ARADOXES OF MCLUHAN’S TETRAD SOME P

graham harman
SOME PARADOXES OF
MCLUHAN’S TETRAD
When artists paint the same object repeatedly, no one complains. It is silently
assumed that aesthetic objects have a density and depth that allow for multiple
angles of treatment. Picasso’s guitars can appear celebratory or melancholic,
HUKKPɈLYLU[S`PUJOHYJVHSNV\HJOLJHYKIVHYKHUKVPS*taHUUL»ZHWWSLZVYOPZ
4VU[:HPU[=PJ[VPYLJHULTP[YLK`LSSV^HUK[YHJLZVMNYLLUPUKPɈLYLU[WHPU[PUNZ
Monet’s haystacks endure through every season of the year, aging gracefully in
both sun and snow. Such repetitious treatment of the same entity is somehow
never annoying, but feels like a tribute to the object, as if it were a problem no
solution has ever solved completely. Perhaps philosophers also have their favorite
mountains or bowls of apples, addressed repeatedly as something lying just
beyond their power of comprehension as well as their power to resist.
Over the years, I have found myself “painting” two scenes repeatedly.
One is Heidegger’s famous tool-analysis in Being and Time, which I regard as
the inexhaustible thought experiment of twentieth-century philosophy — the
7SH[V»Z*H]LVMV\Y[PTL1 My other favorite scene is Marshall and Eric McLuhan’s
much less famous “tetrad,” which describes all human artifacts as composed of a
fourfold structure of enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval, and reversal. Though
Umbr(a) 77
HARMAN
I have not yet written an entire book on this theme, I have returned to it several times over the years. This
HY[PJSLPZHULɈVY[[V^LH]L[VNL[OLY[OLZL[^VVIZLZZPVUZ!/LPKLNNLY»ZOHTTLYHUK4J3\OHU»Z[L[YHK
Initially, I was tempted to entitle it “Portrait of Marshall McLuhan with Hammer,” in the same spirit as
¸4J3\OHU^P[O*SH`7PWL¹VYHeidegger comme Arlequin, since it constitutes yet another attempt to paint
an adequate portrait of McLuhan, who has resisted adequate treatment thus far by me or anyone else.
Despite McLuhan’s celebrity, it is still possible for a talented philosopher of technology like Don Ihde to
describe him as “PU[LYLZ[PUNWVW\SHYI\[\S[PTH[LS`ZVTL^OH[Z\WLYÄJPHS¹3 My own verdict, by contrast,
is that McLuhan is interesting, popular, and ultimately as deep as it gets.
THE HAMMER
Phenomenology has fallen out of fashion. Yet it remains the most important school of twentieth-century
WOPSVZVWO`HUKZ[PSSJVU[HPUZ\UL_WSVP[LK[YLHZ\YLZ/\ZZLYSTHKLHUL_JLZZP]LZHJYPÄJL^OLUOLIYHJRL[LK
the external world from consideration and reduced it to its appearance in consciousness. It hardly matters
that intentionality is always already outside itself in aiming at an object, since the object thereby becomes
nothing but a correlate of the consciousness that observes it. The result is full-blown idealism. But, as I
have argued elsewhere, there is more to Husserl than idealism. Notice that when we read his books, it
often feels like Husserl is a realist, even though he is not. The reason for this is the respect he pays to
the carnal density and opacity of individual objects, in a manner foreign to both Berkeley and Hegel. In
/\ZZLYS»Z ^VYR THPSIV_LZ ]VSJHUVLZ HUK ISHJRIPYKZ UL]LY VɈLY [OLTZLS]LZ H[ H NSHUJL I\[ T\Z[ IL
YV[H[LKPUZWLJ[LKHUKHUHS`aLK[VÄUK[OL\UKLYS`PUNPU[LU[PVUHSVIQLJ[[OH[THUPMLZ[ZP[ZLSMPUKPɈLYLU[
^H`ZH[KPɈLYLU[TVTLU[Z[OLYLI`YLUKLYPUNP[PYYLK\JPISL[VP[ZWYLZLUJLPUJVUZJPV\ZULZZH[HU`NP]LU
moment, even if it has no real existence outside of consciousness. This is why I have called Husserl the
ÄYZ[VIQLJ[VYPLU[LKPKLHSPZ[,]LY`VIQLJ[L_PZ[ZVUS`HZ[OLWVZZPISL[HYNL[VMZVTLVIZLY]LY`L[L]LY`
object is clothed at each moment with costumes and jewelry that distract us from the underlying core of
the thing.
These remarks amount to nothing more than a passing attempt to be fair to Husserl. For if
Husserl is an object-oriented idealist, he is still an idealist, and it is for this reason only that Heidegger’s
YHKPJHSPaH[PVUVMWOLUVTLUVSVN`PZIV[OWVZZPISLHUKULJLZZHY`(NHPUZ[/\ZZLYS»ZTL[OVKVMYLK\JPUN
reality to its phenomenal appearance for the observer, Heidegger famously notes that, for the most part,
objects do not appear to us as something present-at-hand (vorhanden) in consciousness. If we consider
[OLJHZLVM[VVSZ^LÄUK[OH[[OL`HYLYLSPLK\WVUX\PL[S`YH[OLY[OHUVI[Y\ZP]LS`WYLZLU[ILMVYLV\YL`LZ
Only rarely do we think of the sidewalk on which we stroll, the municipal water infrastructure on which we
YLS`[VKYPURHUKZOV^LYVY[OL[HURZHUKTPULÄLSKZ[OH[N\HYKV\YUH[PVU»ZIVYKLYSHUKZ>L[HRL[OLZL
entities for granted, insofar as our conscious activity is focused on a tiny range of details built atop an
invisible bedrock of silently functioning equipment. It is usually only when this equipment fails that we
notice it at all.
Umbr(a) 78
This assault on presence, developed in his famous tool-analysis, is Heidegger’s signature insight.
0[^HZZOHYLKÄYZ[^P[OOPZZ[\KLU[ZPU[OL >HY,TLYNLUJ`:LTLZ[LYI\[W\ISPZOLKÄYZ[PU PU
Being and Time, one of the greatest works of philosophy ever composed.5 His tool-analysis is not just
an interesting regional description of jigsaws, screwdrivers, and keys, as if some things are useful tools
and others are not. Instead, his analysis tells us something about all entities. Contra Husserl, no entity is
exhausted by its presence to consciousness. All things are at work silently in the depths of the cosmos,
HUKVUS`[OYV\NOYHYLKPZY\W[PVUZKV[OL`LY\W[PU[VL_WSPJP[HUKHJJLZZPISL]PL^/LYL^LHSYLHK`ÄUK
Heidegger’s renewal of the question of the meaning of being as that which withdraws from all presence.
>LHSZVÄUK[OLYVV[VM/LPKLNNLY»ZOPZ[VYPJPZTZPUJLJVUZJPV\ZRUV^SLKNLVM[OPZVY[OH[[OPUNPZHS^H`Z
shadowed by a deeper layer of conditions to which we do not have adequate access.
As I have argued elsewhere, the lesson of Heidegger’s tool-analysis is not just that real objects lie
deeper than any theoretical access, as if the unconscious practical sphere had direct contact with reality
in a way that consciousness itself does not.6 Even when I sit in a chair unconsciously, without noticing it,
the act of sitting does not exhaust the reality of the chair, as proven by the fact that the chair can crash
to the ground. There is always a surplus in things that is not exhausted by either theoretical or practical
activity. Objects withdraw from every form of human activity, not just the perceptual and theoretical kinds.
There is also the more surprising aspect of my interpretation of Heidegger — objects themselves must do
this to each other no less than humans must do this to objects. The chair is not exhausted by its touching
VM[OLÅVVYUVYPZ[OLÅVVY\ZLK\WI`[OLJOHPY,]LUPMPUHUPTH[LVIQLJ[ZHYLUV[JVUZJPV\ZLUV\NO[V
be “surprised,” they nevertheless reduce one another to caricatures no less than human consciousness
translates and distorts them in turn.
But this global drama of inanimate contact is of no importance to the present article. We are
interested instead in Marshall McLuhan, whose work is focused on human-centered media and lacks the
sweeping, cosmic scope that I believe Heidegger’s tool-analysis entails, which is rather obtrusively present
in a thinker such as Alfred North Whitehead. At issue here is the simpler point that Heidegger both revives
and overturns phenomenology by paying heed to a simple dualism between the concealed background
of tools taken for granted, the ready-to-hand (ZuhandenHUK[OL]PZPISLÄN\YLZZOPM[PUNHUKZ^PYSPUNPU
JVUZJPV\ZULZZ[OLWYLZLU[H[OHUK;OLKPɈLYLUJLIL[^LLUZ\YMHJLHUKKLW[OHUK[OLJVUKP[PVUZVM[OLPY
possible interplay are major themes in both Heidegger’s philosophy and Marshall and Eric McLuhan’s laws
of media.
