udics, cds Lawrence

on , Routl edge , pp.

II t.\ e~yJaJ Life, Berkeley, CA, Uni vcrsn y

ousarul Plateaus, Minneapol is, University or

rch: .1 history' , in Handbook C?I Communica­

S. H. Chance , Newbury Park , CA, Sage

? in communication studies: Illinois speech exemplar ' , j ournal ~r th e Association fo r

28, no. 3, pp . 124-131. udics have futu res? Should it ? (Or wh at ' s ilturo! Studies, \ '01. 20 , no. 1, pp . 1-32 . 'modcrnitv; London, Blackwell.

ialism & spatial materialism : James Ca rey 's in Thinking with j ames Carey Essays on

: ro~y , cds J. Packer & C . Rob ertson , New

? Cultural JOBic C?I I.ace Capi talism , Durham ,

pace , London , Blackwel l. ~om 11l un ica r i on , Minn eapo lis, Uni vcrsitv of

<I ! future : Francis [upurrurla makes T V at Historv , ,IlcJia. and Tcclinoloq icol Horiz ons,

lnivcrsitv of Minnesota Press. j •

'ndon, Routledge.

!'day distr action ' , in l.oqi cs C?J' Television ; cd . ~ , Indiana Univcrsitv PITSS.

vision as cultural for um', Qya rccrl)' Review

\p. 45- 56.

P06) Thillkin.'l with j ames Carey: Essays Oil

'listor)', New York, Peter Lang. lins, Ca rnbri dgc , MA, Har vard Univ ersity

Man, Nc«: York, Vintag e_ Books . sian, Chicago, IL, Univcrsitv of Chicago

~on don , Verso. , New York, Simon & Schuster .

j780- / 950, New York, Harper & Row . ndon, Chatt o & Wi ndus.

Joli Jensen

THE MEAN ING OF TA LK

Carey's rnocel of and fOI" th e university

Thi s essa)' exp lores how Carey e.\CInp IUicd th e best clemen ts !!I academ ic lif e

because he cared mostO' about meanill8 ' not power; about personal. not

pnv cssional relati onshi ps; and about questions. not discip]inOlY bou ndaries. /c

sU8s csts that the best way 10 honor Carey's leBacy is to iBnore the seCllrins (!I academic t UI): rep uta tio ns and leqacics, and instead allow th e persona l and

pr1essiona l to interpenetra te. whi leJindi ns more and bcuci ways 10 ta lk with one

another.

Keywords Care y: conversation; legacy; ego tism ; turf; academic service

Jim Carey never made his peacc with univcrsitv life. To his great cred it , he

was forev er t rying to ov ercome, suhvcrt , or did!' acarlcrnc's worst traits . He

put his faith in face -to -face commun ica t ion, hcli c \'ing universities are firs t and

Ior cm ost places for talk, ra ther than for huild ing careers, staking o ut turf, or

cr eating clones . All wh o kn ew h im realize th at "con versatio n" was his m etier,

his metapho r and his m odel o f and 1'01" unive rsi ty life .

As w e tel l sto r ies aho ut his legacy , Carey' s faith in co nversa t ion threaten s

to become so cliched th at it stops telli ng us anything new . And th at, by Carey 's

reckoning , is th e worst of all possible ou tcomes . Su in this ess<l Y I connec t his

faith in - and enactmen t of - int el lectual con vr-rsa tion with his laith in - and

enac tment o f - being pa rt o r unive rsit y life. I locu s not o n his magn ificen t

publ ic performan ces in class rooms and speech es (I have t r ied to co mmc rnora t

these els ew here) , hut on his ext raord inary ability to inspi re , cxcmplilv and

work to ward the best possibi liti es in un iversity life.

Bese ttin g temptation

One of Carey's favorite quotat ions was from Mar y McCarthy ( 19 52) , w ho (in

her novel Th e Groves ~. Aca deme) w arn ed aga inst ' the ins id ious ego tism of th e

Potter's Hand, th e desi re tu sha pe and mold th e better-than- common day and

Cultural Studies Vol 23. NO.2 March 2009. pp. 215-222 ISSN 0950-2386 pnnl/ISSN 14664348online © 2009 Taylor ~ Francisn Routledge

!~ T."torf.fr.nc::i\ Gfoup http:)Jwww.landf.co.uk/journals 001: 10.1080/09502300802664565

]

'21 6 C ULT U RA L ST U D IE S

breathe on(' 's OW I1 gho stly IiI' into it - the teacher ' s be se tting temptation'

(p. 75). There is of course plenty of ins id ious egotism in academ ic life, and

graduate students are especially susce p t ib le to being molded . When Ca rey first

quoted me LI is passage, I could barely ge t past th e phrase 'better-than ­

com mon-clay . ' But th e pa ssage is about te ach ers , not students , and wa rn s

agains t t ry ing to replicat e onesel f in pli ab le - eager to be shaped - students .

