History of Communication History

1 The History of Communication History Peter Simonson, Janice Peck, Robert T. Cra ig, and John P. Jackson, Jr.

Communication history is at once a ness field and a very old practice. Whether we emphasize the former or the latter depends on how we define “communication history.” On the one hand, if we define it as a fully conceptualized, collectively self-aw are field gathered under the sign “commu nication history.” then we would have to say that it is a formation still coming into being—h ope fully nudged along by this Handbook, which brings together scattered impulses that have been gathering force since the l970s. On the other hand, we can conceive communication history in more spacious terms, understanding it as written , spoken, or other mediated representations of signifying esents and practices in the past. From this perspective, every culture has at least some analogue to communication history—e.g.. declara tions from the gods or words from the leaders of earlier generations passed down through oral modes and traditions. In traditional societies these acts of remembering were not conceived of as history. nor were the practices understood as “communication,” so the analogy is imperfect. Nonetheless, the scope of communication history potentially reaches out toward the history of human ity writ large. As a way of narrating the history and pre-his torv of a self-aware scholarly field still being horn, we will rein in the potentially universalizing breadth and focus on a discrete set of tributar ies that feed communication history as concei ved in this volume, The headwaters for the main streams lie in the eighteenth aid nineteenth centuries, when philosophers, professors of rhetori c. h’storians, philologists, political economists, anthropologists, and sociologists variously cast at tention to language and modes of social commu nication in long historical perspective. Out of their writings. “communication” emerged as an increasingl\ important idea for making sense of the development and organization of knowle dge, society. political life, and individual selves. Referencing a world of both signs and symbo ls. as well a material technologies and modes of transportation, communication was a spacio us term that could do a great deal of theoret ical work—and whose history was thought to be both valuable in its own right and capable of rev cal Ing important dimensions of the present. Though it has a long prehistorv. as late as 1991 Michael Schudson could declare that the “writing of communication history is woefully underdeveloped” (175). Two decades later, that claim is less true. Historical writing on com munication has developed considerably’ since then in volume and quality, such that a number of areas within it now have a solid and growin g cor pus of first-rate research. This volume seeks to simultaneously document and contribute to that development.

13

14

PETER SIMOON, AM(E PECL ROBERT iCRIC. TN[) lOOT P CKSORJR.

I•hi, cipter traces the history and prehitor of cnuinication histoi We understand our ubje-t in four partia1I overlapping w a s as: ( I > writing ahom ()1IIili1?ii((i11()I Iiito,v explcitIy named as such—a relatisely small body of ‘. ork that dates hack to the 1 970s: (2) historical writ no about coniiiiunicatum thus named. a line 0f ork that runs ifoili speculati\ e phi osophical his tories of the eighteenth entur\ to the present and ranges in focus from s’s eping metanarratises ro highly focused empirical tudes. 3) hi’torical \x rlting about practices 2 tennotogics like rhetoric. joumalisni. and particular media, not explicitly organized under the sian ot OOI11OZ1OZILd don, but clearly addressing eommunjcatise phenomena—a focus that takes us bak t the ancient world and reaches out to a heterogeneous family of scholarly literatures: (4) histoi 3. a/h in/mined theoretical writings about communication that have exercised considerable influence on coinmu nication studies writ large. The first to are the core foci of this chapter. The third supplements that core and articulates with more extensive discussions in other chapters of the Handbook. And the fourth is intended to draw attention to historicist impulses in the field of communication ‘rs a whole thus holstering a subsidiary aim of the volume—namely to encourage more historically informed thinking in communication study that is not primarily historical in focus. The account here proceeds mostly chronologically, calling attention to different traditions. intellectual styles, disciplinar origins, and contemporary families of communication history. and is thus more intellectual than social, cultural, political, institutional, or technological, reflecting our belief in the usefulness of intellectual history as a genealogical and cartographic tool. But se might supplement that story ss ith two additional ways to think about the history of communica tion history and to emplot our map of the field: s ia the media used for representing the communi cati\e past and those that dominated the societies from which it emerged: and via the ideological orientations that hase guided it. We briefly sketch those plot lines, which se episodically mark in the remainder of our essay. We can talk about oral. chirographic ihandssrittent. print, broadcast, and digital eras and traditions of communication history. To operate with a broad brush, ancient and traditional oral societies pass on savings. speeches.. and communicative events from the ancestors and gods. and in so doing variably make those words and events timelessly present or narrate a collective past that morally orients the group. Religious and humanistic handwriting cultures then gave the communicative past a new kind of durability and, in some cases, permanence. providing the basis for what a later era would deem “civilization” as against the mere “culture” of peoples with out literatures. The great religions of the world—Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism Taoism, Christianity, and Islam—all include sacred or central texts that originated and flour ished in scribal cultures and that contain representations of the communicative past that we can call proto-communication history The speeches of notable Greek and Roman orators were also represented and preserved through scroll, parchment, and other technologies, thus establishing the foundation for the classic stream of humanist communication history. From the Renaissance through the twentieth century. print was the main home for communication history, which from the scs enteenth century forward established itself as a discourse, scholarly endeavoi’, and. cventu— all. an institutionalizing field of studs. Operating tinder a number of different names and disci— plinarv formations. communication history accelerated as a practice during the nationally-based hmoadcast age. from the I 920s into the l9SOs. when print remained the dominant medium foir representing and disseminating communication histor. and print based archives supplemented h\ celluloid and tape—recorded programming) ss crc its gold-standard e identiary base. The digi— tal entered the ,cene in the I 980s and ‘90s, as the broadcast age gave way to media segmentation. globalization. and the Internet. In this latest epoch. communication history has begun to organize itself as a collectielv self—conscious field. communication history has been composed and dis— senminated for ugh electronic means. and digital archives has e created what Andreas F’ickers chapter 13 this \ollinle) aptly calls an “age of abundance’’ for cluing communication history. ‘

1 HE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

15

Overlaying the media-based story. and ssorking with equally broad strokes. the ideologi cal metanarrative of comrnumcation history runs something like this. The proto-communication histories of traditional oral and chirographic cultures were inseparable from the metaphysical cosmologies from which they drew sustenance and legitimacy—something that remains true in the print and digital scriptures of the world’s great religions. Civic humanism. meanwhile. tin dcrss rote communication history in the oratorical—rhetorical ti’adition that stretched from Greek antiquit into the entieth century. o. here great speakers and speeches from the past were taken as templates for civic s irtue. citizenship, and the oratorical eioqLience through which they were expressed. For civic humanist communication history, the past is paradigmatically cast as a moral touchstone for a society that has fallen away from its virtues and civic community. Chic humanist sensibilities often informed the liberal histories that began emerging in the seventeenth and eigh teenth centuries and dominated the age of print-based communication history. If civic humanists were susceptible to narratives of decline, liberal communication history has been marked by tales of progress—often with communication and media as engines for progressive social and political change. One strand of it has been criticized as “Whig history.” emphasizing inevitable progress based on heroic individual efforts and effectively feeding the conceits of the present. In contrast, the critical tradition since Marx—when it has managed to overcome its suspicion that commu nication is a mere epiphenomenon to the real material processes of society—has rejected both the civic humanist valorization of a virtuous past and the liberal tale of Whiggish progress. while maintaining hopes for a better future. It has featured struggle, power. and the social deformations of both past and present as central categories for communication history. paradigmatieally cast as critical social praxis that can orient present and future struggles for justice. Conservatism comes in several varieties, but in its anti-modern guise it can result in communication histories that look hack more or less nostalgically to oral cultures and the spoken word (a sensibility also found in romantically-inflected communication history). Finally, over the last several decades, feminist, postcolonial. critical race. and queer politics have shaped the writing of communication history. variably driven bx efforts to recover previously’ marginalized voices and experiences from the past: to critically interrogate their exclusion, domination, and resistance: and to work toward emancipation, empowerment. and continuing critical intervention in the present (compare the ideological mapping in Curran 2002, 2009). Before proceeding, a few caveats are in order, Although our chapter includes a great deal. it leaves out even more. After a global feint toward ancient traditions of proto-communication his tory, the focus narrows to Europe and North America. Overall in the chapter, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, and Canada receive the vast majority of our attention, with the Anglophone world overrepresented. Histories from other regions of the world receive far less coverage, though we have tried to include a few landmark historical works as a promissory note toward future versions of this chapter that would go further in narrating the global trajectory of communication history. While we call attention to professional disciplines, schools, and profes sors and their students, we could have gone further in those sociological directions. And we have not included in this chapter historical work on film and music, which are well-cosered in their own literatures. We have organized our story chronologically, reaching across national borders as much as we can, and cutting across general (or what Schudson [1991] called “macro” histories of corn munication and literature focusing on more specific topics, media. and social practices. We begin with a brief glance toward the proto-communication history manifest in the European rhetori cal tradition and ancient religious texts from around the world before turning to the discovery of “communication” in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England and France and the dawn of historical writing on the subject. From there. we move through nineteenth-century political economy, sociology’. anthropology, and newspaper science (Zeitungwi.5selmschuft) in Germany,

16

PETER S1MONSON. JANICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG, AND JOHN P. JACKSON. JR.

France, the UK, and the United States. The story lines multiply in the twentieth century across the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, journalism, history, political science, literature, classics, and—starting in the I 940s—the new field of communication. The final sections of the chapter map some of the explosion of historical work since the 1970s and the institutionalization of corn munication and media history as academic fields. We end by noting a few contemporary trends and making a briet call for future work iii the field.

ANCIENT AND MODERN PRECURSORS OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY Though historical writing about “communication” thus named did not emerge before the seven teenth century, we can talk about prehistories of communication history that extended back to antiquity. One influential stream ran through the Greco-Latin rhetorical tradition—distinctive in world history for treating speech as an independent art that could be taught separately from ethics. politics, or sacred learning (Kennedy 1999>. Rhetoric twhich functionally served as the term for “communication” in Anglophone uniersity cumcula from the eighteenth into the early twentieth century enmeshed itself with history in multiple ways. As Jan Swearingen reminds us in chapter 5, this solume, not only was history traditionally conceived as a rhetorical genre—designed to educate, morally instruct, and cultivate “the civic S irtues necessary to create coherent societies”— but it was also brimming with speeches purported to have been delivered by the protagonists and their opponents in the past. Taking his cues from the Homeric epics, Herodotus (whom Cicero called the “father of historv”i represented the speeches of Persians and Greeks and “helped to establish speech as a canonical element of classical historiography” Woodman 2001. 339). While the dubious facticity of these representations makes this genre of history writing very different from its modern Sariants. we can read them as early efforts to depict significant communication events of the past for the rhetorical purposes of a present. Arising from cultures that deeply valued the spoken word, these “historical” speeches broadly complemented the preserved oratorical texts of Greek and Roman orators like Demosthenes, Socrates, Cicero, and many others—all of which provided educational materials for the boys who studied, translated, and imitated them as part ot the rhetorical training that periodically lay at the core of a Western liberal education into the nineteenth century. From our current conceptual horizons, we can retroactively redescribe these representations and preservations of speeches as species of communication history before its time. Nor were representations of past speeches conlined to the Western humanist rhetorical tradi tion. Indeed, the central texts of the world’s great religious traditions include depictions of past communication events—speeches or dialogues emanating from humans or involving God or the gods. This is true in different ways of the Bhagavad Gita, the Ana/ects of Confucius, the Mencius, the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, the Koran, and a range of the classic Buddhist writings among other sacred texts.,All depict speech that occurred in the past. manifest within liv ing traditions of interpretation and belief that recognize their continuing povver to communicate to audiences in the present. Robert Olier’s excellent but largely forgotten minor classic, C’o,ii inunicatwil and Culture in Ancient India and China (1971). a pioneering work in comparative historical communication study, dran, upon ancient Hindu, Buddhist. and Confucian texts “to depict the manner of talk” in South and East Asia (see also Chen et al., chapter 28, this volume). From Mesoamerica, one could turn to the Mayan Popul Vuh (Spence I 908), a body of orally transmitted narratives of origins, traditions, and history that, after the devastation of Mayan cul ture following the Spanish conquest, was written down by an anonymous Guatemalan Indian in the mid-sixteenth century. The poetry of Nezahualcoyotl in pre-Columbian Mexico is another example of the use of the spoken word to recount the “enigmas of man on earth, the beyond and

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

17

the Gods” (Lefin-Portilla 1992, 70). Deemed el rey J?oeta (the poet king), Nezahualcoyotl was a fifteenth century ruler during what would be labeled Texcoco’s “Golden Age,” when it flourished as a center of learning, arts and law, and poetry was a preferred form of expression, much as it was in preSocratic Greece. Indeed, eighteenth-century Spanish historian Francisco Javier Clavi cr0 1>780 81) termed Texcoco the “Athens of Anáhuac and Nezahualcovotl the Solon of those peoples” qtd. in RodrIguez 1998. 16) As with the Popul Vuh. the words of these pre-Aztec sages a eie preserved through the native oral tradition and \S ritten down, post—Conquest, in the sixteenth century (see also Romano. chapter 23, this volume). All of these examples can he read as special SOrts of ‘communication history” revolving around representations of the spoken word, stretch ing back millennia, and continuing to animate interpretive and communicative practices today.

The Rise of “Communication” in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. “communication” became an important keyword in English. French, and Scottish philosophical discourses, and came to link itself with hfi.torical narratises as well, It was infonned by and contributed to earlx modern liberalism, Enlightenment ideologies of progis, and civic republican communitarian thought. It arose in the contexts of eligious disputes among Protestants and Catholics; European colonization of Africa, the Amen as, and India: the birth of modern science; and the increasing spread of people, writing, images, and broader systems of transportation and communicative exchange around the globe (see Matdart 1996). John Locke made ‘communication” an important concept in his hugely influential Es say Concer,un’ Human LTndersranding U 690). where it captured the v, ay s of transmitting deas from one mind to the next through ssords and helped underssrite some of the tenets of liberal individualism (Peters 1989). The idea also found a place in the writings of the giants of seventeenth-century English science including Francis Bacon. Sir Isaac Newton. John Glanvill. and John Wilkins (Heyer 1988; Peters 1989, 1999: Guillory 2010). Communication stood for transparency and clarity, in contradistinction to the perceived obscLlrity of both Ciceronian elo quence and Catholic tradition, and came to serve as an ideal for the open sharing of science and eason alike (see Leach, chapter 16. this solume). Meanwhile, operating in different discursive space. the first doctoral dissertation on newspapers appeared in Germans in 1690. and included several sections devoted to tracing the historical roots of the newspaper back to ancient Greece and Rome (Atwood and de Beer 2001 The communication idea received considerable attention in the French and Scottish En lightenments. anchoring a broader array of thinking and research about the nature and historical development of language. media, and civilization writ large. We see this in the great French En usciopédie, whose introductory Discours Préliminaire casts “communication” as a fundamental process in the historical organization of human society (D’Alembert [17511 1995: also Darnton 1979: arid Blorn 2005). This speculative or conjectural history of civilization trailed a longer iradition dating hack at least to the Antidosis of isocrates t436—338 netu. which cast loç’os in analogous terms as the engine of human society. Among the philosophers, communication was often connected with ideas of mediation, which also appeared with increasing frequency and helped power the Enlightenment as a movement (Siskin and Warner 2010). The idea connected elf to ideologies of human progress, mapped onto the development of language, gesture, writ rig, and print o\er time—”part of an inevitable unfolding sequence of human history,” as one historian has put it (McDowell 2010, 244: see also Heyer 1988; Mattelart 1996). It played a role in ideological sorting mechanisms that distinguished “civilization” from so-called primitive peoples without writing systems, a distinction found in both ethnographic accounts of colonized peoples and literary attempts to preserve Scottish highland ballads and other products of what

18

PFTFR SIMONSON. JANI(’E PECK. ROBERI T. CRAiG. AD JOHN P JkCKSON JR.

11W HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

were being recognized as “oral traditions” iMcDowell, 2010). a sentiment found in anti-modern appreciations of orality expressed by future generations as well. Historical narratives were prominent in thinking about language and communication in other thinkers of the French Enlightenment as well—Condillac. Condorcet. Turgot. and Rousseau. for instance—but also in Giamhattisa Vico’s writings in Italy and Lord Monboddo and Dugaid Stewart in Scotland tHeyer i9%8: Siskin and Warner 2010. Phiiosophicaii oeaking. Condillac [ l 746] 200i chalieneed Ljckc’s understanding and argued that speech and words are the ourcc of mental life and knowledge, not vice versa, opening an early route toward the idea that com munication helps constitute human worlds—an intellectual precursor to contcmporary theories that has been unjustly neglected, and one echoed among Scots like Stewart and Thomas Reid (see Broadie 2005). Out of the Enlightenment, then, we see the modern origins of grander narra tives )f communication in history, fueling more-or-less ethnocentric progress tales of civilization and its media, and underwriting a reform-minded and forward-looking liberal politics with both individualistic and communitarian iterations

Communtcation and History in the Nineteenth Century A range of influential figures would extend the grander liberal progress narrative in the nine teenth century. working it out through philosophy as well as the emergent disciplines of politi cal econom, sociology, and anthropology. Some modulated the progress tale with ambivalence about the state of reading. print media, and actually existing public life in the present moment. John Stuart Mill’s Cii’ilication (1 836). for instance, continued the Enlightenment sorting of sm ages and slaves as cultural Others against which to define civilized peoples who had progressed through social cooperation. “the diffusion of reading. and the increase of the facilities of human intercourse” toward a democracy in which social intelligence was spread from the elites to the masses. That teleology, which for Mill issued in “the greatest ever recorded” social progress in history, also led to a present corrupted by “arts for attracting public attention,” newly literate masses with little interest in “the highest and most valuable order of hooks.,” and questions about their preparation to help govern through public opinion—the communicative medium par evcel lence for liberal democracy (Mill [1836] 1977, np; see Butsch, chapter 4 this volume). “Communication” was a standard term in nineteenth-century political economy, where it typically meant transportation and other kinds of material contact and exchange, initiating a tra dit on of communication history that would be among the most prominent into the twenty-first century. most famously through the Canadian Harold Innis (1894 1952, about whom more be low). Operating in a context of major technological and systemic developments in transportation in Europe and the United States. nineteenth-century political economists yoked communications in this sense to progress as well. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (1848) was one such example. making the case that transport and commercial commerce were also powerful engines of historical development, the latter making up “the far greater part of the communication which takes place between civilized nations, Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age. one of the primary sources ofprogress” Mill [1848j 1909. paragraph 111.17.14: see also Mattelart 1996, 58—flU). Mill’s attention was primarily contemporar. but German histor cal economists like Karl Knies turned their attention to the recent and more distant past. writing hooks in the I 850s on the railroads and telegraph and reflecting more generally on the esolution of economy and society (Hardt 2001). Political economy linked up with and gave rise to the new science of sociology. which often siewed society through the organic metaphor of a collective body held together by communica tion (in all its senses) as a coordinating mechanism. These theories, too. relied upon implicit -

19

and explicit accounts of communication in history and across different kinds of society’—as in Herbert Spencer’s iniluential Pi’iiiL’!plc.s ofSociologi’ ( I 882 1. where communication is part of a “regulating system” whose complexity varies across “primitive” and “cix ilized” societies (Mat telart 1996). Albert Schäffle’s Ban and Leben des socialen Kthpers (Structure and Lifi’ of the Social Body: 4 oiumes, 1875—1879) simiIuIy conceived a societal nerve sYstem constituted by systems of transport, networks of communication, and mechanisms of cultural storage and crossgenerational transmission. His, too, was a progressixe tale of progress, aiming (‘or him toward a harmonious socialist state, but requiring reform of press and other social organs in the meantime tReinert 2010; Hardt 2001). Like his today better-known countryman, Ferdinand Tdnnies, Schi’ffle also sketched the his torical development of the public as an alternative social regulator IC) religious institutions and tradition, and fundamentally connected to newspapers and reading (Hardt 2001). This would he a theme influentially pursued late in the century by the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde ([1898] 1969), who saw reading and conversation as the communicative practices underlying a distinctly modern public (see Butsch, Burke, chapter 4 and 6. this volume), and casting brief framing attention toward the history of communication, Influenced by Schhffle, the American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley launched his lifelong study of communication from political economy, yoking narratives of the historical development of media and public opinion to liberal and social democratic progress and the capacity for continued reform of the lai’ger moral com munity (Simonson 1996. 2010). Meanwhile, in the 1870s and ‘XOs. Edward Tlor in England and David Lewis Morgan in the United States launched a lasting anthropological variation on grander communication history organized around communicative modes like gesture. speech. image. and writing, emphasizing on ancient and traditional more than modern Western cultures (Heyer l988kAcross political economy. sociology, and anthropology, then, the last half of the nineteenth century’ saw the continuation of grander. macro—level thinking about communication in history that fed both diachronic metanan’atives of civilizational progress and svnchronic com parisons with “lesser-developed” peoples elsewhere in the world. in addition to this grander style of communication history. often (though not always) con ducted in a speculative manner, the nineteenth century also witnessed the rise of more specitic. empirically grounded studies of printing, printing, books, newspapers, oratory and rhetoric, post al systems, telegraphs, railroads, transportation routes, and related communicative phenomena. In the United States, Isaiah Thomas published his groundbreaking History qf Printing in America ‘n 1810, which, as Ron and Mary Zboray note in this volume (chapter 9), “set the historiographi cal course of separating discussions of book and newspaper publishing, while cataloguing pci sonalities and firms:’ the latter representing an “anecdotal tradition” of history that continued in Frederic Hudson’s Journalism in the United State.s (1873) and was appropriated by American ournalism schools in the first decades of the twentieth century. From its earliest iterations for ward. U.S. journalism history would emphasize “the triumph of democratic government anti reedom of the press” (Barnhurst and Nerone 2009, 20). National histories of journalism appeared in Europe in the second hall’ of the nineteenth century as is eli. In France, Leonard Gallois’ His’toire des Journauv ci tie Journalisres de In Rei’o Intone Francai,se. 1789—1796 (History ot iVeie’spapers and .Jouc’nalisi.r of the French Ree’olution, 1789-4796 1845—46] 2010). Louis Eugene Hatin’s Histoii’e Po/ilique et Litteraire de Ia P,’eve en France (Political acid Lite,’arv History of the Press’ in France 1859—64j 2010>, Henri Avenel’s Heito,re (IC Ia Press Francai.se Depuis 1789 Jets qu ‘it nos fours (History oft/ce Frem’h P;’es.s from 1789 to the Present Das 1900). and Eugene Tavernier’s Die Joui’nalis’,ne: Son Histoire. Son Rd/c PoInt qice et Religieux Liournalicni: Its His’rorit Its Political and Reli’ious Role. 1902> estab lihed a baseline of knowledge. B the I 890s. university courses, including those at the Catholic

20

PFTFR SIMONSON, JANI( F PFCK, ROBERT T. CRAIG, AND JOHN P. JACKSON JR

LJmcersity in Lille (Oberholtzer 1896), were being offered on great jobrnalists and publicists of the past. In England, Alexander Andrews’ The History of British Journalism ([18591 1998) and H. R. Fox-Bourne’s English Newspapers ([18871 1998) catalogued publications, noted the ac complishments of prominent editors and publishers, and cast newspapers as agents of political progress (K. Williams 2010, 2); and George Carslake Thompson conducted a careful study of the ecent past in Public Opunon and Lord Beaconsfield, 1875 1880 (2 sols. 1886), which Harold Lasswell would call a “pioneer effort to deal exhaustively with language in Jrculation through time in connection with world politics” (Lasswell, Casey, and Smith 1935, 195). In Germany, the political economist Karl BUcher began writing about the newspaper in the I 890s and by the l9lOs was leading the way in the establishment of newspaper science (Zeitungwiscenschaft), writing and teaching courses in the history, statistics, and economic organization of the news paper system (Hardt 2001: Pietilk 2005; Lang 1996). At the Unisersity of Heidelberg in 1895, a course was offered on “The History of the Press and Journalism in Germany,” reportedly the first of its kind in that country (Oberholtzer 1896). BOcher’s Industrial Evolution (1901), which included a chapter on the historical development of journalism, blended elemencs of grandcr political economic narrative with focused historical attention on one media institution. Over the next two decades, he would write a number of studies that made him one of the pioneers of press history in Germany. Other media, old and new, also came in for specific historical treatment in the late nine teenth century. The French historian Jules Fleury Champfleury (1867, 1885) published histories of ancient and modern caricatures and press illustrations. Isaac Taylor published his landmark history of writing. The Alphabet (1883), and M. Philippe Berger followed suit with his Histoire de l’écriture dans l’antiquité (History of Writing in Antiquit’; 1892). Soon after, Lorenio Sears (1896) and Henry Hardwicke (1896) published histories of oratory that pushed that ancient genre of communication history forward into a new cultural moment. Declaring “Oratory is the par ent of liberty” and arguing that free states had the duty of fostering it (v). Hardwicke struck a chic republican tone that emphasized the need to bring past consmunicathe excellence to bear on the present. At the end of the nineteenth century, then, liberal progress narratives dominated the telling of communication’s history, but civic republicanism, socialism, and Catholicism also ideologically informed the cross-disciplinary practice.