THE TETRAD
McLuhan was a professor of literature at the University of Toronto who achieved lasting fame with his
IVVRUnderstanding Media. Its central idea is that the content of various media is less important
Umbr(a) 79
HARMAN
[OHU[OL^H`PU^OPJOLHJOTLKP\TZ[Y\J[\YLZ[OLIHJRNYV\UKJVUKP[PVUZVML_WLYPLUJL;OLKPɈLYLUJL
between good and bad, violent and peaceful, or liberal and conservative television shows means little
compared to the way our perception is restructured by the very fact that we are watching television
rather than listening to the radio or attending a vaudeville act. When the publisher asked him to prepare
a revised second edition of Understanding Media, McLuhan focused on complaints from certain critics
[OH[[OLIVVR^HZ¸UV[ZJPLU[PÄJ¹8(M[LYHZRPUNHYV\UKMVYHKLÄUP[PVUVMZJPLU[PÄJZ[H[LTLU[Z4J3\OHU
ÄUHSS`ZL[[SLKVU2HYS7VWWLY»ZMHTV\ZKPJ[\THJJVYKPUN[V^OPJOHZJPLU[PÄJZ[H[LTLU[PZVUL[OH[JHUIL
MHSZPÄLK. (S[OV\NO4J3\OHU»Z[OLVYPLZHYLSHYNLS`KL]VPKVMZPNUPÄJHU[7VWWLYPHUPUÅ\LUJL7VWWLYHJ[LK
in this way as an important spur towards developing the tetrad. For it was precisely by asking themselves
HIV\[[OLRPUKZVMZ[H[LTLU[ZJVUJLYUPUNTLKPH[OH[TH`ILMHSZPÄLK[OH[4HYZOHSS4J3\OHUHSVUN^P[O
OPZZVUHUKJV^VYRLY,YPJZWLU[[OYLL^LLRZVULZ\TTLYPU[OL ZKPZJV]LYPUN[OLPYMV\YTLKPHSH^Z
said to hold for all media without exception.
;OL ÄYZ[ SH^ PZ enhancement! ¸>OH[ KVLZ [OL HY[LMHJ[ LUOHUJL VY PU[LUZPM` VY THRL WVZZPISL
VY HJJLSLYH[L& ;OPZ JHU IL HZRLK JVUJLYUPUN H ^HZ[LIHZRL[ H WHPU[PUN H Z[LHTYVSSLY VY H aPWWLY HZ
well as about a proposition in Euclid or a law of physics.” Second, with every enhancement, there
must be an equal and opposite obsolescence!¸0MZVTLHZWLJ[VMHZP[\H[PVUPZLUSHYNLKVYLUOHUJLK
ZPT\S[HULV\ZS`[OLVSKJVUKP[PVUVY\ULUOHUJLKZP[\H[PVUPZKPZWSHJLK[OLYLI`¹ ;OPZ`PLSKZHIHZPJ
WVSHYP[`PU4J3\OHU»ZTVKLSIL[^LLU]PZPISLÄN\YLHUKOPKKLUIHJRNYV\UK^OPJOOLPKLU[PÄLZ^P[OIV[O
HUJPLU[KPHSLJ[PJÄN\YLHUKHUJPLU[NYHTTHYHUKYOL[VYPJNYV\UK;VNL[OLY[OLZL[LYTZKLZJYPIL[OL
morphologyVMHUHY[PMHJ[PUÄN\YLNYV\UK[LYTZ)`HY[PMHJ[OLTLHUZHUP[LTWYVK\JLKL_JS\ZP]LS`I`
O\THUZ!¸;OL[L[YHKPZVUS`HWWSPJHISL[VO\THUHY[LMHJ[ZHUKUV[MVYL_HTWSL[VIPYKZ»ULZ[ZVYZWPKLYZ»
^LIZ¹ ;OL JYLKP[ JHYK LUOHUJLZ [OL Z[H[\Z HUK MYLLKVT VM [OL \ZLY ^OPSL VIZVSLZJPUN TVUL`
;OL^HZOPUNTHJOPULLUOHUJLZ[OLZWLLKVMKVPUNSH\UKY`^OPSLVIZVSLZJPUN[OLZJY\IIVHYKHUK
[\I ;OL *VWLYUPJHU 9L]VS\[PVU LUOHUJLZ [OL Z\U HUK VIZVSLZJLZ [OL LHY[O 9HKPV
enhances global access to everyone at all times while obsolescing wires and physical connections more
NLULYHSS`
But there is an important problem with how the McLuhans conceive of enhancement and
VIZVSLZJLUJL*VUZPKLY[OLMVSSV^PUNKLÄUP[PVUVMLUOHUJLTLU[!¸B0[DJVUZPZ[ZPUPU[LUZPM`PUNZVTLHZWLJ[
VM H ZP[\H[PVU B¯D VM [\YUPUN HU LSLTLU[ VM NYV\UK PU[V ÄN\YL VY M\Y[OLY PU[LUZPM`PUN ZVTL[OPUN HSYLHK`
ÄN\YL¹;OLSH[[LYWHY[VM[OPZZ[H[LTLU[Y\UZJV\U[LY[V4J3\OHU»ZLU[PYL[OLVY`VMTLKPHPU^OPJOH
medium is always regarded as more enhanced and more powerful the lessP[PZ]PZPISL!¸;OLTLKP\TPZ[OL
message.”11(ZMVY[OLWVPU[HIV\[¸PU[LUZPM`PUNZVTL[OPUNHSYLHK`ÄN\YL¹[OPZPZZVTL[OPUNJVTWSL[LS`
KPɈLYLU[ MYVT LUOHUJLTLU[" PU MHJ[ [OL 4J3\OHUZ HSYLHK` KLZJYPIL P[ LSZL^OLYL HZ [OL ¸V]LYOLH[PUN¹
of media, which I will discuss below. As for obsolescence, the McLuhans make the reciprocal error on
[OLZHTLWHNLKLÄUPUNP[HZ¸YLUKLYPUNHMVYTLYZP[\H[PVUPTWV[LU[I`KPZWSHJLTLU[!ÄN\YLYL[\YUZ[V
ground.”)\[PUMHJ[UV[OPUNJV\SKILTVYLVI[Y\ZP]LS`ÄN\YLSPRL[OHUVIZVSL[LJS\[[LYVSKJHYZÄSSPUN
junkyards, land-line telephones gathered in pawn shops, last week’s newspapers stacked in a hallway),
Umbr(a) 80
while nothing is more invisible than the enhanced medium of the present moment, which enjoys a position
of silent dominance, shaping the background conditions of consciousness while we humans dispute such
[YP]PHHZ^OL[OLYZWLJPÄJ[L_[TLZZHNLZHUKLTHPSZHYLZL_`M\UU`VYY\KL
From the “morphological” pair of enhancement and obsolescence, we now turn to the
“metamorphic” terms retrieval and reversal. As the McLuhans ask, “What recurrence or retrieval of
earlier actions and services is brought into play simultaneously by the new form? What older, previously
obsolesced ground is brought back and inheres in the new form?”13 Just as the McLuhans get things
backwards in saying that enhancement makes things more visible and obsolescence makes them less
so, so too do they get things backwards here, since that which is summoned back to consciousness in
retrieval is not a previously obsolesced ground, but a previously enhanced one. After all, the obsolesced
NYV\UKPZ]PZPISL[VILNPU^P[OHUK[O\ZJHUUV[ILYL[YPL]LKPU[VHÄN\YHSZWHJLP[HSYLHK`VJJ\WPLZ;OPZ
means that the visible realm is already split in two between obsolescent and retrieved elements. And
^OPSL[OL4J3\OHUZKVUV[KPZJ\ZZ[OPZPUZ\ɉJPLU[KL[HPS[OL`HYL^LSSH^HYLVM[OPZK\HSP[`HZYLÅLJ[LK
by the key words in the title From Cliché to Archetype[OL IVVRJVH\[OVYLKI`4J3\OHUHUK[OL
poet Wilfred Watson. )V[O VIZVSL[L JSPJOtZ HUK YL[YPL]LK HYJOL[`WLZ ILSVUN [V [OL ZWOLYL VM ]PZPISL
ÄN\YH[P]LHJJLZZ·VYTVYLZPTWS`[OL^VYSKVMcontent. Above all, it is the artist^OVJVU]LY[ZJSPJOtZ
into archetypes by relating them to the tacit, hidden ground of our time.
(ZMVYYL]LYZHS[OL4J3\OHUZZ\NNLZ[[OLMVSSV^PUN!¸>OLUW\ZOLK[V[OLSPTP[ZVMP[ZWV[LU[PHS
[…], the new form will tend to reverse what had been its original characteristics. What is the reversal
potential of the new form?”15 This tends to happen through “overheating,” as we will see below. The new
medium becomes so packed with indigestible detail that it eventually reverses into its opposite. One
obvious example of this is cars, which begin as a medium of greater speed and mobility, but eventually,
^P[O[OLPUJYLHZLPU[OLPYU\TILYZSLHK[OLTLKP\T[VÅPWPU[VZSV^TV[PVU[YHɉJWH[[LYUZHUKOV\YSVUN
searches for a parking space. Whereas enhancement and obsolescence are static poles of a dualism,
^P[O IHJRNYV\UK VU VUL ZPKL HUK ÄN\YL VU [OL V[OLY YL[YPL]HS HUK YL]LYZHS HKKYLZZ [OL ^H` PU ^OPJO
[OLZLWVSLZTPYYVYVULHUV[OLY;OH[PZ^O`[OL`HYLJHSSLK¸TL[HTVYWOVZPZ¹!;OL`MVYT[OLYVV[VMHSS
possible media change. We will deal with this problem below, but one of its consequences is already clear.
