Enhancing Liturgical Life as We Know It - Coursework Example

The Evocative Microphone: Enhancing Liturgical Life as We Know It When one goes to mass, he looks forward to the words he would hear from the presiding priest or the readers of the Gospel over the microphone. The microphone is a powerful medium by which sound is amplified to communicate to a large number of people such as those inside the church. Mcluhan has recognized the value of the microphone in liturgical celebrations that he openly discussed it in an article entitled “Liturgy and the Microphone” (107-116). I agree when he said that the verbal method of communication in the church creates an auditory legroom in which the words penetrate the deepest levels of human consciousness. Experience would tell me that an effective sermon touches certain domains of the mind and the heart and provokes past as well as present personal issues. These issues may refer to encounters of pain, happiness, or grief. Most of all, they refer to matters pertaining to spirituality and how it can be strengthened. Eliot describes such a phenomenon as the workings of the “auditory imagination” in which the mind seems to travel back in time and results in a merging of earlier and current times (qtd. in Mcluhan 107). As the words lull in the distance, a kind of progression takes place especially when the message is relevant to what has happened or what is presently happening in the person’s life. The microphone then is like an instrument in neuro-linguistic programming that is often used as a therapeutic intervention to deal with various psychological problems. By listening to a psychotherapist, the person is being guided to a particular place in his consciousness that will give him access to personal issues and gradually attempt to resolve them in the same plane. However, the depth of mental and emotional processing that will take place is still dependent on the listener’s willingness to focus on what is being said. If the person is not really interested in the message or is too distracted by other thoughts to allow anything else to sink in, the volume and quality of the sound produced through the microphone will not matter to any extent. As such, the microphone may involve a public address system during the mass, but the overall experience in consciousness is still private and individual. Similarly, I disagree with Mcluhan’s contention that the use of the vernacular pace through the microphone discourages meditation unlike what is happening during a relaxed Latin Mass (Mcluhan 110). Among all the church goers, only a few could comprehend Latin and cannot start then to reflect on something they cannot comprehend. But with the vernacular, the mass becomes very personal as the meanings are more understood and are more relevant to personal experience. In the same way, Eliot relates that the use of the microphone entails updating the English language to include everyday expressions (qtd. in Mcluhan 108). He particularly quotes Mark Twain whom he thinks was able to write in a manner that can be effortlessly understood by others and not just author or poet. This revolution is very practical and beneficial to contemporary consciousness because the use of the vernacular provides a common ground for communication and is thus more pleasant to the ears. In this sense, misinterpretations can be avoided altogether. Hearing words spoken in the dialect elicits a sense of belongingness and brings comfort to the listeners. What could be more meaningful than the use of people’s very own lingo or colloquial speech inside the church? In this way, Mcluhan is accurate in saying that the task of the microphone is to push for the use of the dialect in various social functions if it has to reach the depths of people’s consciousness. Significantly, Mcluhan relates that the Latin Mass of the Catholic Church was not used anymore used due to the influence of the microphone (112). This is because, when used with the microphone, Latin is a language that gets intensified to the point that it cannot be properly deciphered. Additionally, Latin is full of buzzing sounds that the microphone cannot easily transmit. On the other hand, I believe that McLuhan should perceive the microphone as an instrument that goes beyond conveying words. The microphone translates also the speaker’s emotions as indicated by the tone of voice. One person, for instance, may not see the priest very well from a distance but just focusing on his voice can evoke him to go off with the ups and down’s of the speaker’s voice and be able to identify the kind of feeling that is attached to the words. In this way, the words he hears and its real meaning can be complemented by the level of intensity that can be deciphered from it. The effect could be different from person to person but the microphone brings this kind of influence simultaneously to a large group of people. Indeed, as stated in the article, the primary benefit that the microphone brings is the capacity of the speaker to address bigger audiences clearly and concurrently (Mcluhan 110). Fortunately, this has not isolated the preacher from his audience but instead has brought him closer because when he speaks through the microphone it is like speaking to him directly. Because of this too, he is persuaded to face the congregation while he is saying mass. The