![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Contrary to the prevailing view in media and cultural studies, philosopher John Dewey and journalist Walter Lippmann did not represent different schools of thought. They were not adversaries in a great public debate about the fate of the public in modern democracies in the 1920s. Rather, their exchange about the “phantom” public was reframed as a conflict in the early 1980s, a reframing which has achieved broad interdisciplinary acceptance even though its rests on a casual rhetorical trope, not historical documentation. The reframing provides a salutary but inaccurate origin story for American media and cultural studies, illustrates the hazards of relying on secondary interpretations of historical sources, and deflects attention away from realistic assessment of the problems confronting democracy today. Dismantling this disciplinary folklore is essential to the integrity of the emerging “new history” of media and communication.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jefferson Pooley and Marsha Siefert, who read early drafts of this essay, and offered helpful suggestions as well as sustaining encouragement as this project evolved. She would also like to thank John Sloop for his patience and understanding, and an anonymous reviewer for many helpful suggestions.
Notes
1. John Dewey, Essays in Experimental Logic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916), 330.
2. Dewey's review of Public Opinion was published in The New Republic 30 (May 3, 1922): 286–88. It is also available in John Dewey: The Middle Works 13: 1921–1922, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1983), 337–44. Dewey's review of The Phantom Public was published in the New Republic 45 (December 2, 1925): 52–54. It is available in John Dewey: The Later Works 2: 1925–1927 ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984), 213–20.
3. The following selective bibliography includes works that revisit the exchange which are not cited elsewhere in these notes. Eric Alterman, Who Speaks for America? Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999). Robert Asen, “A Discourse Theory of Democracy,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, 2 (2004): 189–211. Thomas Bender, “The Thinning of American Culture,” in Public Discourse in America, ed. Stephen P. Steinberg and Judith Rodin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003), 27–34. Dell P. Chamlin and Janet T. Knoedler, “The Media, the News, and Democracy: Revisiting the Dewey–Lippmann Debate,” Journal of Economic Issues 40, 1 (2006): 135–52. John Patrick Diggins, The Promise of Pragmatism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). Peter Levine, The New Progressive Era: Toward a Fair and Deliberative Democracy (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000). Noortje Marres, “Issues Spark a Public into Being: A Key but Forgotten Point in the Lippmann-Dewey Debate,” in Making Things Public ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 208–17. David K. Perry, Theory and Research in Mass Communication (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002). John Durham Peters, “Democracy and American Mass Communication Research: Dewey, Lippmann, Lazarsfeld,” Communication 11 (1989): 199–220; “Satan and Savior: Mass Communication in Progressive Thought,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6 (1989): 247–63. Jay Rosen, What are Journalists For? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999). Gretchen Soderlund, “Rethinking a Curricular Icon: The Institutional and Ideological Foundations of Walter Lippmann,” The Communication Review 8, 3 (2005): 307–27. Slavko Splichal, Public Opinion: Developments and Controversies in the Twentieth Century (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). Mark Whipple, “The Dewey–Lippmann Debate Today,” Sociological Theory 23, 2 (2005): 156–78.
4. Michael Schudson, “The Public Journalism Movement and Its Problems” in The Politics of News, ed. Doris Graeber, Pippa Norris, and Denis McQuail (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1998), 132–49 and “The ‘Lippmann-Dewey Debate’ and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1985–1996,” forthcoming. Peter Simonson, “Pragmatism and Communication,” in American Pragmatism and Communication Research, ed. David K. Perry (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001), 13–14. Peters (cited above) can also be counted among the dissidents as he subsequently revised his position on the exchange in “Why Dewey Wasn't So Right and Lippmann Wasn't So Wrong,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, May 1997, and in Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
5. Eric A. MacGilvray, “Experience as Experiment: Some Consequences of Pragmatism for Democratic Theory,” American Journal of Political Science 43, 2 (1999): 3.
6. Contra the contention of Rich Swift, The No-Nonsense Guide to Democracy (London: Verso, 2002), 93.
7. Lippmann's descriptive phrase is widely quoted without reference to its context—first used in Liberty and the News (1920) and repeated in Public Opinion. When it is read in context, there is no doubt that Lippmann intends it as a critique of propaganda, publicity, public relations, and of newspaper owners and publishers who use the press to promote their own political or moral views. Yet some Lippmann critics, including Chomsky, invert the meaning charging Lippmann with advocating the “manufacture of consent.” Dewey understood Lippmann's intent and used the phrase, “manufacture of public opinion” as Lippmann intended. Dewey, “A Critique of American Civilization,” John Dewey: The Later Works 3: 1927–1928, 141. Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1991, 1997).