Ca rey w as adama n t th at thi s w as no way to proceed. N o m atter how ma ny of

us might have wanted (a t th at point in ou r lives) to he shaped into' Car ey ites , '

he w ould have none of it.

Nonetheless, some of us were perceived by th ose ar ound us as ' Ca rey

students ,' and th erefore politically suspect. I was dismayed when I di scovered I

w as bei ng labeled bv some students in th e Institute of Communications

Resear ch ~s a Carcv sr'udent and th erefore a non-Marxist ' libe ral humanist' and J

th erefore (in one awful di scu ssion) a ' fascist.' When I heard that epithe t , I was

devastated, and made an appointment w ith him. Tear fu lly , I asked him to help

m e understand how my perspect ive - w hatever it w as - co u ld be call ed

' fascist ' , and to give m e ad vice on how to explain m yself and fix whatever had

gone w rong. He wa s ang ry at th e inciden t but not surpri se d - at the time the po litics in

the PhD progra m were far more brackish than I kn ew . He told m e to igno re

th e whole thing . My job w as to read who I wanted, ask th e qu esti ons I cared

about , and nev er worry ab out how I wa s label ed . Nam e-ca lling from others

was unavoid abl e. Ju st keep re ad ing and writing and taking courses. It w ould all

work out. It was goo d advice . But I n ever fo rgo t th at un iversity life does not

au to ma tica lly foster livelv en<Jagina ' co nv ersat io n . ' In fact, acad emi c ta lk can J ' o '-- b

turn un expectedl y ugly , and cause pain . It would hav e been so cas)' for Carey to have 'breathed his own life' into

man y of us at Illinois . His work opened many scho lar ly paths , he was

charism at ic , and he was influ ential - w e all could have used m ore of his

coa tt ails . But that w as not how he ope rate d . He did not want acolytes, and he

did not think in te rms o f p lacing his studen ts at top p rog rams, or presid ing

ove r a buroeon ino 'American Cult ural Studies' even thou gh such an ap p roach b b ~

would have enh anced each of o ur professional traject ori es . Hi s model of

academe was m ore idiosyncratic an d democratic - foraging and exp lorat ion in

th e com pany of interesti ng minds wh e rever th ey co u ld be found. That is , I

now realize , how he himsel f ' beca me Carey . ' It is also to his cr edit th at he

ex pected th e same process to turn us into ourselv es, not him.

So even th ough OI W of his essays co nv inced m e to throw ove r scien ce

writing and <Je t a PhD in comm unication, and I almos t w ent to Iow a to study b

with him , and at Illinoi s I was both his teaching and his r esearch assista nt , and

he dir ect ed mv dissertat ion, he never introduced m e as his student. I was J

always an Institute st udent , o r som eone wh o he had 'w or ke d with ' at Illin ois.

T his was so metime s confUSing l" did not kn ow what to say at confcrci

J

' whose student are you?' As a ne

Vir gin ia, and th en at the Univcrsit]

expecte d , as a 'Carey stu dent , ' to rei

I resist ed th e implicatio n - I was

cre ation . I go t ove r it - these days b

stron g influen ce on me and my IV

in te llec tua l lineage . But no one who s

the mselves as ' his .' He consid ered u:

sim ilar qu est ion s, but he never suo

turning us into replicas of himself.

Question, not positions

T his ope n, f1uid att itud e tow ard idea

wa s wh en o thers took cre dit lor his i

heavily on his work without (to my

fou nd this repreh en sibl e. He did not

one re ally o wns ideas, and that the gc

do es no t really matter wh ose name is

th e clay of stu dents , he did not seek

nam e . The co nver sation metaphor pre

space o r m aking action s possible, rath

turf. When th at m etaphor is applied

ideas are participatory and co llaborati no t m ine .

'W hich does no t mean that he ignc

test y comments about 'speed readers

correct m isre p resentat ions of his thou.

to be, ma ny who invoke Care)' v

understand ing. His response was to

anothe r essay , from another angle - I

fu lly understood . He never wrote to

vantage . He wrot e to be sure that P CI

Carey was always impatient with

di sciplinary demarcations. He knew ti arc built through catego ries - ritual

qu antitative, Mar xist versus non-marx

not teach or w rite that way. Even

Approach to Communicati on' he ex

p erspectives for wha t they have to te

he teacher ' s besetting temptation '

us egotism in academ ic life, and

to heing molde d . When Carey first

get past th e phrase ' be tter-th an ­

teachers, not students, and wa rns

~ - eager to be shaped - students.