nearer the person is to the priest, the better he will see his facial expression and the better he will understand his messages. Nowadays, complementing the auditory experience with clearer visual effects with the use of video projections on television allows most of the churchgoers to see the preacher’s face during the mass. Still, I do not affirm what Mcluhan suggests that the microphone seems to create a liturgical disturbance as it turns a visual experience to an auditory one (113). The figure on the altar is not that far from the audience that the visual aspect is totally lost. In fact, the microphone allows them to see the priest and listen to him at the same time without having to go near him. People are capable of multi-tasking and are not bothered by having to switch from a visual to an auditory mode. In reality, both modes of communication serve to strengthen the effect of the messages especially to his memory. I also do no think that the auditory experience brought about by the microphone places an individual in an acoustic overload or a sound bubble in which he is isolated from the rest of crowd. Most of the time, what they hear are heavenly things from the priest that it is more of an elating experience than an overload. Likewise, the effect is more unifying as each person’s attention is directed towards that one voice they can all hear. This is also true when the choir fills the church with their beautiful voices during the mass. It is more of an encouragement for everybody to participate and sing with them than a deprivation of their individualism or identity. Also, the use of electronic projections on a white screen provides support to what they hear. Unless, a person is blind, he is capable of using his senses altogether to create a holistic religious experience. Evidently, the use of the microphone jives with the modern period when technology allows for an audio-visual means of communication. If people can see but cannot hear what the priest is saying during the mass, they can easily get distracted as they have been exposed and used to animations or the high technology effects of media. It further means that a lot more can be done to modern consciousness with something as small as the microphone. When it is attached to an amplifier in church for instance, it helps spread the sound all over the place (Mcluhan 112). I disagree, however, that this makes the architecture of the church obsolete because I see no barriers to communication that the building’s design imposes. As long as there are excellent microphones and speakers, listeners will be able to decipher the words well. Unlike the author, I also do not see the need to decrease the number of churchgoers so that the mass, with the use of the microphone, becomes an intimate affair. Most of the time, the church is full of people that they tend to stay close to one another. Anyway, the mass or liturgy, I believe is indeed a work of the people and is a communal sharing of faith that the more people attend it at a particular time, the more meaningful it becomes. Besides, the mass is also a form of personal and direct communication to God that human interaction need not be overly emphasized. In addition, I see no problem about the microphone being a cool or passive medium during the liturgy because it is meant to convey messages to worshippers more than to elicit individualized responses. There is a place and time to do everything and the use of the microphone during the mass may direct one speaker to monopolize the event but it is meant to do so to allow people a moment when they do not speak much and is thus able to listen more. What is most striking about the article is the part in which the author drew a scenario for the reader to imagine an entertainment world – clubs, concert centers, television and radio - without the microphone (Mcluhan 111). Certainly, this efficiently invokes a feeling of restlessness because life is unimaginable without the microphone in these aspects of daily living. For instance, it seems impossible for performers or reporters to do their thing if the medium of communication is absent. It would be like living in a mute society where nothing can be heard and appreciated. In specific, Mcluhan is right in saying that the use of the microphone emits a “soulful” quality best for singing that no other medium can. From a larger perspective, the use of the microphone brings a lot of information to enhance modern awareness. This is especially true of what the author has called the “role of the mike in religious broadcasts” (Mcluhan 113). When the television was invented, quite a number of Bible schools and devout groups have opted to operate their own radio stations to reach the masses. What is relevant about this method of communication is that it has brought the church environment right into the homes or offices of the faith followers. From then on, they are able to hear God’s word more often and more conveniently. In general, Mcluhan’s article has presented a liturgical experience of the microphone that brings positive effects on our modern awareness of things but also has a few arguments that may be too narrow for the open-minded reader. Works Cited Mcluhan, Marshall. The Medium and the Light Reflections on Religion. Ed. Eric McLuhan and Szklarets Stoddart. Toronto: Gingko Press, 1999. Read More