8. I thank an anonymous reviewer of this journal for suggesting use of the butterfly concept.
9. James W. Carey, “Public Sphere,” plenary address presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago, May 1996.
10. The feminist critique of Habermas, to which he has been receptive, is now extensive. Some of the major sources are Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989). Johanna Meehan, ed., Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse (New York: Routledge, 1995). Seyla Benhabib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). Joan B. Landes, ed., Feminism, the Public and Private (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Feminists have engaged with the revival of pragmatism but, to my knowledge, have not dealt directly with the Dewey–Lippmann exchange. See Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Women, with rare exceptions, are absent from the discussion of the Dewey–Lippmann exchange.
11. See Michael Schudson, “The Trouble with Experts—And Why Democracy Needs Them,” Theory and Society 35, 5–6 (2006) and “The ‘Lippmann-Dewey Debate’ … ” (cited above); and Sue Curry Jansen, “Walter Lippmann, Straw Man of Communication History,” in The History of Media and Communication Research: Contested Memories ed. David W. Park and Jefferson Pooley (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 71–112.
12. For powerful pleas for historical approaches to media and communication, see Mary S. Mander, Communications in Transition: Issues and Debates in Current Research (New York: Praeger, 1983), 12; and Hanno Hardt, Critical Communication Studies: Communication, History, and Theory in America (London: Routledge, 1992). Both maintain that it is impossible to effectively theorize communication without an historical approach.
13. Lippmann discusses his conception of science in Drift and Mastery (New York: Michael Kennerley, 1914).
14. Dewey, Review of “Public Opinion,” 288.
15. Dewey states his desire to return to the philosophical aspects of Lippmann's argument in the final paragraph of his review of The Phantom Public; and he again affirms his “indebtedness” to Lippmann in The Public and its Problems, 116, n. 1.
16. Reviews in non-academic publications were located through Book Review Digest. Complete citations are R. M. Lovett, “A Real Public,” New Republic 52 (August 24, 1927): 286–88. Harold Laski, “Problems of Democracy,” The Saturday Review of Literature IV, 12 (October 15, 1927): 198–99. Henry Neumann, “Can the State Be Useful,” Survey 59 (November 1, 1927): 162. R. L. Duffus, “The Public and Its Problems,” New York Times (October 23, 1927): 15. Sterling L. Lamprecht, “Philosophy Put in Touch With Affairs,” New York Herald Tribune Books (November 27, 1927): 4. Anon, “The Public and its Problems,” Boston Transcript (November 12, 1927): 8.
17. Although the figures are rough, as they include all entries, articles, reviews, commentaries, indexes, covers in electronic databases, etc., they nevertheless indicate significant levels of interest. The American Journal of Sociology lists 696 entries for Dewey and 109 for Lippmann. The American Sociological Review lists 499 for Dewey and 75 for Lippmann. Social Forces lists 227 for Dewey and 52 for Lippmann. Interest in Lippmann was stronger in all three journals before 1940 when his work could still be viewed as sociological; after 1940 his books and journalism focused more directly on foreign policy. Social Forces seemed especially interested in Lippmann who was the lead author of an article in an early issue, “The South and the New Society,” Social Forces 6, 1 (1927): 1–5. Despite the title, the article is essentially a brief reiteration of the argument of Public Opinion. Conversely interest in Dewey was greater after 1940 in all three journals.
18. The reviews by sociologists include Robert E. Park, “Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” The American Journal of Sociology 28, 2 (1922): 232–34. George A. Lundberg, “The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann,” Social Forces 4, 3 (1926): 662–64. Harold D. Lasswell, “The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann,” The American Journal of Sociology 31, 4 (1926): 533–35. Malcolm Willy, “The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann,” Social Forces 4, 4 (1926): 854–58. L. L. Bernard, “The Public and Its Problems,” Social Forces 7, 1 (1928): 152–56. Robert E. Park, “The Public and Its Problems,” The American Journal of Sociology 34, 6 (1929): 1192–194.
19. Park also wrote a glowing review of Lippmann's Liberty and the News in American Journal of Sociology 27, 1 (1921):116.