Although McLuhan seems to have little regard for the content of a medium, choosing instead to focus on
its tacit background conditions, it turns out that the realm of content is the trigger for all change. After all,
YL[YPL]HST\Z[ILWLYMVYTLKI`HY[PZ[Z^OVYLJVUÄN\YL[OL]PZPISLHUKPUZVKVPUNW\[P[PU[VHYLSH[PVU
with the ground, while reversal occurs through overheating at the level of content — not at the level of
hidden background media themselves, which are simply always what they are, without hope of variability.
)LMVYLTV]PUNVU[VHJVUZPKLYH[PVUVMTL[HTVYWOVZPZOV^L]LY^LZOV\SKIYPLÅ`JVUZPKLYH^LSSRUV^U
critique of McLuhan’s tetrad from a scholar rather familiar with it.
Umbr(a) 81
HARMAN
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE PENTAD
Eric McLuhan has never yielded on the point that the tetrad must be a tetrad — the laws of media must be
L_HJ[S`MV\YPUU\TILY9LMLYYPUN[VOPZ^VYRVU[OL[L[YHK^P[OOPZMH[OLY4J3\OHUÄSZ writes, “We found
[OLZLMV\YBSH^ZD¯HUKUVTVYLB4`MH[OLYDZWLU[[OLYLZ[VMOPZSPMLSVVRPUNMVYHÄM[OPM[OLYLILVULHUK
ZPT\S[HULV\ZS`[Y`PUN[VÄUKHZPUNSLJHZLPU^OPJOVULVM[OLÄYZ[MV\YKVLZUV[HWWS`¹]PPP¸.YHK\HSS`¹
OLJVU[PU\LZ¸HZ^LZLHYJOLKMVY[OLÄM[OSH^V[OLYKPZJV]LYPLZHUKPTWSPJH[PVUZILNHU[VLTLYNL;OL
single largest of these was that of an inner harmony among the four laws — that there are pairs of ratios
among them — and of the relation between that and metaphor” (ix). In the introduction to their work, father
HUKZVUW\ZO[OLULJLZZP[`VMMV\YULZZL]LUM\Y[OLY!
Over more than twelve years of constant investigation, alone and with the help of
JVSSLHN\LZ^LOH]LILLU\UHISL[VÄUKHÄM[OX\LZ[PVU[OH[HWWSPLZ[VHSSTLKPHVY[V
locate a single instance in which one of the four is clearly absent or irrelevant. We issue
[OPZ JOHSSLUNL [V [OL YLHKLY! *HU `V\ ÄUK H ÄM[O X\LZ[PVU [OH[ HWWSPLZ PU HSS VY L]LU H
ZPNUPÄJHU[THU`PUZ[HUJLZ&*HU`V\SVJH[LHUPUZ[HUJLPU^OPJOVULVM[OLMV\YX\LZ[PVUZ
does not apply?
@V\Y HUZ^LY PZ VM [OL ÄYZ[ PTWVY[HUJL HZ P[ KL[LYTPULZ [OL kind of our science. If one
question is eliminated, if the tetrad is reduced to a triad, then, as will be discussed, we
OH]LTLYLS`6SK:JPLUJL[YPJRLKV\[PUUL^JSV[OLZUV[MVYTHSI\[LɉJPLU[JH\ZLHUK
MHTPSPHY 4L[OVK 0M Ä]L X\LZ[PVUZ HWWS` ^L HYL PU V[OLY I\[ HNHPU UL^ [LYYP[VY` B¯D
Whatever the outcome, once the number of laws is known — and it will be four — then we
JHUILJLY[HPU[OH[L]LY`O\THUHY[LMHJ[^PSSVJJHZPVUL_HJ[S`[OLZL[YHUZMVYTH[PVUZ
This passage is worth quoting as evidence of just how seriously the McLuhans adopt four as the number
of their media laws. Nevertheless, these claims have been subject to a number of challenges from both
inside and outside the inner circle of McLuhan studies.
Umbr(a) 82
Among the most prominent of these challenges came from the late Frank Zingrone, in his widely
YLHK HY[PJSL¸3H^ZVM4LKPH!;OL7LU[HKHUK;LJOUPJHS:`UJYL[PZT¹16 Here, Zingrone is bothered
I`[OL4J3\OHUZ»PUZPZ[LUJLVU[OLX\HKY\WSLZ[Y\J[\YLVMTLKPHSH^Z!¸^O`four operations? Why this
particular four? The annoyance in these questions persists, burns. This is not fourness on the scale of the
H[VTPJZ[Y\J[\YLVM)LY`SSP\TPZP[&(UK^O`KVLZP[TH[[LY[OH[[OLYLHYLVUS`MV\Y&¹ 0UMHJ[APUNYVUL
is so bothered that he claims, “if only four are promulgated, or only four are allowed, everything Marshall
McLuhan stood for, is vitiated¹ "LTWOHZPZHKKLK>O`^V\SKL]LY`[OPUNIL]P[PH[LK&)LJH\ZL¸SH^Z
of any sort, delimit,” and “the appearance of a lack of openness to chance occurrence plays into the hands
VM[OVZL^OVHJJ\ZL4J3\OHUNYV\UKSLZZS`VM[LJOUVSVNPJHSKL[LYTPUPZT¹ 3H^Z[OLUZ[HUKMVY
YPNPKP[`HUKKL[LYTPUPZTHUK[OLYLMVYLT\Z[UV[ILÄ_LKPUU\TILY4VYLV]LYAPUNYVULPZ[YV\ISLKI`
[OLHPYVMÄUHSP[`PU[OL4J3\OHUZ»WVZ[\SH[PVUVMHX\HKYH[LVMTLKPHSH^Z!¸6ULWLYZVU»ZZSH[LVMSH^Z
[…] is a beginning for extensions by others, as Newton’s laws of motion in his Principia were added to
I` ,PUZ[LPU¹ -PUHSS` APUNYVUL ZLLZ [OL U\TILY MV\Y HZ UV TVYL PUOLYLU[S` WYHPZL^VY[O` [OHU
[OLU\TILYÄ]L!¸L]LY`[PTL0SVVRH[T`ÄUNLYZHUK[VLZVY[OLU\TILYVMHWLY[\YLZPUT`OLHK0»T
WYLZZLK[VMH]V\Y[OLWLU[HJ\SHYI\[T`MV\YSPTIZ[LSSTLUV[[VILL_JS\ZP]LHIV\[P["L]LU[OL`JHU
\UL_WLJ[LKS`ILJVTLÄ]LHZ6LKPW\ZSLHYULKMYVT[OL:WO`U_¹APUNYVULHSZVL_WYLZZLZHNLULYHS
worry that “numerologies of this sort quickly risk becoming silly” (111). And numerologies of this sort are
no less pedantic than silly, since there is no way to decide whether to favor four because of “the fourfold
method of exegesis of Aquinian theology,” or the fact that “Joyce did Finnegans Wake in four books,”
or three because of the classical Trivium (rhetoric, dialectic, grammar) and “triunite Augustinianism,” or
WLYOHWZL]LUÄ]LK\L[V[OLU\TILYVMÄUNLYZVY[VLZVULHJOVMV\YSPTIZHUK[OLÄ]LOVSLZPUV\Y
heads (counting the nose as two) (111). It also seems to Zingrone that, if the McLuhans establish four
TLKPHSH^Z[OLILZ[^H`[VM\Y[OLY[OLPY^VYRPZ[VKPZJV]LY`L[HUV[OLYSH^!¸;OL[L[YHKJHUVUS`ILH
ILNPUUPUN+VLZU»[L]LY`VULZH`ZV&>OH[JVTLZHM[LYP[&;OLWLU[HK0ILSPL]L¹(UK^OPSLAPUNYVUL
JSHPTZ[VHWWYLJPH[L[OLTL[HWOVYPJWYVWVY[PVUZ[OL4J3\OHUZÄUKPU[OLMV\YMVSKZ[Y\J[\YLOLHSZV]PL^Z
[OLZLTL[HWOVYPJWYVWVY[PVUZHZHKHUNLY[VILH]VPKLK!¸>OLUTL[HWOVYPZOLKNLK^P[OY\SLZP[X\PJRS`
loses its power to create rich meanings. Used too precisely (as in a system of laws?) metaphor reverts
to a new type of technical terminology, rather like what happens to poetic devices in advertising¹"
LTWOHZPZHKKLK4VYLV]LY¸HKKPUNHBÄM[ODM\UJ[PVU[V[OL[L[YHKH[SLHZ[Z[HIPSPaLZP[HNHPUZ[[OL]HNHYPLZ
of imprecise meaning associated with metaphor” (115). After lodging several grave reservations against
[OL[L[YHKZ[Y\J[\YLAPUNYVULLUKZOPZHY[PJSL^P[OH^LHRLYKLJSHYH[PVU[OHUVULTPNO[V[OLY^PZLL_WLJ[!
“This inquiry, into a rich subject, aims simply to stimulate others to make their own assessments of the
Laws and perhaps to contribute additions to their increasingly manifold elements and operations” (115).