COMMUNICATION HISTORY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY “Communication” would become a central term and concept in the twentieth century (Peters l999)—one connected with a series of other, related terms that included dialogue, conversation, inftirmation. propaganda, public opinion, public relations, journalism, media, mass coinmunica tion, and technology. As they grew in importance in the vocabularies of both scholars and ordi nary people, such terms also stoked historical thinking and investigation. The increased attention was driven by a number of factors including the onslaught of propaganda in World War I (see Mortensen, chapter 19, this volume), the rise of public relations after the war, and accelerating attention to the questions about the public and public opinion from that point forward, Technol ogy and new media also played major roles in the emergence of radio broadcasting as the latest in a series of new electric media dating back to the telegraph in the I 840s. collectively altering the shape of social communication and the popular arts. and drawing attention to the seeming revolution in communication technologies (see Peters and Nielsen, chapter 14, this volume). Print remained the medium through which histories were told, but beginning in the I 920s, they began to take shape within a new, electronic broadcast age.

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION hISTORY

21

Communication History as Press/Journalism History, 1900—1930s At the turn of the twentieth century. with the possible exception of political economic histories of transportation and communications, newspaper and journalism history was the best established uhfiekl of what we are retroactixely characterizing as “communication history.” Such research I und conic space within a numbei of disciplinary formations, including U.S and French so i Aogy, Ge ‘man Zeituncii’issenschaft, and university-based journalism education in othei pro essionalizing national contexts, Though his attention was primarily contemporary, the French ociologist Gabriel Tarde (who after 1900 lectured at the College de France) wrote important and lasting conceptual work on public opinion, corn ersation, and the newspaper as features of nodern, liberal societies. In the United States, at the University of Michigan, Charles Cooley similarly cast his sociological theory of communication within a historical narrative about mo dernity. At the far more influential Unix ersity of Chicago. meanwhile, the sociologist George E. Vincent began teaching a course entitled “The History and Organization of the American Press” ir 1903 (Vincent 1905). initiating a tradition that Robert Park and others would energetically advance in the l920s and ‘30s and contributing to the formation of a sociological paradigm that cast communication as a fundamental component of society. Park (19231 charted what he called ‘the natural history of the newspaper” oxer time, and, along with students such as Helen McGill Hughes (1940), brought a broadly evolutionary framework to bear in understanding the relation ships between news, culture, and society over time. Other sociological research inspired by Park took up the study of “The Negro Press” (e.g.. Detweiler 1922), often as a way to address what was known as “the Negro Problem” in the United States (Kerlin 1920: see also Simpson 1936; Balaji and Crittenden, chapter 21, this volume), Sociologists at Columbia University also studied news in the 191 Os and ‘2Os, blending early methods of content analysis with studies of institu tions, opinion, and socialization among other topics, sometimes situating their object of study in historical perspective—for instance, Malcolm Willey’s (1926) study of the country newspaper based on his dissertation there. Running parallel with the sociological studies of the news, newly professionalizing programs in journalism education and European newspaper science also cast their attention toward the his tory of the press. In Europe and North America, histoiy was part of journalism curricula, function ing at once as orientation, legitimating genealogy, guide to contemporary practice, and, for a few, an object of study in its own right (see Nerone, chapter 10, this xolumc). In the United States, where the internationally influential Walter Williams founded the first journalism school in 1908 and Columbia opened its School of Journalism four years later, the first journalism history text book appeared in 1917, a detailed chronology of the press and its major figures (Lee 1917). The University of Wisconsin’s Willard Bleyer published Main Currents in the History of American Journalism a decade later, the same year (1927) that his department of journalism became a soonto-be influential school of its own that would go on to sponsor a good deal of historical research. hleyer wrote the kind of journalism history subsequently rejected by sociologist Alfred McClung Lee. whose Daily Newspaper in America,’ The Evolution of a Social Ins truinent (1937) argued that mpcrsonal social forces were far more important than heroic individuals in determining both the course of histoi’y and shaping the development of newspapers (Galliher and Galliher 1995, 53). Lee opened his book with the charge that the “great man theory of history” prexalent in existing accounts of U.S. press history was “scarcely less naive than the savage’s recourse to magical cx planation” (1937, 1). Lee earned distrust Irons journalism educators, practitioners and publishers. and his book nexer won wide acceptance in American journalism programs an early indica tion of tensions that would continue to haunt an educational mission devoted to the dual tasks of professional training and scholarly research, and in the process shore up paradigm differences

22

P1 I FR SIMONSON JANICE PECK ROBERT T. CRAIG, Y\D JOHN If JACKSON JR

between sociologists and journalism schools. Journalism education would instead look to Frank Luther Mott’s American Journalism (1941), a voluminous study that followed his three-volume History ofAmerican Maga.ines (which won the Pulitier Prize in history in 1939) and that through subsequent editions would be the standard text for U.S. journalism histoiy, later epitomizing what James Carey (1974) would critiLize as an outdated “Whig model” of press history In Germany. Fiance and other European countries, humanistic, and to a eser extent, social centific scholais began to institutionalize studies of the press in universitis, offer courses in press history. ‘md published hooks and journal articles on the subject. Karl Bucher, who estab lished the first European institute for press study. the Institut für Zeitungswiccenschafien (Insti tute for New spaper Science) at the University of Leipzig in 1916. published a series of studies oi press history (collected in Bücher 1926) and taught courses in the subject. Kurt Baschwitz, among a relatively few scholars who tried to open the traditionally humanities-oriented Zeitung ii is senschaft to sociology and psychology in the I 920s (on which, see Averbeck 1999), fled Nazi Germany in 1935 and began teaching press history at the University of Amsterdam in 1935, where he became one of the first faculty appointed to the Dutch Institute for the Science of the Press (begun 1947) and founded one of the first international journals of communication, Ga eUe. in 1955 (Wieten 2005) In France, meanwhile, press studies took place within faculties of law; the first reseaich and teaching institute, the Institut de science de Ia presse was founded by the jurist Fernand Terrou in 1927. and history was part of its curriculum. A few scholars began breaking out of strictly national narratives and cast their attention in global directions. The French historian Georges Weill (1934) was among the leaders, publishing a history of the press in world perspective and treating journalism as part of the general history of civilization. The Swedish historian Gunnar Bjurman’s Tredje statcmakten (The Third Estate, 1935) and Baschwiti’s Dc krant door al/c tijden (The Press of All Times, 1936) also pushed press history in global directions as part of an inteiwar moment that also saw historians establishing bibliographies of international newspapers as invaluable historical sources (Jaryc 1943). If journalism history often took shape within a narrative of liberal democratic progress (particularly in the U.S.), interwar propaganda studies drew attention to the darker side of mod ern communication. Propaganda research emerged in the United States in the I 920s and ‘30s as a field that cut across academic and public realms of practice (Sproule l997)—a development svhose German version has recently been told as well (Daniel 2010). Most of this research con cerned recent or contemporary propaganda, but some looked back further in time, and more at east set the present in historical relief. The influential US. political scientist Harold Lasswell for instance, regularly cast his arguments about the contemporary symbolic environment in longer historical perspective, and history found a small place in his compendious early bibliographies of propaganda and the new “science of mass communication” (Lasswell, Casey. and Smith 1935’ Smith, Lasswell, and Casey 1946). The historical component of his work only came to fruition four decades later, though. in the marvelous but mostly ignored three-volume, Propaganda and (‘onzmunication in Woild History (Lasswell. Lerner, and Speier, eds. 1979—80). From different intellectual quarters, has Ing fled Germany in the early l930s when Hitler came to power, émigré Frankfurt School scholars (about which, more below) also turned to propaganda: Theodor Ador no, in The Psychological Technique of Martin I ut/icr Ihomas’ Radio Addresses ([1943] 2000), and Leo Lowenthal, in Prophets of Deceit (Lowenthal and Guterman 1949), turned the lens of critical theory on American culture and communication in historically-grounded studies of the Depression-era broadcasts, speeches. and writings of right wing demagogues. Public opinion also came in for historical treatment. No one went further than the German historian Wilhelm Bauer, whose Die offentliche Meinunç and i/ire ç’eschichtlichen Grundlagen.’ Em lersuclz (Public Opinion and Its Historical Basis: An Essay, 1914) and Die offéntliche Mci nung in der Wbltgeschichte (Public Opinion in World Histo,y, 1930) traced ideas, representations,

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

23

and practices f publiL opinion from antiquity forward to World War I. Lasswell (1979—1980) and his co-editors took it as an exemplar of the kind of historical work they were doing in their three-volume project, and both Jiirgen Habermas ([1962] 1989) and Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984) incorporated facts from it into their respective historical-cum-theoretical treatments of pub ic opinion and publicness, but Bauer’s works have unfortunately not been translated into English. Working with the more recent past. the University of Trieste historian and press researcher Guilia mo Gaeta (1938) helped launch an illustrious career with a study of public opinion propaganda, and the press during World War I. In the United States, classic theoretical and empirical work on public opinion often gave at least brief orienting narratives casting their subject in longer his torical relief—from Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion (1922) and John Dewey’s Public and Its Problems (1927) through the founding of the field’s first major journal, Public Opinion Quarter/s (1937). Even a survey researcher like George Gallup and a positivist-leaning social scientist like he Austrian émigré Paul Lazarsfeld drew upon historical frames in classic writings (e.g., Gallup and Rae 1940; Lazarsfeld and Merton 1948), suggesting that even the scientistic wing of the early field had a sense that communication was best understood on a larger historical canvas. Far more important from the perspective of historical studies, the University of Paris in the 1 920s served as socio-intellectual midwife for several subsequently fertile strands of hought concerning communication in history. One occurred through Terrou’s above-mentioned press institute (after World War II renamed the Institut francais de presce et des sciences d / ‘infommation—”information” being the preferred organizing term in France and Spain instead of the American-originating “communication”). Others operated more individually. The American philosopher Richard McKeon, a former student of John Dewey’s, studied medieval thought with Etienne Gilson in Paris from 1922—1925, stoking his historical consciousness in a way that he would later bend toward the intellectual history of rhetoric and communication (McKeon [19531 1990), a point we return to below, Another American, the classicist Milman Parry, drew upon the insights of the French linguist Antoine Meillet in a 1928 thesis he wrote at the Sorbonne, which cast Homer as the product of an oral culture—an argument that would influence a later generation

of communication-based histories of antiquity and fuel both historical and contemporary studies of orality (McDowell 2010). A year later, historians Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch launched a n wjournal, Anna/es d’Histoire Economique et Sociale, dedicated to a style of historical research hat encompassed economy. society. culture. psychology, and geography This marked the begin sing of what would become the French Anna/es School and the histoire totale (total history) approach that would exert wide-ranging influence on social, cultural, and economic histor over the next five decades, including work in the l980s on the history of the book (see Burke 1990 Buruière 2009; Zboray and Zboray, chapter 9, this volume). As early as 1941. Febvre turned his attention to lecture patterns as social praxis in his essay “Littérature et vie sociale.” Later he would publish a major history of printing (Febrve and Martin 1958) The (First) Cultural Turn in Communicalion History, 1920s—30s English literary studies at Cambridge also served as a powerful incubator for future work on the listory of communication ER. and Queenie Leavis and l.A. Richards were architects of English is a serious academic discipline and hugely important critics and thinkers. Traincd variously in history, anthropology, psychology, and moral sciences, they transformed English studies from the amateur and impressionistic pursuit of the upper class to a radically reles ant spiritual inter vention into mechanized and mass-produced modernity. ER. Leavis wrote his dissertation on eighteenth-century periodical literature and Joseph Addison’s Spectator (1924), while his former student Queenie Roth wrote hers under the direction of Richards, resulting in Fiction and the Reading Public, a minor classic that has been in print since it was published in 1932, the same

24

THE HISTORY Oh COMMUNICATION HISTORY

JR PETER SIMONSON JANI( I PECK, ROBERT T CRAIG \ND JOHN P JACKSON

19651 year the couple thunded the critical journal 5crutin. Qucenie (or Q.D.) Roth’s (119321 into excursus historical an of way study was sociological and cultural. getting to the present by read of the disintegration and growth the birth of English journalism, the Puritan conscience, the values of ing public, and the economic developments contributing to it. That hook reflected the insist salues,” iiterarv of mere “[d]ismissive Scrztim which Terry Eacleton has described as about judgments with deeper up bound deeply ing “that how one aluated literar works was and 252—64 1958. Williams sec also the nature Ut history and Nocietv as a whole” t1983 .33. as a moment historical and culture to a applied 1 96t Thi’ was a wax of thinking that could be Tiainiug The Eni’ironuient: and in Culture whole as FR. Leavis and Denys Thompson showed fCritk al 4uurene.s (1933) a fascinating literary-rhetorical primer for decoding contemporary advertising contextualized against the folkways and traditions of the “organic community” of the p-c industrial past. Richards worked in a more systematic. philosophical style, and Scrutiny would criticize him harshly, but he too was a critic of what his biographer calls the “unwitting -onsp racy between mass media and mass education” (Russo 1989, 296, 534—40; cf. F.R. Leavis 1930) In the mid-I 930s, Richards turned his attention to “the first three liberal arts”--—-the trivium of rhetoric. grammar. and logic— --and theorized a “new rhetoric that would break with the dis credited tradition (see Richards 1991). In addition to its own historical work. Cambridge literary studies birthed an influential cadre of students. Among those xxas a toting Canadian influenced bt’ both the Leaviscs and Richards. Marshall McLuhan (in residence there 1934—36). xx ho would write a dissertation on the history of the trix ium. teach “culture and environment”—tvpe criticism, and soon develop his ow n theory of media in history (Marchand I 989). A young working—class Welshman. Ramond Williams. would begin his undergraduate studies at Cambridge in 1939, resume them after the war, and subsequently establish himself with a book, Culture and Society (1958) that dialectically moved the Leavisite approach into the orbit of British cultural Marxism and catalyzed another major ap proach to communication history, about which more below (Dworkin 1997). \nother member of his cohort, Ian Watt, whose education was similarly inten’upted by the war, wotild also absorb the Leavisite socio-cultural orientation and influentially extend it in the I 950s and ‘60s (e.g., Watt 1957, Goody and Watt 1963). Across the Atlantic, Cornell Unix ersity .s Department of Oratory and Debate was offering a \ear-iong seminar in classical rhetoric as the core of a program in rhetoric that would deeply influ ence the humanistic field of speech dater, speech communication) in the United States. Speech had arisen as a field in the 19 lOs out of English departments and what was left of the teachers of ora tort and rhetoric that had populated American colleges throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. When it was begun in 1020. Cornell’s seminar was the first of its kind in the United States and went on to set the tone ior a faculty and graduate students who carried out often very high-quality historical work on rhetoric and oratory. At Cornell and elsewhere, scholars wrote and taught about the history of •Nmerican, British, Greek. and Roman oratory and the history of hetoric as an intellectual discipline. Cornell’s Lane Cooper (who had taken his doctorate in phi lol y in Germany) translated Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1932). helping feed a revival of teaching and writing about classical rhetoric. Cooper taught Herbert Wichelns, Hoyt Hudson, and other lead ing figures in the field of speech, many of whom turned their direction to the criticism and close textual analysis of historical speeches and rhetorical texts (Benson 2003). In 1934. the National Association of Teachers of Speech which xvould eventually become today’s National Communi cation Association) launched a history of American public address. which xxas published a decade later and framed as a study of the “men who have used words to direct the course of American history” I3rigance 1943. xii). It xvas a classic “great man” version of communication histor, at the opposite pole of the methdological spectrum from the total history of the Auiiale.s school or the cultural and sociological history of the Leaxises, and the oratorical counterpart to the studies of ‘

25

great editors and writers that American journalism historians were studying at the time. Functionally however, Cornell school rhetorical-oratorical history served analogous anti-modern purposes as the Leavises’ project. tonally aiming to recover great moments and texts from the past as a point from which to live in a moderniing. mass communicating xvorld. The Historical Centrality of Communication and Media, 1930s—50s instead of ignoring the broadcast age like the hulk ot Cornell’s xx ork, other scholars absorbed it. xx ith the new medium of radio bioadcasting cueing a number of important affirmations of communications social centrality and place in human history. The American historian Robert Albion (1932) introduced the idea of the “Communication Revolution” to make sense of the transformative changes brought about through developments in transport and media since the early nineteenth century initiating a line of work on communication revolutions pursued by subsequent American historians (see John 1994) and, more recently. historians of Europe, too t Behringer 2006). Edward Sapir compactly advanced the anthropological take on this story in hs excellent entry on communication in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (11931 2003), a general vie’s echoed in Robert Park’s claim that “fundamental mx eritions like the alphabet. the each may be said to mark an epoch in the history printing piess. the new spaper. and the radio characterizes the culture of xxhich it is a part” 1936. 172). Malcolm of communication, and Willey expressed a gi’oxving sentiment when he wrote, “It is the ‘enveloping omnIpresence 01’ mass communication that distinguishes our century from earlier periods in the history of corn— nunication” (1935. 197). No epochal history of the 1930s went further than Lewis Mumford’s Tcchizic.’ and C/i’ll/cation I 93—U. “During the last thousand years the material basis and the cultural forms of Western Civilization have been profoundly modified by the dex’elopment of the machine,” it began. showing that it was not only the Anna/es historians who were interested in the Ion gue durhe (3), With chapters on the clock, social regimentation. and the mechanical universe. it became a classic in the history of technology and new media (see Peters and Nielsen, chapter 14, this volume). Operating in very different and even more influential intellectual waters, the Austrian giant Sigmund Freud continued to mix psychoanalysis with long-duration history in hooks like Moses and Monotheism (1939. xvhich blended the idea of a “great man” with the in iluence of the “network (171). tradition. and the collective dynamics of memory, repetition. anti repression—all of xvhich would open tip new x istas for thinking about communication in history. Mean’s hile. geographers in the I 930s continued to xx rite about “the hstorv of communications” meaning the study of roads and other transportation systems, and continuing elements of the oldei political economic tradition. No one extended that older tradition into communication history more influentially than the ( anadian Harold Innis. whose grander—scale history mapped the relationship of cOninitini.,a— lion to social, political, and economic organization over long historical time. Studying economic history at the University of Chicago, lnnis wrote a dissertation on the history of the Canadian Pacific Railxvay (published 1923), then moved to the University of Toronto, where he inves ligated the role of transportation and communication systems in Canada’s political-economic development (Heyer 2003). His resulting economic histories of the nation’s fur trade (1930) and fisheries (1940) prepared the ground for Innis’s wide-ranging excursions, in the I 940s, into the relationship of social order and means of communication. Out of that iesearch grew his innovative argument about the centrality of communication to processes of historical change laid out in Empire and C”o,nmnunication.s ( 1950) and The Bias of Coimnunication (1951 ). his two most ...

...

influential works. They pushed forward the holistic nineteenth—century political economic nexus

of transportation, communication, and history and introduced fertile theoretical concepts like “time-” and “space-binding” media (see Buxton and Acland 1999).

26

PETER SIMONSON, JANiCE PECK ROBERT I. CRAIG AND JOHN P. JACKSON, JR.