20. Willey, “The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann,” 855.
21. T. V. Smith, The Philosophical Review 38, 2 (1929): 177–80. The Public and Its Problems was also reviewed in The Journal of Philosophy 26, 12 (6 Jun 1929): 329–35, by William Ernest Hocking, who took the philosophical high road, positioning the work within the long history of Lockean democratic thought and makes no reference, direct or implied, to Lippmann or then-current arguments about publics and public opinion. For an account of Lippmann's location on the liberal–conservative continuum vis-à-vis the elitists of the 1920's and the iconoclast Mencken, see Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston: Little Brown, 1980); Steven Biel, Independent Intellectuals in the United States, 1910–1945 (New York: New York University Press, 1992); and most tellingly Lippmann's own analysis of the elitist/aristocratic basis of Mencken's contempt for American democratic culture in “H. L. Mencken,” in Lippmann's Public Persons (New York: Liveright, 1976), 77–81.
22. Virginia Rankin Sedman, “Some Interpretations of Public Opinion,” Social Forces 10, 3 (1932): 339–50.
23. Floyd Allport, Institutional Behavior: Essays Toward a Re-interpreting of Contemporary Social Organization (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1933). Allport indicates he consulted with Dewey in writing this chapter, which reads like a long, analytical review essay. I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer of this journal for this reference.
24. William Albig, Public Opinion (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939).
25. Joseph R. Starr, “Political Parties and Public Opinion,” Public Opinion Quarterly 3, 3 (1939): 436–48.
26. C. Wright Mills, Sociology and Pragmatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966). C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).
27. Frank J. Sorauf, “The Public Interest Reconsidered,” The Journal of Politics 19, 4 (1957): 616–39.
28. Heinz Eulau, “From Public Opinion to Public Philosophy: Walter Lippmann's Classic Reexamined,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 15, 4 (1956): 448. Eulai and Kaplan (cited below) refer to Lippmann's book, The Public Philosophy (1955). Lippmann biographer Ronald Steel reports Lippmann preferred the title “Essays in the Public Philosophy” to convey the tentative nature of his conclusions. See Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century.
29. Eulau, “From Public Opinion to Public Philosophy,” 451.
30. Eulau, “From Public Opinion to Public Philosophy,” 451.
31. Sidney Kaplan, “Social Engineers as Saviors: Effects of World War I on Some Liberals,” Journal of the History of Ideas 17, 3 (1956): 369.
32. Kaplan, “Social Engineers as Saviors,” 348.
33. Kaplan, “Social Engineers as Saviors,” 348.
34. Kaplan, “Social Engineers as Saviors,” 368.
35. Morton White, Social Thought in America: The Revolt Against Formalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961, original 1949). Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R. (New York: Knopf, 1955). David W. Noble, The Paradox of Progressive Thought (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958). Charles Forcey, The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl, Lippmann, and the Progressive Era 1900–1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961). Christopher Lasch, The New Radicalism in America: 1889–1963 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1965).
36. Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991). Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: W. W. Norton, 1995). The relevant chapter in the latter book had both a pre- and post- publication history, first as “The Lost Art of Argument,” Gannett Center Journal (Spring 1990): 1–10, which was then republished in Gannett Center (renamed Freedom Forum) Media Studies Journal 9, 1 (1995): 81–91.
37. James Scott Johnson, Inquiry and Education: John Dewey and the Quest for Democracy (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2006): 17.
38. I thank Michael Schudson for calling Purcell's work to my attention. Edward A. Purcell, Jr., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1973).
39. Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, Civility and Subversion: The Intellectual in Democratic Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
40. Terrence Ball, “An Ambivalent Alliance: Political Science and American Democracy,” in Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions ed. John S. Dryzek, Stephen T. Leonard, and James F. Farr (Cambridge University Press, 1995), 41–65.
41. James Farr, “John Dewey and American Political Science,” American Journal of Political Science 43, 2 (1999): 522.
42. Goldfarb, Civility and Subversion, 226.
43. Robert N. Bellah et al., The Good Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992). David Goodman also offers a brief genealogy of recent treatments of the exchange, which include: Douglas B. Craig, Fireside Politics (2000), Brett Gary, The Nervous Liberals (1999), Eric Alterman, Who Speaks for America? (1998), Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom (1998), Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism (1998), Kevin Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public (1998), Schudson, The Good Citizen (1998), and Robert H. Wiebe Self-Rule (1995). See David Goodman, “Democracy and Public Discussion in the Progressive and New Deal Eras: From Civic Competence to the Expression of Opinion,” Studies in American Political Development 18 (Fall 2004): 81–111. These are important sources, which present historically informed interpretations of the exchange; but by the mid-1990s, the reframing of the exchange as a great debate was already firmly instantiated in discussions of the progressive era and deliberative democracy.