>OH[[OLUPZAPUNYVUL»ZWYVWVZLKÄM[OSH^VMTLKPHOPZWYVWVZLK¸HKKP[PVU[V[OLPUJYLHZPUNS`
THUPMVSKLSLTLU[ZHUKVWLYH[PVUZ¹VM[OL[L[YHK&/PZWYVWVZHSPZ[OLSH^VM¸Z`UJYL[PZT¹!¸;LJOUVSVNPLZ
usually occur at least in pairs. That is, any new technology is the result of two earlier technologies coming
together and fusing into another more useful and powerful third. There are many examples of such pairing”
;OLMVYRJVTIPULZ[LL[O^P[OÄUNLYZ"HJOHPYHSSV^ZO\THUZ[VISLUK[OL[^VWVZP[PVUZVMZX\H[[PUN
Umbr(a) 83
HARMAN
and standing. Zingrone adds that “[this] syncretic fusion of technologies is rooted in physiological
L_[LUZPVU!P[PZHZVY[VMJVUJYL[LKPHSLJ[PJ^OPJOZ`U[OLZPaLZIVK`WHY[ZPUJYLHZPUNS`L_[LUKPUN[OLTMVY
HJ[PVUH[HKPZ[HUJL¹>LUV^OH]LHNVVK]HU[HNLWVPU[VUAPUNYVUL»ZLɈVY[[VTV]LIL`VUK[OL
McLuhans’ fourfold theory. As he sees it, the number four is arbitrary, rigid, and nothing more than a raw
beginning. The fourfold is much improved by insight into the syncretic nature of technologies, which it
supposedly overlooks.
:HSHT»Z¸LSLJ[YV^LHR¹[OLVY`HUKOHZTVYLVYSLZZ\UPÄLK[OLLSLJ[YV^LHR^P[O[OLZ[YVUNU\JSLHYMVYJLPU
^OH[PZJHSSLK¸X\HU[\TJOYVTVK`UHTPJZ¹8*+/V^L]LYUVVULOHZILLUHISL[O\ZMHY[V\UPM`[OLZL
three forces with gravity, and much imagination has been expended in theory and experiment to do so.
)\[P[^V\SKILIPaHYYL[VZ\NNLZ[[OH[\USLZZHÄM[OHUKZP_[OM\UKHTLU[HSMVYJLHYLHKKLKWO`ZPJZ^PSS
make no progress beyond its theory of four forces. But this is precisely Zingrone’s assumption with regard
to the McLuhans’ tetrad laws.
Nonetheless, Zingrone’s attempt to improve the tetrad fails entirely and must be rejected. Indeed,
[OLYLHYLZLYPV\ZWYVISLTZ^P[O[OLH[[LTW[[VHKKZ`UJYL[PZT[V[OLSPZ[HZHÄM[OSH^VMTLKPH5VZVVULY
does Zingrone mention this new principle than he becomes wishy-washy about whether it is even a law.
He initially says that technologies “usually” occur in pairs, before upping the ante, claiming that “any” new
technology results from the fusion of two earlier ones. He then tells us that there are “many examples” of
such fusion, which is not the sort of thing one says about a genuine law. No one would say, for instance,
[OH[[OLYLHYL¸THU`L_HTWSLZ¹VM[OLHUNSLZVMH[YPHUNSLHKKPUN\W[VKLNYLLZVY¸THU`JHZLZ¹PU
^OPJOTHZZLZHYLKYH^U[VNL[OLYI`NYH]P[H[PVU:V^OPJOPZP[&+VLZZ`UJYL[PZTKLÄULHSSTLKPHVYVUS`
“many” media? If the latter is the case, then it may be a fascinating historical fact that syncretic technologies
exist in abundance, but it cannot be a law that holds for all media, as the McLuhans rightly claim of their
own four laws. But there is an even bigger problem with Zingrone’s argument, an almost staggering lapsus
for someone as familiar with McLuhan’s work as Zingrone seems to be. I refer to his admission that
¸[OLZ`UJYL[PJM\ZPVUVM[LJOUVSVNPLZPZYVV[LKPUWO`ZPVSVNPJHSL_[LUZPVU¹-HYMYVTLZJHWPUN[OL
McLuhans’ attention, extension is already present in the tetrad under the name enhancement. As Eric
4J3\OHUKLÄULZ[OL[LYTPUOPZ\ZLM\SWYLMHJL[VLaws of Media¸L]LY`[LJOUVSVN`L_[LUKZVYHTWSPÄLZ
some organ or faculty of the user.” There may be some value in accepting Zingrone’s historical thesis or
acknowledging that this “often” happens due to the syncretic fusion of two initially separate technologies,
but to discover interesting special cases of enhancement hardly counts as establishing a new law. If we
were to say, for example, “planetary orbits often result from the tension between two distinct gravitational
forces,” we would not be challenging the law-like character of universal gravitation. At stake here is an
application of the law, just as Zingrone concedes that his law of syncretism is rooted in enhancement. It is
KPɉJ\S[[VZLLOV^OLJV\SKOH]LV]LYSVVRLKHWVPU[ZVIHZPJ[VOPZV^UHY[PJSL
Zingrone also claims that the McLuhans’ tetrad laws are rigid and deterministic, leaving no window
VWLUMVYJOHUJLVJJ\YYLUJLZ)\[[OPZWVPU[PZQ\Z[HZIPaHYYLHZ[OLWYL]PV\ZVUL-PYZ[VMHSS[OLX\LZ[PVU
of whether or not McLuhan is a technological determinist has nothing to do with his adoption of four
IPUKPUNSH^ZVMTLKPH;OPZ^V\SKHZZ\TL[OH[¸SH^¹T\Z[TLHUHYVIV[PJZLX\LUJLVMJH\ZLHUKLɈLJ[PU
[OLZLUZLVMLɉJPLU[JH\ZH[PVU)\[[OLwhole point of the tetrad is to return our focus to formal causation
HM[LY[OLSLUN[O`TVKLYUKVTPUHUJLVMLɉJPLU[JH\ZH[PVU0UV[OLY^VYKZ[OLMHJ[[OH[HSS[LJOUVSVNPLZ
enhance, obsolesce, retrieve something, and reverse into something in no way entails that this happens
PUHKL[LYTPUPZ[PJMHZOPVUHZPM[OLYL^HZVUS`VULWVZZPISLYL[YPL]HSVYYL]LYZHSMVY[OLP7OVULVY2PUKSL
In short, the most dogmatic admirer of the tetrad can assault determinism just as easily as a skeptic who
denies the possibility of a clear theory of media. There is nothing inherently rigid about believing in a
theory, as long as one is willing to modify or abolish the theory when the facts warrant it.
This leaves us with Zingrone’s rather feeble complaint that the McLuhans’ tetrad is arbitrary, rigid,
and excessively raw. Let us deal with these points in reverse order. There is no question that the tetrad
theory, like all new theories, is somewhat raw. As Eric McLuhan admits, “To the charges that some [of
the tetrads] are pretty lame, or that some work better than others, we can only plead, ‘it’s new to us too,’
and invite you to help us improve them where you can.”18 But the question is how such improvement
ought to occur. Zingrone merely assumes that it should take place by means of a quantitative increase
in the number of media laws, and this assumption is obviously unimaginative. To consider an analogy,
[OL Z[HUKHYK TVKLS VM WHY[PJSL WO`ZPJZ HSZV OHZ MV\Y MVYJLZ! NYH]P[` LSLJ[YVTHNUL[PZT HUK [OL Z[YVUN
HUK^LHRU\JSLHYMVYJLZ7O`ZPJZOHZ\UPÄLK[OLZLJVUKHUKMV\Y[OVM[OLZLPU.SHZOV^>LPUILYNHUK
Umbr(a) 84
Finally, there is Zingrone’s claim that the tetrad is arbitrary, which strikes at the heart of the matter.
>O`UV[NVMVY[OLU\TILYÄ]LZPUJLP[JVYYLZWVUKZ[V[OLU\TILYVMÄUNLYZVULHJOOHUKHUK[VLZVU
each foot? Or why not three, since it is the number of the Trivium (which the McLuhans love) and Dante’s
canticles, Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso? But this question reveals a basic misunderstanding with
regard to what the McLuhans discover with their tetrad. Although Eric McLuhan tells a nice story about
joining his father in brainstorming possible laws, it is merely an anecdotal history of the tetrad, not an
explanation of why and how it works. The point is not that the tetrad contains all possible empirically
]LYPÄHISLSH^ZVMTLKPH"PM[OH[^LYL[OLJHZLAPUNYVUL^V\SKILYPNO[[VZ\NNLZ[[OH[[OLYLPZUV^H`[V
limit the list to four. But the tetrad is not primarily an empirical theory, even if it has empirical applications.
-HY TVYL PTWVY[HU[ PZ [OL KPZJV]LY` VM YH[PVZ IL[^LLU [OL MV\Y ^OPJO PZ OHYKS` Z\YWYPZPUN! 3PRL TVZ[
fourfold structures in the history of thought, the tetrad is built on two intersecting dualisms.
