Marshall McLuhan has emerged as one of the most important contributors in the field of communication theories. His concepts have shaped the way we perceive media and culture, especially in terms of how various mediums affect our interaction and interpretation. An interesting point he brings up is related to contrasting manuscript or pre-print culture with print culture, which pertains to the connection between readers and writers.
In the time before printing, manuscripts were made manually either by scribes or by experienced individuals in a particular community. This was not only a slow process but also could produce only a few copies of texts. Consequently, there was not much distance between readers and authors. It was common for manuscripts to be read aloud among small groups, thus creating an experience of text-based community engagement. Additionally, readers and the author or scribe interacted directly, engaging in discussions and offering feedback that influenced future revisions of the text.
The role of oral tradition in manuscript culture was, as McLuhan suggested, to encourage knowledge sharing within communities. During that time, the author did not enjoy such supreme authority as we have today, and so learning things had been more accommodating and all-engrossing. In this way, readers themselves also became subjects, actively participating in interpreting and disseminating texts – forming a very intricate cultural landscape as well.
Yet it happened that the advent of print culture caused a lot of changes to the reader-author connection. The printing machine helped distribute books on a larger scale, hence establishing the dominance of authors. Printed books could be produced in large numbers, and thus knowledge was seen as a uniform phenomenon.
Printing, according to McLuhan, led to individualistic and linear thoughts. Readers often read alone, without the traditional rituals of manuscript culture. This resulted in an authoritative relationship where the author’s words were considered infallible truth rather than being open for discussions and interpretations.
Additionally, printed texts were fixed and unchangeable, unlike manuscripts that could be easily modified. This rigidity of knowledge contributed to the establishment of authoritative voices and institutions, concentrating power among a select few.
In today’s digital age, McLuhan’s ideas continue to be relevant as we witness another shift in the reader-author relationship. The internet has revived communal engagement similar to manuscript culture while also empowering individual authors through platforms like social media and blogs. The lines between reader and author have become blurred, with audiences actively participating in content creation and sharing.
In summary, McLuhan’s comparison of manuscript culture and print culture sheds light on the evolving dynamics of human communication. Understanding how different mediums shape our interactions with texts and each other helps us appreciate the transformative impact of technology on society. Whether in the intimate circles of manuscript culture or the vast expanse of the digital world, the relationship between reader and author remains a dynamic and ever-changing phenomenon.