explicitly transnational and intercultural perspective'' (Gilroy, 1993, p. 15). Diasporic societies cannot persist without
much corporeal, imaginative, and increasingly virtual travel both to that home-
land and to other sites of the diaspora (Kaplan, 1996, pp. 134±6). Clifford
(1997, p. 247) summarizes:
dispersed peoples, once separated from homelands by vast oceans and political
barriers, increasingly find themselves in border relations with the old country
thanks to a to-and-fro made possible by modern technologies of transport, com-
munication, and labor migration. Airplanes, telephones, tape cassettes, camcor-
ders, and mobile job markets reduce distances and facilitate two-way traffic, legal and illegal, between the world's places.
The sacred places and the family and community members to be visited are
located in various ``societies'' linked through ``structured travel circuits'' (Clifford, 1997, p. 253). Such modes of travel and exchange ± what Clifford terms
thè`lateral axes of diaspora'' ± reorganize the very sense of what is a social
group's ``heritage,'' which is never simply fixed, stable, natural, and `àuthentic''
(Clifford, 1997, p. 269). In particular, the close-knit family, kin, clan, and ethnic connections within a diaspora enable the flows of migrants and income across
national borders and the more general organization of diasporic trade.
The tendency for diasporas to live within major ``global'' cities means that
they particularly contribute to, and profit from, the increasingly cosmopolitan
character of such places (Hannerz, 1996). This can be seen with the overseas
Chinese who have generated Chinatowns in many major cities across the globe.
The largest is in New York and is a strikingly recent phenomenon. In the 1960s
there were only 15,000 residents but over the next twenty years they had grown
twenty-fold, with a staggering array of services, workshops, and increasingly
professional trades. Chinatowns have of course become key nodes within the
routeways of ``global tourism,'' since they sell authentic `èthnic quaintness,'' a quaintness cleaned up and repackaged for the international tourist gaze (Cohen,
1997, p. 93).
Diasporas thus indicate the more general point about place, summarized by
bell hooks (1991, p. 148) when she writes: ``home is no longer one place. It is
locations'' ± and, we might add, the mobilities between such locations. I have
described sociology's journey to make sense of such places, a journey that
involves traveling in and out of diverse intellectual homes, producing a hybrid
analysis drawn from many locations.
2
Media and Communications
John Durham Peters
Communication and Social Theory: Legacy and
Definitions
Of all the social sciences, sociology has the most distinguished record of con-
tributions to the study of media and communications. Throughout every decade
of the twentieth century, important sociologists made them a central topic ±
Tarde, Park, Blumer, Ogburn, Lazarsfeld, Merton, Katz, Adorno, Habermas,
Tuchman, Schudson, Gans, Luhmann, Bourdieu, among many others. Yet com-
munication is not simply a specialty in sociology; it is in many ways the historical precondition of modern social theory. Its founding thinkers, such as Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, and ToÈnnies, rarely called communication by
name, yet their picture of modern society, with its individualism, participatory institutions, and new possibilities of large-scale social conflict, administration, and integration, centers on the symbolic coordination of individuals and populations. Concepts as diverse as Marx's class consciousness, Durkheim's collective
representations, or ToÈnnies's Gesellschaft all point to social relationships that transcend the face-to-face. Neither ancient nor feudal society had any use for a notion of pluralistic, inclusive, and horizontal sociability. Modernity, with its political and transportation revolutions,
much corporeal, imaginative, and increasingly virtual travel both to that home-
land and to other sites of the diaspora (Kaplan, 1996, pp. 134±6). Clifford
(1997, p. 247) summarizes:
dispersed peoples, once separated from homelands by vast oceans and political
barriers, increasingly find themselves in border relations with the old country
thanks to a to-and-fro made possible by modern technologies of transport, com-
munication, and labor migration. Airplanes, telephones, tape cassettes, camcor-
ders, and mobile job markets reduce distances and facilitate two-way traffic, legal and illegal, between the world's places.
The sacred places and the family and community members to be visited are
located in various ``societies'' linked through ``structured travel circuits'' (Clifford, 1997, p. 253). Such modes of travel and exchange ± what Clifford terms
thè`lateral axes of diaspora'' ± reorganize the very sense of what is a social
group's ``heritage,'' which is never simply fixed, stable, natural, and `àuthentic''
(Clifford, 1997, p. 269). In particular, the close-knit family, kin, clan, and ethnic connections within a diaspora enable the flows of migrants and income across
national borders and the more general organization of diasporic trade.
The tendency for diasporas to live within major ``global'' cities means that
they particularly contribute to, and profit from, the increasingly cosmopolitan
character of such places (Hannerz, 1996). This can be seen with the overseas
Chinese who have generated Chinatowns in many major cities across the globe.
The largest is in New York and is a strikingly recent phenomenon. In the 1960s
there were only 15,000 residents but over the next twenty years they had grown
twenty-fold, with a staggering array of services, workshops, and increasingly
professional trades. Chinatowns have of course become key nodes within the
routeways of ``global tourism,'' since they sell authentic `èthnic quaintness,'' a quaintness cleaned up and repackaged for the international tourist gaze (Cohen,
1997, p. 93).
Diasporas thus indicate the more general point about place, summarized by
bell hooks (1991, p. 148) when she writes: ``home is no longer one place. It is
locations'' ± and, we might add, the mobilities between such locations. I have
described sociology's journey to make sense of such places, a journey that
involves traveling in and out of diverse intellectual homes, producing a hybrid
analysis drawn from many locations.
2
Media and Communications
John Durham Peters
Communication and Social Theory: Legacy and
Definitions
Of all the social sciences, sociology has the most distinguished record of con-
tributions to the study of media and communications. Throughout every decade
of the twentieth century, important sociologists made them a central topic ±
Tarde, Park, Blumer, Ogburn, Lazarsfeld, Merton, Katz, Adorno, Habermas,
Tuchman, Schudson, Gans, Luhmann, Bourdieu, among many others. Yet com-
munication is not simply a specialty in sociology; it is in many ways the historical precondition of modern social theory. Its founding thinkers, such as Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, and ToÈnnies, rarely called communication by
name, yet their picture of modern society, with its individualism, participatory institutions, and new possibilities of large-scale social conflict, administration, and integration, centers on the symbolic coordination of individuals and populations. Concepts as diverse as Marx's class consciousness, Durkheim's collective
representations, or ToÈnnies's Gesellschaft all point to social relationships that transcend the face-to-face. Neither ancient nor feudal society had any use for a notion of pluralistic, inclusive, and horizontal sociability. Modernity, with its political and transportation revolutions,
Similar Books
