Understanding Marshall McLuhan's Take on the Human Body as a Metaphor for Media

Marshall McLuhan’s striking theories come alive with his use of the human body as a metaphor in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Through corporeal metaphors such as the counter-irritant, the plague, and drug addiction, McLuhan illuminates causes and effects of new media forms, ultimately pointing towards an endless progression of new media developments which continues today.   

The Oxford English Dictionary defines counter-irritant as “a medical appliance used to produce irritation of the surface of the body, in order to counteract disease of more deeply-seated or distant parts” (“Counter-irritant”). McLuhan modifies this medical term for his own metaphorical purposes, as he writes, “For those parts of ourselves that we thrust out in the form of new invention are attempts to counter or neutralize collective pressures and irritations. But the counter-irritant usually proves a greater plague than the initial irritant, like a drug habit” (66). The first key difference in his application of “counter-irritant” is the issue of intentionality versus unintentionality. In the medical sense, irritation caused by a counter-irritant is intended and used as a mechanism to soothe the original discomfort. When referring to media, however, a counter-irritant does not utilize irritation nor does it cause this reaction on purpose. Instead, irritation is an unintentional and unwanted side effect of the medium as a counter-irritant. While both definitions overlap in the external mechanism of action at the surface and as an extension of the body, respectively, McLuhan’s distinct use of this word emphasizes the covert influences of new media forms. Lacking the awareness to notice the disruptive effects of the new extensions, most of society remains in the darkness of somnambulism. Part of the reason for this may be that new media forms, while they face certain critiques, are also often touted as technologically innovative and helpful. Regardless of the positive or negative effects, this lack of awareness perpetuates the human state of numbness discussed throughout the book. McLuhan’s modified definition of the counter-irritant is meaningful in that it serves to highlight the nuanced nature of media’s consequences. A new medium as counter-irritant arrives initially under the guise of helpfulness, but it also often leads to numbness and further irritation. 

In proposing that the counter-irritant is usually “a greater plague than the initial irritant” (66), McLuhan again elicits powerful imagery revolving around the human body, staying consistent with the physiological framework he has created. The word “plague” is defined by the OED as “any infectious disease which spreads rapidly and has a high mortality rate” (“Plague”). At the surface, the use of this word naturally evokes imagery of disease spreading quickly with a significant impact, which aptly mirrors the ways in which media’s effects proliferate throughout society. Upon closer analysis, McLuhan’s choice to equate the counter-irritant with a plague is quite astute due to the similar reactions developed in response to each catalyst. A plague leads to avoidance of others, as evidenced for example with the phrase “to avoid like the plague” (“Avoid Like the Plague: A History”). Similarly, a counter-irritant leads to numbness, which can be considered a form of avoidance in psychological discourse (Lindberg). Thus, the semantic parallel between the two is significant in that both necessitate avoidance of some sort. This comparison consequently places further emphasis on the negative outcome of numbness and highlights the danger of the counter-irritant in comparison to the initial irritant.

McLuhan delves further into the relationship between irritant and counter-irritant by employing yet another body-related metaphor: the “drug habit,” or drug addiction. In analyzing the experience of drug addiction in the context of this passage, it is relevant to point out that while certain drugs may initially numb physical or emotional pain, the impact of developing an addiction often becomes more dangerous than the initial pain. Similarly, the impact of McLuhan’s counter-irritant causes more harm than the initial irritant. In this way, the mechanism of drug addiction accurately demonstrates the detrimental outcome of the counter-irritant, indicating that while helpful in the moment, it will likely cause more harm in the long run. In analyzing McLuhan’s choice of metaphor, it is also enlightening to consider the perceptions of drugs during the time he was writing. In the 1960s, various countries including Canada were undergoing a counterculture movement which saw an increase in recreational use of drugs such as LSD and marijuana (Belshaw). At the same time, drug control laws, such as the Narcotic Control Act in Canada, were increasingly stringent in their criminalization of drug use, reflecting an anti-drug sentiment that had been building during the decades prior (Boyd). Considering this public aversion to drugs, McLuhan’s choice of using “drug habit” in this passage boldly underscores the dangerous impact of the counter-irritant and urges readers to become more invested in learning about media’s effects. In addition, the sentence structure and order augment McLuhan’s strategic word choice. The phrase “like a drug habit” is placed at the end of the sentence after the singular comma, which creates a similar effect to that of a speaker pausing before delivering important information. Thus, the emphatic pause and the strong public feelings at the time compel us to consider this drug metaphor more critically. Even McLuhan’s use of the word “narcosis” in discussing numbness relates back to this passage, as narcosis is defined as “a state of drowsiness, stupor, or insensibility…esp. by means of a drug” (“Narcosis”). McLuhan conceptualizes the effects of media in the context of drug addiction, emphasizing their widespread potency and calling people to action.

As a complex system that constantly strives towards homeostasis, the human body is an apt societal metaphor which reveals the nature of how new media forms develop. The survivalist instinct of maintaining equilibrium drives the cycle of irritants and counter-irritants, a process in which counter-irritants become irritants that provoke further counter-irritants. Reflecting more broadly, the constant search for equilibrium implies a never ending progression of new media extensions. This implication calls back to the idea of the “break boundary,” the point “‘at which the system suddenly changes into another or passes some point of no return in its dynamic processes’” (McLuhan 38). McLuhan considers the possibility of continuous media extensions initiating a process of reversal. His reference to the collective unconscious suggests the possibility of reversing back to this state of oneness from which consciousness and all other media forms extended (McLuhan 79). The potentially infinite new extensions also lead us to question what McLuhan thought we ought to do in such a situation. Rather than trying to stop the media cycle of irritants and counter-irritants, which is fueled by natural mechanisms of survival, he seems to suggest a change in how we respond to these new extensions of ourselves, whether through increased awareness of our senses or “countervailing thrusts” which move in the opposite direction of the dominating media (McLuhan 71). At the very least, McLuhan asks us to open our minds to media’s powerful effects on us, both good and bad. This interpretation of his message (or shall we say medium?) derives from the inherent contradiction of media’s helpfulness and harmfulness, a quality which requires us to accept its perpetual evolutions. For as disruptive and detrimental as counter-irritants may be, they are also necessary in keeping the body alive amidst the inevitable ups and downs of the human experience.