• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Massey Documents by Type
    • Journal Articles
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Massey Documents by Type
    • Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A Second Way to Read McLuhan’s Footnotes to Innis

    Icon
    View/Open Full Text
    3521-17755-1-PB.pdf (697.2Kb)
    Icon
    10.22230/cjc.2020v45n2a3521
     
    Find Full Text
    Abstract
    Background Marshall McLuhan claimed his work was a footnote to Harold A. Innis. His claims have been used to argue that McLuhan and Innis offer a coherent system of thought, with a systematic methodology and common set of basic assumptions and presuppositions. This article questions that species of argument and looks to deepen our understanding of the McLuhan-Innis relationship. Analysis McLuhan is read as an analogist, and his footnotes (plural) are interpreted as deliberate violations of normative patterns of academic use in the satiric tradition of Thomas Nashe and the Scriblerus Club. Conclusion and implications McLuhan is repositioned apropos of Innis, figures conventionally associated with the Toronto School of Communication Theory and historians who address themselves to the theme of orality and literacy. This article also invites a reconsideration of McLuhan in relation to the digital era, his contributions to epistemology and understanding media. Contexte Marshall McLuhan a dit que son œuvre n’était qu’une note en bas de page par rapport à celle de Harold A. Innis. Certains commentateurs ont utilisé ce propos pour soutenir que McLuhan et Innis ensemble présentent un système de pensée cohérent ayant une méthodologie systématique et des suppositions et présuppositions de base communes. L’article met cet argument en question tout en cherchant à approfondir notre compréhension du rapport McLuhan / Innis. Analyse On perçoit communément McLuhan comme étant un analogiste et on interprète ses notes en bas de page (au pluriel) comme étant des violations délibérées des normes académiques dans la tradition satirique d’un Thomas Nashe ou d’un Scriblerus Club. Conclusion et implications Cet article repositionne McLuhan par rapport à Innis, ces deux figures traditionnellement associées à l’École de communication de Toronto et aux historiens de l’oral et l’écrit. Cet article propose en outre une reconsidération de McLuhan par rapport à l’ère numérique et à ses contributions en épistémologie et en analyse des médias.
    Citation
    Canadian Journal of Communication, 2020, July 2020, 45 (2), pp. 327 - 345
    Date
    2020-07-06
    Author
    Chrystall AB
    Publisher
    University of Toronto Press
    https://cjc.utpjournals.press/doi/10.22230/cjc.2020v45n2a3521
    Collections
    • Journal Articles
    Metadata
    Show full item record

    Copyright © Massey University
    | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright Take Down Request | Massey University Privacy Statement
    DSpace software copyright © Duraspace
    v5.7-2023.7-7
     

     

    Information PagesContent PolicyDepositing content to MROCopyright and Access InformationDeposit LicenseDeposit License SummaryTheses FAQFile FormatsDoctoral Thesis Deposit

    Browse

    All of MROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Copyright © Massey University
    | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright Take Down Request | Massey University Privacy Statement
    DSpace software copyright © Duraspace
    v5.7-2023.7-7