) proceed. No ma tter ho w man y of

lives) to be shaped into ' Car eyit es;'

vcd by those aro und us as ' Carey

I was dismay ed when I discovered I

the Instit ut e of Comm un ication s

non -Marx ist ' liberal humanist ' and

r. ' Wh en I heard that ep ithet , I was

him . Te arfully, I asked him to help

-hatcvcr it was - could be called

explain myself and fix w hateve r had

rrpriscd - at the time the pol ities in

than I knew. He tol d m e to ignore

I want ed , ask the qu estion s I cared

labeled . Name -calling from others

ting and taki ng courses. It would all

forgot that university life does not

. rsation.' In fact, acade mic ta lk can

to have 'breathed his own life' into

:::d many scho larly paths, he was • all could have used more of his

I. He did not want aco lyt es, and he Icnts at top programs, or pr eslidimg

~iE' s ' even though such an approach

'ssional trajectori es. His model of I . I' . d I . .crane - oragmg an exp ora t ion III

~c r the)' could be found . That is, I { y. ' It is also to his credit that he

i ourse lves, no t him . ivinced me to throw over science

land I almost wen t to Iowa to studv

~h i n 2' and his research assistant, and I '" iroduccd me as his student. I was

110 he had 'wo rked with' at Illinois.

TH E MEA N I NG O F T/lLK 2 17

Thi s wa s sometimes co nfusing for m e . W hen I was a graduate stu de nt, [

d id no t kn ow what to say at co nferences or during job in terv iews, wh en asked ' whos e student arc you?' As a new facul ty member at the Un iversity of

Virgini a, and th en at the U niversity of Tex as, I was indignant when I was

expected, as a ' Carey stu de nt, ' tC,l rcpresent his perspectiv e in the depa rtme nt.

I resisted th e im plication - I was m ysel f, I insiste d, my own intellec tual

creation. I got ove r it - these days bein g a ' Carey student ' not only honors his strong influence on m e and my work , but also locates me in a cohe rent

in te llec tual lineage. But no one who studi ed with Car ey was expecte d to define them sel ves as ' his . ' He co nsidered us to be stud ents who asked interestin g or

sim ilar qu estio ns , but he never succ um bed to the besett ing tem ptati on of turning us into repli cas of him self.

Question, not positions

Thi s open, fluid at t itude toward ideas m eant that I wa s angrier than he ever

was when othe rs took cre dit for his inSights . Several figures in the field drew

heavil y on his work without (to my m ind) sufficien t ackn owled gm ent, and I

found this re pre hensible, Hc did not share my outrag e . He poi n ted out that no one really owns ideas, and that the go al is to have perspecti ves circ ulating - it

does not reall y matter whose name is attached . Just as he did no t seek to shape

the clay of studen ts , he did not seek to mark a corn er of th e field w ith his

name. Th e conversat ion met aph or pre su mcs th at, throu gh talk, we are cle ar ing space or makin g ac tions possible , rath er than building re putations or claiming

turf. When that m et aph or is applied to int ell ectual property, it assum es that

ideas are participatory and coll aborative, not separate and ind ividu al - ours, not mine.

W hich does not mean that he ign ored d istortion s of his arg uments . As his

testy com ments abo ut ' spee d read ers ' sugg est , he made rep eat ed clforts to

co rrect misrepresentations of his th ought . There have bee n, and w ill continue

to be , many wh o invoke Ca rey with too m uch zea l and not enough

understand ing. His response was to say what he wa nted to say again , in ano ther essay , from another ang le - hoping that this tim e he would be more

full)' und ers tood . H e never w rote to clari fy a Care )' doctrine or ideology or

vantage . He wrot e to be sur e th at people gr asped wh at he was trying to say . Ca rey wa s alw ays impatient wi th static categor ies , acade mic ja l'go n , and

d iscip lin ar y dem arcation s . He kn ew that (k ids, tex tb ooks and stude nt pape rs

arc built through categories - ritual versus transmission , qualita tive versus

quanti tative, Marxist vers us non-marx ist , er it ical versus cultural - but he did not teaeh or wr ite that way . Even in his most qu oted essay ' A Cultura l

Approach to Co m m unicat ion' he explo re s both the transmi ssion and ritual

perspecti ves for wh at th e)' have to tell us . For him, perspectives illuminate ,

'

2 18 CULT URA L STUD IE S

crystallize, and clarifv, they do no t conquer , fix or triumph. Care y resisted

when people tried to organize th e field and locate him in it. He understood the

impulse, but did not support the motive. He saw dichotomies and labels as

shutting down rather than op en ing up opportunities to grasp things aright.