44. Lasch, The True and Only Heaven, 556, and The Revolt of the Elites, 171–73.
45. I am indebted to Jefferson Pooley for calling to my attention to the fact that in his early work Carey characterized the relationship between Dewey and Lippmann in terms that are largely consistent with the position I support in this paper. To my knowledge, Carey did not explain his rationale for reversing his position anywhere in his published work. Carey expressed the early view in the following publications: “AEJ Presidential Address, A Plea for the University Tradition,” Journalism Quarterly 55, 4 (1978): 846–55; “Review Essay: Social Theory and Communication Theory,” Communication Research 5, 3 (1978): 357–68; “Comments on The Weaver–Gray Paper,” Mass Communication Review Yearbook 1 (1980): 152–55. The reframing begins with James W. Carey, “Mass Media: The Critical View,” Communication Yearbook V (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982), re-titled and reprinted as “Reconceiving ‘Mass’ and ‘Media,’” in Carey, Communication and Culture: Essays in Media and Society (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 69–88.
46. James W. Carey, “The Press and Public Discourse,” The Center Magazine 20, 2 (1987): 4–32. Carey, “Commentary: Communication and the Progressives,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6 (1989): 264–82. Carey, “The Press, Public Opinion, and Public Discourse: On the Edge of the Postmodern,” in The Press, Public Opinion, and Public Discourse, ed. Theodore L. Glasser and Charles T. Salmon (New York: Guilford Press, 1995), 373–402, which was republished in James Carey: A Critical Reader, ed. Eve Stryker Munson and Catherine A. Warren (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 228–57. Carey, “The Chicago School and the History of Mass Communication Research,” in American Communication Research: The Remembered History, ed. Everette E. Dennis and Ellen Wartella (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996), 21–38, which was republished in James Carey: A Critical Reader, 14–33.
47. Listing all of the biographies of Dewey and Lippmann is beyond the scope of this essay. Both have attracted a vast amount of biographical interest. Ronald Steel's Walter Lippmann and The American Century, which runs close to 700 pages is regarded as the definitive treatment of Lippmann's public life. D. Steven Blum's Walter Lippmann: Cosmopolitanism in the Century of Total War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982) offers the most insightful analysis of Lippmann's philosophical studies. Barry D. Riccio's Walter Lippmann-Odyssey of a Liberal (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994) provides a good historically informed account of both Lippmann's public life and public philosophy.
48. Alfonso J. Damico, Individuality and Community (Gainsville: University of Florida, 1978).
49. Damico is cited by Westbrook but, to my knowledge, Carey and Lasch do not cite him.
50. Richard Rorty, “Review of John Dewey and American Democracy by Robert B. Westbrook,” The New Leader 74 (May 20, 1991): 13. Westbrook, John Dewey and American Democracy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). Westbrook's book is widely regarded as the definitive contemporary biography, although there are several other valuable recent intellectual portraits including Jay Martin, The Education of John Dewey (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983), Alan Ryan, John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1995), and Raymond D. Boisvert, John Dewey: Rethinking Our Time (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998).
51. Riccio, Walter Lippmann—Odyssey of a Liberal, 76.
52. Carey, “Reconceiving ‘Mass’ and ‘Media,’” 79.
53. Carey, “The Chicago School and the History of Mass Communication Research,” 23.
54. Carey, “The Chicago School and the History of Mass Communication Research.
55. Noam Chomsky, Media Control. Chomsky is, however, no admirer of Dewey either.
56. Unlike some who adopt his ritual approach, Carey does not throw out the baby with the bath water; he acknowledges the value of the body of research produced by the “effects tradition,” which he contends took its inspiration from Lippmann's Public Opinion. Carey, “Overcoming Resistance to Cultural Studies,” Communication and Culture, 89–110.
57. James Hoopes is critical of both Dewey and Lippmann's versions of pragmatism, but he firmly establishes both of their credentials as pragmatists. Hoopes, Community Denied: The Wrong Turn of Pragmatic Liberalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).
