You probably have already figured out that Marshall McLuhan has caused quite a reaction in both academic and public circles. His ideas are provocative, and at times, have been unilaterally dismissed by many. In fact, if you reviewed his original work, you may be challenged by the frequent eccentricity of his writing style. Some have labeled his thinking “McLuhanacy” (Gordon, 1982), while others feel his writing is equivalent to “genre bending” (Carey, 1998).

McLuhan’s work and reputation, however, have been invoked with considerable regard. Wired magazine named him their “Patron Saint,” and Life magazine called him the “Oracle of the Electronic Age.” There exists a concentration in McLuhan Studies at the University of Toronto, a McLuhan newsletter, symposia on McLuhan’s research, a McLuhan festival, and even a secondary high school in Canada named the Marshall McLuhan Catholic School. It’s hard to escape his influence both in research and in societies around the world. The theory, despite its popularity, has been evaluated by scholars and writers. We will examine these critiques on the criteria of heurism, logical consistency, and testability.

Heurism

Media Ecology and McLuhan’s writing have been met with some enthusiasm. Because McLuhan was a key figure in popular culture, it’s important to keep in mind that his writing has elicited quite a bit of reaction in both lay and scholarly publications. Recall, however, that our concern is primarily with theoretical discussions pertaining to the theory.

A number of writers have woven McLuhan’s theoretical issues and concepts into their research, yet an extensive integration of McLuhan’s work has not significantly materialized in scholarship. James Carey (1998) observes that McLuhan’s work “represented a genuine and multifaceted intellectual advance that has become part of our inheritance . . . and [he] was a critical figure in our understanding of culture, media, and communication” (pp. 294, 306). Researchers have embraced several of the theory’s components in their work (e.g., Gow, 2001; Rogers, 2000) and books looking at McLuhan and his writings exist (e.g., Levinson, 2001), but the heuristic value of Media Ecology Theory is somewhat limited.

Logical Consistency and Testability

Media Ecology Theory has been criticized because many of its concepts are difficult to understand, thereby making testability of the theory challenging and, indeed, nearly impossible. The question becomes apparent: How does one test something one has trouble understanding?

Criticism pertaining to the logical consistency and the testability of the theory are represented in comments that have been offered by media scholars over the years. For instance, critics have blasted the theory as “overly optimistic” about the role of technology in society (Baran & Davis, 2003). They believe that McLuhan put too much emphasis on how much technology influences society, making the very foundation of the theory rather shaky. George Gordon (1982) is more direct: “Not one bit of sustained and replicated scientific evidence, inductive or deductive, has to date justified any one of McLuhan’s most famous slogans, metaphors, or dicta” (p. 42). Dwight Macdonald (1967) also attacked McLuhan’s writing, noting that “he has looted all culture from cave painting to Mad magazine for fragments to shore up his system against ruin” (p. 203).

A great deal of criticism has been directed at McLuhan’s use of words and his clarity. To some, his ideas make little sense. Some writers believe that McLuhan failed to define his words carefully and used too much exaggeration. In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Paul Levinson (1999) concludes that his work “was not your professor’s writing-no long paragraphs of logically developed argument” (p. B10). He writes in a zigzag fashion, weaving in one point after another with no apparent topic sentence or sustained idea. Although some writers indict this process, McLuhan (1967) offers no apology: “I don’t explain-I explore” (p. i).

Marshall McLuhan and Media Ecology Theory will continue to resonate for years to come. Perhaps one day we will revisit McLuhan’s original thinking on historical epochs in media history! New media will continue to evolve in our society and so will the application of McLuhan’s thinking. Was McLuhan an absurd reactionary? Or was McLuhan a cultural prophet? On his gravestone are the words “The Truth Will Set You Free.” Did McLuhan think he discovered Truth? Or, even in his death, does he continue to play with our imaginations? Perhaps McLuhan’s biographer, Philip Marchand (1989), best illustrates McLuhan’s contribution to the study of media: “McLuhan’s comments had at least one virtue: they seemed to suggest that the world was more interesting than any of us had previously thought it to be” (p. xiii).