Abstract
Abstract During his 40 years of writing about Marshall McLuhan, James Carey’s critical engagement was transformed from initial admiration, to rejection, and then to acceptance. Carey’s dismissal of McLuhan as a technological determinist whose work was inferior to Harold Innis was particularly influential. By the late 1990s, however, Carey called this position an unproductive argument that prevented appreciation of McLuhan’s contributions. This reappraisal of McLuhan was omitted from the two anthologies of Carey’s work and appeared in an array of publications that diluted its impact. This article traces contours of Carey’s transformation on McLuhan to argue that Carey’s recognition of his legacy should replace the view that Carey still dismissed him as a technological determinist.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
