Week 6

I found McLuhan to be quite accessible -- not in the sense that his writing style is more *folksy* (many passages were, but some important ones were not) but in the sense that the basis for his argument makes sense to me.  Before reading these authors (and I've not read any of them before now), if pressed to describe the fundamental components/operations/nature of media, I think I would have said something along the lines of it functioning as a communication-like extension of individuals and the systems in which individuals exist.  I visualize media as extension-like, with some humanness in the middle, and cross networks of media extending from the humanness core (and then moving around a lot and being not linear or making sense).  And that type of visualization is what I took-away from McLuhan.  Also, the prevailing common-person view of technology as neutral is pretty important  to me because it drives us to ignore large and often invasive effects of technology and, just as important, to not capitalize on or under-utilize the human-building and democratic potential capabilities of technology.  (I wrote about this in my thesis.)  I  see McLuhan making a very strong and accessible statement about technology as not neutral and that gave me a "right on, bro" feeling whist reading him where I didn't have it before.  (Although, I thought Benjamin was rather inspirational in the brilliance and beauty of his argument and his writing.)  I was especially interested in McLuhan's basic premise that the medium/technology loses his ability to function as such when it is disconnected from (or, I suppose, are in conflict with) the systems that support it and that interact with it.  I don't know the art of rhetorical or philosophical *argument* or have it as a honed skill, but I think this systems theory basis (those are my words....I suppose there are academic systems theories) basis that McLuhan relies upon *proves* technology/medium cannot be neutral because those systems cannot be neutral by definition. 



Finally, as an assessment of the semester thus far, I'd really like to go back now and re-read Benjamin, Adorno & Horkheimer, and Barthes and re-group and reconsider each in light of the other -- especially before I decide on my topic for the seminar paper arising from this course.  But, the moving forward basis for the calendar doesn't seem to allow this.  Or, does it?  (Yes, I know I could do this on my own, but the time to do so would preclude new reading.)