Ennis’ highly original work influenced a school of thought organized around an interdisci plinary group of scholars at the University of Toronto. retroactively termed the Toronto School” of communication (Theall 1986: DeKerckhove 1989: KatL et al. 2003: Blondheim 2007). More than any other center for communication and media study in the mid-twentieth century. the To ronto group emphasized history and questions of culture. Its most famous member was the liter am critic Marshall McLuhan. who finally completed his Cambridge dissertation in 1946, focused on Renaissance England and thL history of the liberal arts trivium of rhetoric grammar, and logic McLuhan 2006). Between Cambridge and Toronto. McLuhan (a Catholic convert) taught at the Jesuit St. Louis Unisersity. where he directed the 1941 M.A. thesis of Walter Ong. and got Ong interested in a semi-obscure Renaissance logician—a line of curiosity that eventuated in Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Ong 1958), a deep intellectual history of print-based logic and the transformation from auditory to visual modes ot apprehending reality (Marchand 1989, 59. McLuhan moved to the University of Toronto in 1946. met and was influenced by Innis. and then carried on some of his lines of thinking after Innis’ untimely death in 1952. He teamed with the anthropologist Edmund Carpenter and others interested in questions of communication. culture, and history. They explored themes of orality and literacy that the classicist Eric Havelock (who taught at Toronto until 1947) also pursued, adding print and new electronic media to their mix as well (Havelock 1963, 1986; Carpenter and McLuhan 1956; McLuhan, 1962). The Toronto group created an interdisciplinary intellectual center of gravity, aided by the Ford Foundationsponsored Communication and Culture seminars, out of which came the launch. in 1953. of the groundbreaking journal Explorations in Co,nniunications. which not only published the work of the Toronto scholars, but also introduced readers to the work of major figures associated with the then-emergent field of structuralism, including Roland Barthes, Claude Levi-Strauss and, later, Jacques Derrida (Theall 2003: Buxton, 2009). The influence of the Toronto group would be last ing. men if McLuhan came to be demonized as a celebrity-gadfly after he became famous in the I 960s, and a “technological determinist” by a later generation of critics. Instituting Communication (and Its History) as an Academic Field, 1940s—60s South of the Canadian border, communication was institutionalized as an academic field in the decades after World War 11. and history vas generally given a less prominent place. Still, it found its vsav men into the social scientific mainstream. At Columbia. the Viennese émigré Paul La zarsfeid paired with the versatile theorist and pioneer 01’ hitoricai sociology, Robert K. Merton. to frame mass communication in historical perspectise in some of their most lasting publica don, (e g Merton, Curtis, and Fiske 1946, 1 azarsfeld and Merton (948), and in hR most fully articulated vision for the field he expressly called for historical studies of the effects of media on audiences and society more broadly (Lazarsfeld 1948. 250—57). Sociologist Daid Riesman’s classic v ork. The LoneI Crowd 0950). added twentieth—century mass media to the historical shut from oral to print cultures and tied them to his sociological categories of tradition—directed. mner-directed, and other directed social characters—a framework broadly compatible with work being done by the Toronto School Working at the University of Illinois and Stanfoid, the insti tutionalizing builder of mass communications research Wilbur Schramm (1949. 1960) edited widely -used Reader whose first section contained articles on the historical des eiopment of ina’ communications. Perhaps the tirst library’ classification for communication as an academic subject included “the history of communication” as a category’ (Stein 1952). In 1955. the State Historical Society of Wisconsin established the first (and perhaps only) “mass communications history collection,” dedicated to preserving materials related to radio, motion picture, televi .ion. and the press—-the first archive to be so designated. and probably the first to include any mention or’ “communication history” in its name. By 1960. vs hen eleven programs in the United ,

THE HISTOR\ OF COMM1 NTC’\TION HISTORY T

27

States offered undergraduate degrees in communication. “the history of communications” was considered a standard course (Ely’ 1960). Despite these developments. there was truth in Dallas Sm the’s (1954) withering critique of U.S. communications research regarding its anti-historical and “sciefltislic tendencies. This would not begin to change until the I 970s. Communication theory began to emerge as a self conscious interdisciplinary’ field in the postvsar years. taking up a spectrum of attitudes toward history across its different lineages. By the i930s, the term “communication theory’ was used by’ electrical engineers with reference to mathematical theories of signal coding and transmission. This rather technical field exploded into widespread prominence after the publication of Norbert Wiener’s Cybernetics (1948) and Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver’s The Mathematical Theon’ of Communication (1949). The ground for an enthusiastic interdisciplinary reception had been prepared in part by the Macy cybernetics conferences, a series of meetings involving prominent social scientists, psychologists, biologists, mathematicians, and engineers that began in 1946 (Heims 1991). Wiener was a central figure in the Macy conferences and Shannon attended several meetings. Weaver. a mathematician-scientist and Rockefeller Foundation executive, wrote a non-technical introduction to the The Mathemari ‘al Theory’ of Co,’nmunicaiion. the remainder of svhich presented Shannon’s mathematical theory. The book was published by the University of Illinois Press under the direction of Wilbur Sch ramm, who was a leading figure in instituting communication as a social science discipline (Rog ers 1994: Chaffee and Rogers 1997). While communication theory continued to refer to mathematical theories of information, a broader sense was emerging in which communication theory also included relevant ideas from a range of other disciplines. Plato’s and Aristotle’s ancient writings on rhetoric could be regarded as “classic theories of communication” (Oates 1948). Bernard Berelson and Morris Janoss it, (1950, 143) noted that “jelontributions to a theory of communication have been made by workers in various fields—philosophy, sociology. anthropolog. political science. psychology” Interdis— ciplinaritv and theoretical eclecticism were justified by’ historical glosses on the grossing urgenc anti complexity of communication problems in society. problems that exceeded the scope of any one discipline, along with visions of a future in which a new science of communication would eventually progress beyond eclecticism to produce “a comprehensive theoretical structure” of its )wn (Hovland 1948, 374). At least by the mid-I 950s, communication theory’ could refer to a ness academic field that would integrate the traditional disciplines e.g.. Hefferline 1955). Beyond celebratory glosses, this forward-looking new social science did not reflect much n the history of communication’s emergence as a thematic or intellectual interest across dis ciplines. Outside the field, though, University of Chicago philosopher Richard McKeon (1957) sketched a broad historical and philosophical context for the development. For McKeon. histori cal ages could be characterized by their fundamental ways of posing problems. Like the age of Cicero and that of the European Renaissance. but for different reasoim. the present age was one in xv hich “all problems can he stated as problems of communication.” and “jjhe vogue of ‘commu— nication today is no accident, but rather a response to the problems we face” (91) in a complex modern society. Historicisin had its champions. In contrast to McKeon’s liberal progressivism, Lhe German-born philosopher Hannah Arendt argued in The Human condition (1958) that the modern world had collapsed the public into the social. extinguishing the possibility- for action and speech that she sass existing in the ancient Greek polis. Hers was a variation on civic republican communication history, inflected with her teacher Martin Heidegger’s foundational insight that language is the house of being. Both humanistic and social scientific branches of American speech and communication re search began in the 1950s to develop historical narratives of themselves as academic fields. Con structing a disciplinary identity, particularly for humanistic disciplines but by no means limited to them. often uses a reconstructed past to claim episteiru)logical authority (Graham. Lepenies. and

28

PFTFR SIMONSON JANICE PECK ROBERT T. CRAIG, AND JOHN P JA KSON, JR.

Weingart 1983). The disaiplrnarv histories emerging in the wake of Woild War II often reflected the need for disciplinary identity in a new academy In the United States, in particular, higher education experienced a boom in enrollments and disciplines that sought to leverage that boom into higher academic status through reconstructions of their own past. In the late 1 940s, the Na tional Association of Teachers of Speech changed its name to the Speech Association of America (SAA) and published a history entitled Histon of Speech Education in Amerka Wal1ace 1954) that traced the ongins of the new Association s mission from Colonial times through 1925. (His torical studies o rhetoric and public address remained staples of that field’s work [see Medhurst 1993j, with a few scholars bending the latter toward social history [Wrage 1947j and the history of social movements jGriffin 19521). Just five years later a similar project made the disciplinary uses of history quite explicit in a volume of historical essays designed with the dual purposes of inculcating graduate students into the Speech discipline and introducing it to university ad ministrators (Oliver and Bauer 1959). These histories focused on the humanistic traditions in communication, but a 1959 essay by Bernard Berelson constructed a “distinguished past’ (5) for social scientific communication research by enrolling notable scholars from other disciplines— Laiarsfeld, Lasswell, Kurt Lewin, and Carl Hovland (a foursome of founding figures that Wilbur Schramm and others would continue to amplify [Pooley 2008; Pooley and Park, chapter 3, this volume) The use of history for disciplinary identity was stark in this essay as Berelson’s agenda was not so much to study the past for its own sake but to set an agenda for future communication research that he feared was “withering away” as a topic (Berelson 1959, 1).

The Critical Impulse in Historical Perspective, 1950s—60s The impulse toward multidisciplinary comprehensiveness that had guided the creation of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research in the 1920s was carried on in the United Stares in the I 940s and ‘SOs work of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Leo Lov enthal. Aspiring to provide a unity of social theory that could illuminate key problems of the present and a theory of history that could account for their origins and potential future resolutions, the Frankfurt School err igres considered historical knowledge indispensable to meaningful social and cultural analy sis Critical research Horkheimer insisted, required consideration of “the historical character of the subject matter,” just as “empirical facts” and theoretical concepts must be “related to the whole of the historical process” of which they are part (Horkheimer 1941, 122). That commit ment to histor\ informed the treatment of communication, culture, and media in their Dialektik der Aufklarung (Horkheimer and Adorno 1947; Dialectic of Enlightenment 1972), Lowenthal’s (1950) treatment of popular cultura, and Ndorro’- (19541 anal”sis of tele\ision in the i95Os and his later critical reflection o his lack of fit with Lazarsfeld s “administrative’ approach to commu ication (Adorno 1969) It also clearly marked the next generation critical theory of Jtirgen Habeimas, whose Struktui rrandel der Offinrlichkeit (1962; Structural Traizsfrniation of the Puhlk Sphere, 1989) provided a sociologically oriented histoiical account of the rise of the b mrgeois public sphere in Europe and would become enormously influential thice decades later Her it was translated into English. Although the l950s are typically identified as a time of consensus and confolmitl (enacted in me way by U.S. mass communications iesearchers falling in line with the state s interna tional Cold War politics [Simpson 1994; Bernhard 1999; Glander 2000]), the decade can also be siewed as the seedbed of political and cultural challenge and confrontation that would come to define the I 960s. Thus, alongside the social scientific conception of communication that came to prevail across much of the scholarly landscape in the context of the emergence of the Cold War and the ascent of the United States to political-economic superpower. there existed other

THE hISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

29

visions of the communication/society relationship that had roots in literature, sociology, social theory. history, and philosophy. On the American scene, Kenneth Burke (1935, 1937, 1945, 1950) offered a communication-centered theory of social reality through which struggles in! over symbolic and material resources could be understood as the “organizing principle” of his tory m position with obvious parallels to the position Antonio Grarnsci worked out in the 1920s and 30s on the historical role of the struggle for hegemony, which would be appropriated by British cultural studies in the I 970s. In France, the Annales impulse toward total history yielded I apparition du Lure (1958) by Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin—an account of the de velopment of print in Europe that wove together economics, politics, technology, sociology, and anthropology. Meanwhile, the field of “information” developed in France and elsewhere on the Continent in the 1 950s, broad1 concentrating on the study of “content” (contenu) and not on the media that carried or “contained” it (contenant)—a development reflecting the continuing influence of literary and legal studies on the field; “media” and “communication” studies would arrive later there. In Great Britain in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, the desire to unite interdisciplinary analysis md social critique by situating communication, culture, and media in historical context paved the way for a new way of understanding the relationship of history, communication, culture, and society. British cultural studies was the product of a specific historical context: the rise in the late 1950s of New Left political and social movements and a corresponding culturalist shift within Marxist theory that rejected the view that culture (including forms and practices of communica tion and media) was merely epiphenomenal, and held instead that culture was both historical product (constituted) and historically productive (constitutive) (Dworkin 1997: Peck 2001). ‘1 he early work of three figures who would come to be identified as “founders” of cultural studies was clearly influenced by this evolving view of culture. In The Uses of Literacy (1957), Richard Hoggart combined autobiography and the tools of his home discipline, literary studies, to draw connections between emerging forms of mass mediated culture and broader social changes in twentieth-century Britain. In Culture and Society (1958) and The Long Renolution (1961), liter ary historian and critic Raymond Williams sought to understand the rise of industrial capital sm by considering the forms of communication and cultural production—the press, education advertising, novels—that were integral to that history. And E. P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Clams (1963), which made its foctis the active, creative character of workingclass cultural practices and forms of expression, played a seminal role in the rise of social history, r “history from below’ that would flourish in the 1960s and ‘70s. The 1964 founding of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies—directed first by Hoggart (with Stuart Hall as his assistant), and then by Hall when Hoggart departed in 1971 tn become Assktant I)irector-General of UNESCO—was a key moment in what Dan Schiller terms the “opening toward culture” (1996 88) in the trajectory of communication studies. l)rawing on its founda tional disciplines —history, literary criticism, and sociology the “Birmingham School” would go on to influence the study of culture, communication, media, and society across a wide range H disciplines, less by producing historical research proper than by emphasizing the importance of historical consciousness and context in cultural analysis. The leftward political shift in British communication and culture studies in the late 1950s through the ‘ôOs took place against the backdrop of political developments worldwide The Suez Canal crisis and the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet Union—both in 1956—have been cited as key moments in the rise of the British New Left. That same year, the UNESCO general conference endorsed the promotion of coordinated national research institutes devoted to the study of mass communication. Out of that directive grew the creation in 1957 of the International Association of Mass Communication Research (IAMCR), whose first president was Fernand

30

PETFR SIMONSON, JANICL PFCK, ROBERT T CRAIG. AND JOHN P JACKSON. JR.

Terrou founder and director of Fiance s Institut de science de la precce Over the next two de cades, UNESCO would become a base of support for IAMCR itself an international home of sorts for critical communications research, including historical and historically-informed work (Nordenstreng 2004) The association, which grew initially from the political, historical, and le gal study of the press in thc European tradition, founded a permanent Histoncal Research section in 1959. the first of all the major associations to do so. Its first head was the University of Trieste’s Giulano Gaeta, a member of the Italian resistance during World War II, who wrote numerous historical studies of the press and public opinion Italian colonialism, svar, and revolution (e.g., Gaeta 1938, 1943. 1948, 1951—55). These complementary developments on multiple scholarly fronts helped make the early 1960s a notable moment in the interdisciplinary study of communication history—though not much of it from the ensemble of communication disciplines. Across much of the globe, television had become a fact of life, and the march of new media technologies continued, sewing interest in communication as a central social and cultural force and sharpening awareness of past media epochs (“print culture,” for instance, had just been coined as a term [Zboray and Zboray, chapter 9. this volume]). The year i962 has been called one “of astonishing international convergence on questions of communication” (Peters and Simonson 2004, 272), with the publication of a number of signal works on the subject, many of which took up questions of history. Among them were Habermas’s Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, McLuhan’s Gutenbery Ga/art, Eric Havelock’s Preface to Plato, Daniel Boorstin’s The Image, and Jacques Ellul’s Propaganda (see also Ellul 1967). Williams’ Long Revolution had come out the previous year, just as the French journal Communications, founded in 1961 by semiologist Roland Barthes and others, was publishing its first issues. Cambridge social anthropologist Jack Goody and the Leavis-trained literary historian Ian Watt were working on their influential article, “The Conse quences of Literacy” (1963), pushing the tradition of anthropological communication history forward; and the American classicist George Kennedy was publishing The Art of Persuasion in Greece (1963) and launching a career that would make him the leading authority on the history of rhetoric. Leo Marx’s Machine in the Garden: Technolot’v and the Pastoral Idea in America (1964) appeared the next year, carrying on a tradition of linking the history of technology to the history of culture and advancing the “myth and symbol” school of American studies that would influence James W. Carey, among others. Two major efforts in broadcast history also appeared at the time, with Asa Briggs publishing the first of his five-volume history of British broadcasting in 1961 and Erik Barnouw launching his three-volume American counterpart five years later. Their respective projects established radio and television history as serious scholarly endeavors and laid foundations for the media hictories that would come out in greater number two decades later, increasingly written by scholars working within the fields of communication and media studies.

COMMUNICATION HISTORY SINCE THE 1970s: THE EMERGENCE OF AN ACADEMIC FIELD Beginning in the 1970s, the interdisciplinary effervescence in communication history that had started a decade earlier began making its way into communication, journalism, the emerging for

mation called “media studies,” and other related or soon-to-be-related fields and research areas. New histories and new historical consciousness bloomed, setting in motion a series of intellectual and institutional developments that would eventually lead to a nascent, collectively self-conscious formation gathering under the sign of “communication history” itself. That story is complex. and like other mappings in this chapter, can be sketched in only the most basic ways. But in general

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HiSTORY

31

termc it is fair to say that in the 1 970s and early ‘80s, as part of a broader transformation of the intellectual landscape in the human sciences, itself indexed to changing historical conditions in society, communication as an academic field began turning in newly historicist directions. This Handbook is a result of processes set in motion then.

Communication and the New Social History, 1960s—70s I he postwar democratization of higher education, in conjunction with escalating social and po litical unrest, paved the way for the rise in the I 960s of “new social history” on both sides of the Atlantic, driven in significant part by the revival of a new, culturally attuned Western Marxism. Focusing on the experiences of ordinary people and committed to the idea of “history from the bottom up” (Ross 1995, 663), the new social history found parallels with the French Anna/es School’s emphasis on longue durèe over discrete events and “the people” over “great men,” As social history became increasingly prominent in the 1 970s, according to Raphael Samuel (1985), it helped “enlarge the map of historical knowledge and legitimate major new areas of scholarly in quiry,” such as the history of popular culture, popular representations of history on telex ision, and the intersection of class, popular culture and media (Sklar 1975: May 1980; Ewen 1976). It also threw open the door to the study of the past and present communication of’ women (Haskel 11974) and other marginalized social groups (Bogle 1973; Cripps 1977). For some of its practitioners, this “paradigm shift” (about which more in a moment) found theoretical sustenance in the post humous publication of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks (written 1929 1935; published in English in 1971). Rejecting the economism of orthodox Marxism, Gramsci’s Notebooks invigorated interest in the place of communication in the political-ideological struggle for hegemony and drew particular attention to the counter-hegemonic communicative efforts of “the people” (Williams 1977, 108—114). From another direction, the English translation of Feb vre’s and Martin’s The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing, 1450—1800(1976) extended the theoretical and methodological impact of the Annales approach by drawing the lines between the history of popular modes of consciousness and economic, technological and social develop ments. The intellectual and political energies of the new social history added additional force to the impact of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure ofScientific Revolutions (1970). Originally published as part of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science in 1962, the book only made itself widely felt outside the philosophy of science and sociology after its second edition was published as a stand-alone volume in 1970. It introduced the idea of historical paradigms and paradigm shifts in the development of scientific knowledge, rejecting images of the steady and accumulatix e growth over time, and raising the stakes regarding what kinds of histories should be written and to xvhat end. “History,” Kuhn wrote in his opening salvo, “if viewed as a repository for more than anec dote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed” (1970, 1). Kuhn gave new impetus to disciplinary histories as means to en gage questions about the production of knowledge. While Kuhn meant to describe only the physi cal sciences, a host of disciplines, especially in the social sciences and humanities, soon began describing their own histories as examples of Kuhnian paradigms (for a hint of the range of dis ciplines that took this approach, see the collected essays in Gutting 1980). Enrolling Kuhn meant that history was not just an interesting story of finding one’s scholarly ancestors, but that there were genuine epistemological stakes for the nature of the knowledge produced in the discipline. and, especially for younger scholars coming of age in the era, genuine political stakes as well. The present and future of communication and media research were increasingly contested with reference to images of their pasts, and a wide range of scholars laid out new research agendas

32

PETER SIMONSON, JANIC E PECK, ROBERT T. CRAIG AND JOHN P. JACKSON. JR.

and critiqued older ones by mabilizing Kuhnian language critical (Gitlin 1978) and ohiectivist (Rogers 1976; Rossiter 1977) communication social scientists as well as rhetorical humanists (Scott and Brock 1972: Frenir and Farrell 1976 i—to draw attention to the American case. New. critically—inflected social and sociological histories of communication appeared in the I9 ?Os. inan’ coming out of stucie of nes s and journalism. At London’s Cty Uni’. ersit\, SO ciologist Jerenix Tunstall 1o1iosed txso important studies of contemporary journalism 1970b. of the histot and con nericmi (1977). a trenchant critical anai 1 1971 v ith Tue Media Aft A terrporar political economy at international media imperialism see Sincluir, chaprei 24. this soluneL Tunstal l’s 1970 reader. ztledia Soc ioiogv. had opened space tar approaches outside the mainstream of American-style mass communications research, including historical ones. It in cluded one of the earliest essays by James Curran (1970), a young Cambridge trained historian who taught in the UK’s first BA program in Media Studies (founded in 1975 at the Polytechnic of Central London) and went Ofl to publish trailblazing Marxian-inflected social histories of the press in Great Britain (Curran 1977; Boyce, Curran, and Wingate 1978; Curran 1981). Over the course of more than (our decades, he would publish widely on media history and become one of the most influential figures in media studies in Great Britain. helping to found and institutionalize that field. In contrast, though the’ operated ‘.s ith the historicist framessork of cultural Marxism. Stuart Hall and other meinbers of the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies did far less in the way of actual historical research, Social History of Communicative Means and Forms, 1970—80s British and American historians of Early Modern Europe turned their attention to communica tion. print. and the history of the book in the 1970s and ‘80s, helping to further establish the Renaissance and Enlightenment us fertile periods fur communication history. The tradtian ex tended back through McLuhan’s and Ong’s studies of the l940s and ‘SOs, and continued through signal works like the British historian Frances Yates’ classic The Art of Memory (1966), among others. In 1979, the American Elizabeth Eisenstein—whose preliminary studies (1968, 1969) f the social and cultural resolution biought about by print added historical precision to topics McLuhan had raised in a provoeati\e hut cavalier manner in The GutenbelN Galav’.--—published her tn a—volume The Pri,ztin Pres.v as an ,4t’ent of (‘hanç’e. a major work in the histnr of’ print culture (Zhoray and Zborav. chapter 9. this solume: see also Eisenstein 2002. 2011: Johns 2002. The same year. the Oxford—trained American historian of France. Robert Darnton. whose first book looked at eighteenth-century mesmerism, published his o’.s n signal study of print, a cultural édie (Darnton [196811986. 1979). These works 1 history of the publishing of Diderot’s Encvclo extended the longer French hisloire do here and laid the foundation l’or the history of the hook as a ‘. ibrant field of study oser the three decades (on which, see Blair 2011). Also in 1979. the British social historian Peter Burke, who had edited a volume of the writings of thc Annales school’s Lucien Febvre (Burke 1973), called for a new “social history of communication,” which he would go on to pursue over the next threc decades, attending to language. speech, and con sersation in addition to written and print media (e.g., Burke and Porter 1987’ Burke and Briggs 2005: Burke. chapter 6, this volume). In the United States, the new social and sociological histories helped transform the history of journalism. ne’.’.s. and other media. The Harvard-trained sociologist Michael Schudson (who has spent most of his academic life teaching in communication and journalism programs) brought social and cultural history to bear in his now—classic history of objectivity in American journal— ism. Discovering the Neir.s (1978. followed shortly by Dan Schiller’s critical historical study. Obicctii’irv and the New,s (1981). and Das id Paul Nord’s Newspapers and New Polities (1981).