;OLTVZ[PTWVY[HU[VM[OLZLPZ[OLWYPTHY`4J3\OHUPHUKPɈLYLUJLIL[^LLUÄN\YLHUKIHJRNYV\UK
The meaning of “the medium is the message,” as every reader of McLuhan knows, is that surface content
is nothing and hidden background is everything. While the surface ends up being more important to
4J3\OHU[OHUOLTPNO[^PZO[VHKTP[[OLKPɈLYLUJLIL[^LLUÄN\YLHUKIHJRNYV\UKPZM\UKHTLU[HS[VHSS
phases of his thinking. The content of television shows is unimportant compared to the way that television
as a medium structures our most hidden conditions of perception. The appearance of the alphabet or
[OL WYPU[PUN WYLZZ PZ PUJHSJ\SHIS` TVYL PTWVY[HU[ [OHU [OL W\ISPJH[PVU VM HU` ZWLJPÄJ IVVR OV^L]LY
YL]VS\[PVUHY`P[TH`IL;OLZLHYLIHZPJ4J3\OHUPHUPUZPNO[ZWYLTPZLKVUHÄN\YLIHJRNYV\UKKPZ[PUJ[PVU
Umbr(a) 85
HARMAN
that makes up one of the pillars of Laws of Media. The other is the distinction the McLuhans draw between
“morphology” and “metamorphosis.” Enhancement and obsolescence tell us that every medium makes
some things more visible (enhancement) while placing others in a hidden background (obsolescence).
)\[YL[YPL]HSHUKYL]LYZHSZOV^\Z[OH[ÄN\YLHUKIHJRNYV\UKHYLHS^H`ZZVTLOV^PU[LY[^PULK!9L[YPL]HS
TLHUZ[OH[HMVYTLYIHJRNYV\UKTLKP\TPZUV^]PZPISLHZÄN\YL^OPSLYL]LYZHSZOV^Z\ZOV^V]LYOLH[LK
ÄN\YLZÅPWPU[VIHJRNYV\UK0UZOVY[[OLYLPZUV[OPUNH[HSS¸HYIP[YHY`¹HIV\[[OLU\TILYMV\YVUJL^L
YLHSPaL[OH[[OL[L[YHKPZUV[WYPTHYPS`HIYHPUZ[VYTPUNZLZZPVUO\U[PUNMVYTLKPHSH^ZVUHWPLJLTLHSIHZPZ
The McLuhans did in fact begin by brainstorming, but this led to a media ontology according to which
ÄN\YLHUKIHJRNYV\UKZ[HUKPUVWWVZP[PVUTVYWOVSVN`·LUOHUJLTLU[HUKVIZVSLZJLUJLHUKTPYYVY
VULHUV[OLYTL[HTVYWOVZPZ·YL[YPL]HSHUKYL]LYZHS6I]PV\ZS`[OLYLPZUVWVZZPISLYVVTMVYHÄM[O[LYT
in this structure. Nor does the McLuhans’ fondness for the threefold Trivium contradict their fourfold in
any way. In their interpretation, the Trivium actually turns into a dyad, in which dialectic is responsible for
KLHSPUN^P[OZ\YMHJLÄN\YLZ^OPSLIV[OYOL[VYPJand grammar are twin brothers watching over the concealed
IHJRNYV\UKILOPUKHSSÄN\YLZ0U[OPZ^H`[OL4J3\OHUZ[YLH[[OLZVJHSSLK;YP]P\THZLX\P]HSLU[[V[OLPY
MHTPSPHYVWWVZP[PVUIL[^LLUÄN\YLHUKIHJRNYV\UK0UZVMHYHZ[OPZVWWVZP[PVUPZKV\ISLKI`[OLTPYYVYWSH`
of “metamorphosis,” there are only four seats in the car, leaving no room for the pentad.
THE PUZZLE OF METAMORPHOSIS
McLuhan is often described as a “technological determinist.” Here, for once, I agree with Zingrone — the
JOHYNLPZNYV\UKSLZZ@L[P[PZUV[KPɉJ\S[[VZLL^O`[OLJOHYNLPZZVVM[LUTHKL4J3\OHU»ZTVZ[IHZPJ
thesis is that the explicit content of consciousness matters little when compared to the deep background
against which it appears. And given that political deliberation seems to unfold at the level of conscious
speech, programs, platforms, and ideas, the notion that all of this is just frosting makes it seem like we are
TLYLS`W\WWL[ZVMHKHYR[LJOUVSVNPJHSIHJRNYV\UK\UHISL[VTHRLKLJPZPVUZ[OH[HɈLJ[[OLTHJOPULY`
of the world. But this charge is based on a faulty assumption. For while it is true that deep background is
more important to McLuhan than anything that takes place in the foreground of conscious action, it does
not follow that we have no power to shape the background. This happens constantly, at least according
to the McLuhanian view of the world. Once a breakthrough technology is invented — Twitter, convenience
stores, the iPhone — the technology establishes basic parameters that shape consciousness and limit
our options. But by no means is it the case that this technology automatically leads to the next one. There
was no reason the iPhone had to exist precisely in its current form, nor is it obvious what its successor
^PSSSVVRSPRL"O\THUZHYLUV[HS[VNL[OLYWV^LYSLZZ[VJOVVZLP[ZZ\JJLZZVY-VYHSS[OLWV^LY4J3\OHU
grants to the background medium, it turns out to be stunningly one-dimensional and static. All it can really
do is provide a framework for content and shape that content inertly for as long as the medium remains in
MVYJL0[PZSPRL[OLTV[PVUSLZZX\LLUILL^OVKVTPUH[LZ[OLOP]L^OLUHSSVM[OLI\aaPUNZ^HYTPUNHUK
stinging is elsewhere.
Umbr(a) 86
As I suggested above, what is most remarkable about McLuhan’s “metamorphic” terms is that
TL[HTVYWOVZPZHS^H`ZVJJ\YZUV[PU[OLKLLWIHJRNYV\UKTLKP\TI\[H[[OLTVZ[Z\WLYÄJPHSSH`LYVM
ÄN\YHSJVU[LU[+LSL\aLZWLHRZVM¸Z[LYPSLZ\YMHJLLɈLJ[Z¹ such that causation is stripped from individual
bodies and transferred to the realm of the virtual. One might expect McLuhan to do exactly the same
thing, given his infamous assertion in a Playboy interview that “the content or message of any particular
medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.” Instead,
transformation takes place, according to McLuhan, only on the surface, as if the stenciling on an atomic
bomb were responsible for activating or deactivating the bomb itself.
Let us consider both forms of metamorphosis. As a reminder, this is what the McLuhans say
HIV\[ YL]LYZHS! ¸>OLU W\ZOLK [V [OL SPTP[Z VM P[Z WV[LU[PHS B¯D [OL UL^ MVYT ^PSS [LUK [V YL]LYZL ^OH[
had been its original characteristics.”9L]LYZHSPZHTH[[LYVM^OH[4J3\OHUJHSSZ¸V]LYOLH[PUN¹;OPZ
is a crucial theme, even in Understanding Media[OL[OPYKJOHW[LYVM^OPJOPZLU[P[SLK¸9L]LYZHSVM[OL
Overheated Medium.” The reference to heat points us back to the second chapter, “Media Hot and
*VSK¹(S[OV\NO0OKLJVU[LUKZ[OH[[OLKPɈLYLUJLIL[^LLUOV[HUKJVSKTLKPHPZ¸MVVSPZO¹ McLuhan
[YLH[ZP[]LY`ZLYPV\ZS`/LL_WSHPUZ[OPZKPɈLYLUJLHZMVSSV^Z!
;LSLWOVULPZHJVVSTLKP\TVYVULVMSV^KLÄUP[PVUILJH\ZL[OLLHYPZNP]LUHTLHNLY
HTV\U[VMPUMVYTH[PVU(UKZWLLJOPZHJVVSTLKP\TVMSV^KLÄUP[PVUILJH\ZLZVSP[[SLPZ
NP]LUHUKZVT\JOOHZ[VILÄSSLKPUI`[OLSPZ[LULY6U[OLV[OLYOHUKOV[TLKPHKVUV[
SLH]LZVT\JO[VILÄSSLKPUVYJVTWSL[LKI`[OLH\KPLUJL/V[TLKPHHYL[OLYLMVYLSV^
in participation, and cool media are high in participation or completion by the audience.
5H[\YHSS`[OLYLMVYLHOV[TLKP\TSPRLYHKPVOHZ]LY`KPɈLYLU[LɈLJ[ZVU[OL\ZLYMYVTH
cool medium like the telephone.
While I do not agree with Ihde that this distinction is foolish, it does lead to a paradox. On the one hand,
McLuhan describes various media as inherently hot or cold, depending on how much information they
WYV]PKL! ;LSLWOVUL HUK ZWLLJO HYL JVVS TLKPH" YHKPV PZ H OV[ TLKP\T 0U [OL JVVSULZZ VM [LSL]PZPVU
2LUULK`»Z JHST JOHYPZTH KLMLH[Z [OL ZOHII`SVVRPUN 5P_VU" PU [OL OLH[ VM YHKPV 5P_VU»Z KLIH[L
performance leads listeners to judge him the victor. Hitler’s screaming tirades are perfect for hot radio, but
the Hitler phenomenon would have looked ridiculous on television. In this respect, heat and cold seem to
ILWYVWLY[PLZPUZJYPILKPU[OLUH[\YLVMZWLJPÄJTLKPH[OLTZLS]LZ6U[OLV[OLYOHUK4J3\OHUHSZV[YLH[Z
heat as a variable continuum along which something can become hotter through an increase in detail
HUKPUMVYTH[PVUSLHKPUNL]LU[\HSS`[VHYL]LYZHS)\[[OPZSLHKZ[VHKV\ISLWYVISLT!0M[LSL]PZPVUPZHJVSK
medium, how can it ever heat up? And if radio is already a hot medium, how can it get hotter?
