The medium is the society
What history can tell us about the fractures internet is causing in society
The medium is the message, said Marshal McLuhan. He was pointing out that the content of the message is not as important as the medium through which it is delivered.
A poem read in a book is different if heard in an audiobook. And again, it differs from hearing the same poem in a poetry reading, which differs if read on WhatsApp or heard on youtube with a static background. In either case, it is not the same message, even if the text is the “same.”
The message differs because the content is not the most critical part.
The introduction of each new medium affects society, regardless of the content of its messages. Arguably, the success of the protestant revolution links to the invention of the printing press.
A paper made an econometric analysis of the relation between printing presses and Protestantism adoption in cities in Western Europe. Towns with one or more printing presses in 1500 were at least 29% more likely to be protestant by 1600 (you can read the paper here).
Again, remember the relationship between medium and message. Reading a gospel creates a different, more introspective, and reflective experience than hearing preaching about it.
So the printing press was a force in the growth of Protestantism. But also it reinforced the habit of reading as a way to learn the truth. For protestants, reading was a necessary skill. It enabled one to read the bible directly, which led to total alphabetization as a religious imperative.
The Catholic countries were afraid of heretical readings and the sidelining of the priestly class as only intermediate to God. Total alphabetization was not a priority. The response was in baroque architecture and art and keeping mass in Latin with elaborate rituals. The mass becomes a spectacle as a counterpoint to the direct contact with God through reading the protestants. So the introduction of the printing press changed the history of Europe.
Another shock came with the invention of the Radio. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels quickly seized upon the opportunities the Radio presented in 1933, when the Nazis took power. Along with hiring Ferdinand Porsche to do a good and cheap car (the more known Volkswagen: the car of the people), there was also another Volks project for an affordable, subsidized radio: The Volksempfänger, the people’s receiver (if you want you can read more about it in this paper).
The Radio was an opportunity to infiltrate German homes with propaganda. Psychologically, we tend to associate home with safety and allow only trusted people at home. The Radio puts a disembodied persuasive voice at your ear right there at your home. This medium was new, and so its impact was more substantial. Everyone wanted one. Due to subsidies, almost everyone could.
In a way, there were still no antibodies to Radio in that period. In the XVI century, books were new, so their impact alone was enough to help kickstart Protestant Reform. In the 1930s, books alone would not do this. A new medium, the Radio, was the door hence the Volksempfänger, a Nazi project to ensure the hearts and minds of the Germans.
This idea of antibodies to a specific medium may seem a bit over the top, but there are examples. In 1938, Orson Wells made a radio adaptation of H.G. Wells, the War of the Worlds, where more technologically advanced Martians invade Earth with death rays. Since Orson Wells ran a radio show, his adaption took the form of a news broadcast describing New Jersey’s invasion by Martians in real-time. There was a panic. People thought it must be true, called the police. The papers exaggerated and talked about mass hysteria and suicides. So the day after, Orson Wells made an apologetic press conference where he said in his defense:
“I know that almost everybody in Radio would do almost anything to avert the kind of thing that has happened, myself included, Radio is new, and we are learning about the effect it has on people. We learned a terrible lesson.”
Orson Wells, (source here, emphasis mine)
So in the 1930s, Radio had that power.
The next big medium was TV.
The Vietnam War was the First Television War. The Vietnam war (American) started in 1955 (the year after the French Vietnam War ended) and ended in 1975. This timeline overlaps with the growing adoption of TV ownership in the USA. From 1950 to 1966, US TV ownership increased from 9% to 93% (source here). But no one talks of the influence of TV on the Afghanistan war, which bears similarities to the Vietnam war. By now, there are antibodies against TV. Also, like Radio before it, TV has lost its charm as the antibodies grow stronger. These antibodies reject the narratives coming from the TV.
This disenchantment opens the doors to where we stand now: a new enchantment over the new medium of the internet. The widespread attitude that all that comes out of TV is a lie projected by interest groups with vested agendas. The internet is where the truth comes out via “whistleblowers” and people “just like you.” People’s enthusiasm used to stress each time they said internet or social media. Like it was a mantra, we repeated it because it felt good to be one and savvy with the technological revolution.
But, as before with the previous medium, this wave is nearing its crest, however powerful now. The latest generation, the Gen Z, defined as people born after 1996/1997, prefer face-to-face human contact to online communication in sharp contrast with the Millennials. Although born along cellphones and computers, Gen Z displays mixed feelings towards the internet and mediatic overexposure. According to a Pew Research survey in 2018, they have ample experience of its downsides like cyberbullying. So the newest generation is already wearier than previous ones, as expected by historical precedent.
Now, let me end with a guess.
All historical impacts on society will pale compared with the next big medium: direct neurological communication, artificial telepathy, a future iteration of something like Neuralink.