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

33

Excavating a more recent past. media sociologist Todd Gitlin followed his withering 1978 entique of “the dominant paradigm” of the se-called limited-cfk’cts model of mass communication (see Sirnonson 2013) with his own no\v-classic study’ of the 196Os American sttident left and news coverage of it. The 0dole World is Whtc’hing Gitlin 1980). Some of the new social history found its way into the Journal Journalism History, launched in 1971. Looking to Inni s McLuhan, Eisenstein. and James V. Carey. the South-African-born, Canadian-raised. American trained his tonan Garth ,lowett made a pain of programmatic pleas for a ness. theoretically’ sophisticated com mumcauons history 1975, 1976a and published a pioneering social history’ of American film . In the same period in France. the live solumes of Hi.stoire Genera/c c/c itt Pre. se Frau 1 I 976h (‘aise (ed. Bellanger et al. 1969 1976) were published oxen a seven-year span. marking the first comprehensive scholarly account of French press history since the dawn of the twentieth century. Working most of his careen at the University of Illinois. James Carey’ provided a major spm to both the new journalism histories and the history of communication more generally. Carey had begun writing about Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan in the mid- I 960s, a bridge toward a series of important historically hued studies of the communications res olution (Carey 1969) and the cultural mythos of the electronic resolution (Carey and Quirk 1970), As the lead article in the lii St issue of Juurnahi,s,n History, Carey published “The Problem vs ith Journalism 1—listorE” a milestone essay advocating a cu/rural history which at its most ambitious would “capture that refiexis e process ss herein modern consciousness” was both created through and found institu tional expression in journalism (Carey [19741 1997. 93). Schudson (1997) has nicely contextual ized Carey’s important essay’, which caine in a highly productis e period of Cai’e ‘s intellectual life—as he was bringing history and theor together into a cultural approach to communication. intellectually indebted to an eclectic blend of American pragmatism. innis’and Canadian medium theory, the “myth and symbol” school of American studies. Raymond Williams, and the anthro pologist Clifford Geertz (see Carey 1975, and the essays collected in Carey 1989/2009, 1997), Through both writings and teaching in influential U.S. graduate programs, Carey has exerted considerable influence on American communication history since the l97Os.

Cultural History and Social Identity, 198Os—9Os if the 1 960s—70s ‘acre social history ‘s “golden age” cultural history took center stage in the 1 980s. ‘a ith Carey pros iding one base for it vs ithin the field of communication. Across its disci plinary manifestations in history, literary studies, and other tields, cultural history east attention to’.’. ard representations. sxmbols. meanings. rituals, and discourses, “Cultural history” functions as a sort of conceptual umbrella: disciplinarily malleable, both theoretically and methodological ly, it allows practitioners to conceive any human practice in textual terms and submit all manner at’ such “texts” to narrative, semiotic, and/or discursive analysis. Different iterations of it ‘acre influenced by Anglo-American cultural anthropology (particularly the work of Geertz [l973j, Victor Turner jl974j and Mary Douglas [19661), by Michel Foucault’s archaeological and ge nealogical histories (1965, 1973, 1970, 1978), by other French poststructuralist theory, and by the cultural Marxism of Birmingham-style cultural studies, Its conceptual flexibility and disciplinary promiscuity facilitated cultural history’s growth. Carey would influence a number of important cultural histories of media, including Daniel Czitrom ‘s Media and the American Mind (1983), Catherine Covert and John Stevens’ Mass Media Between the Wars (1984), and Carolyn Marvin s When 0/cl Technoloç’jes Were Neii’ (1988). Within American studies, cultural historian \karren Susman’s essay’s on the t’aentieth—century’ culture of abundance, collected in Culture u.s Ilictorv I 981. exerted influence on a range of other cultural histories of American media, including Michael Denning’s (1987) ‘aidely read study of dime no’. els and working-class culture. George

34

PETER S1MONSON, JANICE PECK, ROBFRT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P JACKSON, JR.

Lipsiti (1988) also weighed in on the cultural history of media from the perspecti e of A merican studies, and uent on to publish a series of important studies of popular culture, identity. and col lectise representation (see esp. 1990). Cultural historians of communication in the 1980s and ‘90s drew attention to the categories of race, class and gen&1, picking up topics that had become central in the social transformations of the 1960s and 70s. In the wake of the second wave of the women s movement that emerged n the 1960s. coupled with the influence of social history s commitment to explore previously untold or marginalized stories. feminist communication history tooi. off in the I 970s and would hecarre firmly established by the l990s (see Ross. chapter 20. this volume). Though primarilvfo cused on the present, Gaye Tuchrnan also drew attention to history in her ringing ‘The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media,” the introductory chapter to her co-edited volume on images of somen in the media (Tuchman, Daniels, and Benet 1978) Carolyn Lougee (1976) wed temimst theory to social and intellectual history in her study of the seventeenth-century French salon as a female cultural institution, hile Marion Marzolf ( 1977t added the story of women to the history of journalism G977). In rhetorical studies. Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (19891 capped nearly two decades of work with a book-length study of nineteenth century women’s rights ora tors in the United States, while other feminist historians went on to rewrite the long history of the VvCstern rhetorical tradition and women rhetors (e.g., Lunsford 1995, Glenn 1997: Wertheimer 1997). Moving into the ‘90s and beyond. Lynn Spigel (1992. 2001). Susan Douglas (1993) and Kathy Peiss (2001) produced acclaimed feminist histories of teleision. popular film. music. and amusements. Alexandra Juhasz (2001) contributed a histor\ of feminism and feminist film from the l950s through the ‘70s: Donna Halper (2001) offered a social history of women in American broadcasting; and Deborah Chambers, Linda Steiner, and Carole Fleming (2004) did the same for the history of women and journalism. Most recently. Maria DiCento, Lucy Delap, and Leila Ryan 2Ol I) explore womens tight for suffrage and their place in the public sphere through the lens of feminist periodicals of Edwardian England. The ascent of cultural history also played a part in the proliferation of historical studies of race and communication, which benefited as well from new theoretical perspectives on race and race relations that grew out of the collapse of the colonial world order following World War TI Fur example. in conirast to the assimilationist race relations model of Robert Park which in formed many of the studies of “the Negro Press” in the l920s. ne’.s perspecuves from anti-colo nial ‘s rilers such as C.L.R. James. Franz Fanon. and others questioned whether assimilation was practical or desirable ttor a guide to these writers and debates see King 21)04). These perspectives opened up new opportunities for historical explorations of race and communication (see Balaji and Criiteiidcii, chapter 21. this volume;. Ness critical theories of race focused on structures of racial oppression and the agency of the oppressed. Furthei. they questioned whether or not racism was really an aberration in Western society rather than a permanent feature. One implication of rejecting assimilationist models of race relations was to turn scholarly attention toward historical studies of how racial images, and perhaps even race itself, was so cially constructed. By the l970s, scholars werc turning to studies of structural systems of op pression that determined the construction of racial images (Lcah l975 as well as the way race was tepresented in the media (Bogle I 973: Cripps l977L Talk of social construction” grew so popular in academic writings as to almost become a ciichd Howeser, construction talk is almost always done in a historical voice and one consequence of viewing race as a social construct has been an explosion of historical writing on race and communication. The decades since the l97fis have seen a growth in historical studies of race and communication that range from works that recovei presiously lost communicatise traditions (Neal 1999: Nowatzki 2010). examine how racist social structures influence or determine how race is portrayed on the media (Bourne 2001:

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

35

(lassen 2004: Stabile 2006>. meticulously unpack the media images of African Americans in re lation to white attitudes (Entman and Rojecki 2001 t. consider the historical intersections between race and gender (Smith—Shomade 2002). and use historical materials to de elop new theoretical stances regarding race (Downing and Husband 20051. An important consequence for historians of communication of the turn toward culture since he l980s was, in some quarters. a mounting skepticism toward “grand” or “mcta’ historical iarratives coupled with the elm ation of “microhistories.” Among those affected by’ that para— Jigmatic shift were scholars working in the French Anna/es School tradition. Because Annales’ histoire tofale approach included the world view of the common people. captured by the categorx inentalité. it had been compatible with the “bottom up” approach of new social history; accord ingly, mentalité studies proliferated in the 1 970s and early ‘80s. Faced with the growing influence of cultural history, however, Annales historians began questioning the earlier approach, as dem onstrated in Roger Chartier’s Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations 1 1988). The paradigmatic shift from inenta/ité to discount is clear in Chartier’s subsequent work in the I 99Os on the history of reading and books, where the title. The Order of Books: Readers. Authors out! Libraries in Europe Between the 14th and 18th Centuries (1994) intentionally echoes that of Foucault’s The Order of Things (1970).

Media Systems. Institutions, and Publics, 1980s—90s Also drawing from Foucault tat well as from French psy choanalytic theorist Jacques Lacan;, but lacking any of cultural studies’ skepticism about knowledge claims or grand narratives, the German literary scholar Friedrich Kittler began carving out a distinctive, anti-humanist history and theory of media in the niid-1980s. Turning from earlier studies of German romanticism, he mapped dramatic discontinuities in history and human experience brought about by systems of writing/inscription (Kittler. 11985] 1990) and other media technologies (Kittler 119861 1999. [19991 2010). Merging Foucault’s idea of discourses with media systems. Kittler analyzed trans formations in communication since the l700s. Drawn to Claude Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, which factored out meaning and context in favor of probabilities and informa tion systems. Kittler wrote a kind of media history where humans played little part (Winthrop— Young and Kane 2006: Peters 2010: Winthrop-Young 2011). Addressing topics like storage. transport. control. and human evolution, while casting attention hack to oralitv. literacy, and ancient empire, Kitller struck chords that had been playing from eighteenth-century specula tive philosophy and philology through the political economy, anthropology, and Canadian-style medium theory of the nineteenth arid twentieth centuries. Adding Shannon’s information theory, Nikolas Luhmann’s systems theorx. and jabs toward Hahermas and strands of humanism gate Kittler’s communication histor., a new twist (see e.g.. Kittler 1996). Meanwhile, the principal commitments of the Toronto School—a strong historical groLind— ing. interdisciplinary’ orientation, attention to media writ large. and focus on the intersection of communication and culture—continued to shape scholarship on communication history in the I 980s and beyond. especially in North America. Former McLuhan student and later McLu han scholar Donald Theall (1971 2001) became head of Canadas McGill Unit ersity’s gradu ate program in communications and began sewing the seeds of the Toronto School’s vision of communication history in a new generation (Fekete 2008. Walter Ong’s Oralirv and Literacy (1982) continued his religiously inflected take on historically-grounded medium theory, while Tile Alphabet and the Brain (DeKerckhme and Lumsden 1988) explored relations between the development of alphabetic w’riting and human cognition. The Toronto School also informed the work of Neil Postman (1985. 1 992 and Joshua Meverowitz t 1986y—both representatises of the .

36

PETER SIMONSON. J ‘SNTCE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P. TyCKSON, JR.

subfield of merican media ecology, which has often cast its analyses in hictorical relief. And the Canadian legac of the Toronto approach is well represented in David Crowiev and Paul Heyer’s reader. Communication and History (1991/2011 >. now in its 6th edition, and in their chapter in this solume (chapter 2: see also Robinson. 2004). Additionally, the 1 980s also brought important studies of se’. enteenth—century transatlantic communication, migration. and traihport by profes sional historians iSteelc 1986: Cress l987). Despite certain affinities bertseen Kittlcr’s ‘sork and North American media ecology. Haber mas was by far the more influential German export. The 1989 translation of his Souctui’ii Tra,i,s /orma ion of the Pub/ic Sphere catalyzed a plethora of interdisciplinary inquiry into the history, theory. and contemporary state of public spheres around the world (see Butsch, Seethaler. chap ters 4 and 17, this volume). Historical treatments of publics and public opinion trailed a longer lineage, dating hack to the nineteenth century. Since the l980s, they have seen something of a revival. The second volume of Harold Lasswell, Daniel Lerner, and Hans Speier’s Propaganda and Communication in World History (3 vols., 1979 80)—an ambitious collection aspiring to view intellectual and political history through the lens of “communication” that seems to have fallen mostly on deaf ears—addressed the emergence of public opinion in the West. German public opinion pollster and theorist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann published l’he Spiral of Silence 1984). blending history. theory, and empirical research into a controversial paradigm that critics would tie to her Nazi past (e.g.. Simpson 1996). Trawiing different waters. Jean Converse (1987) exquisitel traced the history’ of methods and institutions of public opinion and survey recearch. staking out new ground in the history of the field of communication in the process: later work iii this tradition would examine how survey research created the mass public (igo 2007). Susan 1{erbst charted the cultural and political history of public opinion and its representations in a pair of book-length studies (1994. 1995). And working in direct corn ersation with Habei’mas. a slew of historians, sociologists, political scientists, and literary scholars questioned his account of the rise of the bourgeois public sphere in Europe or investigated variations on it elsewhere in the world leg.. Landes 1988: Calhoun 1993: Ran 1997: Schudson 1999: Meiton 2001: Warner 1990. 2002; KoIler 2010: SSRC Public Sphere guide). In line with this interdisciplinary revival of interest in notions of the public and public ad dress—and by extension and association, rhetoric—-European and American scholars published new comprehensive and critical-revisionist histories of the longer rhetorical tradition during the l980s and ‘90s (Grassi 1980: Kennedy 1980; Barilli 1983; Conley 1994; Lunsford 1995; Glenn, 1997; Wertheimer 1997: Vickers 1998; see also Gaillet and Homer 2010). In the United States rhetoric remained a home for a wider range of historical research, ranging from neo-traditiona]ist public address studies (see Mcdhurst 1993. 2001) to recoveries of women’s and African Ameri can voices from the past (e.g.. Campbell 1989; Leeman 1996). considerations of oratory across different media environments (Jamieson 1988), and studies of broader public discourses over time (e.g Condit and Lucaites 1993). The so-called rhetoric of inquiry movement helped to undervi rite historical studies of rhetorical dimensions of the production of knowledge and elite discourses like theorefical Marxism (e.g.. Simons 1990: Aune 199$). Institutional, policy, and political economic approaches to communication history also pro— lileratecl in the Os 99 and after. James Beniger ( 1986) traced the technological and economic his— l mrs of what he called “the control resolution” and the intormation society across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, while Jo Ann Yates (1993) looked at the technologies and genres of’ organizational communication over the same (see Peters and Nielsen. chapter 14: Ashcraft and Prasad. chapter 22. this volume). Menahem Biondheim (1994) took the business of the telegraph mc news wire sefl ice as a locus for discussing changes in news and information practices in the second half of the I 800s, while Richard John (1995) meticulously showed how the U.S. postal ,

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

37

system was an agent of social change that transformed public life in the seventy’ years before the 1844 invention of the telegraph. Critical social history and political economy were prominently featured among the chapters in William Solomon and Robert McChesney’s (1993) strong edited collection on U.S. communication history, whose publication appeared within several years of no table political histories authored by Gerald Baldastv (1992). Susan Smuylan (1994. McChesney 1Q95, and Thomas Streeter ( 1996). which collectively addressed the business, commercial poli cies. and government regulation of newspapers, radio, and television broadcasting. Operating in dtterent (liberal democratic) ideological waters, the historical sociologist Paul Starr (2004) mas terfully traced the development of the U.S. communications system from the seventeenth century to the twentieth; and Richard John (20 lOb) impressively excavated the policy, political economy. and public discourses of telecommunications in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in addi tion to editing a valuable collection of original documents on the history of U S. communication policy as reflected through the postal system (2OlOa). Janice Peck and Inger Stole (2011) helped anchor the collective project of left political economic history in an edited volume that extended the tradition of Solomon and McChesney ‘s Ruthless Criticism. Social, cultural, and institutional history all found their place in the histories of radio and television that proliferated in the l990s. helping those tields to establish solid historical litera tures. Susan Douglas (1989) and Susan Smulyan (1992) looked at the early years of American radio broadcasting. Paddy Scannell and David Cardiff (1991) did the same for Great Britain. while Mary Vipond I 1992) and James Hall (1997i followed suit for Canada. Attention also turned to historical examination of Latin American radio (Fox 1997: Schvvoch 1990: Hayes 2000: Sin clair. chapter 24. this volume). Other work would follow, leading to a flowering of radio studies over the last two decades (e.g.. Hilmes 1997: Savage 1999: Hilmes and Loviglio 2001: for more. see Sterling. chapter 12. this volume). Historical studies of television similarly flowered (e.g.. Bourdon 1990: Spiucl 1992: Steinmaurer 1999: see Fickers. chapter 13. this volume). Cultural histories of media and collective memory also proliferated in the I 990s (see. e.g.. Zelizer 1992. 1998: Lipsitz l990 Communication remained a relatively marginal topic within the discipline of history’ proper. hut interest and publications grew in the I 990s and 2000s. A number of studies wei’e organized around information knowledge, and their flows over time and geographical space. Richard D. Brown (1989, 1996) examined eighteenth and nineteenth-century America, while Daniel Hend rick (2000) did analogous work (‘or Europe. More recently. Ian McNeely and Lisa Wolverton (2008) have pushed outward in comparative, cross-national directions over the long duration, chionicling the Western quest for knowledge from Alexandria to the lnternet age through the in stitutions of library, monastery, university, Republic of Letters, disciplines, and laboratory. Cam bridge trained University of Chicago historian Adrian Johns published a number of important books and articles on the history of knowledge. intellectual propert, and information across print and electronic media (e.g.. 1998. 2009. 2010, 2011). British historian Andrew Pettegree among others continued to deepen our knowledge of communication in the early modern period with critically acclaimed studies of persuasion in the Reformation and the book in the Renaissance (2005. 2010). Print culture in America was documented thoroughly’ in the five—volume Hi%torv (1/ the Book in America (Hall. 2007—2010).

Historicist Turns in Communication Theory and Disciplinary Awareness, 1970s—90s Communication theory’ also took historicist turns from the I 970s forvs ard. reflecting new atten tion to intellectual history as a method and orientation toward theory. This was represented in one vv ay by Carey’s influential vvork (much of it collected in jI 989] 2009. 1997i. in another by’

38

PETER SIMONSON JANICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. A’SD JOHN P JACKSON. JR

Hahern-ias’ Jheory of Cornmunicarirc Artion (2 sols. 1981) Paul l-Ieyer (1988) surveyed theories

of communication media since the Enlightenment Armand Mattelart ([1994j 1996) examined the origins of key concepts such as communication flows and networks in a French context and how the idea of communication came to he associated with Enlightenment ideals of rationality and progress. Critical histories of communication theory were contributed by Dan Schiller 1996) and b Armand and \Iichèle Mattelart (119951 1998). The journal Connumicarwn IfleorL launched in 991 published a special forum on “Communication. Theory, and Histors including five ai— tides on the relation of theory and historiography across studies of media and journalism, gender. rhetorr. and interpersonal communication (Hardt 1993). Robert T. Craig 1 1999> conceptualized the held of communication theory as a conversation among seven historical traditions (extended in a Reader. Craig and Muller 2007). John Durham Peters’ magisterial Speaking into the Air (1999) ads anced a philosophically attuned history of the idea communication from classical antiquity to the present. showing the way towai d further hermeneutic, textually based intellectual history of a sort he would pursue in his subsequent history of free speech (2005). Dating back to the paradigm shifts of the l970s. the growth in communication history ener cetically played itself out through histories of the various fields of communication studs. The late 1970s saw the first serious work on the intellectual and institutional history of communication and media research (e.g., Gitlin 1978: MolTison 1978: C7itrom 1983). It overlapped with a larger family of writings that charted genealogies and historically dominant ideas as part of critiques that adanced alternate paradigms and theoretical problematics (e.g.. Chaffee 1975: Carey 1977: Gitlin 1979: Hall 1982; a project continued in Peck 2001). The history of communication and media studies was born, accompanied by growing and variably reliable collective memories of the field’s past. Since then, in a literature charted by Jeff Pooley and Dave Park (chapter 3, this volume), the history of the field of communication has grown into a robust subfield. Again, the l990s were a pivotal decade. ith critical history sscll represented in a trio of book-length studies (Hardt 1992; Simpson 1994; Schiller 1996) and William Buxton’s pioneering excavations of the institutional support for communication research (1 9 94a. I 994b: see also 2009). Graeme Turner 1990> did some historical work in his introduction to British Cultural Studies, while Nancy Signorielli (1996) biographically charted the lives of famous and forgotten women in the field (a protect taken up a decade later in Naomi McCormack’s 120091 documentary film and a support ing v ebsite for itL Much of this work focused on the American case, but the history of the field around the world would also begin to be written, Finally, the term “communication history” itself haltingly began to enter the academic lexicon the in I 980s and ‘90s, in a period where publication outlets for historical work in communication began to expand. John Stevens and Hazel Dicken-Garcia’s C’oininunication Hi.storv (1980) s as perhaps the first book to use the phrase in its title, indexing a project that reached out from journal ism history toward media history and historical media effects studies. Another pair of journalism historians also used the term in an early methods textbook for the field tStartt and Sloan 1989. now in its 3rd edition>. Historians Elizabeth Eisenstcin (1979) and Robert Darnton (1982, 65) both used the term in passing in describing their respective projects. though it hasn’t been picked up widely among professional historiaib. “Medta history” was a term that gained popularity in the I 980s. tppearing with greater frequency than “communication history.” but Solomon and McChesney (1993> selected the latter for the subtitic of their collection, Ruthies.s Criticism, The term saw an uptake after 2000, with a ptograrnmatic call for its internationalization (Dicken-Garcia and \‘iswanath 2002) and thoughtful reflection on its future (Nerone 2006). Running parallel to the terminological story, new journals and book series were founded to support historical research on communication—from the British journals Historical Journal of Fil,,i, Radio. and Telei’ision estahlished in 1981 by the International Association for Media and History>. and Media History 1995>. and the French Le renzpc des suée/ias (2003) to the Histors of Commimication hook series

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

39

at the University of Illinois Press (1994). Cambridge’s Studies in the History of Mass Communica tion (1996), and MIT’s Media in Transition series (2003). In Spain, LaAsociación de Historiadores de Ia Comunicación had been established (1992). By the turn of the last century, communication history showed signs of beginning to institutionalize itself across several of its subfields.

RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR COMMUNICATION HISTORY Over the last decade. communication history’ has begun to “come to awareness of itself’ as a field. as John Nerone put the matter. remarking at the time on the tentativeness of that situation (2006, 260). Its self-awareness is somewhat less tentative today, os ing to new pathways of in stitutionalization and the publication of several volumes aiming to provide platforms for further study (this Handbook among them). Beginning in 2007, the International Communication Asso ciation (ICA) and the European Communication Research and Education Association (ECREA) formed history groups, joining the history section of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (est. 1959). and the International Association for Media and History. formed in the l980s. Through conferenccs. panels, and listserves. they have helped organize consersations about the history of media and communication practices, the histors’ of ideas of communication, and the history of the field, all in increasingly international and sometimes com parative manners. That organizational work has been complemented by’ several edited collections on communication and media history (Katz et al. 2003: Gitelman and Pingree 2003: Robinson 2004; Peters and Simonson 2004; Chun and Keenan 2006: Zelizer 2008: Park and Pooley. 2008; Bailey 2008: Peck and Stole 2011; Nerone 2013). Some in media history avoid operating with the idea of “communication” (e.g., Gitelman and Pingree. 2003). but others are more ecumeni cal. The history of rhetoric, meanwhile, remains intellectually and institutionally more separate, though this collection tries to bring it into the fold as well, One could provide a sociological account of the field’s coming to awareness of itself. Many of the cadre of scholars who came of age in the l970s and ‘80s and fueled the early’ ferment of communication history would land jobs in influential graduate programs. where they trained stu dents who ss ent on to publish some of the most important historical work of the last two decades md who have in turn begun to u’ain their ossn students. The younger scholars have entered job markets where communication programs show divergent interest in hiring scholars who do his torical work, but the prospects are certainly better than they were a generation ago, aided by the growth of publication outlets for historical reseach. In closing, we want to draw attention to six variably established styles or problematics of contemporary communication history that extend lines of analysis begun in the I 970s and that we believe should be cultivated further. They certainly do not represent all the qualities of the current moment worthy’ of collective attention, hut they’ do capture several of its important strands, There i oserlap among them, but each can stand independently. As shorthand, we call them: material ity. depth. internationalization, social identities. digitalization, and reflexise historicizing. Materiality can, of course, mean different things. On the one hand. there is the Marxian linkage of the material with the economic and productive spheres. as well as its revisionist char ‘icterization of discourse, too, as material. Materiality in this sense has been one problematic for communication history throughout the traditions of political economy and ciitical theory. both of which remain extremely vital and represented across several chapters of this Handbook. But we also draw attention to other materialities that have attracted more recent attention: one clustering around bodies and their material senses. perceptions, and physical arrangement in the world: an other attending to the physicality of technological artifacts, built environments, and geographical places. Both the bodies and objects and places clusters have disparate orientations and exemplars.

40

PETER SIMONSON. JANiCE PECK. ROBERT 3. C RAICi. AND JOHN P IACKSON, JR.

but they point toward a family of ways to attend to not jast the symbolic. ideational. representa tional, and discursive eiement’ of communication but also to its material manifestations and path— ways of effectivity. Historians of the book ha e long emphasized the matercalitv of their artifacts (Nerone 2006i. an impulse also seen ifl Lultural histories of radio, television, or newspapers that draw attention to their status as, for instance, furniture organizing domestic space (e.g., Spigel 1992), sources of sound wases or optics e.g.. Douglas 1999: Kittler [19991 2010). or even insu lation for house walls Weonard 1995) Kittler and his students have adxanced one kind of ma tcrialist analysis. with Cornelia Vismann ([2000} 2008) for instance writmg a eneaiogy of files and Kittler himself turning toward a kind of mathematical materialist synthesis before his death (e.g.. 2009). Foucault and Kittler have also influenced the turns toward materiality in the project of media archaeology. which attends to both discursix e and material manifestations of media in history (Huhtamo and Pam mkka 2011). Jonathan Sterne (2003). meanwhile, took FoucaLmldman analy tics into the cultural history of sounri reproduction. attending to machines and bodies along with techniques. discourses, and conditions of possibility. His was part of a larger flourishing of historical studies of sound and other senses as material and cultural media of communication (see e.g.. Thompson 21)02. Hilmes 2005: Smith 2008: Goodale 2011). Still others mapped historical spaces and places from communIcation anu media perspectis es, attending for instance to places of political asemhiy and ritual e.g.. Brew in 2008). to broadcasting buildings t Ericson and Rieg— cr1 21)1(J). or to contexts for the invention of ideas about communication (Simonson 2010). His torical studies of visual communication grew rapidly (see Griffin, chapter 7, this solume), many of them also attending to material dimensions of the image. A second trend worth commenting upon. and one evident in many of the new materialist histoi ies, is what we would call the increasing depth of communication history as a field, series of practices, and assemblage of published studies. The borders of the field are porous and likely to memain so but in the twenty years since Michael Schudson lamented its woeful undcrdcselop mcmit, communication history has made considerable progress in establishing itself as a nieth odologicalix rigorous and theoretically informed area of study with a soihi base of literature. As practiced in commLmnieation and media studie proper, by scholars trained in those fieldc. communication history still rarely meets the standards of professional historians. Nerone (2006, 201 2) and others have written about this asymmetry, and it’s not likely to go away. This doesn’t mean that Lommnunication histor i 5 second—rate histor\ tthough sometImes it is). but rather that it is a field more akin to historical sociology, historical arthropoiogy. or historical literary studies— ili of which, like communication history. tend to bring problematics and theoretical concepts from their respect\ e fields to engage the past (Nerone 2013). Moreover, the best work in commu nication history over the last several decades, in addition to being driven by critical imagination and analytic rigor, has been built on archival research, textual analysis. interviews, and related interpretive methods applied with the rigor necessary to produce books that have commanded interdisciplinary attention. Collectively, we need to continue to produce books that address audi ences both within and outside the field, as well as students capable of producing such work. The third trend u e mention, still not firmly established, is the internationalization of corn— imiLmication history. On the one hand, there is long precedent for thinking about the history of communication in cross-cultural, cross-national, and global perspectives. This was an impulse in the speculative histories of the eighteenth century, a component of the metanarratives of culture and ci ilization that found their way into anthropological and political economic thinking of the nineteenth and tw entieth centuries (and their confluence in the Canadian tradition from lnnis for— ward), a periodic element of European journalism histories since the I 930s, a historical correla dxc of mid—centui-v modernization theory. and a major focus for the cultural imperialism research of the l970s and beyond. The politics of that lineage have often been ethnocentric (particularly in the earlier iterations), but the aspiration to breadth is laudable, For more than a century, however,

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

41

the cosmopolitan anti cross—national strands of communication history have generally been over— liarlow cr1 by nationally or locally focused research. and empirically careful cross-national or 5 comparative work has been far rarer. Over the last decade. though. there have been increasing calls for internationalization from within the rlisciplinary ranks of communication and media siudies (e.g.. Dicken-Garcia and Viswanath 2002; Curran 2008: McLuskie, Kinnebrock. and Schw arzenegger 201 1), and a number of scholars have produced—for instance Norbert Finzsch and Ursula Lekmkuhl s (2004) edited collection on German and American media since the sev enteenth century: Asa Briggs and Peter Burke’s (2005) excellent overview of the social history of media: careful studies of globalization, media, and empire by Jill Hills (2002, 2007) and Dwayne Vs inseck and Robert Pike (2007); several volumes and essays internationalizing the history of the held (e.g.. Park and Pooley 2008: Simonson and Peters 2008; Fleck 2011): and Michelle Hilmes c2Ol I I trmnational study of broadcasting in the United States and Britain (see also Putnis, Kaul md Wilke 21)1 0. We need more work in these veins—mapping cross-flows of influence and historical des elopment. comparing formations and practices across regions. and continuing to fill out the communication history of globalization in all its complexities. A fourth trend. originating in the social and cultural histories of the 1970-s and ‘80s. organmLes itself around attention to gender, race. class, and other social identities as central categories for cornrnunic’cItion history. Gender is the best established in historical literature (see Ross. chapter 20, this volume), with more than three decades of writing on women and media recently joined by tewer studies of masculinity. Labor and the working classes continue to receise attention in corn unication history (see Godfried. chapter 18, this volume; also Ross 1999; Roscigno and Danaher 2004; Fones-Wolf 2006), though not to the extent they deserve, in part a reflection on the priorities of cuitmmral as opposed to social history. While sexual identity and GLBTQ issues have found a groxving place in studies of contemporary communication, historical work in the field lags, though it toe has seen a number of important books in the last decade or so (e.g.. Alssood 1996; Gross and Woods 1999: Gross 2002: Morris 2007: Streitmatter 2008: Sutton 2010). Native and indigenous peoples have beeo the focus of several studies (e.g.. Keith 1995: Coward 1999: Daiev and James 2004: see also Romano. and McCracken and Teer—Tomaselli. chapters 23 and 25. this solume). but like other peoples of non-European descent, they have fallen largely outside the purview of conimunication history to date—a marginali ation in the contemporary literature that mimrors the treatment non-Europeans received in the es olutionary nietanarratives of media from the eigh teenth century forward. Religious identities. on the other hand. has e garnered far more attention a historical studies ot mediated and face-to-face communication, and there are now relatively large bodies of work on the communications media of Christianity and Judaism. as well as grow ‘ng research on islam, Buddhism, and Confucianism (see Swearingen. Kouts. Echchaibi. chapter 5 26, 27, this volume; and, e.g.. Mendels 1999; Nord 2004; Morgan, 2007). We urge scholars to )ntmnue to build knowledge. theories and methods to deepen and further dexelop the disparate cud wide-ranging literature on social identities and communication history. Fifth, we gesture toward the multiple ways that the digital has made its mark on and perhaps hegon to transform comimiunication history m a practice. For one. historians of communication has e over the past three decades migrated to electronic word processing and online media to compose their work (this chapter. for instance, was composed on Google Document). while eomiimtmnication history’ has been disseminated to audiences by a sariety of digital means as well— electronic versions of print journals, online books or segments thereof, svebsites. and hiogs to name several. In addition. the digital has become a topic for communication histor ranging front the medieval scholar James Joseph O’Donnell’s (1998) comparative meditation on reading in the ancient and Internet eras to Fred Turner’s (2006) meticulously detailed social and culiural history of the rise of California cyberculture, among other ways to chart the history and meaning of the latest new medium (see Peters and Nielsen, chapter 14, this volume). Finally, the digital moment .

42

UHF HISTORY OF COMMUNiCATION HISTORY

PETER SIMONSON JANICE PFCK, ROBERT T CRAE( AND J( EN P JA( KSON JR ,

43

ha: helped to drive interest in other topics, as for instance the archive, which since the mid- I 990s has become a fashionable consideration for both poststructural theorists (e.g.. Derrida 1995) and

REFERENCES

technologically attuned historians (e g, Rosenzweig 2011). Digital media raise the possibility of preserving “an essentially complete historical record” (Rosenzweig 2011. 5). including the

Adorno, ‘Iheodor W. 1943/2000. The Psychological Teclmique of Marlin Luther Thomas ‘Radio Addrerces. Stanford: Stanford University Press. I 94 “lelevision and the Patterns of Mass Culture” The Quarterly Journal of Film, Radio and Television 8: 21 S 35 1969 ‘Scientific Experiences of a Euiopean Scholar in America.” In The Intellectual Migration. Lurope and America 1930 /960 edited by D maId Fleming and Bernard Bailyn 338 70 C’imbridge: Harvard University Press. lbion, Robert 0 “The ‘Communication Revolution “American Historical Review 37: 718—20. Aiwood. Edward M. 1996. Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Ma/ia. New York: Columbia 1 niversity Press. nderson, James A. 1996. C’ommunication iheors: Epistemological Foundations. New York: Guilford. \ndrews. Alexander. 1859/1998. The History of British Journalism: From the Foundation of the New.spaper Press in England, To the Repeal a/the Stamp Act in 1855, With Sketches of Press C’eiehrities. London: Routiedge/Thoenimes ,\rcndt, Hannah. 1958. The Hunian Condition Garden City’ Doubleday Atwood, Roy A., and Arnold S Dc Beer. 2001. “The Roots of Academic News Research: Tohias Peucer’s ‘Dc relationibus novellis’ (1690).” Journalism Studies 2: 485 96 Aune, James Arnt. 1994. Rhetoric and Marvism. Boulder. CO: Westview Press. Avenel, Henri. 1900. Histoire de la Psess Française Depuis 1789 Ju.squ ‘a nov Jours. Paris’ Flammarion. Averheck, Stephanie. 1999. Kommunikation als Pmzes,s: S’o:iologi cc/ic Perspektiven in der Zeitungwissen schaft 1927 1934. MOnster’ Lit-Verlag. Bailey, Michael, ed. 2008. Narrating Media History. Oxford’ Routledge. Baldasty, Gerald J. 1992. The GonimerciaiUation of News in the Nineteenth Century. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Barilli, Renato. 1983/1989. Rhetoric. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Originall3 published in Italian as Barilli, Renato 1983. La retorica. Milano: A. Mondadori. Barlow. William. 1999. Voice Over: 7he Making of Black Radio Philadelphia: Temple University Press Barnhurst, Kevin 0., and John Nerone. 2009. “Journalism History.” In Handbook of Journalism Studies, edited by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch. 17 28. New York: Routledge. Barnouw, Erik. 1966. A Tower in Babel. A History of Broadcasting in the United States to 1933. Oxford: Oxford Lniversity Press. 1968. The Golden Web: A Hi.stois of Broadcasting in the United States /933 1953. Oxford: Oxtord University Press. 1970. The Iniage Enipire The Histomy of Broadcasting in the United States from /953. Oxford. Oxford University Press, Baschwitz, Kurt. 1936 Dc kiant (loom (il/c ti/den. Anisterdarn: Keesing Bauer, Wilhelm 1914. Die offrnlliche Meinung und i/ire geschichtlichen Grundlagen. Tilbingen: J ( 13. Mohr. 1930. Die offrnrliche Meinung in der Weltgeschichte. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Atahe naion: Wildpark-Potsdam. Baughman, James L 2007. Same Time Sonic Station: Creating .hmerican Television. 1948 /96/ Balii more: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sehringer, Wolfgang. )006. “Communications Revolutions. A Historiographical Concept.” G sman Hi tOi 24: 333 74. Bellanger, Claude, Jacques Godechot, Pierre Guiral, and Fernand ‘l’errou. 1969 1976 His loin G’ns role d Ia Pre,sse Française. Paris’ Univ ersitaires de France. Beniger, James R. 1986. The c’ontrol Revolution. lechnological and Economic Origins of I/n Infolmati( n Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Benson, Thomas W. 20(13 “The Cornell School of Rhetoric: Idiom and Institution” Conununn 000n Quar terlv 51: 1—56. Berger, M. Philippe. 1892. Hictoin (Ic 1 ‘écriture dons I ‘antiquitf Paris: Hachette.

preservation ol visual, audio and v nt en media texts—ushering in an era of new plenitude of primary sources for certain types of communication history (Fickers chapter 13 this volume) European and American c( mmunication historians and theorists have taken up the topic as well, drawing attention to important questions about methods, artifacts, and conceptual understandings of hisftr in the digital age (see e.g., Robertson 2010; Fickers and de Leeuw 2012). Finally, in the spirit of exhortation as much as observation of obvious trends, we conclude with a call for more historicization across communication studies writ large, from its humanistic to its scientific wings. Here we shift registers from communication history to historicallyinformed (or perhaps historically-aware) communication studies and communication science. This reflexive historicism can take multiple forms, including: (1) historicizing the phenomena we study by recognizing that they express themselves in particular times and places, even when we

aim for universality in our findings or broad representatixeness in our samples; (2) historicizing theories and operative concepts by knowing something of their emergence and genealogies; (3) historicizing research projects through reference to relevant predecessors that serve not just as abstract references in a literature review but also material endeavors carried out within institutional structures and embodied figures; (4) historicizing our broader fields of study by seeing how they are the products of societal and academic problematics that change over time and are likely to seem dated and perhaps flawed within a couple of decades. Communication historians as a group can contribute to this struggle f’or greater historical awareness by collaborating with colleagues who work in traditionally non-historical subflelds, making local arguments for historical education in graduate and undergraduate programs, and finding new ways to connect the history of communication with the present and near future, To bring this long chapter to a merciful close, we end by reflecting back across the terrain we have made an effort to begin mapping. The first point to re-emphasize is that, despite its length. our chapter is only provisional, a prolegomena to future work, and a radically incomplete mapping of communication history in world perspective. Part of our work has been conceptual, casting communication history as a family of more- and less-conceptualized practices, organized around the explicit terms and ideas of rhetoric, communication, journalism/news, media, and to lesser extent information, Those explicit traditions and discourses each trail international histories, marked b inventions and flows of ideas and communicative practices, and historical reflections thereupon. Thi chapter has sketched them in I”road outline and opens into the other chapters in this Handbook, Because communication history is itself mediated, expressed, and communicated all the way down to its cultural and epistemological bases, and all the wa back in time, it is a rich and productive area of focus for communication and media research, ‘riticism, and theory Indeed, cue m’ght make the case that it anchors the whole discipline ot

communication,

NOTE I. The authors would like to thank Dave Park, Andrcas Fickers, Jan Swearingen. Chuck Morris, Paddy Scannefl, James Curran, John Nerone, and Jeffrey Wayno for their help or encouragement on parts of this chapter. Special thanks go to Michael Schudson, John Durham Peters, Gideon Kouts, and Richard John foi assistance above-and-beyond the call ot duty. Their comments made the chapter much better than it would have otherwise been.

-

—.

‘THE HIS TORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

PETER SIMONSON JANRE PECK. ROBERT 1. CR.\IG, \NDJOHNP JACKSON JR

44

Ost/tsir ‘p Ozutrtc sIr 23 1—C. B vs’b n, Bernard, ] 950• ‘‘The State rt (‘osnmslrsscation Research:’ TN and Coniniunicafion, Ne Opinion Reader Pub/tv in 1950. eds. ss it!. Jan Beralson Bernard, and Morris York: rhe Free Press. Bjurman. Csunnar Abraham. 1935. 1id/e staisoiakicts tidnisigspres.sets,s uiicck/sng och nuiidn sri/lining Stockholm: A. Bran/ct. Blair, ,Ajin, 70t 1 Bihlis’craphv sin the history of the hoof, Department of Hi’oos’s. l-iars,srd UnisersiL http:!/histor .rCs,[’ass css’d edsi/peopleifacult/docuinentChIair—30 Ohisibook2Ol 1 off. Ble\ er, \Vsilard G 1027/1973, Slain Currents in die H/slot’s’ i’f.hinerii’cs’s ,lournn/i,soz Nest York. Da (‘spo Blom, Phillip. 200ts, ftslightening risc World: shncsc /opedsc. The Book i/tnt Changed rhc Costs se of H/stoic Ness York: Palgrase Macmillan, Blondheim. Menaheni. 1994. Nett’.s Over the Wires: i’he Telefrnph and rIsc floss’ of’ Pu/i/k Its f’nrntai/ou in hnsc rica. /544 /597. Cambridge: Harsard Lns’sersitr Press. cr1. 20(17. I/is Toronto St ‘/ionS stf C otttitttOtti ‘ultOii Theo,’s’: ltsrerpretartons. E.siett skits 5, lop/is ‘a (tots 5. [‘oronto: Lnisersit’s of Toronto Press. Bodd’s. William. 1990. fifties Tc’/eviss’on: The Industry ansi its (‘ritA s. Urbana: University at Illinois Press. .itetpreratis’e Htst, s v of Biack its Bugle, Donald. 1973. 1/ ‘ot.s, Coonc, Wuiatn is s. Mnnuuic and Bucks: Ass 1 F/loss Ness York: Viking Press. Boorstin Daniel J. 1962. The hungc: Or lt’lsai Happc’tsed to 1/is’ Amer/cuts Drecittt. Ness York: Antheum. Bcsurdon. Jerome, 1990. La iildt’isisut toss do Gaul/c, Paris: Anthropos. Bssurne Stephen. 2001 Black itt i/sc BAn v/s Fratite: Tite Black Evpet’iests’c Os Br/i/sit Ft list tt,sd Telesis ton. —

.

.

.

London: Continuum. Boyce, George James Curran, and Pauline Wingate. 1978 Ness’spaper History f/ore i/sc Sc’venieent/s Cen tury to the Presets! Dave. London: Constable; Beverly Hills: Sage.. Bntss in. Mark XV 2008. Cc/c bt’csiusg Densoc’t’oc’: : f/sc ;llass-Alediatcd Ritual of f/c’s hoSt Dits’. Ness’ York: Peter Lang. Brsgance. William i’s., ed, 943. Il/story soul Crttsc’is,ts ot Astse’t’ic’ass Pub/ic’ .-t/dt’c 5.5 ..\ew ‘York: McGrass Hill. Briggs. Ssa 961. The Hi,stors ofBsoadccs.stittg in rise United Kin gdotu. London: Oxford University Press Broadie, Alexander. 2005. l’hoina.s Reid on Logic, RIsc torts’ atss/ the Fins Arts: Pops’s on i/sc’ Culture oft/se SinuS, State College: Pennsr Is ania State [“nivel’sit\ Press. B s’sss a. Richard D. 1 989, Ktsost’/s’c/,ge is Pits ‘cr: 1/se Diffst s/oh of Jtifkt’ntstl/s tti its Ecu/s Ames/ca. I 700—INCh. Ness York: Oxford 1,’niscrsst’s Press, 1996. ihe Sirs tt,grh of a People. T/ic’ Is/ecu u/cia fnfos’usss’cl C1h/cs’tny in Astor/ca, 1650—ib’70. Chapel Hill’ University of North Carolina Press. B(tcher, Kas 1. 1901. Sits/st sit ml Evolution. Ness York: Henry Hult. 1926. Ge,sant,tsc’lre Au/shies’ cur tetsiosgs/sisiss1e. Tdbingen K. Lss.spp. Burke, Kenneth, 1935. Per,ncssic’tss-c’ cutci ( ‘/ssotgc’: -its ,-ltscutsussv of Pstt’jso.sc’. Ness Xsss k: Ness’ Republic. —.1937. ,Sititude,s ioss’ctrc/ Histtssv, Ness’ York: New Republic. 945. A Grsutsttsctt o/’SIohis’c’,s. Ness York: Psentsce—H:sll, 1950. A Ritetttt’ic of Monies Ness York Pientice 1/all. Burke Peter. 1973. A IVess’ Kitsd of H/slot’s: I root i/sc’ Wi iiiisgs of ic/n vs. Translated by K. I’olca Nessv York. Harper and Rosy. 1990, The Inns-is IJ/slorst’a/ Rc’s’oluii”n, l’hc’ Snait/es Sc /,oa/. /929 /989, Stanford: Stantcsrd Liii —

—.

