McLuhan Reading

I am not quite sure what to make of the reading. I liked some of the interesting facts regarding Napoleon's fear of newspapers, or the "money medium" in 17thC Japan. But I got the feeling that this chapter was too broad for its own good. One thought I had: According to McLuhan, the medium became the message is the electronic age. So, before the lightbulb existed, people believed that the "content" was the message. Well, as I read that paragraph, I imagined a Medieval church service. I wonder if the people is the pews believed that the content was the message, or whatever the priest talking about, or if God himself was the medium. A neat relationship, no? If "the medium is the message", how does that apply to religion.

The Medium is the Message

Like everyone else, I found the McLuhan reading extremely difficult to get through. I found the commentary on Cubism, however, to be quite interesting. In Cubism, the chapter's thesis is clearly spelled out: the painting itself "means" nothing other than the fact that it is a human-made construction. Using Braque's "Woman with a Guitar" as an example, the painting, though on one level an image of a woman with a guitar, is in no way life-like; no one will look at Braque's work and immediately say that it means to say anything about women or guitars. Rather, a Cubist painting is a commentary on the medium itself-- on the absurdity of attempting to recreate a real scene with paint on a flat canvas. The logic behind a work of Cubism, thus, is echoed in the very arguments Evans was attempting to defend the discipline of history against.

-Ian

The Medium is the Message Response

This article was quite the read. It seemed very fragmented to me, and had a lot of passing remarks about random figures, such as, Louis Pasteur - the man who first discovered germs. I had to search around a second time to try and decipher any main thread of thought. However, there were many very interesting remarks that he made.

One of the most interesting, yet obscure, insights that he brought up was focused on the I.Q.s of the British politicians in the 1930s. On page 158, McLuhan is citing to a situation written in a review by C.P. Snow of A.L. Rowse's book Appeasement. Rowse asks "Their I.Q.’s were much higher than usual among political bosses. Why were they such a disaster?" Snow's response to this quandry was, “They would not listen to warnings because they did not wish to hear.” McLuhan synthesis of these two points that "Being anti-Red made it impossible for them to read the message of Hitler." This is a very short paragraph of his work, and had me very confused at the end of reading it. I know he is talking about the cultural bias in I.Q. test and they are not accurate because they are only meant to test people who are visual learners as opposed to the "ear man and the tactile man"(Auditory and Kinesthetic learners). There is also a point where McLuhan claims that literacy is a technology in our society and that it is universally uniform in all levels of government, education, politics, and social life, and doesn't differentiate it self for those outside the norm, which has lead to major problems for people who find themselves on the fringe of the status quo.
This still leaves me with two questions.

1. Is McLuhan inferring that since literacy is a technology/ medium would I.Q. test be its content?
2. Since I.Q. tests are flawed in their execution, should their results be deemed false/ inaccurate, and the test either be eliminated or revamped to be less visual and more balanced to accommodate different learning styles.

McLuhan Reading

The reading was for this week was at best, a heady one. McLuhan has composed an article and idea here that requires a great deal of reflection and pause in order to understand it. The idea that communication and the message contained therein is one that is important to our study of history. These messages (whatever their form) can shape individuals and nations without thought, as they become a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. I find the quoted statement made by General David Sarnoff especially true: “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them.” Much of the ‘problems’ that people experience today have tended to be directly related to their use of technology within their lives. Too much technology can detract from the individual’s ability to process and learn from the world around them, and processes like watching the news has people focus too much on the obvious (the content of the broadcast) in order to gain information. This however misses the structural changes that are contained within the story that are both subtle and take time to understand. For historians this makes the process of understanding and conveying historically long ideas and processes difficult, and hard to transmit to others.

