedmuchmorecogentlyand persuasively
in Norman0. Brown'sLife AgainstDeath.
McLuhan'srelevancestemsfrom the fact that he goes beyond
this critiqueand arguesthatthe reunificationof man,the end of his
alienation,the restoration
of the "wholeman"will resultfromauton-
omousdevelopmentsin communications technology.All individuals
INNIS AND McLUJHAN 37
have to do to be put backin touch with their essentialnatureis to

detachthemselvesfrom traditionand submitto the sensorypowers
>ofthe electronicmedia.
We are being saved again! This time, however,the salvation
does not entaila determinedact of will, the enduranceof suffering,
the selflessnessof sacrifice,the tormentof anxiety,but only the auto-
matic operationof technology.I won't bore you by piling up quo-
tationsin which McLuhanarguesthat the effect of the media on
sensoryorganizationis automatic,without resistance,subliminal.
Its operationis independentof the will and the wish of men.
McLuhanthus representsa speciesof a secularized,religiousdeter-
minism,a modernCalvinismwhich says,"Everythingis gonna be
all right, baby."
But is it? And shouldwe take it seriously?The only thing of
which we can all be sureis that even in the age of electriccircuitry
men arebornaloneandindividuallyattachedto natureandto society
by an umbilicalcord which all too quicklywithersaway.The fact
of the terriblelonelinessand isolationof existenceis what has moti-
vated much of the great art producedin any period of history.
We should not need Eugene O'Neill to remind us in the face of
McLuhan'sonslaughtsthat "manis bornbroken; he livesby mend-
ing; the graceof God is glue."
Humancommunication, by languageand everyothertechnique,
is the fragilemeansby which men attemptto overcomethe isolation
of existenceand wed themselvesto other men. Under the best of
circumstances, communicationis rarelysuccessful,is alwayshalting,
is alwaystentativeand tenuous."Stammering is the nativeeloquence
of we fog people."But the act of communication,as O'Neill and
Camusamong other modernartistsremindus, is the only source
of joy and tragedyhumanshave. One can all too easilyforget that
the word "communication" sharesits root with "communion"and
"community," and it is the attemptto establishthis communionthat
theoriesof communication,vulgar as they are in presentform, at-
tempt to capture.
McLuhan'srelevanceand meaning residesin our attemptsto
dealwith the dilemmaof communion.In an age when men aremore
than ever dividedfrom the basisof an authenticcommunionwith
one another,when men's relationswith machinesand technology
seem more durableand importantthan their relationto one an-

other,McLuhanfinds man'ssalvationin the technologyitself. For
McLuhan(and I must admitfor Innis also), the vision of the oral
traditionand the tribalsocietyis a substituteEden, a romanticbut
unsupportablevision of the past. What McLuhanis constructing,
then, is a modernmyth, and like all mythsit attemptsto adjustus
to the uncomfortable realitiesof existence.The Icemancomethagain
but this time in the cloak of the scientist.But even this shouldn't
surpriseone, for scienceis the only legitimatesourceof mythsin the
modern world. Scienceis, of course,the unquestionedsource of
authoritative knowledgein the modernworld.Scientificmythsenjoy
the claim of beingfactuallytrue even if they are in no way demon-
strable,even if they must be takenon faith, even if they attemptto
answerwhat are,afterall, unanswerablequestions.Scientificmyths
havethe greatadvantagein this self-conscious societyof not appear-
ing as myths at all but as truths,verifiedby or capableof being
verifiedby the inscrutablemethodsof the scientist.
McLuhan'sparableon the restorativepowersof the media in
expandingthe consciousnessof man is one more myth, one more
illusionby which men can organizetheirlives. Unlike most of the
utopiasof the modernworld-I984, BraveNew World, The Rise
of the Meritocracy,and even B. F. Skinner'sWaldenTwo-it cele-
bratesnot the evils of technologybut its glories,not its inhumanity
but its terriblehumanity; it celebratesErosand not Thanatos.In a
worldwhereelectrictechnologyis, like it or not, a realityof existence
that shall not passaway,it attemptsto offer a justificationof opti-
mism. McLuhan'svision quite closelyparallelsthe specificationof
modernmythsthat Emersonofferedin I848. For modernmythsto
be effectivethey will have to be mechanical,scientific,democratic,
and communal(socialistic).
Whatfinallyis one to thinkaboutthis myth,thisNew Jerusalem
the media are creating? One cannothelp being overwhelmedby
its awful vulgarity,by its disconnectionfrom whateversourcesof
joy, happiness,and tragedyremainin this world. Scott Fitzgerald
was right: Modernmen would invent gods suitableonly to seven-
teen-year-oldJay Gatsbysand then would be about their Father's
business:"theserviceof a vast,vulgar,and meretricious beauty."
One need not be againstmyths. Men live by illusions; only
gods and devilsare withoutthem, and it is our illusionsultimately
thatmakeus human.But it is the qualityof moralimaginationcon-
tained in McLuhan'smyth that is disquieting; it is as if it were
offeredas a scientificfootnoteto Yeats'"TheSecondComing."
Finally,let me note thatMcLuhanhimselfis the ultimateverifi-
cationof the more propheticaspectsof Innis'work. For centralto
HaroldInnis'visionwas the certaintythat the spatialbias of com-
municationand the monopolyof knowledge forged in its name
wouldleadto the triumphof the secularoverthe sacred.The divorce
of the writtenfrom the oral traditionis now complete; the hegem-
ony of scienceover religion,of technicalauthorityover moral au-
thority,has been accomplished.If McLuhanis the prophetof the
collapseof all tradition,it is fitting,I suppose,that it shouldbe evi-
dencedby a concernwith the media of communication.It is also
ironic that it should come from a studentof literaturewho views
art as a vehicleof communication.For as Allen Tate has reminded
us, the veryconceptof literatureas communication representsan un-
examinedvictoryof modernsecularismoverthe humanspirit."Our
unexaminedtheoryof literatureas communication," he saysin The
ForlornDemon, "couldnot have appearedin an age in which com-
munion was still possiblefor any appreciablemajorityof persons.
The worldcommunication presupposes the victoryof the secularized
society,of meanswithoutends."
McLuhan,then,is no morerevolutionarythan I am. The death
of values he representsis not some twentieth-centuryrevolution.
It is the end point of a positivisticrevolutionagainstmeaningand
metaphysics.And thus it is no surprisethat his utopianismshould
be basedon the sanctityof scienceand the fact.
But let me remindyou that it was preciselythis revolutionthat
HaroldInnis triedto resist; it was preciselythis revolutionthat he
saw as endingthe possibilityof a stablecivilizationin the West.For
Innis,the oraltraditionrepresentative of man'sconcernwith history
and metaphysics,moralsand meaningshad to be preservedif we
werenot to fall victimto a sacredpoliticsand a sanctifiedscience.It
is an ironyand an uncomfortable fact that the prophecyis borneout
by one who has identifiedhimselfas a disciple.But such is the fre-
quentresultof discipleship.

