DIGRESSION: Concerning the conservatives success ful campaign to demonize the 1960s, see Philip Jenkins' book DECADES OF NIGHTMARES: THE END OF THE SIXTIES AND THE MAKING OF THE EIGHTIES (2006). Concerning the drift of conservative politics, see Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson's book WINNER-TAKE-ALL POLITICS: HOW WASHINGTON MADE THE RICH RICHER -- AND TURNED ITS BACK ON THE MIDDLE CLASS (2010). Concerning the tragedies of the pontificates of Pope John-Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, see Matthew Fox's book THE POPE'S WAR: WHY RATZINGER'S SECRET CRUSADE HAS IMPERILED THE CHURCH AND HOW IT CAN BE SAVED (2011). END OF DIGRESSION.
ROBERT K. LOGAN'S BOOK ABOUT MARSHALL MCLUHAN
I am not a fan of Marshall McLuhan. However, when I was a young man, I read some of his books: THE MECHANICAL BRIDE: FOLKLORE OF INDUSTRIAL MAN (1951), THE GUTENBERG GALAXY: THE MAKING OF TYPOGRAPHIC MAN (1962), UNDERSTANDING MEDIA: EXTENSIONS OF MAN (1964), and others.
In the 1960s and 1970s, McLuhan was very popular with journalists and certain other Americans, but not so much with academics. The journalist and novelist Tom Wolfe, who holds a Ph.D. in American literature from YaleUniversity, hailed McLuhan as a notable thinker. No doubt Wolfe helped boost McLuhan's celebrity status
But McLuhan's celebrity status helped fuel a backlash among academics. Gary Genesko has edited a three-volume set of critiques of McLuhan titled MARSHALL MCLUHAN: CRITICAL EVALUATIONS IN CULTURAL THEORY (Routledge, 2005).
If McLuhan represented some kind of revolution in thought, the backlash against him among academics represented the counter-revolution.
So has the time come for the counter-counter-revolution -- to counter the academic backlash against McLuhan's thought?
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
