Background The paradigms of cybernetics and media theory developed in the postwar era in response to new developments in technology and science. At their margins, an intellectual movement called “mechanology,” or the science of machines, also attempted to apprehend such changes.Analysis The article uses the archival material of two major figures of mechanology, Canadians John Hart and Jean Le Moyne, to examine the overlooked contribution of mechanology to postwar debates on technology and culture. It contrasts the theories, concepts, and epistemologies of mechanology with both cybernetics and media theory. Conclusion and implications The article reveals some of the reasons behind mechanology’s inability to establish itself as new field, and shows how the concept of “the machine” lost ground in the postwar era.RÉSUMÉContexte La cybernétique et la théorie médiatique se sont développées au sortir de la Seconde Guerre mondiale en réaction aux avancées technologiques et scientifiques. En marge de ces paradigmes, un mouvement intellectuel nommé la « mécanologie », ou la science des machines, a aussi cherché à comprendre ces bouleversements.Analyse Cet article analyse les documents d’archives des Canadiens John Hart et Jean Le Moyne et explore la contribution méconnue de la mécanologie aux débats sur la technologie et la culture dans la période d’après-guerre. L’article compare les théories, concepts et épistémologies de la mécanologie, de la cybernétique et de la théorie médiatique.Conclusion et implications L’article expose quelques facteurs expliquant l’échec de la mécanologie et démontre comment le concept de machine a perdu son caractère signifiant.
By investigating the conflicted relationship between Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) and the electrical engineering community, this essay explores competing representations of “invention” in the fin-de-siècle period. Drawing on the observation that the dominant paradigm of invention was entangled in various inscription practices, I turn to the case of Tesla to examine how inventions that circulated only as discourses were represented and legitimated in the scientific community, popular press, and literature. The essay argues that the rise of transmission media, such as wireless telegraphy, that challenged established conceptions about physical reality informed, in turn, Tesla’s singular model of invention.
This paper focuses on the continuities, rather than the ruptures, between digital television and past media forms. It situates the metaphor of “streaming” in contrast to and connection with previous fluid metaphors that have been used to describe different models of media transmission. From the early use of aqueous vocabulary that shaped popular and scientific understandings of electricity transmission to the seminal studies of mass communication concerning the flows of information, images of fluidity have long shaped cultural understandings of the inner logics of media infrastructures. Building on the work of media archaeologist Erkki Huhtamo, I approach these metaphors as “recurrent topoi” in media culture.
Cet article rend compte de deux nouvelles perspectives en histoire de la communication : la nouvelle histoire des études en communication et les histoires sociales et médio-archéologiques des médias. Nous présenterons d'abord les contextes d'émergence ainsi que les contributions propres à ces deux renouveaux historiques, pour ensuite tenter de les articuler en examinant leurs contributions et leurs limites. Ce faisant, nous souhaitons contribuer à ce numéro thématique de trois façons, soit 1) en offrant un aperçu critique de perspectives qui ont récemment redynamisé la recherche en communication ; 2) en problématisant certains des enjeux inhérents à la pratique de l'histoire ; et 3) en esquissant quelques-unes des lignes de convergence pouvant solidariser l'histoire de la communication et l'histoire des médias. Mots-clés : histoire de la communication, théories de la communication, histoire des médias, archéologie médiatique, études médiatiques, épistémologie, représentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.