"Vhat drove him were questions, not positions. He believed, and lived as if, academic life is about finding better wa ys to

answer better questions. As long as I kn ew him he avoided being pinned down

to sides, stances or doctrines. This made him frustrating to those who longed

to enlist him in their camp. By refusing to d evelop or declare allegiance to

particular ideologies, he eluded those who wanted to claim him for th eir own.

And he frequently baffled r eaders, trained to locate and define particular

theorists in fixed compartments. Of the left: but not Marxist, pluralist but not

relativist, progressive but restive with race, class and gender as categories ­

wh ere , exact lv, did he stand?

I assume that, if he were here to speak for himself, he wou ld lean in, grab

an arm, and connect the desire to fix his stance with the historical role of print

in codifYing and organizing claims. He might suggest that in oral cultures the

goal is to get the questions right, and to keep th e dis cussion going. Labels and

categories arc something that print makes possible, and th ey arc a mixed

blessing . The desire of an oral cu lture is , he might say (implying that of course

you could not help but agree, once you heard his take on things) is to join w ith

others to tackle the most engaging and intractable problems with as much

insight as possible. He m ight then st ep back, le t go of your arm, and wait

expectantly for a rejoinder. And the whole idca of figuring out his 'position'

would seem beside the point.

Vexing one another

He loved to talk , and tal k flowed from him. He spoke with such eloquen ce,

warmth and energy th at his con ve rsat ional partners mostly listene d as if (as I

have said e lsewhere) he were a jazz musician , But my sense is that he longed

for the give and take of argument, an d rarely got it. He cherished th e student

or co lleagu e who brazenly argued bac k . A co n versat ion is not a monologue,

and for all his eloquence, he was not in love with the sound of his own voice. It

was the sound of voi ces that he believed in.

He has a line in on e of his essay s about increasing the precision with which

we vex one other . Car ey did not seck, or value, constant agreement. Vexation

is a form of engagement, and Carey delighted in recreationa l rather than

aggressin' intellectual encounters. His favorite forms of academic discussion

were direct, int ense, passionate hut without animus. Alas, as he would say,

such forms arc far from com m on in academic life .

It is easy to sentimentalize thuse

we can learn from the depth and

c~m pl cx and private man, and his (I him frustrat ed and angrv , He was II

brooding and ' the go;)(! man's faili minimize th e damage these aspects (

but it was a litCiong effor t . Much ol

was connected with what he saw a

discussi on and academi c communir,

D uplicitv and cupidit y infuriat : / ,

claimed se lfless motives in order to

let things go , even as he undersn

pe"sonally - not in the sense that it \

felt responsible when things went WI

the universit y work, lor all of us.

Because he bel in"l'd in the pc

believed, perhaps overmuch, in his (1

not persuade people to do what h(

college or un ivC/'sity, he would see

additional arguments or devise dilfe

demonize collc agues or institutions

could convince others to act with m

Something was alway s at stake ,

from all that can go wrong in departn

pained him to watch people squander

trust, make space and time lor ideas

draw from the best parts of thcmsolv

politics - the mi strust , backstabhint c

visceral ways. He had his own share

but the ones I heard about were al",

particular people have to bchav« so I

Every academic act mattered to

said yes to a never-ending stream of [

always behind with book chapters

juggled them with site visits , commit1

during his self-described 'ag e of plaqu

his int1uence) and as his health failed

faculty gunning for tenure would he \:

t rll - out of conviction. He was not tr

'get ahead.' He was doin« what he the could and should be doi~(J

o' Carey never mastered the salut

protected from, any academic respon..

lu er, fix or triumph. Car ey resisted

d locate him in it . He un derstood th e

i , I-Ie saw dichotomies and labels as

)pportunities to grasp things aright . sitions.

c life is about finding better wa ys to

v him he avoided being pinn ed down

him frus trat ing to th ose wh o longed

to develop or declare alleg iance to

) wanted to cla im him for th eir ow n.