45

ed. 21)09. Pcsit’otit:stsg f/ic’ Pit/site: Atsset’ic ass Pbss/ann/n’opv 4 Tt’ssti,sfot’stiariots cif Cssbssts’c’, (‘csnstnss,n scsttOts, stud this flisnissiuties Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. and Charles R. Aclusnd. eds, 1999. Harold innis its the Ness’ Ceistur’s’: ReJlc’etion,s stud Refrac’niots,s, Montreal: McGill Quseens Unis ersity Press. C ‘ihs,csn. “mag. ed. 1993, Habc’rnsst,s and i/se Pttbi/c Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press, Casophell. Karlr is Kot’trs, 1989. i/sin (‘asissol .Specsk for Hi s’. Nsv \ork: Greenssrsod Press. o’c\ Ltnes Vs. 1969, “The Commrsnicativins Re’s oltstion and the Professional Communicator.” The St’s/ioç-’k al lIes/c sv ulloisss,gt’aph 13 (January): 23—/S. 1974. “The Problens of Journalisni Ilsstory Joisrnss/is’tss Histors’ I, 3—6. Rpt. in. muses’ Cat’s-v A C tttus’ss/ Reside,; edited by Eve Stryker Munson and Cathurine A. Warren. 86 94. Minneapolis: Univei sit’s of Minnesota Ps’ess, 1975. “Comnsunicatiun and Culture. Re’s sew of Clifford CseertzZ This’ Iniet’pi’etstnon csf’ Cit/tssres. C onsnsittsic stunts Re,sc cisc/s 2: 173—91 1977. ‘Mass Cornmunic:stirsn Research and Cultural Studies: An American \‘isC’ In Macv Cress— ousnisarittss ans/ Sstc’ieiy, edited by James Currass, Michael Gurevitch, and Janet Wollacott, 409 425. Landon: Edward Arnold. 1997. isssuc,s Cats’s’. A Ci’iticvs/ Reac/s’t: Edt. Eve Stryker Munson and Catherine A. \Varren. Mm neuspsslts: Urns ersity of Minnesota Press. 2009. C’sintssitsuits’nt/osi ss,s c’idrssre: I’,.v sos’s on tied/si osd Ss’eiet’s’. Re’s ised cr1 New York: Routledge, and John J. Qun’k, 1970. “The Mvthos if the Electrisssic Ressslutiosi.” This’ 4,ssc’rk sos 5’s/so/sir 39: 2 19—41, 395-424. Carpenter. Edmund, and Marshall McLuhan, 1956. “I’he New Languages.” (hssc’sigo Res’is’sv 10 (Spring): 46—52. C hal/ce, Ste’s en H. 1975. Pci/it/scsI (“onsnssonc’sstio,s. Bet erl’s Hills: Sage. Chafl’ee, Steven H.. and Es’erett is’l. Rogers. 1997. “The Establishment of Communication Studs in Assier— asseris’a. edited by Wilbur Scharsiins 125 18(1. t icaZ In i’he Be,c’itstitnç’s of Co,tsssmtssis’atissss Studs’ in .‘fhrsusasid Oaks: Sage. C hambers, Deborah, Linda Steiner. and Cas’ole Fleming. 2004. Woose;i atsd ,Iostrnsshism. I .ondon York: ‘

—

——.

Routldege. Chssmpfleury. Jules Henry. 1867. i’histoire N, in Cstr/c’usnstre Aniiqisc’, Paris: F. Dentu. 1885, IJi,sto/re s/c’ 1st C’sn’ic’stnsrs’ .tist,bc’t’ne. Paris: F Dentu. Cbas’tiei’, Roger. 1988. Cit/b urcs/ Ifs bot’v. Betss’s’cn Ptstc’tic’es cl/sd Rs’ps’esetstauisnts. Ithaca: Cornell [‘nit crsitv Pt ess. 1994. Thie Ordc’r of Books: Rc adet’,s, Aut/sorv, nod Lihs’ss,’ies its Europe Berss’een rise /4th si/id /8th Csitluries. Palo Alto. Stanford University Press, C Un, Wendy Hui Kysung. and Thosisas Keen:sn, edt. 2006, Ness’ Medics, 01sf Ms’s//si: .4 History amid Tbuc’tsry Rent/em: Ness York’. Rsiutledge. C assert. Steven 0. 2004. Il/incIsing fm/ti (‘rots’: T/ss’ Stt’ugs,’ie,s Os’c’r Mi.s.sis,sipni Ok FISh /969. Dssi’ham: Duke Lits’sersit’s Press. lavierrs, Fi’ancico Just icr. 1971 (1780 81). Hisiist’isu Anticitss dcl Ms’s/co (Situ/si Antis’ts dci Ms’s sts’o).

,

s ersit\ Ps’ess. and Portes. Ro, 987. The .Sr,c’tcsl fls.s’t,srs’ of Lctttgttcsgc’. Cambridge’ Cambridge Unsvertt\ Press, and Brsggs. ,Asus, 2005 1 ,S’oc’ia/ Hisiors’ of h/ic /1cc/ia. ( ambridge: Polits Press Br tuNic, André. 2009. 7/se ,4tsnales Sc’/soo/: An iitte//ectstnl Hi.stot’s’, I ranslated by Jane Marie Todd. Ithaca, (s mdl Unisersity Press. 4a. The Political Economy of Communications Research, in lnfkrnsssiion atsc/ (“otis— Buxton, William J. I 9 ttittots’(5i5(5t5 its L’s’ssnonsje,s, edited h’s- Robert E. Babe, 147 175. Boston: KlusserAcademic Publishers. I 9941”. From Radio Research to Communications Intelligence: Rockefeller Philanthrop’s. Commu— nscaustn Specialists, and the Americais Policy’ Committee. In f/ti’ Pohinc’ct/ In/Iuetss’c’ of’ Icless,v. edited h’s Stephen Brooks and Alasn-G. Gagnon. 187 230 Vs’estport, CT: Praeger.

—

—,

Mexico D.F,: Editorial Pormua, C laxton, Robert Howai d. 2007. Frosts Pars/f/il to Perhss: Ire, /s Radio its Aty’s ni/na, 1920 1944. Gairsess ille knit ersit’s Press of Florida. Cohen, Daniel J,. and Roy Rosenisveig. 2005. Dig/i/ History. Philadelphia: Unit ei’sky stf Persnsy l’s”,tmssa Pies’.. C tsdil]ac, Ftiennc Bosinot de 1746/2001. Es ,s sty osi i/se Origits of Hutusists Kisost’bs’cbge IFs scsi ,sstr I oi’igitsc shes sosisisis,ssnttces isuitsaitse.s.j Translated and edited by Hans Aars1eff. Camhridgc: Cambridge (Ins ersity Press.

Condit, (‘eleste Michelle. and John Louis Lucaites. 1993. Crssf’Iing Esjsns/it’s’: Aussc rkss s .Suuç’lo-Afs’ic’an hoed. Chicago: Unit ersit’s of Chicago Press, (‘on’s erse. lean. 1987. Suites Re,seat’c’/i its 1/sc’ (‘st/ned Sictre,s: Root,v ansI Eoiergessc’e, /890 /960. Berkele’s 1., nises’ssty of California Press. (‘onley, Thomas, 1994. R/setoric’ its f/se Eu ropestri Trsss/itiots. Chicago. Unisersity of Chicago Press.

46

PLTER SIMONSON JANICE PLC K, ROBERT T. CRAIG AT D JOHN P. J( KSON. JR

Cci’. ert. Catherine L., and John D. Stcsens. 984. Moss Media Between the lIars,’ Pelz’cption.i at Cultural Iicttzon. 1918—1941 Syracuse. Syracuse University Press. Coward, John M. 1999. ihe Vewspaper Indian. Nat/re 4merican Ident its in the Press 1820 1890, Utbana: I msersitv of Illinois Press. Craig. Robert T. 1999. Communication Theor’s as a Field” (‘ianniuli/ctttioii The” 9: 1 9—i 61 Craig. Robert T., and Helm I Muller. eds, 2007. Theiiricntg Contnuoiicatinn. Readings lcm.s,s Traditions, Thousand Oalri: Sage. ( rcssy. Das 10. 198 1. (iiitut Di c,: JJi,gi’alion und Cnmmnnu’atio,t hetsi’een Lug/and and V sc Lnç’lanil ii i/ic bei’etttreiiin Ci 0(11/s. Cambridge: (‘ambridge Unisersity Press. Cripps. Thomas. 977. ,Sloit’ Fade a; Black’ f/ic .\‘eç’isi /n liner/can F//ni, 19(5) 1942. Oxford: Oxbud Lni’sersity Press. Crowley. David J., and Paul Heyer, eds. 1991/2(111. Communication in His tori: Technoing”, C u/tine, hoc/ ct’.. New Nork: Lnngman. Curran. James. 1977. “Capitalism and Control of the Press, 1800—1975:’ In ‘ilas.s Connuunicaton and hoc/i tx’. edited by James Cut-ran, Michael Gurcs itch, and Janet Woollacott, 95 230. London: Fdxs ard ,rnold. 2002. Media and Potter. London: Routledge 2008. “Communication and Hi tor’s In L cp/ai’atloits in Conunumiication Hesiorv. edited b’s Barbie 5 Zel tier. 46—59. London: Rourledge. 2008. “Narratives of Media History Recisited.’ In Narrating Media H/stars’, edited by Michael Bailey, 1—21. New York: Routledge. C,itrom. D. J. 1982,MeJi,i ctitd the ,hnici’ic’on ,llnid: Front Morse to McLu/ian. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, D’Alenibert. Jean Ic Rond d. 1751/1995. Preliminary Discourse to i/li Enuyclopedia of Diderot, Trans lated by Richard N. Schwab with the collaboration of Walter F. Rex. Chicago. Lm\crsity ol Chicago Press. 1995. Isttp://qnod.lih.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx’?c=did:cc=did:rgn=iflain:VieW’te\t:idno—d id2222J)O0 I .083. Daley. Patric( J., and Beserly A. James. 2004, Cultural Politics anti (/ie lfii.cc Iledia: -i/avka ,Mit/t’e l’mces. Urbana: Univei’sity ol’ Illinois Press. Daniel, Ute, ed. 21)1 1). PoliO cc/u. Kultur und Metlienwii’islichkeiten iii den / 920cr .lahren. Munich, R. Old— enhourg Verlag. Darnton. Robert. I 968/I 986. tIe.s,nei’t sot and rite End of the E,t//hti’n,ient in France. Cambridge: Han aid University Press. 1979. The Bucines,s of Enlightenment: A Pith//siting Hi,stors oft/ic Encyclopedic /775 1800. Cainbridge. MA: Belknap Press. 1982. “What is the History of Books?” D,iedalu.s III: 65—83. DeKci’ckhose, Dereck, and Charles 1. Lumsden. eds. 1988. i/ic Alphabet nod the Brain: The L,uei’a/Catioit of Writing. Dusseldorf: Springer-Verlag. DeKerckho’se, Dereck. 1989. “McLuhan and the Toronto School of Communi ation.” Canadian Journal of fi inuntoih ‘at/iiii 14 December): 73—79. Deti nine. Michael. I 98 ,J.Iech;uiic I, ‘cot.: 1)/me your/s ,ut,/ ‘0 ink /1: C’la.s s Culture ii lout/ca New York’ Verso I etweiler F’redertck German 1922 1/it’ Fegnt Pu. vs in 1/ut Cit/ted States’. Chicago. The I niversits of C’nicago Press. Desses. John, 927. The Pub//c an,! its Poiidenis. Ness ‘ork: H. Holt and Cumpans. Dicken—Garcia, Raid t 980. Ciunn’uinut itt/on His tori’. Beerls Hills: Sage. Dicken-Garcia. Haiel. and K Viswanath. 2002. ‘An Idea Whose Time Has Come: International Communi cation History Has s Comntiuoui at/,ilu & Sm lrtt 5. I 6, DiCento. ?slaria. Lucy Delap. and Leila Ry an. 7i) II. Fciiiiiuist lied/a IJi.suoi’s’,’ .‘sujii’agc, Pei’iodu’alc amid tltc Pit/il/c .S’i/ucre. New York: Palgravc Macmillan. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Dangei’: The Anal’s/s of C’oncept.s of Po/tutiim and f/than. New ork: Praeger. Dortglas. Susan J. 1989. c. I 98”. 1,it’ent/mig Anicric,tn Br, tudcuu st/itt’. 1809 1922. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Unisersitr Press. —

.

.

.“

THE H1S’IORY 01 COMMUNICATION HISTORY

47

1994. IV/tere the Gu’l.s A,’e: Gm’ou’imi’ lip Feniak- i’it/u the lIae.s lied/a. New York: Time Books. 1999. Listening In’ Radio and (hi Amer/cami imagination New York: Times Books. Dow nung, John, and Charles Husband. 2005. Repm’esenting Race: Raci,sms, Ethnic/ties amid Media. ThoLt sand Oaks: Sage. Dss orkin, Dennis 1997. Cultural Warsi.cnu in Postwar Britaia: History, rIte ‘Vim Left. caid the Oi’ig/n c of’ Cultural Studies. Durham: Duke (‘nisersity Press Fagleton. Terry. 1983, Literars Theory 4n Introduction. Minneapolis: I niversuty of Minnesota Press Etseo’stcin, Elizabeth L. 1968 ‘Some Conjectures about the Impact of Printing on Western Societr and Thought: A Preinninary Report.’ Joam’mial of Modern H/stars 40: 1—56. 1979. Tue Pm’innng Pee s.c its aim Agent of C ian ye. Connniau/caiioii,s raid Cu/tn m’al ‘Trait sfammiation 7 in Larly Modern Europe t2 sols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011, Dir/ne Art, Infernal Mitch/ne: Ihe Ri cept/ou of Print in the West frooi T/rst lmpre.s dons to the Sense ajamt Ending. Philadelphia: Universit of Penn’.y Isania Press. ElIul. Jacques. 1962. Pm’opagande”. Paris: A. Cohn. Translated as Propaganda: The Fom’mnatiomi of lien’s Att/tude,s by Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner. New York: Knopf, 1965. 1967 Hi.stoire de Ia Propagande. Paris: Presses I ni’sersitaires de France. T Ely. Donald P. 1960. “The Communications School: Neophyte in Higher Education.” .lumdio V/simt:l Com m/mi/mi/I ‘at/au Ret/eu’ 8: 20—27. Fntman, Robert M., and Andrew Rojeeki. 2001. TIme Black Imirage and the WIt/ic ‘mu/mid: Media and Race in Amnei’ica. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. bricson, Staffan, and Kristina Riegert. eds. 2010 Med/a Houses Au. luitectuire, lied/a, and the Productiomt at C’emitm’alir’i’. New York: Peter Lang. Ess en. Stuart. 1976. ‘aptaiuus o/’Comisciaucmie.s 5: .hdt’em’ti.simmg and time Root,s of’C’amivnm muer Cumliuu’c. New York: McGraw-H 111. Febvrc, Lucien, and Henri-Jean Martin. 1958/1976, The Coin/mug aft/ic BooT: The Impact of Printing 1450.— 1800. London: New Left Books. Originally published as L’apmai’ition i/tm I,ii’re. Paris. Fekete, John. 2008. Donald Theall (1928—2008). Sciemice F/ct/ott Stadies 35: 528—30. Pickers, Andreas. 2012. “Towards a New Digital Historicism’? Doing History in The Age of Abundance.” Journal of European Teleci c/on Hi.stor’ and Culture 1: 19—26. Fickers, Andreas, and Sonja DeLeeuw. 2012. “Editorial.” .Iourniul of Eum’opeamm Televi.siaiu Hi.stimm-y amid Cul ture I : 1—2. Finzuh.N orhert. and Ursula Lehmikuhl. eds. 2004. Atlantic Conmmmmunications: i/ic lied/a in Interim an Gerumicun History 11am the Seventeenth to time Twemut/etlu Centurs’. Oxford. Berg. Fleck, Christian 2011. A Tm-an.satlcunti,’ Hi.stort’ oft/ic Socuitl bciemice,s Robbet Baromus. the I hi/rd Reich a lii t/ic Imul’entton iifhmnpmrtca/ .Etc/tit Resen,’c/i. Translated b Helia Beister. London: Bloomshury, Foi,e’—Vs oil. Elizabeth. 2006. il/it’es’ a! üopo.s it/alt: Labor amid the Stm-umgyle Dr Drinocrotic Radio. t,’rb,,na: I’ni’sersity’ of Illinois Press. Formcault, Michel. 1965. l’Iadiues,s itttd Cu. ui/rat/on A H/story f lmusaiuu” ui thu Age of Reacmu Translated by R. Howard. New’ York: Vintage Books, Foticault. Michel. 1970. i’he Dec/i rot Thu/ny,s. Ness York: Random House. Originally published as Fouc.,uli. Michel. 1 96h. Le.s ‘liars ci ic. C/moses: bite .hms’Iidolag/e des Sciemices Hmummaimie,s. Paris: Gallimai’d. I’ouuault Michel. 1973. The Birth oft/me Clinic: 4n Archacologt’ of Med/cal Percept/on. London’ Tavmstock. I oucault Michel. 1978. f/ic History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books i—ox, Elizabeth. 1997. Lttun Ammmericamu Broimdcast/migtioni Tamiyul to Te/emumvela. Luton: Unisersits of Laroiu Press. Fox-Rourne. F. R. (887/1998. Lap/u sh Newspapers (2 vois.). London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press, Frentz, Thomas S. and Thomas B. Farrell. 1976, ‘Language-action: A Paradigm for Communicat ion Qua;terlv Journal of Speech 62 (4): 333—49. Freud. Sigmund. 939. Mloses uta,! Momiodmei sin, Translated by’ Katherine Jones. Letchworth, UK: Hogarth Press. Gacta, Giuliano, 1938. Trieste Durante Ia Guerra Hand/tile: Op/mi/one Pith/il/ca e Giou’nal/.smo a Trieste dal 1914 al 1918. Trieste: Edizioni Delfino. 1943. T,’je,ste cr1 /1 Colomiiuuhi.cuno itahiammo, Appumir/ Stom’/ro—Giom’mmalistici. Trieste: Edizioni Delfino. —‘

—-—,

1 48

PEIER SIMONSON. J-\NICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P. JACKSON. JR

1948. Pain taina del (iiornalis,no Triestino Duiante Ia Rivoluzione del 1848. Milano: Antonio C ordani. 1951 —1955. Mcnitiale di Staria del Gtoriialirmo (2 volc.j. Trieste: Delfino. Gaillet. Lynée Lewis, and Winifred Bryan homer. 2010 The Present State of Scholai ship in the History cJ Rhetoric: 4 Twenty First Century Guide. ColumbimU mversity of Missouri Press Cal liner. John F.. and Jainc Si Galliher. 1 995. t1arinslnv and Dissent in Twentieth-C ‘ennsrv ,4nericun Sociology: The (usc of EtCaueui [3riant Let and 4/fled 41cC lung Lee. Albany: Stare .niversits of New York Press, Dallois. Leonard-f harlcs-Andid Gustave. 845. Ilistooe des journaux et de,s jourualiste’ de Ii Revolution fisuicaisc I 29 I 796: precddee i/one introduction generate. Paris: Socidid de l’iadustrie fratei nelle. Gallup. (COtCC, and Saul Forbes Rae. 1940. The Pulse oj Deunicrsuv: The Pu/the Upititosi Poll and Ho: it 11’drks. New York: Simon and Schuster Geertz, Clifford 1973. The Jnterpietstion of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gitlin. Todd. 1978. “Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm.” Theory and Society 6: 205--253. 1979. “Ness s as Ideology and Contested Area: loss ard a Theory of 1-legemony. Crisis and Opposi tioa. 5cicdist Review 9: 11 54. 1980. The Whole World is Watching: ,Sla.s.s Media in the ‘tlafiii’a and (‘nuaking of the F/cit left. Berkeley: Universit of California Press Gitelman, Lisa, and Geoffrey. B. Pingree. 2003.New Media, 174u-4915. Cambridge: ‘VlH Press. Glander. Timothy. 2000. The Origin.s of Mass Cononunications Resean’h Duitng the Cold liver. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Glenn, Chery I. 1997. Rhetoric Retold: Regciulering the Iradinon /foni Antiquity ilu’ongh the Renaissance. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Gnodale. Greg. 2011. Sonic Pei.suasion: Readinç Sound in the Recording Age Urbana: University of 11hnois Press, Goody. Jack, and Ian Witt. 1963. “The Consequences of Literacy.” (‘oniparatise Smd’es in Society ansi History 11. Graham, Loren, Vsolf I epenies. and Peter Weingart. 1983. “Introduction.’ In Juiu-tion,s and Use.s of[)icci pIinar’ Histories, edited by Loren Graham, Wolf I.epenies. and Peter Weingar. ix—vx. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Gramsci. Antonio 1971, Selections fi’ous the Prison Aotehooks. Translated by Quinun Hoare and Geoffrey Nosvell Smith. London: Lass rence anti Wishart. Grassi. Lrnesto. 1980. Rhetoric as Philo.suph: ilie flunsa,u.st Tradinon. Fni\el sitv Park: Peunsy Is ama State University Press, Gross, larry. and James D. Woods, eds. 1999. The Columbia Reader on Lesbiun.s and Gay Msn in Medic, So ielc. end Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Gross. Larra. 2002. C p from Invisibility: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Media in -tnierk a. Ness York: Colum bia University Press. Guillors. John. 201(1. “Enlightening Mediation.” In This J.s Enlightenment. eds. Clifford Sisken and William Warner. 37 63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gutting. Gary. ed. l 980. Parudiguis nnd Resolutions: Appraisals and Applicniou.c if Thonio.s Ku/in’s P/il lo.sophv of Science, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Hahermas. Jtirgen. 1984-1987. The [heorv of Comnmuimicaiive Action. 2 vols. Boston. Beacon Press. Originally published as Habermas, Jtirgen. 1981 iheorie des Jsoiouuiniluitnen Hnndeln,s. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. 1962/1989. lbs Stiuctural [tans fbrmation of the Public Sphere: An Inquity into a Gategott of Bourgeois Socier’. Translated b Thomas Burger. Cambridge. MA: MIT’ Press. Originally published as Hahermas. .JCii’gcn. 962. S’truktureeandel der Of/’ciitlicliheit: L’ntersicimiingeic cit ciner Katectorie Icr hlii’gerlichen (Jese/l.schaji. Neuss ied 1,uchterhand. FlaIl, David D.. ed. 2007 -20 IC). Time History pf time BooC in America (5 voL.). Charlotte: t.’niversity of North Carolina Press. Hall. Stuart. 1982. “The Rediscovery of ‘Ideology’: Return of the Repressed in Media StudiesZ In C’u/tu,s’. Societ’; and time Media, edited by Michael Gurevitch, Tony Bennett, James Curran, and Janet Wool lacott, 56 90. London: Metheun.