WK 5 Carey On Mcluhan and Innis 1967 Antioch Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WK 5 Carey On Mcluhan and Innis 1967 Antioch Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WK 5 Carey On Mcluhan and Innis 1967 Antioch Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harold Adams Innis and Marshall McLuhan

Author(s): James W. Carey

U Commentingon the abstruseand controversialscholarshipof

JAMES W. CAREYis an AssistantProfessorof Journalismand also a Research

the media of communicationon which this civilizationhas been

HaroldAdams Innis was a Canadianeconomistand historian

1The literarystyle adoptedby Innis to convey the complexityof social change

Innis felt that the answerto his first question-the questionof

is a principalbarrierto any adequateunderstandingof his work. He amasses

competitionappropriated from economicsand extendedto all social

in which they were both epiphenomenaof communicationstech-

upon religion, heirarchy,and contraction,whereas a space bias

sizes the cohesionof peoplein the presentby their "remembrances

2lnnis was interestedin all forms of monopoliesof knowledge. In his teach-

Innis believed that an overemphasisor monopoly of either

ClassicalGreecewas such a rareinterval.The relativeisolation

will be dominatedby a narrowmonopoly.In such biased states,

There are many similaritiesbetweenthe thought of Innis and

built into its grammarand lexiconthe very structureof perception.

all the sensoryfacultiesthroughwhich men acquireknowledgeand

of communlcationimpartto personsa particularway of organizing

speededup this processof translation,turning societieshistorically

Moreover,televisonis, in one of McLuhan'sinimitablephrases,

At this point I would like to make some criticalnotes on the

Despite these disclaimers,a manageableenterpriseremains.I

the effectsof mediaon socialorganization,as the previousdiscussion

4HereI am indebtedto Sidney Robinovitchof the Universityof Illinois.

For example,McLuhanseverelyoverestimatesthe inflexibility

5Susanne K. Langer, Philosophyin a New Key (Harvard University Press,

perceptualdeterminism,he does not excludeaudiences.However,I

formsof economic,political,and religiouslife and grosslydissimilar

or, from our standpoint,built into the organizationof man'scom-

60f course, generationaldiscontinuityis a universal of history. Normally,

if only for theirsuggestivevalue.The importanceof generationsand

as a meansof placingoneselfand organizingone'sown self-concep-

between regions, classes, and religions becomes focused instead

Perhapsthe mostinterestingthing aboutMcLuhanis the degree

of successhe has enjoyed.Criticismof his positionusuallystartsout,

7KennethBurke, A Grammar of Motives, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, I945, p. 393.

humancondition.The fundamentalproblemsof existenceare to be

have to do to be put backin touch with their essentialnatureis to

seem more durableand importantthan their relationto one an-

You might also like