9L[YPL]HSSLHKZ[VKPɈLYLU[ZVY[ZVMWHYHKV_LZ9LJHSS4J3\OHU»ZJVTTLU[ZVUYL[YPL]HS!¸>OH[
recurrence or retrieval of earlier actions and services is brought into play simultaneously by the new form?
What older, previously obsolesced ground is brought back and inheres in the new form?” On the one hand,
Umbr(a) 87
HARMAN
the McLuhans decree that every medium, without exception, retrieves some older medium as its content.
On the other hand, retrieval is said not to be the automatic result of a new medium, but the labored result
VM[OL^VYRVMHY[PZ[Z!¸6ULVM[OLWLJ\SPHYP[PLZVMHY[PZ[VZLY]LHZ(U[P,U]PYVUTLU[HWYVIL[OH[THRLZ
the environment visible.” Here, the visibility of the environment is the result of conscious work rather
than a foreordained outcome. Yet, in the very same passage, the McLuhans assert that breakthroughs in
TLKPHWLYMVYT[OPZ^VYRMVY\ZH\[VTH[PJHSS`!¸>OLYLYHPS^H`HUKTHJOPULJYLH[LKHUL^LU]PYVUTLU[
for agrarian man, the old agrarian environment became an art form. Nature became a work of art. The
9VTHU[PJTV]LTLU[^HZIVYU>OLU[OLLSLJ[YPJJPYJ\P[^LU[HYV\UK[OLTLJOHUPJHSLU]PYVUTLU[[OL
machine itself became a work of art. Abstract art was born.” There is a second paradox as well. Not
VUS`PZYL[YPL]HS[OLYLZ\S[VMH\[VTH[PJTLKPHJOHUNLZHUKKPɉJ\S[HY[PZ[PJSHIVYI\[[OLYLHSTVMJVU[LU[
is also splitIL[^LLUVIZVSL[LJSPJOtHUKYL[YPL]LKHYJOL[`WL4J3\OHU»Z^LSSRUV^UKPJ[\THJJVYKPUN
to which “Every medium has a previous medium as its content” is ambiguous, insofar as it can mean that
either a now abandoned medium has become visible, obtrusive, and useless (obsolescence), or we have
re-adapted some formerly abandoned medium and made it relevant once more (retrieval). But what is the
exact relation, for example, between cars and horses? Do cars reduce horses to a relatively minor part of
society, thereby obsolescing them? Yes. But do cars also hark back to the days of jousts and heraldry, as
a sort of retrieval of the days of horse-based knighthood? Yes again. Then it seems to be the case that the
same medium can be both obsolesced and retrieved in the same stroke.
ADDRESSING THE PARADOXES
>LJHUZ\TTHYPaL[OLWHYHKV_LZVM[OLZLTL[HTVYWOVZLZHZMVSSV^Z;OLWHYHKV_VMYL]LYZHSPZ[OH[
MVY4J3\OHU¸TLKPHOLH[¹PZIV[OHZ[H[PJWYVWLY[`VMJLY[HPUOPNOKLÄUP[PVUTLKPHZ\JOHZYHKPVHUK
print) andHJVU[PU\\THSVUN^OPJOTLKPHNYHK\HSS`ILJVTLOV[[LY\U[PS[OL`L]LU[\HSS`YL]LYZL9L[YPL]HS
OV^L]LYLU[HPSZ[^VZLWHYH[LWHYHKV_LZ;OLÄYZ[PZ[OH[PUVULZLUZLP[PZZHPK[VOHWWLUH\[VTH[PJHSS`
whenever the background medium changes, while, in another, it requires hardworking artists and visionaries
[VIYPUN[OLVSKTLKP\TIHJRTHRPUNP[ZLY]PJLHISLHNHPU;OLZLJVUKPZ[OH[4J3\OHUKLWPJ[ZÄN\YHS
JVU[LU[HZTHKL\WVMIV[OVIZVSL[LJSPJOtZHUKYL[YPL]LKHYJOL[`WLZ>LZOV\SKUV^JVUZPKLYOV^[OLZL
WHYHKV_LZTPNO[ILYLZVS]LK-VY[OLYLHKLY»ZJVU]LUPLUJL^LJHUSPZ[[OLTPUHOHUK`JOHY[!
A. ;OL¸OLH[¹VMTLKPHPZIV[OHÄ_LKWYVWLY[`VMJLY[HPUTLKPHHUKHJVU[PU\\THSVUN^OPJOHU`
TLKP\TJHUILOLH[LK"
B. 9L[YPL]HSPZIV[O[OLH\[VTH[PJYLZ\S[VMHU`UL^TLKP\THUK[OLJVU[PUNLU[YLZ\S[VMOHYK^VYR
I`HY[PZ[ZHUKV[OLY]PZPVUHYPLZ"
* ;OLYLHSTVMJVU[LU[ÄN\YLJVUZPZ[ZVMIV[OVIZVSL[LJSPJOtZHUKYL[YPL]LKHYJOL[`WLZ
Umbr(a) 88
Umbr(a) 89
HARMAN
Let us proceed in reverse order.
If there were a law requiring us to condense each thinker’s thinking into a snappy, one-sentence
Z\TTHY`[OLMVSSV^PUNTPNO[ZLY]LMVY4J3\OHU!¸)HJRNYV\UKTLKPHHYLWYVMV\UKHUKPTWVY[HU[^OPSL
[OLPYZ\YMHJLJVU[LU[PZZ\WLYÄJPHSHUK\UPTWVY[HU[¹5VUL[OLSLZZ4J3\OHUJVUJLKLZ[OH[UV[HSSJVU[LU[
PZLX\HSS`Z\WLYÄJPHS/PZZHYJHZ[PJJVTTLU[HY`VU[OL¸YHNHUKIVULZOVW¹VMKPZTHSVIZVSL[LJSPJOtZ
obstructing the landscape of the world is countered by his equal enthusiasm for the retrieval of archetypes
from the hidden background.;OPZK\HSPZTIL[^LLUJSPJOtHUKHYJOL[`WLPZYLTHYRHIS`ZPTPSHY[V[OL
dualism between kitsch and avant-gardeÄYZ[WYVWVZLKPU I`[OLHY[JYP[PJ*SLTLU[.YLLUILYN·VUL
of the greatest writers of the twentieth century, despite his still unredeemed fall from fashion in the early
Z31*SVZLS`YLSH[LK[VRP[ZJOPZ.YLLUILYN»ZJVUJLW[VM¸HJHKLTPJHY[¹^OPJOOLKLÄULZS\JPKS`PUH
SH[LJHYLLYSLJ[\YLPU:`KUL`(\Z[YHSPH!
(JHKLTPJPaH[PVU PZU»[ H TH[[LY VM HJHKLTPLZ · [OLYL ^LYL HJHKLTPLZ SVUN ILMVYL
HJHKLTPJPaH[PVU HUK ILMVYL [OL UPUL[LLU[O JLU[\Y` (JHKLTPJPZT JVUZPZ[Z PU the
tendency to take the medium of an art too much for granted0[YLZ\S[ZPUIS\YYPUN!^VYKZ
ILJVTLPTWYLJPZLJVSVYNL[ZT\ɊLK[OLWO`ZPJHSZV\YJLZVMZV\UKILJVTL[VVT\JO
dissembled.