McLuhan Reading

Perhaps I am missing the boat here, but tend to agree more with "General David Sarnoff" when he says, "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” McLuhan goes on to assign a "good" or "bad" value to something based on how it is used, i.e.: "If the slugs reach the right person, the firearm is good." I do not believe that this what Sarnoff is saying. I think he would argue that how we use things like, guns, print, light bulbs, etc... doesn't reflect a moral value on the item being used, but the person using the gun, print or light bulb.Value, doesn't mean you imply a moralistic judgment. These things, are simply tools.
Perhaps, I gravitate more to Sarnoff's statement more than to McLuhan's argument because understand fully (or at least fuller than I do McLuhan's), and perhaps I am hyper-cautious to give medium that much emphasis/power. It seems McLuhan is greatly emphasizing the medium, over the people and makes me leery to step in line with him.
Then again, maybe I am missing the boat.

McLuhan Reading

I agree with you Sterling, I found that part of the criminal to be interesting, the non-comformist who is seen as "pathetic" simply because he does not adapt to technological advances. That made me view myself as a man who does not have an iphone, ipod, i-anything, did not get a laptop until this summer, carries a walkman, and did not get an N64 until the end of Gr.5. I remember kids laughing at me since I was the only one in my "clique" that did not have an N64 immediately. And that is seen in the article between the Europeans and Orientals, by which the Orientals are not seen as "civilized" as the Europeans, since they are not as technologically or literally superior as the "civilized" ones.

I also found the part about the media battling with each other for supremacy interesting. I have utter disgust at times for media and their tactics with the "if it bleeds it leads" theory, and I always think back to the Ted Kaczynski interview phenomenon where he agreed to give one interview to the highest media bidder. Out of this came ABC, CBS, and NBC excusing all of his acts, claiming he was a freedom fighter, a hero who had been misunderstood, who just needed an interview to tell the world his side of the story. I still have the letters the stations sent to him in jail (enclosed in my History of Terrorism book from last year)which were sad pleas by the networks to boost their ratings, and claim to be that one network who could have that all illusive one interview with the Unabomber.

But overall, I liked how they viewed the message as uniting the Frenchmen together in the Revolution, and Napoleon stating that three hostile newspapers are worse than a thousand bayonets. And there is truth to that, the media has power over alot of people who turn in everyday. And being on the wrong side of the media could potentially ruin someone's life..Look at Richard Jewell.

But the article leaves me wondering...did Shakespeare foresee television? What are his thoughts on 2012?

The Message is the Medium

Yes... I know that's the reverse of what Marshall McLuhan was stating within his book; however, part of my MRP this year will be attempting to debunk this statement.

Aside from this aspect and belief, I find this section of his work highly interesting. I specifically found the notion [p.158] that there are two ways of viewing a criminal to be fascinating. The idea that a criminal could be simply a non-conformist who is unable to fit the technological demands of society versus simply belonging to a niche presents an interesting ideological struggle that I would've loved to have seen given more attention. I would be excited to know more of his thoughts on this paradigm.

Furthermore, these 10 pages are heavy and can be a daunting read. The concept itself is a main determinant of this quagmire - differentiating between the medium, the content, and the message and whether or not one is 'in tune' enough to determine the difference. Overall, I am looking forward to discussing this topic next week and reading more about others' views.

My Favourite Historian

This is a difficult question to answer, however, I believe my preferred historian would be Edward Gibbon. He was one of the first histories that I read prior to University, and that I thoroughly enjoyed. His seminal work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was something that opened up both the historical world, and the classical age to me, just as I began to take a real interest in history. His writing style and structure allowed me to understand the overall ideas and arguments that he made within the work, as well as the interspersed humour ensured that it was not just another boring tome.

Fave Historian

A simple yet difficult question. I have dabbled in many genres of history, and my tastes are that of a Renaissance man. Pierre Berton has consistently taken up space on my ever-expanding bookshelf. While some could argue that Berton falls short of the criteria for a historian, I have always found his books well researched and entertaining. Too often I have heard Nipissing students ridicule Canadian history as unimportant or boring. After reading Berton's renditions, it is clear that such labels are unfounded. Our Nation's history is rich in diversity, and has shaped the course of time. For myself, with interests in local affairs, I believe Berton's "The Dionne Years" remains the best work of non-fiction ever written on North Bay history.

