McLuhanitis The reception of Marshall McLuhan in the Netherlands in the 1960s. Lizzy van Winsen (0209678) Thesis: RMA Media Studies Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Frank Kessler (Utrecht University) Second reader: Prof. Dr. Dieter Mersch (Potsdam University) September 30, 2008; 38.964 words (total) The word “McLuhanitis” stems from: Wim Evers, “De wereld van Marshall McLuhan of de bruikbaarheid van een happening.” Massa media en toekomst, Werkgroep 2000, no. 3 (1967), 17. Contents Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 2 1. McLuhan: the man and his work 5 1.1 Factual information 5 1.2 Influences 7 1.3 Working Style: Mosaic Method 9 1.4 Theories 10 2. The Dutch 1960s 15 2.1 Pre-considerations 16 2.2 Pillarisation and depillarisation 18 2.3 Generation differences 24 2.3.1 Karl Mannheim’s generation theory 25 2.3.2 The CCCS’ generation theory 28 2.4 Communication Studies in the Netherlands 31 3. Analyses 37 3.1 Writing Style 38 3.1.1 Academics 43 3.1.2 Journalists 48 3.1.3 Young protesters 54 3.2 Theories 62 3.2.1 Academics 67 3.2.2 Journalists 73 3.2.3 Young protesters 79 4. McLuhan: change and clash 85 Conclusion: a never-ending McLuhan? 98 Bibliography 101 Annex 107 Acknowledgements Thanks to: Frank Kessler, for his guidance throughout the process; Dieter Mersch, for being the second reader of this thesis; Wim de Bie, Jan Blokker, Roel van Duijn, Wim Evers, Luud Schimmelpennink, Jacob Stappers en Hans Verhagen, for the pleasant conversations and valuable information that enriched my research. My classmates in the RMA Media Studies and specifically Joost Broeren for his comments, revisions and the enjoyable discussions; Richard Stern for his remarks on my English; Frederik Hartig, for his Gründlichkeit while reading my drafts and his never-ending enthusiasm and support. 1 Introduction The last month of 1980 marked the end of the 1960s. On December 8th, 1980, John Lennon was shot in New York. The famous singer-songwriter was an icon of the 1960s not only because of the Beatles, but also owing to the events staged with his wife Yoko Ono, notably the so-called bed-in at the Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam. On the very last day of the same year, Marshall McLuhan finally died of the results of the stroke which he had suffered in the summer of 1979. It had taken away his ability to speak. Although he was not as famous as John Lennon, and although he did not belong to the post-war generation – McLuhan was born in 1911 – he was, nevertheless, an icon for the baby boomers. This protest generation responded to both his analysis of society and his vision of where society was heading. While his theories of mass media were enthusiastically taken up by the younger generation, traditionally minded social groups regarded him more sceptically. Already in his 50s, he stood with one foot in line with the pre war generation, while the other tapped to the same beat as the protesting baby boomers. As a result of this double identity, he functioned as something of a mediator during the culture clash. But how exactly was McLuhan received in the Netherlands in the 1960s? Which theories found a response and from whom? The 1960s are known for the clash between youth and authority all over the world. The Netherlands were no exception to this worldwide phenomenon, but the process was subtly different to those going on elsewhere. In this country, the entire social structure underwent enormous changes. After the steady period of pillarisation, the power of the strictly separated social groups started to crumble and lose their rigidity in the '60s. The youth no longer found themselves in the social structure that had shaped the lives of their parents, and found alternative ways to cross the boundaries set by these pillars. Besides being the post-war generation, the Dutch youth also wanted to be the generation that abandoned pillarisation, whereas authority sought to maintain their influence in this rigid structure. To explore McLuhan’s reception during these turbulent years, it is first necessary to take a closer look at McLuhan himself, his theories and ideas. So the first chapter will not only give a brief overview of his ‘personal’ and ‘public’ life, but also an explanation of his most famous theories. Attention will also be paid to McLuhan’s writing style – the way he presented his media 2 theory – for as we will see this cannot be disconnected from his arguments. The focus here will be on Understanding Media (1964) as it was this book that McLuhan became famous with on this side of the Atlantic.1 Furthermore, it was only after the publication of this book that his earlier works became available in Western Europe. The book can be seen as an accumulation of various theories from his other books. The second chapter will deal with the situation in the Netherlands of the 1960s; the key social questions around that time, and how they might be theorised. We will also look at the development of Dutch Communication Studies in this period. An important part of this chapter deals with theories of generations and generational conflicts. Both Karl Mannheim’s theories from 1928 and those that the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham developed during the 1970s will be discussed, as I believe they can help to better understand the responses to McLuhan, and place them in the correct socio-historical context. After that, I will analyse various critiques of McLuhan’s work insofar as they elucidate this Dutch reception, to which I will then switch. Although it is impossible to avoid some overlap, splitting the reception analysis into a section that deals with McLuhan’s writing style and another that refers to his theories will reduce this. However, this is an artificial division, since McLuhan’s writing and ideas are very much intertwined; it is impossible to separate them completely. In nearly every featured quotation on writing style, one will probably find indicators of his theoretical ideas, too, and vice versa. However, by separating them, the thesis can better view the key primary sources. Furthermore, by forcefully separating them one will be reminded all the more of their brotherly appearance. Both are equally important as contributors to McLuhan’s fame. By going through all the material, I traced three social groups that were all, in different ways, brought into contact with McLuhan and his work. I use these groups to clarify the nature of his reception, and they will appear again and again throughout this thesis. A clear decision was made to analyse primary sources which can be dated back to autumn 1967. As it would be impossible to research all the years since Understanding Media, I chose to look at the material published shortly before and just after the Dutch translation of the book – 1 Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964). 3 which was called Mens en Media (literally ‘Man and Media’).2 This appeared to be a particularly fruitful period to look for material. Not that long after this wave of attention, McLuhan’s fame seems to have dwindled. The rigid structure of previous chapter will then be abandoned in the fourth and last chapter, which completes the analysis. What does this reception of McLuhan say about the Netherlands and the events that were taking place at that time? Within a society that was under a severe amount of pressure to change, McLuhan found a place. What enabled him to do this, and what was specific to this process? By going one step further than just writing down the different critiques, this thesis can add something to current discourses. Not only will it provide an insight into the reception of McLuhan, which contributes to the ongoing international rereading of Marshall McLuhan, it will also shed light on the situation in the Netherlands in the 1960s, including the development of media studies in the Netherlands, and the interaction between academics and society in relation to bigger structural changes. My reading will be further nuanced by including interviews with different people who had a function in the 1960s that brought them into contact with McLuhan and his ideas. Although I am aware of the pitfalls of oral history, these interviews will have an important function in the paper, to complete, amend and test its findings.3 Not only does this historical context help to understand the reception of McLuhan, but the reverse is also true: his media theory appears to be helpful to reflect upon the major events of the 1960s. The clash between the pre- and post-war generation will be reviewed in a more nuanced way. The reception of McLuhan shows that, although it is constructed in the first place, the gap ideally can be bridged by communication, which results in a new society. 2 Marshall McLuhan, Mens and media, trans. S. de Lange (Utrecht: Ambo n.v., 1967). 3 In 1948, Allan Nevins initiated the revival of oral history. Before the development of history as an academic study in the eighteenth and nineteenth century there was an overall oral tradition for forwarding stories. In the last few decades it developed itself into a method that is "long-standing and perfectly compatible with scholarly standards" as long as one does not assume that the material holds the absolute truth. The most common objections to this method are the influences of unconscious psychological processes such as repression, and the influence of the outcome of social processes on memories.