-VY .YLLUILYN HUK 4J3\OHU HSPRL ¸[OL [LUKLUJ` [V [HRL [OL TLKP\T VM HU HY[ [VV T\JO MVY NYHU[LK¹
is a sin. What this principle tells us that content is never just content. Instead, it can have stronger or
weaker relations with the medium it inhabits. When people with advanced tastes are bored by yet another
television sitcom, yet another postmodernist text, yet another transgressive art installation, yet another
NY\UN`ÅHUULSJSHKPUKPLIHUKMYVT[OL5VY[O^LZ[`L[HUV[OLYOVSPZ[PJVU[VSVN`VMÅ\_HUKK`UHTPZT
VWWVZLK[VYPNPKPULY[Z\IZ[HUJLZ`L[HUV[OLYZJPLU[PZ[PJKLU\UJPH[PVUVM*OYPZ[PHUZHUK5L^(NLYZ^OH[
bores them is a hollow, robotic formula. The external rituals of a once living breakthrough are mimicked,
I\[[OLVYPNPUHSZV\SVM[OL[OPUNOHZKLJH`LK(ZHUHJX\HPU[HUJLMYVT*OPJHNVVUJLYLTHYRLK^P[OJY\LS
precision, lampooning a soulless imitator who plagued our lives jointly, “the wheel is spinning, but the
OHTZ[LYPZKLHK¹6U[OLIHZPZVMOPZKPZ[HZ[LMVY[HRPUNTLKPHMVYNYHU[LK.YLLUILYNMHTV\ZS`JVUJS\KLZ
[OH[ ZPUJL JHU]HZ PZ ÅH[ H WHPU[PUN ZOV\SK [HRL HJJV\U[ VM [OPZ ÅH[ULZZ YH[OLY [OHU W\YZ\L [OL UV^
L_OH\Z[LKWYVQLJ[VMPSS\ZPVUPZ[PJKLW[O[`WPJHSVM>LZ[LYUWHPU[PUNZPUJL[OL9LUHPZZHUJL^OPJOILNHU[V
KLNLULYH[LPU[VHJHKLTPJPZTVUJLWOV[VNYHWO`THKLPSS\ZPVUPZT\UULJLZZHY`0SS\ZPVUPZ[PJÄN\YHSWHPU[PUN
OHZILJVTLJSPJOt^OPSLJ\IPZTHUKHIZ[YHJ[HY[OH]LILJVTL[OLOPNOLZ[HYJOL[`WHSYLZWVUZLZ[V[OL
state of the medium, with Dadaism, surrealism, and then minimalism counting as regrettable relapses into
HJHKLTPJHY[6ULULLKUV[HJJLW[[OPZ]PL^VMYLJLU[HY[OPZ[VY`[VHWWYLJPH[L.YLLUILYN»ZPUZPNO[PU[V
[OLIHUHSP[`VM[OLPZVSH[LKÄN\YLZVZPTPSHY[V/LPKLNNLY»ZJYP[PX\LVMWOLUVTLUHHZWYLZLU[H[OHUKPU
JVUZJPV\ZULZZ0[PZ[OLZHTL^P[O4J3\OHUHZ^LSS;OLHYJOL[`WLPZ]PZPISLQ\Z[SPRL[OLJSPJOtI\[KPɈLYZ
MYVTJSPJOtI`ILPUNIYV\NO[PU[VHWYVK\J[P]L[LUZPVU^P[OP[ZIHJRNYV\UK;LUZPVUT\Z[HS^H`ZIL[OLYL
Umbr(a) 90
VY [OL HYJOL[`WL X\PJRS` ILJVTLZ H JSPJOt · HZ ^OLU >HNULY»Z NYLH[ YVTHU[PJ YL[YPL]HSZ KLNLULYH[L
PU[V[OLRP[ZJOVM=PRPUNOLSTL[LK)H`YL\[OHLZ[OL[LZVYM\SSISV^U5HaPOHJRZ)\[^OLU[OPZ[LUZPVUPZ
present, the archetype (despite the word’s etymology) is avant-garde.
9L[YPL]HS PZ ZHPK [V IL IV[O H\[VTH[PJ HUK KPɉJ\S[ ;OL 4J3\OHUZ Z\NNLZ[ [OH[ every medium
has some older medium as its content, yet they also indicate that great artists are needed to perform
[OPZ KPɉJ\S[ HUK PTWVY[HU[ M\UJ[PVU ;OPZ Z[YPRLZ TL SLZZ HZ H NLU\PUL WHYHKV_ [OHU HZ HU \UJSHYPÄLK
ambiguity. The banality of the obsolete can certainly be found in any situation. What could be more
^VY[OSLZZ[OHUSHZ[^LLR»ZUL^ZWHWLYHI\SR`SV^TLTVY`P7VKMYVTVYH[`WPJHSHJHKLTPJHY[PJSL
PU[OL[OLVYL[PJHSMHZOPVUVM[OLPTTLKPH[LS`WYL]PV\ZLYH&;OPZPZ[OLYLHSTVM4J3\OHU»ZJSPJOt*SVJR
[PTLHSVULPZPUZ\ɉJPLU[[V[\YUZ\JOQ\URPU[V^VY[O`T\ZL\TWPLJLZ0UZ[LHK[OLQ\UR`VSKP7VKJLHZLZ
[VILQ\URVUS`^OLUP[ZZ\JJLZZVYÄUHSS`LUK\YLZ[OLZHTLMH[L[OLYLI`[\YUPUN[OLP7VKPU[VHJOHYTPUN
throwback, a venerable forerunner from an earlier stage in a series of evolving forms. Yet it is perfectly
WVZZPISL [V SP]L PU H ^VYSK ^P[OV\[ YL[YPL]HS H ZLSMZH[PZÄLK SHUKZJHWL VM IHUHSP[PLZ \UH^HYL VM P[Z V^U
IHJRNYV\UK JVUKP[PVUZ! HU ¸HJHKLTPJ¹ SPML PU [OL ZWPYP[ VM .YLLUILYN»Z ¸HJHKLTPJ HY[¹ HZ LTIVKPLK PU
Z\I\YIHU^HZ[LSHUKZHJYVZZ[OL^VYSK>VYRPZHS^H`ZULLKLK[VIYPUN[OLÄN\YLPU[VYLSH[PVU^P[O[OL
background. But although we suggested earlier that retrieval might be a place where the background
medium could be changed, it turns out that this is not the case. Instead, retrieval breathes new life into the
VI[Y\ZP]LLU[P[PLZZ\YYV\UKPUN\Z·P[KLZ[HIPSPaLZ[OL^VYSKVMÄN\YLZ^P[OV\[[V\JOPUN[OLHSSPTWVY[HU[
JVUKP[PVUZVM[OLIHJRNYV\UK(Y[IYPUNZ[OL^VYSK[VSPML^P[OV\[JOHUNPUNP[/LYLNYV\UKHɈLJ[ZÄN\YL
but the reverse is not the case. Artistic retrieval is not “political,” despite the unending clamor that it must
be so.
;VZLLOV^ÄN\YLHɈLJ[ZNYV\UK^LT\Z[[\YUMYVTYL[YPL]HS[VYL]LYZHS9L]LYZHSMVY4J3\OHU
is always a matter of “overheating.” A situation begins to pile up with unmanageable levels of detail, such
that the basic pattern of the situation becomes more important than its explicit content. As we saw earlier,
[OLJHYILNPUZI`LUOHUJPUNZWLLKHUKTVIPSP[`I\[L]LU[\HSS`YL]LYZLZPU[V[OLUPNO[THYPZOZSV[OVM[YHɉJ
jams and quests for parking spaces. The computer begins as a laborsaving device, but reverses into the
[`YHUU`VMRL`Z[YVRLJV\U[LYZWVSPJPUNLHJOTPU\[LVMVɉJLWYVK\J[P]P[`;OLWHYHKV_PZ[OH[4J3\OHU
HSZV KLÄULZ TLKPH HZ inherently hot or cold, and this seems to leave no room for heating. If radio is
inherently hot, there is no need to heat it further, and if television is essentially cold, there is no way it can
be heated.
;OLVUS`ZVS\[PVUWVZZPISLPZ[OH[JVU[LU[T\Z[ILZWSP[PUOHSM`L[HNHPU"PUV[OLY^VYKZJVU[LU[
T\Z[ IL ZWSP[ UV[ VUS` IL[^LLU PZVSH[LK JSPJOtZ VIZVSLZJLUJL HUK HYJOL[`WLZ ZL[ HKYVP[S` PU [LUZPVU
with their backgrounds (retrieval), but also between “form” and “content.” Television is a cool medium,
^OPJOTLHUZ[OH[P[ZJVU[LU[PZSV^KLÄUP[PVUYLX\PYPUNHNYLH[KLHSVM]PL^LYWHY[PJPWH[PVUKVTPUH[LKI`
\UKLYZ[H[LKJVVSWLYZVUHSP[PLZ·HUKHSSVM[OPZOHZHO`WUV[PJLɈLJ[;OLJVU[LU[VM[LSL]PZPVUJHUUV[
Umbr(a) 91
HARMAN
be heated. What can and does get heated are aspects of media other than their content that still belong
[V[OLÄN\YHSYLHST0U[OLJHZLVM[LSL]PZPVU[OLU\TILYVMH]HPSHISLJOHUULSZL_WSVKLZ[OHURZ[VJHISL
and satellite systems, so that television reverses into something like the library it was once believed to
threaten. Instead of choosing discrete television programs, we may focus instead on a certain network
¸Z[`SL¹[VÄ[V\YTVVKILP[VULJOHYHJ[LYPZ[PJVM,:75-V_(S1HaLLYHVY3PML[PTL0U[OLJHZLVMJHYZ^L
have seen that what heats up is their sheer numerical mass, which happens only by way of their previously
PYYLSL]HU[TH[LYPHSI\SR;OLMHJ[[OH[JHYZOH]LHJLY[HPUTVKLYH[LZPaLHUKHYLTHKLVMKHUNLYV\ZNSHZZ
and metal is the reason their “heating” becomes relevant, though, at the pre-heated stage of the medium,
these features are unimportant byproducts.
