In the sixties, Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan wrote two books, Understanding Media and The Medium is the Message where he theorized the media or medium of transmission was, in many cases, more important than the message it was intended to convey. McLuhan was also among the first to realize we were nearing the end of the age where print media dominated the information exchange. We were moving to where electronic media would replace the printed word. He believed in this new age humankind would move from individualism and fragmentation into a collective identify. He coined the term the "global village" to reflect this shared identity.
I think socialist and the elitist in government, education and communication have bought into these theories and today push for the fulfillment of that shared collective. Ms. Clinton's book It Takes a Village is supposed to stem from an Africa proverb on how outside individuals and groups contribute to the raising of children. I've often wondered why there has never been a linkage to McLuhan, surely as a college student at Wellesley she must have had at least a passing knowledge of how McLuhan thought public opinion was shaped by the emerging mediums of television and global communication. I believe we see in todays News broadcasts, where polling data is presented as factual basis for the story, a validation of McLuhan's ideas.
This leads me back to my question. Where Facebook and Twitter become central to the lives of youngsters and young adults will they ever be able to think for themselves and shape their lives based on a set of core values they have developed through individual contemplation, or will the choices they make always be a result of the need to be a part of the "global village?"
1 comment:
"Where Facebook and Twitter become central to the lives of youngsters and young adults will they ever be able to think for themselves and shape their lives based on a set of core values they have developed through individual contemplation, or will the choices they make always be a result of the need to be a part of the "global village?""
Good question. Whenever anything (or anyone) is CENTRAL in the life of a developing person, it best be something that is not inherently injurious to full spectrum potential and maturity or require maturity for wise use and exposure. Driving cars isn't bad, but it helps to be able to see over the hood and be able reach the pedals.
Your linking the seemingly innocuous world view of H.C. with the visionary understanding communicated by M.M. is an interesting observation.
There is much pseudo-community, communication etc. and while social network tools can be used carefully (blogs obviously can be be used sincerely, w/ princples intact etc) too often young people develop under a thralldom of instaneous pleasure, their prefences guided by others making profit, and they become habituated to numbing or consoling themselves with amusements, group think, external approval...etc etc etc. rather than getting to know and value themselves and their unique potential. Virtues or core values, as you say, actually need to be pursued with some vigor.
In our little villages, that is to say the circle of actual influence that one has around them, we can be a boon to young people, not as usurpers of primal roles as the gov sometimes wants to do in families, but as good examples, as thinkers and doers, as people of genuine feeling and good conscience....not to mention common sense!
Good post, thank you.
Post a Comment