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

49

I

—

.

‘

.

—-

,

H’tlper Donna 1 “001. Invisible Stars.’ I Social History of Wvmen in American Bioadca.sm’ ing. Armonk: ME. Sharpe. H:u’clt. Hanno. 2001.. Socia/ Timeo,’ies of the Press: C’onsrituent.s of Gonuuu,mication Research. 1840,c to J920s. 2nd ed. Lanhani: Roman & Littleheld, 1992. Critical Co,nnmunicauon Studies: Communicatio,m, Histoty and Theory in America. London. Routledge. ed. I 993. “Communication. Theory. and History S Conummumication Timely 3: I 30—72. Hardwicke Henry 1896. History of Orators’ acid Orators. New York: G.P, Putnani s Sons. I laskell. Molly. 1974. From Revereimce to Rape: The Ticatnient of’ Women iii time Movies. Nesv York: llolt, Rinehart and Winston. Hatmn. Louis Eugene. 1859—I 864/2010. I’Iismii’e Po/itique et /inercmi,’e sic In Pretse cii France, 6 ols. Paris: Poulet-Malassis et de Broise; BiblioBazaar. 1-lavelock, Eric. 1963. Pref/ice to Plato: .4 Histoiv of time Greek Thud, Cambridge. MA: Belknap Press 1986. The titmice Leam’ns to t1’,’iie: Reflections on Orality anmd l.iteracv’froimm 4n1iquitv to rIme P’eceimt. New Haven: Yale University Press, Hayes. Joy Elizabeth. 2000. Radio .Vatian: Comninuimicatian, Popular Cu/ta’e, mid ,‘sationalism in Mexi’ 1920—I 950. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Headrick. Daniel R. 2000. tklmen Information Gnome ofAge: Technologies of Knowledge in time hge if Rest— son and Revolution, 1700 -1850. Ness York: Oxford University Press Hefferline, Ralph Fmanklin. 1955. “Comnnsunmcation Theory: I. Integrator of the \rts amid Sciences. Quar terly Jomurima/ Of Speech 41: 223 33. Heims. Steve J. 1991. The C’vhei’mmeimcs Gm’omip. Cambridge: MIT Press. Heyer. Paul. 1988. Communications and History: Theories of Media, Knowledge, amid Cii ilication New York: Gieenwood Press. 2003. Harold Iumuus. Lanham: Ross man and Littletield. Hilgard, Ernest R. 1982. “Robeit 1. Wt tson amid the Founding of Division 26 of the American Psychologica l Association.” Journal of tho 1-litton’ of the Behavioral .Sciences’ 18: 308—I I I Tills. Jill. 2002. ‘!7me Struggle for Can fuel of’ Global Conuimmomi ‘anon s: lime Fornmatie’e Ceumnu,’’s. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 2007. Te/econmnmunii’otions a,md Empire’ Power Relatiomm.s Within the Global Comnmtinicarioims Em pire. Um’bana: University of Illinois Press. 1—Imlmes. Michele. 1997. Radio lhice.c: .humerican Bi’oas/csistimmg I922—1952. .Mimsneapolis: University ofMmn— nesota Press. 2005 “Is There a l’ieid Called Sound Culttmre Studies? And Does it Matter”” American Quai tee/s 57: 249—2a9. 2011 5 etuork ;\‘arion s: 4 Ti’an,s,mati nut! History of 4imme,’ican and Bi iti s/i Brriedca sting. Loud um: Routledge Hilnies, Michele, and Jason Lovmglio eds ‘Ut) I. Radio Rests/er: Essas s in the Cultural History’ of Radio London: Routledge. Hoggart. Richard. 1957. The Cses of Lits ‘occ’. London: Chatto and Wimidus. Horkheimer. Max. 1941, “Note.s on InstmtoteActis ities.” Studie.s in Philosophy antisocial Scicns e 9: 121 23 Horkheimer, Max. and Iheodor Adorno. 1947 [c 19441, Die Dial ktil. der Au/kldrioig: Philosophischs [rugnms’imte. Amsterdam: Quermdo. 972. Dii/ectic’ of Enlighteimuieim!. Tm’anslated ha John Cumimiiummg. Ness York: herder and Herder. Has laud, Carl 1948 “Social Communication.” Priv’eeding.s of the .4tnericaim Philosophical So eels 9’ 371 75. Fludson. Fm’edermc. l873/20110. Joar,malicnm in the Limited States /i’oom 1696 to /872. London: Rou:ieioc. Hughes. Helen MacGill. 194(1. V its mmd tlmc limnuan Jumrerest Story. Chicago: Univer,mty of C’hc.agm Prey’. Huhtanso. Erkkm. md Jussi Pam imkka eds. 2011. Media Archeology. Berkeley CA: Univ ersity (SI C:lif auma Puess. Igo ,Sarah Elizabeth. 2007. The 4u’ei’aved hinem’ican: Surm’ev’.c, Ciriceims, anti the Mtkitut’ am a l1.s’ P’hii C’anibridge’ Harvard Lmiiversity Press, Innms, Harold Adams. 1930 The Fete Trade in (‘anada Ate Introduction to Canadiat’ Lconomts Hmstorv’. Nesv Has cmi: Yale University Piess. -

—,

.

I I

50

PETER SIMONSON, JANICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P. JACKSON, JR.

1940. The Ciii! Fishc ries: The History of an International Ecinio;n: Ness Haven: Yale L uisersitv Press. 1950. Empire and Co,mnunieation.s. Oxford: Ciarendon Press. 1Q51. The Bittc at(oThnilaii:0000. Toronto: l..niser’itv of Toronto Press. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 9S. Eloquence in an hlectromc .4ge: The Transjbrmation of Political S’peech— snaking Ness Sotl’ : Oxford Unix ersitv Press. Jar e. Mare 1931 “Studies of 1935 1942 on the History of the Periodical Pres .’ Actual of Modern Hs 5 tory 15’ I 27 I. John Richard R. 1994. “American Historians and the Concept of the Communications Revolution.” In 1 iformotion Ac uoien: The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business, edited by Lisa Bud-Frierman, 98—110. London: Routledge. 1995. Spreading the News: The Ameiii an Postal System from Franklin to Morse. Cambridge: liar yard University Press. ed. 201 Oa. The .4,nerican Postal Aetii-ork. 1792—1914. London: Pickering & Chatto. 201 Ob. ,Vetsiorl. Nation: [,ise!iting .4,nerica,i Telecommunications. Cambridge: Harvard tJnixersit Press. .lohns. Adrian. 1998. ‘I’/ie Nature of the Book: Piiiit and Kninviedge in the Making. Chicago: Unix ersity of Chicago Press. 2009. Piracy: 1 he Intellectual Pmpe;tv Votes from Gutenberg to Gates. (‘hicago: University of Chicago Press. 2010. Death of a Pirate: British Radio and the Making of the Infdrsnation Age. New York: W.W. Norton. .2011. “Historical Perspectixes on the Circulation of Information,” American HistoriialReviess 116 (5): 1393—435. Jowett. Garth. 1975. “Toward A History of Communication.” Journalism Hi.story 2: 35 37. I 976a. Film: Tue Democratic Art. New York: Little Brown. I 976b. “Communicationc in History : An Initial Theoretical Approach.” Ganadian Journal of lit/orma/ion Sciences’ 1.5—13. Juhasz. Alexandra. 2001. llbmen of I scion: Histories in Femi,nst Film and l’ideo. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Katz, Elihu. John Durham Peters., Tamar Liehes. and Avril Orloff, eds. 2003. C’anonic Te.vts in Media Re search: 4re There Any? Should There Be? How About These? Cambridge: Polity. Keith. Mid ad C. 1995 .Signal.s in the Air: Vance Broadcasting in Anierica. Westport: Praeger. Kennedy, George. 1963. The Art ot Persuasion /n Greec’e. Princeton: Princeton Universit Press. 1 980. Classical Rlieiorii and Its Christian mid Secular Tradition: From Ancient to Modern Tiinc Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1999. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Seccdar Tradition from Anc’ient to Modern Times. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, Kerlin, Robert Thomas. 1920. Ihe Voice aft/ic Negro, 1919. New York: Dutton. King, Richard H 2004. Race, Culture, and the Jntehlectual.s, 1940 1970. Washington, D.C : Woodrow Wil son Center Press. Kittler, Friedrich A. 1990. Discourse Networks 1800 / 1900. Translated by David F. Wellherv. Stanford: Stanford ljnisersity Press. Originally published ‘is Kittler. Friedrich A. 1995. Aiifsch,’eibc,svsteme 180(1 1900. Munchen: Fink. 1996. “The History of Communication Media.” CT/icon 30 July’. http://ss xx xx.ctheorv.net/articles. )\’?id=45. 1 :1s 1999. Gnunmophione Fibu Ts’pess’riiei: Translated by Geoffrey Winthrop-S’oung and Michael Wuti. Stanl’ord: Stanford L nixersit Press. OriginaIl published as Kittler. Friedrich A. 1986. Granonop/ion. f thu. Ts’peti’riter. Berlin: Brinkmann & Bose. 2009. “Toss ards an Ontology of Media:’ Tlieors, Culture & Soc/tic’ 26: 23—31 2010. Opt/ta! Media. Translated by Anthciny Enns. Cambridge: Polity. Originally published as Kit tIer, Friedrich A. 2002. Optisc’he Med/en: Berliner Vorlesung 1999. Berlin: Merse. -

———.

—.

,

‘

——

‘.

THE HISTORY Ol COMMUNICATION HISTORY

51

Koller. Andreas. 2010. “The Public Sphei’e and (‘omparatise Historical Researcic” Soc’al Sc lenc t History 34: 26 1—90 Kuhn. ‘Fhomas S. 970. lhe Structure of’ Scientific J?ei’olutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Landes, Joan B. 1988. Ilinocn and the Public Split is’ /n the Age of’ tin French Re’olution Ithaca: Cornell University Press. anf, Kurt 19)6. “Uhe European RootU’ In American Conuounication Bc search: The Rrmeinhc’recl His— toes edited by Everette E Dennis and Ellen Wartella, 1 20. Mahwah: Erlbaum Lasswell, Harold D. 1935. World Politics and Personal ln.securiry. New York: Whittlesey House. Lassssell, Harcdd D., Ralph D. Casey, and Bruce Lannes Smith. 1935. Propaganda anclPromotional.Ictivi ties: An Annotated Bibliography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lassssell, Harold D., Daniel Lerner, and Hans Speier. eds. 1979—80. Propci,ga;itla and Cononuiucation in lilrlcl History (3 s nIx.). Honolulu: East—West Center. Lazarst’eld. Paul F. 1948. “Communication Research and the Social Scientist.” In (‘brent Trend.s in Social Psychology, edited by Wayne Dennis, 218 73. Pittsburgh: Unisersity of Pittsburgh Press, and Robert K. Merton. 194%. “Mass Communication. Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action.” In 1/ic Conununicat/on of Ideas, edited by Lyman Brvson. 95—118. New York’. Harper. Leal:’. Daniel J. 1975. Fnnn Sambo to Supersoadc’: ‘l’lie Black Experience in Motion Pic’tare,s. Boston: Houghton Mililin. Leas’is. F. R. 1924. The Relation c up of Jaur,iali,s’in to Literature Stud/i’d in the Rise and Earlier Develop— 1 inent of i/ic Press iii England. Thesis (Ph.D.)—Unis ersity ot ( ambridge. 1924. and Denys Thompson. 1933. Culture ciiitl Environment; The Training of Critical Awareness. Lon don: Chatto and Windus. Lens is, Q. D. 1932. Fiction and the Reading Public. Harmondssxorth: Penguin Books. Lee, Alfred McClung. 1937. The Daily Newspaper in America: I’he Evolution ofa Social In struinent. New ‘rock: Macmillan Lee, James Mclx in. 1917. Histoi’s’ of American Journa/i,s,n. Boston: Iloughton Mifflin. L,eeman. Richard W. 1996. Ati’iean-American Orators: A B/a-Critical Sourc’ehook. Westfield. CT: Green— svood. Leonard, Thomas C. 1995. Nen’.c for .411: Anie,’ic’a’.s (‘anon e—of—.ige nit/i the Press. Ness \ork: O’.l’ord University Press. Lehn—Portilla, Miguel. 1992. Fifteen Poet,s of the ,‘V’iet- World. Norman and London: Unix ersity of Okia— l’iorna Press. Lippmann. Walter. i922. Public Opinion Ness York: Harcourt. Brace antI (‘a. Lipsili. George. 198$. “This Ain’t No Sideshow:’ Histcn’ians and Media Studies:’ (riticcil Studies in Mas,s (‘ommunication 5: 147—61 1990. Titne Passages: Collect/ye Memory and American Popular Culture. Minneapolis: I. uiversity of Minnesota Press. Lougee. Carolyn. 1976 I.e Paradis dcs Fenones: Wouien, Salons, cincl Social Stratification in Seventeenth Century France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Lowenthal, Leo. 1950. “Historical Perspectives of Popular Culture.” The Aoierican Journal of Sociology 55: 323 32. and Norhert Guterman. 1949 Prophet.s of Deceit: .5 Study of i/ic Tec’luiiquc’.s oft/ic Aine,’ica,i 4gitotor. Ness York: Harper. L.unst’oi’d, .Anclrea A. 1995. Reclaini/ng Rhictorica: tlinnen in thc Rhic’to,’/c’cil Tradition. Pittsburgh: [‘nicer sitv of Pittsburgh Press. Marchand. Philip. 1989. Marshall IiIc’Luhan. Ness York: Ticknor and l’ields. Mars in, Carol ii. 198$. l1’hien Old iec’/uiologies Were Veu’: Thinking ciboui Electric’ (‘oninuuucatiois /0 tIle Late Nineteenth Ccntui’s’. New York: Oxford University Press, Marx. Leo. 1964. llic’ Macli/ne in the Garden: Tcc’linologc’ and the Pa.stoi’al Ideal in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Marzo]f, Marion. 1977. L’pfi’oiu the Footnote: A H/story of Women Joui’nalicis.Ncw York: Hastings. —.

52

THE HISTORY OF COMMLNICATION HISTORY

PETER SIMONSON, JANICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P. JACKSON. JR.

Mattelart, Armand. 1994/1996 Th” Ini’ention of Comnuinication Translated by Susan Emanuel. Minneapo us: University of Minnesota Press. Originally published as Mattelari, Armand. 1994. L ‘invention c/c Ia Gommunication. Paris: Editions La Découverte, Mattelart, Armand, and Michhle Mattelart, 1995/1998. Theories of Communoaiton: A Short introduction. Tianslated b J. A. Cohen and S. G. Taponici. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Originally published as Mattelart ,Arrnand, and Miehhle Mattelart. 1995 Histoire dee Thdoriey de 1, C nnnncnication. Paris: Ed. La Decous erte. [art. 19.Si Seer niny Our rue /htst [he Bath fMcss Culture and the hint/ni Pi,’e’ liuhiso”. Ness ‘iArk: Oxford l.’niversirs Press. \icCI esner Robert Vi’. 1995. [elceonuiiiinications,hjcisc Media and Democracy: 7 7e ) c,tt/c’ t/tJ Control of 3 ,1 h B,’v, h ustttrt. 1925—35. New York: Oxford Unisersitx Press. \leCormaek, Naomi. 2009, Out oft/ic Question,’ Wo,uen, Media, and the Art n/Inquiry, DVD. Philadelphia: \nnenbeie School for Communication http://www.outofthequestion.org. McDowell, Paula. ..010. “Mediating Media Past and Present: Toward a Cienealogy of ‘Print Culture’ and Oral Tradition.” In This is Enliyhtenment, edited by Clifford Sicken and William Warner, 229—46. Chicago: f niversitr of Chicago Presr. \lcKenn. Richard. 1953/1990. “Spiritual Autobiography:’ In Freedom and Hi,stort and Other E.saavs. An iiittuluct,ou to the Thought of Richard SF Keost. edited br Zaha a K MeKeon, 3 So. Chicago: l fli cOntr of Chicago Pi’es. 1957 “Communication. Truth, and Societr.” El/nc, 67: 89—99 \lcLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Guieube’,’/ Ga/an: The MiAj,tg of Typographic Man. Toronto: Unisersitv of Toronto Press. 1943/2006. The Classical Ti’ii’iuoi: The P/ace at Thomas Sashe in the I earnmc’ of His Time. Corte Madera: Gingko Press McI.uskie, Ed, Susanne Kinnebrock, and Christian Scharzenegger 2011. “European Communication His tory: An Introduction.” Med/en und Zeit 3: 3 6 McNeely, Ian, and L.isa Wolverton. 200$. Reinvent/nit K;iawledgc’ From Alexand,’o to the internet, Ness York: W. W Norton & Company. Medhursi, Martin J. 1993. I.andmark F stays on .4 men can Pu/i/ic 4dd,vcs. Das is. CA: Hermagoras Prrys. 2001. “The C’ontemporary Study of Public Address: Renewal. Recuser. and Reconfiguration.” Rhetoric and Public Aft/or, 4: 495—S II. \lelton. James Van Horn. 200!, The Risi of tile Pnblt ii, Eniiglm”uue ut Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge niver’,itr Press. \lcndeis, Doran. 1999. “The Media Resolution or FarE Utristianits: Au I-nay an Eusehiu’s ‘Ecclesiasti cal History.’ (irand Rapids. Eerduian’s \lcitun, Robert K lherta Curtis, and Marjorie Fisc 19-16/2004. H Pet su 1 soIl’ The Social Psycho! 0/tV of a War Bond Drive. New York Howard Fertig Publishers. U.erowiti Joshua 1986 So Sense a/P/roe’ The Impact at F/er tm,nc lied, t at ,Sua’,aI Behavior Oxford’ Oxford University Press. Mill, John SWan. 1836/1977. “Civiliz:tiion’ In The Collected harks of John Stuart Mt/I la/IS, edited hr .luhn M. Rohson. I ondon: Routlcdgc and Kcgan Paul. Repubihed online by the Lihei’ts Fund: http:!I oil.ljhertr fund.cru/option=com 65 $&lar (cut =html&Ttemid=27. I -tS/ 1 909. Pi’incipk s it Pa/it/u ‘of I-a utr’itts. Lund yr. ‘L ‘ngrrans, Green ansi Co. \lt,rean Das id. 2007. The I ucs f Iuiage.’: S Hicrore ef R 1 figtr,r mid Usual .lledut i; Inter/ce, Nec, ‘rk: Routledge. ri a, Charles F. Ill, ed. 2007 Quee’,’in Pub/te 4dd,’,-ss: & tat/ties- iii 1,iieu’ic’c,n H/statical Disc ourse, C lumbia: Lnisersity of South Carolina Press i on, David 1978. “The Beginning of Modern Macc C mmunicato it Research,’ Fu,o’ter it I-mine,! of sOciology 19: 347—59. Mat, Frank I uther. 193$. I Histot, of A,uc,icau Ma o: lit’s, C amhiidge: Hai-sard Unisersit’s Pi’ess 5 1 94 1 nic,’t/ mi Jotirno!isni: S His toia’ of .\ eic’spapers n the (‘n/tee! States r!t,’ot, vi, 25(1 ve,tt’c, I-Cgh—/ud’) New ork: Macmillan. -

.

‘

—

-.

53

Mumlord, I,ess is 1934. ]/-‘c/i,uc,s and Civil/cation. New York: Harcourt Brace N al Mark Anthony. 1999 What t!te Music Scud: Black Popular Mu etc and B/tick Public Cultu,’e. New Yoik’ Routledge. crc ne, John 2006. ‘The Future of Communication History.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 23. 254—62. ed, 2013. Meet/a H/don it,td the Foiuulcition,s n/Media Studies Oxford: Wilc —Blackwell, \,,ic Neumann. Eltsaheth, 1984, ZIw Sii,’u of Silence: Pub/k Op/ti/air Ota’ So/at ,S&,tt. Chicago: l.’ni ‘,erlt’c or (‘hicago Press. /0(t), Ann Nord. Dasid Paul. 1981 Sen .spape’t ctnd Sew Politic.c: ,lIiciic’cstern liitnisijt/ Bc f/ret, /590Arbur. Ml: T MI Research Presc. and Our Histors.” ,,‘r’tirttali ,ni Qiuir— 1990. “intellectual History, Social History, (‘uiturai History 648 i/o 67: 645— ft 2001. Communities u/Journalism: A Histotsr of Amerit cm Vets spaper.s cow! Their Readeit. I. rbana: —

...

——.

