Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to help reclaim McLuhan's media and social / historical theories for critical theory, arguing that McLuhan employed a form of dialectical theory containing basic elements of dialectics developed by Hegel, Marx, and, later, his contemporaries of the Frankfurt School. This essay will examine McLuhan's published writings for analysis of his dialectical methodology and compare his work closely with the work of Walter Benjamin, and the work of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, lines of inquiry paralleling Judith Stamps's Unthinking Modernity. The central argument is that McLuhan's method, like Marx's radical dialectical method, was not a mechanistic, technological determinism. Instead, McLuhan was mining the interstices of media interaction for openings that allow human awareness and autonomy. This study attempts to reclaim McLuhan by showing that his method was open-ended and processual, not only in his early work, but in the later and posthumous work as well. Résumé: Cet essai cherche à ramener au sein de la théorie critique les théories médiatiques et socio-historiques de McLuhan, en insistant sur le fait que la forme de la théorie dialectique qu'il emploie est basée sur les dialectiques élaborées par Hegel, Marx et plus tard par les contemporains de McLuhan, à savoir les membres de l'Ecole de Francfort. En se penchant sur les écrits publiés de McLuhan, cet essai analyse sa théorie dialectique et procède à une comparaison approfondie de ses oeuvres à celles de Walter Benjamin, Max Horkheimer et Theodor Adorno--une recherche qui nous rappelle Unthinking Modernity de Judith Stamps. L'argument principal est que la méthode de McLuhan, de même que la méthode dialectique radicale de Marx, ne représentait en aucun cas un déterminisme mécaniste et technologique. McLuhan examine plutôt les interstices de l'interaction des médias pour y trouver les ouvertures qui permettraient une conscience humaine et une autonomie plus grandes. Cette étude essaye de revendiquer l'importance des écrits de McLuhan en montrant que sa méthode était sans limites fixes et suivait un processus précis, non seulement dans ses premiers ouvrages, mais également dans son oeuvre mûre et dans ses publications posthumes.

Canadian communication theory has accepted as one of its major tenets the superiority of Western civilization brought about by the phonetic alphabet. Challenges to the theory either have not been incorporated into the research literature or have been represented as working theories rather than conclusive evidence. This article seeks to help redress this imbalance by detailing the main claims of the alphabetic literacy arguments in the context of arguments advanced in several disciplines, suggesting that the alphabet effect theory should be dispelled. The article argues that a writing effect unites Western alphabetic and Eastern non-alphabetic cultures in a common heritage, and that historical periods of social advancement of the West and East have alternated in pendulum fashion. The article also introduces alternative views of the relationship between Eastern communication technologies, culture, and history to support the writing effect and pendulum model of the impact of communication technology in the East.Résumé : La théorie canadienne de la communication a accepté comme un de ses principes majeurs que l'alphabet phonétique est à l'origine de la supériorité de la civilisation occidentale. Quant aux défis posés à ce principe, soit on ne les a pas inclus dans la littérature de recherche, soit on les a représentés comme étant des théories de travail plutôt que des arguments solides. Cet article cherche à établir un équilibre en opposant les principaux arguments pour l'alphabétisation que l'alphabet phonétique a permis à des arguments soulevés dans diverses disciplines où l'on propose que cette théorie d'un effet alphabétique soit périmée. Cet article soutient qu'un effet d'écriture unit la culture alphabétique occidentale et la culture non-alphabétique orientale au sein d'un patrimoine commun, et que les périodes historiques de progrès social ont alterné comme une pendule entre l'Orient et l'Occident. L'article présente en outre des perspectives alternatives sur le rapport entre les technologies de communication, la culture et l'histoire orientales pour appuyer l'idée d'un effet d'écriture et d'un modèle de pendule décri-vant l'impact des technologies de la communication en Orient.

Utopian thinkers since the nineteenth century have advocated or opposed different forms of direct democracy. In the 1970s and 1980s, a number of experiments with teledemocracy were conducted, yielding a rich discourse on the relationship of technology to democracy. However, in the 1992 presidential campaign, the “electronic town meeting” concept was represented by selected print news media without a hint of this discourse. Instead, the idea was analyzed as a crackpot proposal with roots going back to the 1960s made by a dubious candidate, Ross Perot. This article contrasts the utopian and dystopian discourses about the electronic town meeting concept and critiques the media's dystopian vision of technology and demagogy at the expense of any utopian vision of technology and democracy.

During his 40 years of writing about Marshall McLuhan, James Carey’s critical engagement was transformed from initial admiration, to rejection, and then to acceptance. Carey’s dismissal of McLuhan as a technological determinist whose work was inferior to Harold Innis was particularly influential. By the late 1990s, however, Carey called this position an unproductive argument that prevented appreciation of McLuhan’s contributions. This reappraisal of McLuhan was omitted from the two anthologies of Carey’s work and appeared in an array of publications that diluted its impact. This article traces contours of Carey’s transformation on McLuhan to argue that Carey’s recognition of his legacy should replace the view that Carey still dismissed him as a technological determinist.

No abstract