In each case overheating leads to an impasse, and there is no inherent reason for the impasse to
ILV]LYJVTL>LTPNO[JVU[PU\LPUKLÄUP[LS`PU[V[OLM\[\YL^P[OHUL]LYNYLH[LYWYVSPMLYH[PVUVM[OV\ZHUKZ
of television channels. The booming cities of the developing world may fail in their urban planning and
KLZJLUKPU[VHWLYTHULU[TVYHZZVMZ[HSSLK[YHɉJHUKWVSS\[PVU0UZ[LHKVMOVSKPUN^P[O[OL4J3\OHUZ
[OH[L]LY`TLKP\TYL]LYZLZH\[VTH[PJHSS`PU[VP[ZVWWVZP[L^LTPNO[Z\NNLZ[[OH[L]LY`TLKP\T»ZILULÄ[Z
YL]LYZLL]LU[\HSS`PU[VKLÄJP[ZWYV]PKPUN[OLTV[P]LMVY[OLJYLH[PVUVMHUL^TLKP\T7LYOHWZ[OLWSHN\L
of television channels surveyed in suburban cocoons will lead to a backlash, giving rise to a local and
YLNPVUHS YLZ\YNLUJL PU SP]L LU[LY[HPUTLU[ 6Y WLYOHWZ Z`Z[LTZ ^PSS IL KL]LSVWLK [V RLLW [OL ÅVVK VM
JOHUULSZTHUHNLHISLI`PKLU[PM`PUN]PL^LYZ»[HZ[LZHUK¸W\ZOPUN¹[OLTVU[V[OLPYÅH[ZJYLLUZHUKP7VKZ
7LYOHWZ[OLWSHN\LVM[YHɉJQHTZHUK[OLZWLJ[LYVMJSPTH[LJOHUNL^PSSSLHK[V[OLJVUZ[Y\J[PVUVMTL[YVZ
light rail systems, and more eco-friendly local supply chains. Or perhaps we will be persuaded to go for
[PUPLYJHYZHISL[VÄ[PU[VZTHSSLYWSHJLZ6YTH`IL^L^PSSZ^PUN[OLV[OLY^H`[V^HYKZTHZZP]L/\TTLY
SPRLTVUZ[YVZP[PLZHISL[VPU[PTPKH[LSPNO[LY[YHɉJPU[VNP]PUN^H`*VUZWPYH[VYPHSJVYWVYH[LNYLLKTH`WSH`
a role with regard to which option we choose, but only as one strong player among others, not as an evil,
all-powerful matrix controlling the world like a puppet show. Existing conditions may favor one option over
another, but it would be a wild exaggeration to suggest that there is no role for surprising innovations from
individuals or small groups. It was not inevitable that keyboards were placed on computers, not inevitable
that Hegel’s philosophical principles emerged triumphant rather than Schelling’s, and not inevitable that
,UNSPZOYH[OLY[OHU.LYTHUILJHTL[OLSHUN\HNLVM[OL<UP[LK:[H[LZ
)\[PUHUV[OLYZLUZLYL[YPL]HSHUKYL]LYZHSHYLWVSHYVWWVZP[LZ9L[YPL]HSIYPUNZ[OLÄN\YLPU[V
WYVK\J[P]L[LUZPVU^P[O[OLNYV\UK[YHUZMVYTPUNJSPJOtPU[VHYJOL[`WL0U[OPZ^H`P[TLYLS`SPURZÄN\YL
and ground without transforming the ground. In this sense, retrieval is just as conservative as its name
suggests. Despite the dogma of recent decades that art ought to be “political,” its mission turns out not
to be political at all, since retrieval is about breathing new life into obsolete forms. By contrast, reversal
turns out to be the political mode par excellence. When a medium overheats a decision must be made
and, although some decision-making agents are “more powerful” than others, there are generally several
KPɈLYLU[^H`ZHZ[Y\NNSLJHUILYLZVS]LK0MYL[YPL]HSJHUILPKLU[PÄLK^P[Oart, reversal may be the special
province of design. And design will always be political, since it sets down the background conditions that
govern the next phase of overt activity, which is doomed in turn to grind to a halt someday.
>LOH]LSVVRLKIYPLÅ`H[4J3\OHU»Z[^V¸TL[HTVYWOPJ¹[LYTZYL[YPL]HSHUKYL]LYZHS:PUJL[OLYL
are numerous ways to retrieve an old medium and reverse into a new one, the repeated charge that
McLuhan is a technological determinist is clearly groundless. While it is true that, for him, the background
TLKP\T HS^H`Z JVUKP[PVUZ [OL ^VYSK VM ]PZPISL ÄN\YL [OL YLHST VM JVU[LU[ PZ WHYHKV_PJHSS` ^OLYL
everything happens. No one can predict when and where culture will suddenly spring to life, escaping
kitsch or academicism by bringing visible experience into vibrant relation with its background conditions.
And nothing automatically determines that an overheated medium must reverse into one thing instead of
another. In this sense, retrieval and reversal are brothers in the abundant opportunities they provide for
decision!;OL^OLLSZVMOPZ[VY`KVUV[JVU[PU\L^P[OV\[WH\ZLI\[WLYPVKPJHSS`NYPUK[VHOHS[HUKHSSV^
for intervention.
Umbr(a) 92
Umbr(a) 93
HARMAN
1. :LL .YHOHT /HYTHU Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects
*OPJHNV!6WLU*V\Y[
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media:
The Extensions of Man *HTIYPKNL! ;OL
40;7YLZZ See Harman, “The Tetrad and Phenomenology,” in Explorations in Media Ecology " ¸;OL 4J3\OHUZ
and Metaphysics,” in New Waves in Philosophy of TechnologyLK1HU2`YYL)LYN
6SZLU,]HU:LSPUNLYHUK:¥YLU9PPZ5L^
@VYR! 7HSNYH]L 4HJTPSSHU "
“Heidegger’s Fourfold, McLuhan’s Tetrad,”
in The Swedish Dance History, ed. Mårten
:WrUILYN :[VJROVST! 0UWL_ "HUK¸4H_PT\T4J3\OHU¹PUProceedings of the Royal Flemish Academy of
Belgium for Sciences and the Arts (forthJVTPUN
8. Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media: The New Science;VYVU[V!<UP]LYZP[`
VM;VYVU[V7YLZZ ]PPP
Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media, viii.
18. Ibid., xi.
3. +VU 0OKL PU[LY]PL^ ^P[O 3H\YLHUV 9HSVU
in Figure/Ground Communication, Sep[LTILY O[[W!ÄN\YLNYV\UKJHPU[LY]PL^ZKVUPOKL
See Harman, “Sensual Objects,” in The
Quadruple Object >HZOPUN[VU! ALYV
)VVRZ
5. Martin Heidegger, “The Idea of Philosophy
and the Problem of Worldview,” in Towards
[OL +LÄUP[PVU VM 7OPSVZVWO`, trans. Ted
:HKSLY5L^@VYR!*VU[PU\\T
"HUKBeing and Time, trans. John MacX\HYYPL ,K^HYK 9VIPUZVU 5L^ @VYR!
/HYWLY9V^
6. :LL/HYTHU¸9LHS6IQLJ[Z¹PUThe Quadruple Object
Umbr(a) 94
:LL 2HYS 7VWWLY ;OL 3VNPJ VM :JPLU[PÄJ
Discovery5L^@VYR!9V\[SLKNL Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media :\IZLX\LU[JVUZLJ\[P]LYLMLYences will appear parenthetically within the
text.
11. McLuhan, Understanding Media
Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media
13. 0IPK
Ibid., viii.
.PSSLZ +LSL\aL The Logic of Sense, ed.
*VUZ[HU[PU=)V\UKHZ[YHUZ4HYR3LZ[LY
^P[O*OHYSLZ:[P]HSL5L^@VYR!*VS\TIPH
<UP]LYZP[`7YLZZ 4J3\OHU ¸7SH`IV` 0U[LY]PL^! º4HYZOHSS
4J3\OHU · ( *HUKPK *VU]LYZH[PVU ^P[O
the High Priest of Popcult and Metaphysician of Media,’” in Essential McLuhan, ed.
,YPJ4J3\OHU-YHURAPUNYVUL*VUJVYK!
/V\ZLVM(UHUZP7YLZZ Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media McLuhan, Understanding Media
McLuhan and Wilfred Watson, From Cliché to Archetype5L^@VYR!=PRPUN7YLZZ
15. Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media
:\IZLX\LU[ JVUZLJ\[P]L YLMLYences will appear parenthetically within
the text.
16. -YHURAPUNYVUL¸3H^ZVM4LKPH!;OL7LUtad and Technical Syncretism,” in McLuhan Studies :\IZLX\LU[
consecutive references will appear parenthetically within the text.
ing Media!¸;OLLSLJ[YPJSPNO[PZW\YLPUformation. It is a medium without a message, as it were, unless it is used to spell
out some verbal ad or name. This fact,
characteristic of all media, means that the
‘content’ of any medium is always another
medium. The content of writing is speech,
just as the written word is the content of
print, and print is the content of the telegraph.” [Ed.]
Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Laws of Media
31. *SLTLU[ .YLLUILYN ¸(]HU[.HYKL HUK
2P[ZJO¹PUThe Collected Essays and Criticism, Volume 1: Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944 *OPJHNV!<UP]LYZP[`VM
*OPJHNV7YLZZ .YLLUILYN Late Writings LK 9VILY[ *
4VYNHU 4PUULHWVSPZ! <UP]LYZP[` VM 4PUULZV[H7YLZZ"LTWOHZPZHKKLK
0IPK 0OKL PU[LY]PL^ ^P[O 3H\YLHUV 9HSVU PU
Figure/Ground Communication.
McLuhan, Understanding Media
Marshall and Eric McLuhan, Media and
Formal Cause/V\Z[VU!5LV7VPLZPZ7YLZZ
0IPK
See, for example, McLuhan, Understand-
Umbr(a) 95