—

—

University of Illinois Press, . 2004. Faith in Reading: Religiou.s Publishing and the Birth of Mass ,‘tiedia in Antenica. Oxtord. Oxford University Press, NJ y atiki, Robert. 2010. Repi’eseiitinglfnic’cin Anienic’ctn.s in Trims utlitntic’Aho/itioni.sui crud Black [ci,’, ‘mutt— c[,’c’/sy. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State F’nisersitr Press, jo er. Robert Tarbeil. Marvin G. Bauer, and Speech Association of the Eastern States. 1959. Re-Jkctobtiile tiit’ the Speech ProI’e,s s/out: This First Fifts’ }i’oI’,s. New York: Speech Association of the Eastern States Gate’. Vi’. .1. 1948. “Classic Theories of Communication:’ In The Couonunic’atiini of Ideas: -I Sri/es ,it Ad ch•c nec, edited by- I.,ynsan Brr son. 27—36. Ness York: Institute for Rekgious and Social 5tudie’. ,icer, Robert T. 1971. (‘oinniuiucation ctmicl Cultu,’e in Ancient Inc/ia and China. Syracuse: Syracuse Uni versity’ Press. Ong, Walter J. 1958. Rctnius, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue. Cambridge: Harvard Unisersity Press. 1967 The Pre,senee oft/ic Word: Some Prolegomnena f/n Cultural ctncl Religious History. New Ha —

yen. Yale University Press, 1982. Oralits and I.iic’,’acv: The Jechnulogizing oft/ic lVo,cl, London and New York: Metheun. Oherholtier. Ellis P. 1896. “Courses in Politics and Journalism at Lille.” Annals of the Amei’ieun Ac’udenis’ of Politic-al and Social Science 8’ 150—I 37. Park, David W., and Jefferson Pooley’, eds. 200$. The History of Medic, ansi C’ooouunic’utio,i Rc’,sec,rc hi: Contested .‘sleinonies. Ness Yoi’k: Peter Lang. F.rt. Robert E. 1923. “The Natural History cit the Newspaper:’ Jaurnal of Socia/ogv 29: 273—289. 1936. Succession, an Ecological Concept. ,-tanenic’iut Sociological Re,’iei,’ I : I 71 I 79. ck, Janice. 2001. “Itinerary of a Thought: Stuart Hall, Cultural Studies, and the Unresolved Problem of the Relation of Culture to ‘Not Culture:” Cultural Critique 48: 200—249. P ‘ok. Janice, and Inger L Stole, eds. 2011. A Moment of Danger. Critical Stuclie,s in the Hi.stors’ of I] S Communication Since 14hrld Wat II. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Pc cc, Kathy. 2001. Cheap A,tiusemneutts’ Working Women mind Leisure in Tu,’n-of.the—Centuuy 5-u’ Yoik Philadelphia: Temple Unis ersitv Press, Rettegree, Andrew. 2005. Re/onoiotian and the Culture- of’ Pci’s on ‘ion. Cambridge: Cambridge t ‘nisersutr Press. 2005. The Book’ in the Renais,sa,ice. New Has en. Yale Unis ersitv Press. Peters, John Durham. 1989. “John Locke. the Individual, and the Origin of Communication:’ Quctrte, hr Journal of’Speer’iu 75: 387—99. 999. Speaking iii to the Air’ A H/stout oft/ic Idea of Cooimunic’atian. Chicago’ University of (‘hi cago Press. 2005. Courting the Abt’ss: Free Speei’h ansI the Liberal Tradition. Chicago: University of’ Chicago Press. 2010. “Introduction.” In Optical Medici, edited by F’riedrieh Kittler, 1—17. Cantbridge: Polity Peters, John Durham, and Peter Simonson. 2004. Mcis,s Comnruonc-ation andlmenicun Socictl Thought: Key Tests’, i 9i9—i965’. Lanhan’i: Rowman and Littlelield. —.

—

—.

THE HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

PETER SIMONSON, JANICE PECK. ROBERT T. CRAIG. AND JOHN P. JACKSON. JR.

54

P’....tild, Veikko, 200. On t ;c Hiçh ray f/slats Communkaticin Stud ci. Crcsskill: Hampton Press Postman. NetI. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death. Ne York: Penguin. 1992. Technopolr The Suit coder of Culture to Ji’chnololv, New York: Vintage. Putni’,. Peter. Chandrika KuuI. and Jurgen Wilke. eds. 2011. lnreriuiiional Conununicatioji non Global News S eti:,,ri’, s: lit ctr;r, at Pespe’’ri’ e i. Ness York: Hampton. Rc’ert. Sorhr A. 2015. “Darwiii and the Bour Politic: A Note on Schaffle Vehien. and the Shift of Bio Iogtcal Slctapher n Economics,” In .1/bert Schiiffle (1831 /90/)’ The Legacy of on Underecomated e moo is, dired by Jtirgen G Backhaus, 129 152. Frankfurt: Haag and Herchen Richards, l.A (991. Richards on Rhetoric: Selected Essays, 1929 1974. edited by Ann E. Berthoff. New York: Oxford. Ri._soan. Das td. 1950. Ihe Lone/c Cniit’d: 4 .S7udv n/the (‘han ç’ine A,nerii’on Charterer. Ness Has en: ‘tale 1 rd ersity Press. Roharison. C”aig, “Historicizing the Archis C’onnnunicarion Ret/eu’ 13: 1—4 P ‘hi :on, Daniel I. ed. 2004. Communication History in Canada. Oxford: Oxford L’niversitv Press. Rr drcuei. Jaime F. (998. iN Independence of Spanish America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. cmtt M. 1976. “Coriniunication and Deselupment.” Communication Research 3. 213—240. 5 .r’, E 5 5c R 978 “The Rise and Fall of the Dominant Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 28: 64—69. .4 Hi star” oj Coinmuiticulion Siitds’: .1 Bioriqiliical.4pjn’oaeh .N ess ‘tork: Free Press. Rs,scigne, ‘tsncent J., and XVilltsim F. Danaher, 2001. The 110cc of Southern Labor: Radio, Music, and lextile arrikes. 1929—1934. Minneapo1i’: Lnis ersit\ of Minnesota Press. Rosenzessig, Rot. 2(111. C/io (Fred: The Future of the Past in the Dig/mi Asic. New York: Columbia L’ni versity Press. Ross, Dorothy, 1995. “Grand Narrative in American Historical Writing: From Romance to Unceitainty.” J’hc .Smc Ccciii Historical Ret/c 100: 651 77. Ross, Ste’ en J. 1999. Pot-king Class 1-bum ‘nod: Silent bum and the 5hopin or’ Ckis s in .4 met ho. Princ 5 eton: Princeton I ni’. ersit’. Prey,. Rossier, C’. SI. I O”7, “Model’, of Paradigmatic Change.” Comnzuuiisrion Qu ,;’tei’ls’ 25: 69—75. 5 Ru’,o, John Paul. I 989. 1.1. Rtc’hu,’dc: His Life and ild,k. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1 ni5 ersir. Press. Ryan, Mary P. 1997. C/vu’ I/sims: Dcmoc’is,cv and Public Lifd in the American Cit-s Daring thc Nineteenth Centurs. Berkeley: Unirersity of( alifornia Piess, Samuel, Raphael. 1985. “What Is Social History tm thsion Today 35: 3 [online]. http://www.histors•today. an/raphael samuel/ss hat—sociai—hstory ‘sac Edo ard. 19 /201)3. “Caiun-.unicatjon.” Originallr published ir, sfle Ln’x’clopidia th Nt’ So’ioi 5y’/Rpi. in Mar Coouuunk’ation and .4,ne,’icon Set’iol Thou ClIP Key Te’as, 19! 9—196s. edited by isbn Durh:ain Peters and Peter Simunson, 7—1—78. 1_anham: Russ man and Littletield, Sas’sec, I/arts ira Dianne 1999. Bssodc’a,stj,, Freedom. Radio, It/ti; cnct the Politics o Roce 1934—1948, Chapel Hill. Unisersitv o/ North Carolina Press, Sea nell, Paddy, and David Cardttl, l 991. .1 So ‘ml His/or’. of British B,oath !sting: Sorting the ivatmn, 1922—19/9. Oxford: Basil l31ack elI. SchdffIe, Albert. 1875—1879. Boo undLc’I’c’ii Jot soialen K/it-pc i’s vS 1st, Ttihingen: Laupp. Schiller, D:tn. 1981. Objec’ri sits and tile ‘test’s: The Public and rite Rise ni Commercial ,iolo’naiisni. Phila delphia: L niversity of Penn’,’. i’. :mia Press. lOon. Thcvs’iiizg (omsni:,iir’othsi,: A History. Ness York: Oxtore I’nisersitv Press. Schranim. Wilbur. 1949. Ma.s (‘ommunic’ation,s, Urbana: University ot Illinois Piess 1960. Slats’ C’omnmunications, 2nd ccl I rhana: Lni’.crsity of Illinois Press. chudson, Michael. 1978 Discr’i’c ring the Vt 55 s: 4 Social 11/atm’s of loterican Vest spapci s. Ness York: Basic Books. 991. “Historical Approaches to Communication Stusiic’,S In Handbook of Qua//petite 1 Ietiiods/sr Coin,moth a/ions Research, edited by Nicholas \V, Jankoss’ski and Klaus Bruhn Jensen. 175—89, Ness ‘tork: Roiitledge 1997. “The Problem of Journalism History, 1996.’ In Jijuies Carey: A Critical Readeit edited by F e Stryker Munson and Catherine A. Warren, 79—85. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. .

:‘

‘,

55

1999. The (o )d Citien’ A History of American Civic Life. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. 4c’ris’/lies 1900 1939. Chani— Schssoch, Janses. 1990. The’ Amen can Radii) Industry’ tint! its Latin A,net’ican paign: University’ of Illinois Press Criticisni.” In Methods’ of’ Scott, Robert Lee, and Bernard L. I/rock. 1972. “,An Introduction to Rhetorical Broek, 3—16. Nesu York: Bernard by’ edited Perspective, Centur” Tse’eiirierb A C,”fiiciain: R;:er n/of Hat-pci’ & Rc w. ,ineo 1896. The Ht.stors’ of Oratory f/voi the Age of Peric/e.s to the Pt cit Time. Chicago: S C. S,r —

—

-‘

Griggs. Urbana: Shannon. Claude F., and Warren Weaver. 1949 The Mathematical Theors’ of’ C nmunication. lJ’siversit’ of Illinois Press. Kaiser Sisznorieiii, Na’iicy. 1996. Reflection’, of’Girl.s’ iii the Mccliii: .4 CoutentAnalysi,s. Menlo Park: I-lent-s 1. Family’ Foundation. Simon, Herbert Vt’., ed. 1990. The Rhetorical Turn: Intention cuid Persuasion in the C’ondu,”t of Juciiii’v. Chicagre University of Chicago Press. simonson, Peter. 1996. “Dreams of Democratic Togeilmemness: Conimunication Hope from Cooley to KOtL_” C’, ‘fr of Studies in has s Communication 13: 324 —42. ’ui’inç’ host’ C’ooonunic’ation: .4 1—1/story. Urbana: Unis ersity’ of Illinois Press, 5 2(110. Reui. 2012. “Charles Horton Cnnicy and the Origins of U.S. Communication Study lu Pshttcal I—.cono— raG’ Deisiocratie’ (‘olnoiun/ceile 26: 1—22. 20l 3. “The Rise and Fall of the Limited Effects Model.” In bledia Histo Oil,! Ill,’ Iasu,’datso,t,s of Ilcdia Studies, edited by John Nerone. Oxford: Wiley-Biackwell. and John Durham Peters (2008). “History of Media Research, before 1968.” In Jute rnat/onal Enc’y c/opec//si of Communication, edited by Wolfgang Don’,bach, 746 71. MaIden Blackssell, Simpson. Christopher. 1994. Sc’ic’nce of Coercion: Conunun,cation Research antI Psycho/o’iral Wsr/iee’e, 1945 1960.Nesv York: Oxford Utsiversity Press. “i;t’pson. Geoi’ge E. 1936. The ,Vegnt in the Pit/lade/ph/ct Pies’s. Philadelphliv. Unis er$ty of Penns’. Is ania —

——

.

-—

,

Pi.e s. Si’,ken, Clifford, and William Warner, edt. 2010 Tins’ Is Enliç’hteninent. Chicago: Unisersity of Chicago Press, Sklar Robert. 1975. ,Sloyie-Made ,/tniertc’a. New York’ Random House. croci smith, Bruce [antics. Harold D. Lassell, and Ralph D. Casey. 1946. Propaganda, Conns,eonc’alson, es’.. r t I I ‘nisersit’. Princeton Princeton: Gtosl,’, Rcsc’aem’h Psthlic Op/ti/ott: .1 Co,ttp;’ehc’,i,sis’c ‘,r’sith. Mark NI. 200$, Sensing the Post: .S’eeinsi. Heat/n g. Sine/i/nc’. To trio’.’, and Tm’s ‘hing hi lIe s/or,’, Berkeley: I-This craP of Caltl’ornia Pm’ess. ‘mtth—Shomade, Beret/a E. 2002. Shaded Lives: Aft/cots’ -Unentciu l1’ontea aim,! Telesis/on Net’, Brunt’.’. id’ Rutgers University Press. mu’y’an, Susan. 1992, Sadie Time. conic .St,itlotl: Creattng .4,neric’an Television, 1948 1961 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni’. ersity Press Spas the, Dallas. 1954. “Some Obset”.ations on Cornniunications Theor’. Educational l’c’chnolory lIt1 Des’einpnienr 2: 24—37. scotch out ‘s.miai Science Research Council. nd. Publmc Sphere Guide: History of the Public Sphere. http:i/ptmhlia sphem’e.ssi’c.orgiguide!history -ut—the-public—sphere!. in 1’ S Solomon, \Vil[iam, and Robert SM. MeChesney, edt. 1993. Rutlile.s,s CritiC.v,n: iVet-v Pc’i’spec’tivc s Press. Minnesota of Unisersity : Communication H/story’. Minneapolis Aou’ri ‘i. ‘pence. 1_es’. is. 1908. The Popul YiN: [he Mythic and flee otc Sagas of the Kiches of Ceniic / London: Dasid Nutt. C’hicago Spigel. [.ynn. 992. bloke Room fbi 11- Tiles /s,o,m and rite Fa,nily ideal hi Post,”,r ,Soie, ic U’m’.ersity of Chicago Press, U’nis cr 2001. Welcome to rile Dreamliou,e: Popular Med/it and Pos’nt’ar Suburbs. Durham: Duke sity Press cmcl Sor’ial and Michael Curtin, edt, 1997. The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties belt-i isbn .“

.

Conflict.

London: Routledge.

4

iJas Sproule J Michael 1997 Propa ‘as dci and Democracy The Ame A an Esoes ience f Med,a and T Persuasion, Ne York Cambridge University Press Stabile. Carol 2006. White Victims, Black Villains: Gendes Race, and Crime News in U.S. Culture, New York: Routledgc Starr, Paul, 2004 1 he Crearion of the Media’ Political Origins of M aes n Coniniunk ation s New York, Basic Books oni a i oft as, Hillsdale S ‘tt, Tames ) ned Wi I an’ David S oan 198). Historis al Vicihods in Via Erlbau,n. Steele, Ia K I b6. The English Atlantic’ 1675 /740. In Eaploiation of Co’nnzunzc’atu n and Co,nmumts, Nc York’ Oxford Unisersity Press, Stesn Jay 55. 1952 “Classifymg Communications,” Public Opinion Quarterl’s 16’ 3. 438—39. Stcinmaurer. Thomas. 1999. Ide Visionen: Zur Theorie und Gesehichte des fern sehempfangs’. lnnsbruck, Wien’ Studienverlag. St”rne, Jonathan 2003, The Audible Past: Cultural Origin.s of Sound Reproduction Durham: Duke Uniser sity Press. t”eeter, Thomas, 1996, Selling the Air: A Critique of the Polics of Cc,,nmcr’ ial Broadc stia 5 in tlic United States Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Streitmatter, Rodger. 2008. from Percerts to the Fab five: Media s Changing Depiction of Ga Men and I,es’hianc Ne York: Routledge Susman, Wan’en 1984, Culture as History’ The Tiansformarion ofAmerican Societs in the Iise,itietli Ccii fury. New York: Pantheon Books, Sutton, Katie. 2010. The Masculine Woman in Weimar Germans. Oxford: Berghann. Tarde, Gabriel, 1898/1969. ‘Opinion and Conversation.” In Gabriel Tarde on Coinmunkation and Social Influence, edited by Terry N. Clark 297—318. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Tavernier. Eugene. 1902. Dii Journali.sme’ Son Histoire, Son Role Politique et Religieux Paris: H Oudin. Taylor, Isaac. 1883, The Alphabet.’ An Account of thc Origin and Des’elopment of Letters, London Kegan Paul fheall, Donald, 1971. The Medium is the Rear-View Mirror: Understanding McLuhan. Montreal’ McGill University Press. 1986. “The Toronto School of Communication, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 10: 79—88. 2001. The Votual Marshall Mc Lu/ian Montreal: McGill Unisersity Press. 2003 The Foronto School of Communications. http’//imfpu.blogspot.com/20 11/03/toronto-schoolOw mmunications-hy html Ti ( npson. E P. 1963. The Making of the English Working C’la.s.s. New York: Pantheon Books. Thompson. Emily 2002. The Soundccape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listen ng in Sine, ica, 1900 / 933. Cambridge MIT Press Thompson. George Carslake. 1886. Public Opinion and lord Beacons field. /875 1880 (2 vols,), London: Macmillan ‘I uchman, (saye. 1978 ‘Introduction’ the Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media.’ In Hearth and Home’ Images of Women in the Mos,s Metho, edited by Gaye 1 uchman, Arlene Kaplan, and James Daniels, 3—55. Oxford: Oxford University Press Tunstall, Jeiemy I970a. Media Sociok us A Reaches, Urbana. University of Illinois Press 1970b. The Westminster I,ohhu Cot respondent.s: A Sociological Studs of Votional Pohitkal Journal isni, London: Routledge. 1971. Journahist,s at Woi’k: Specials st Correspondents Thur Ness s’ Ort’anization s’, News Souicev, noel Competitor Colleagues. London: Constable. 1977, The Media Are American. New York: Columbia University Press. Turner, I red. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyherculture: Stesc’a,t Brand, the Whole Earth Network, cind the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Turner, Gracme, 1990, British Cultural Studies’. Boston: Unin Hvman, Turner Victor, 1974. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. .

-

,

—

——.

—

—

1HF IIISTOR’i’ OF COMMUNIC VI ION HISTORY

PETER SIMONSON, JANICE PECK, ROBERT I. (R SIC, AND JOHN P. JACKSON JR.

56

-

,

57

Viekers Brian. 1998. In DefCns’e of Rhetoric. Oxford Clarendon Press. Vincent. George I 1905 ‘A Laboratory Experiment in Journalism” American Journal of Sociology 11: 297—311. Vipond, Mary. 1992 Listening In lhc Fii st Decade of C’anadian Broadcasting, 1922—1932. Montreal’ McGill-Queen’s Uuvcrsity Picss, sinai n (o ne ia 2008 files Law mid Media Tec’hnologs translated by Geoffrey Winthrop-Young Stanl ad. Stanford Uniserssty Pie 2008. Originally publi. lied 2000 all-c’ Karl Richards and Speed Association of America, eds 1954 Histo s sf Spec cli Education in tin nc Bcickg round Studies. Nec York Appleton Ccntury-( rofts. S in ncr Michael. 1990 The letters of the Republic Publications and thc Public Sphere in Eightcenth Centur America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Watt. Ian P. 1957, The Rise of thc /s,Iovcl: Studies in Defoe, Richardson. cuid Fielding. Berkeley. t nnersity of California Press. Weill, Georges 1934. Lejournal; origines, e ‘olution et rOle dc lcipres’.seperioclique. Paiis: La Renaissance du hvre. ,sr, Molly Meijer, ed 1997. Listening to Their Vinc,: The Rhatc ,ec,l Scti,’itic s ,‘f Hi’to”ic’al Wren co C lumbia: University of South Carolina Press, Wiener. Nc rhert. 1948. Cvhernetic.s New York: John Wiley & Sons. 55 icten. Jan. 2005. “Kurt Baschwitz and the Founding of Gazette.” Ga ‘erte. Thc International Journa for Conununic’ation Studies’ 67: 52 —30 Willey. Malcolm M. 1926. The Country Nesi’spaper: A Study of Socialization and Newspaper Ccmtent, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Willey Malcolm M. 1935. “CommunicationAgencies andthe Volume of Propaganda.”Annaks oftheAineni cciii Academy of’Pohitic’al cind Social Science 179. 194 200. Williams, Kevin. 2010 ReadAllAhoutlt:A History of the British Nesi’spaper Abingdon: Routledge. Williams, Raymond. 1958 Culture cuid Society. London. Chatto & Windus. 1961. The Long Revolutiorr I.nndnn: (‘hatto & Windus. 1977. Marxism and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winseck, Dwayne R.. and Robert M Pike, 2007. Communication and Empire: Media, Mai’ketr, and Glo balization, /860—1 930. Durham: Duke University Press. Winthrop Young. Geoffrey. 2011. Kittler and the Media. Cambridge: Polity. and Nicholas Kane. 2006. “Friedrich Kittler: An Introduction.” Theory’, Culture & Society 23 (7 8>: 5 16. and Michael Vsuti 2002. “Media-Models, Memories, and Metaphors.’ Introduction to special is sue. C’on/iguration.s 10: 1—10. So dman, A J. 2001. “History:’ In The Encs’clopedia of Rhetoric’, edited by TIsoma 0. Sloane. 33/ 47 New York: Oxford University Press. V r’ve, Ernest. 1947. “Public Address: A Study in Social and Intellectual History.” Quco tech Journal of ,

.

—

,

—

.

-

-

Speech 33: 45 1—57. s Frances A. 1966. The Art of Memory I ondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul. a cs, JoAnne. 1993. Control thro sigh Communication: ‘F/se Rise of Ss’steni in American ilcinagcinent Bal timore: Johns Hopkins University Press 7 i/er, Barbie, ad. 2008 E.rpboration s in Cosnmunic’cition ciii c/ History New York: Routledge. 1992. Covering the Both’. Thie Kennedy Asscsssination, the Media, and the Shaping of Cobtcc’tic e Vlemoiy: Chicago: Unisersity of Chicago Press. 1998 Renieinherisig to Forget: 1-blares 1st Memory Thm’ough the Ccunera ‘s Eve. Chicago: I ris ers’ty S

)t Chicago Press.

THE HANDBOOK OF COMMUNICATION HISTORY

Edited by

Peter Sirnonson Janice Peck Robert T. Craig John P. Jackson, Jr.

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group NEW YORK AND LONDON

r

‘1s

First published 2013 5 Routledge b’ 711 Third Avenue, Ness York, NY 10017 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park Ahingdon Oxon OX 14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Iaslor & Francis Group. an informa business 02013 Taylor & Francis

The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters. has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording. or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data [et al.]. Handbook of communication histo / edited by Peter Simonson (Intemational Communication Association (ICA) handbook series) p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. I. Communication History. I. Simonson, Peter, 1962 P90.H2933 2012 302,209—dc23 2(112024053 ..

ISBN: 978 0-415-89259-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-4l5-8926() 5 (pbk) ISBN: 978 0-203-14911-9 (ehk) fypeset in Times and Helvetica by EvS Communication Networx Inc.

• SF1

Certified Sourcing wwwsfprogrsmort

Printed and hound in the United States of kmerica by Udwards Brothers, Inc

a