My Favourite Historian

Trying to think of a favourite historian is a daunting task, however after much thinking I would have to say that my favourite is Craig Heron. Heron is a Professor at Yorke University, and he has published many works on "The Working Class", "Masculinity", and "Alcohol". I enjoy his work best because it is readable, and discusses topics that have a sociological relevance to today. Heron is also concerned mainly with Canadian content which I would argue is a fabulous plus -- if we don't write our history then who will?

My Favourite Historian

I would have to say that my favourite historian would have to Edward Said. I looked at his work Orientalism for one of my gender history classes in undergrad and really found his perspective on post-colonialism really interesting and noteworthy. Said's perspective on the prejudicial attitudes that the West has had of the Middle East in the past brings to light the other false assumptions that the West has today of the same region. I am also really fascinated the way that Said amalgamates cultural notions, as well as political and social perspectives in Orientalism. These multifaceted perspectives on one subject area added depth and breadth to his arguments. Said allows his readers to truly look back and re-analyze the consequences and aftermath of Western colonization of not only the Middle East, but of other colonized regions of the world.

Favourite Historian

Revisiting the topic of our favourite historians has been interesting. I am currently unsure of how to determine a "favourite" historian as I appreciate different historians for different reasons - methodology, content, or even just writing style.

I am still drawn towards Terry Copp for now based on the intimate knowledge I have of his work. I have gathered a lot of understanding of propaganda and collective identity formation through his research and have used it to catapult myself into my MRP and love of history as a whole. The primary focus of his work was on the Canadian context; however, the methodology and historiography has been a fruitful resource and one which I will continue to familiarize myself with as I develop my MRP.

Overall, I am not a fan of choosing a favourite of anything as I tend to value a variety of options for their various strengths and as such I reserve the right to amend this selection as we progress through the year... and beyond.

Favouirte Historian?

When I was asked to name my favourite historian on Tuesday I drew a blank. But upon reflection, I think I'm more inspired by Marc Bloch than any other historian. Admittedly, of his works I'm only familiar with Royal Touch and The Historian's Craft (I have a passing understanding of Feudal Society, but I certainly haven't read it in full). However, there are two significant reasons for my respect and admiration for Bloch.

First, he wrote truly multidisciplinary histories. Bloch incorporated studies of the landscape and folklore into his work. And he did it all with a distinct-- almost poetic (though it's tough to really get a feel for a writer's rhythm through translation)-- narrative voice. As a student of both English and history, whose work will (so far) focus on the role the landscape played in the violent actions of men and women in the 20th century, I cannot help but be inspired by Bloch's work. Other than Cormac McCarthy (the novel Blood Meridian in particular), no writer has had as profound an influence on my historical studies as Marc Bloch.

Second, Bloch not only wrote history; he lived history. A Parisian Jew, Bloch fought in the infantry in the First World War, joined the Resistance in the Second and was ultimately executed by the Gestapo in 1944. He was a man, as such, that changed the world around him not just through his study and writing, but also through his actions.

Thus, though I have read far more about than from him, I can safely say that Marc Bloch's life and work plays an important role in my own historical study and writing.

-Ian

Favourite Author

Sup folks! Hope the weekend is going well.
I will start the favourite author discussion. My favourite historian/philosopher is either Karl Marx or Edward W. Said. I love Marx' argument about how history is derived by class struggle, and although he is technically a philosopher, his ideas have not been lost on history. I discussed that in class this week, so I will tell of my other favourite historian. I really like Edward Said's trilogy of post-colonial works, especially "Orientalism". I think post-colonial literature is important to understanding how colonialism really operated. It wasn't this "white man's burden" set to "civilize and enlighten" the "barbaric, backwards natives", but was a system of domination and exploitation, along Foucoult lines. And I like his literature because he talks about how brutal colonialism truly was between the Orient and the Occident. It was really unknown before his works came out, but he influenced other great post-colonial writers such as Albert Memmi or Franz Fanon.

Jordan

Happy New Year!

This week sees the start of the academic new year - which always seems so much more like the new year than January 1st. Today will be the first class of Methods in Historical Research for the MA in History students. I'm looking forward to meeting everyone!