ABSTRACT
Among the major items on my schedule for a research trip to the United States in 1986 were a number of appointments with scholars involved in the study of the role of the media in contemporary culture. On the occasion of one of these meetings, I was invited to participate in a small conference at the Department of Media Ecology, New York University. Somewhere in upstate New York’s beautiful countryside, we listened to and discussed papers, ranging from the revolution in the doctor-patient relationship brought about by the invention of the stethoscope to the input of the computer into new ways of thinking and writing. Under the spell of the impressions that weekend had left me with, I followed the invitation to visit one of the department’s courses for doctoral candidates the following week. I don’t remember the book that was supposed to be analysed at that particular session. What I do remember very well, however, is the kind of discussion that emerged during that session. When initial questions concerning critical evaluations didn’t produce too much of an enthusiastic response in class, the three professors started to comment upon that work from their differing perspectives, and soon an extremely lively controversy emerged involving almost everyone present and covering an amazing range of issues and problems. Walking home two hours later, my mind still in the midst of the discussion, it occurred to me how much these past two hours had helped me to clarify my own position. And for the first time in a long time, I had experienced an academic controversy not only as inspiring, but also as extremely pleasurable.