58. Martin, The Education of John Dewey, 329.
59. The Lippmann archive itself is enormous, but it contains only a small correspondence between Dewey and Lippmann consisting of cordial business letters exchanged from 1917 to 1930 regarding publications and invitations to public events. The correspondence is, however, incomplete as the writers refer to letters or notes that are not in the archive. Dewey's early letters are handwritten and more informal than Lippmann's, which appear to have been dictated to his secretary, which was Lippmann's standard practice. Walter Lippmann Papers, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.
60. Martin, The Education of John Dewey.
61. “Dr. John Dewey Dead at 92: Philosopher a Noted Liberal,” New York Times (June 2, 1952): 1, 21.
62. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 337. Citations from Dewey's reviews are from the collected works, cited in full above.
63. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 339.
64. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 339.
65. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 340.
66. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 344.
67. Dewey, “Review of Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann,” 344.
68. John Dewey, Letter, 4 May 1922. Walter Lippmann Papers, Yale University Library.
69. Dewey, “Practical Democracy: Review of The Phantom Public …,” 213.
70. Dewey, “Practical Democracy: Review of The Phantom Public …,” 213.
71. Dewey, “Practical Democracy: Review of The Phantom Public …,” 214.
72. Dewey, “Practical Democracy: Review of The Phantom Public …,” 217.
73. Lippmann wrote a book that continues to have resonance today about fundamentalism and evolutionary theory. See Lippmann, American Inquisitors: A Commentary on Dayton and Chicago (New York: Macmillan, 1928).
74. James Gouinlock, “Introduction” to John Dewey: The Later Works 2: 1925–1927, xxiii.
75. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 116–17.
76. Lippmann maintained that stereotypical thinking infects all areas of life and offered examples of the ways in which it influenced thinking about race, class, and gender; however, the central problematic of Public Opinion and The Phantom Public is the gap between modern American theory and practice of politics. See also Peter Bachrach's The Theory of Democratic Elitism: A Critique (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), which recognizes that modern conditions may require strategic decision-making by the few but argues that if decision-making is to be normatively responsive to democratic governance, it must enlist the participation of and remain accountable to the many.
77. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 157.
78. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 182.
79. Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 187.
80. Lippmann maintained that sensationalism was part of the crisis in journalism in Liberty and the News (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920) and reiterated this point in Public Opinion and The Phantom Public.
81. William Graebner, The Engineering of Consent: Democracy and Authority in Twentieth Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1987), 64.
82. Kevin Mattson points out “we cannot so easily dismiss them [the progressives] as technocrats or elitists” because “they did not share our contemporary belief that efficiency and democracy are often antagonistic.” See Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public: The Struggle for Urban Participation During the Progressive Era (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1998), 11. Prior to World War II, most Americans saw professionalism, with its commitment to technical values and self-regulation through peer review as a counterweight balancing the reductive logic of the pursuit of corporate profit. See Thomas L. Haskell, “Professionalism versus Capitalism: Tawney, Durkheim, and C. S. Peirce on Disinterestedness of Professional Communities,” in his Objectivity is Not Neutrality: Explanatory Schemes in History (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 78–114. Lippmann lived long enough to experience the results of progressivism's misguided faith in professionalism and to amend his views.
83. Kloppenberg examines some of these resonances. See James Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
84. Eaulau, “From Public Opinion to Public Philosophy … .” Westbrook conceded the same point in Robert B. Westbrook, “Doing Dewey: An Autobiographical Fragment,” Transactions of the Charles Peirce Society XXIX (Fall 1993): 506.
85. For a long time, historian Daniel J. Czitrom's deeply sourced Media and the American Mind: From Morse to McLuhan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982) remained a singular contribution to a serious history of the field. Czitrom acknowledges an enormous debt to Carey for his support and encouragement in developing this project. Daniel J. Czitrom, “Twenty-five Years Later,” Forum, Critical Studies in Media Communication 24, 5 (2007): 481–85. Hardt pioneered the new history in Critical Communication Studies: Communication, History and Theory in America. For a recent collection of the “new history” of media and communication which includes a number of contributions based upon archival sources, see The History of Media and Communication Research: Contested Memory; also see Jefferson Pooley's chapter in that volume, “The New History of Mass Communication Research,” 43–69, for an incisive articulation of an agenda for the “new history.”