led to locate and define parti cul ar

t:ft but not Marxist, plurali st but not

cc, class and gende l' as cat egories ­

k for hims elf, he w ould lean in, grab

lance with th e histo rical ro le of print

ight suggest that in oral cultur es th e

"P the discu ssion go ing . labels and

es possible, and th ey are a mi xe d

IC might say (implying th at of co urse

an I his take on things) is to join with

intractable probl em s with as m uch

iack , let go of yo ur arm, and wait

lc idea of figuring out his 'pos itio n'

m. He spoke with such eloquence ,

I partners m ostly list en ed as if (as I

ian. But my sense is that he longed

ely got it . He che rished th e stud en t

~ conv ersati on is not a monologu e,

: with the sound of his own voice. It n.

increasing th e precision with whi ch

'alue, cons tant agreem ent . Vexation

lighted in recreational rath er th an

oritc forms of academ ic d iscussio n

iut animus. Alas, as he would say , mil' life .

T H E ME A N I N G OF T A L K 2 19

It is easy to sentimen talize those wh o have died, and th ereb y diminish what

we can learn from th e depth and richness o f th eir characte r. Carey was a

com plex and pri vate man , and his qu est to make acade m ic life better often left

him frustrate d and angry . He was Irish in many sense s, including dark m oods,

brooding and 'the go od man' s failin g' - a penchant for drink . He sou ght to

m inimize th e dam age th ese aspects o f his temperament might infli ct on others,

but it was a lifel ong effor t. Mu ch of wh at he brood ed abo ut, at least with m e,

was co nnecte d with what he saw as unnecessary impe d im ents to intellectual

discu ssion and academic co m m unity .

D uplicity and cupidity infuriat ed him . He co uld not forgive peop le who

claimed sel fless motives in order to do sel fish things. It was difficult for him to

let thin gs go, even as he understood th e need to do so . He took things

person ally - not in the sense th at it was ' all abo ut him ,' but in th e sense th at he

felt respon sibl e wh en things went wron g. He thought it was up to him to make

th e uni versit y work , for all of us .

Because he believed in the power of face-to- face com munication , he

believed, perhap s o ver m uc h , in his own powers o f persuasion . When he co uld

not persuade pe ople to do wh at he believed was right for the dep artment,

college or un iversity, he w ould sec it as his failur e . Surely he co uld muster

additio nal arg um ents or devise di fferent approaches . Rather than chro nica lly

demonize co lleagu es or inst itutions, he kept hoping that his o wn energies

co uld co nvince o th ers to act with more decency and genero sity of sp ir it .

Som ething w as always at stake , for Carey, in acade m ic life . Detaching

from all that can go wro ng in departments and coll eges w as not in his nature. It

paine d him to wat ch people squande r oppo rtunities to build goodwill , estab lish

trust , ma ke space and time for ideas. He was forever trying to get pe ople to

draw from th e best parts of th em selv es. The genteel violen ce of departmen tal

politics - th e mistrust, backstabbing , and resentm ents - dist ressed him in

visce ra l wa ys . He had his o wn share of resentments and mi strust, of course ,

bu t the ones I heard about w er e always mixed with regret - wh y did th ese

particul ar people have to behave so badly?

Every acad emic act mattered to him , large or sma ll. This meant th at he

said yes to a never- ending st ream of re g uests fo r his time and energy, He was

always behind with book chapters and let ters of r ecommendati on, as he

juggled th em with site visits, com m ittee rep orts and panel par ticipation . Even

during his sel f-described ' age of plaqu es' (when he was rep eated ly honored for

his influ en ce) and as his health failed , he kep t co m m itm ents th at most junior

faculty gunning fo r tenure would be wise to refu se. He did th is - as best I can

tell - out of convict ion . He was not trying so sho w ofl, or prove something, or

'get ahead.' He w as doing wh at he thou ght need ed to be don e - what all of us

could and should be doing.

Carey never mastere d th e salutary t r icks of feel ing superior to , or

protect ed from , any academ ic responsibility. In thi s he was egalitarian to the

220 CU LTU RA L ST U DI ES

core - assum ing that ('\'e ry member of the academ ic community has a r e jlol1sih il it )' to con tr ib ute , every day . We all, he bel ieved , have an equal

. take in our c m mon welln 'ing . T hose who choose NOT to par ticipate and

suppa t the mt erprisc - in a phrase he loved from F. Sco tt Fitzg era ld - are

merely 'wam 1ing a scat at the com mon table .' Th is was, to his way of th ink ing ,

shameful.

L gacy

O nce I left Illin ois, Carey and I fell int o a pat tern of having d inner together

wh en ever we w ere in the same town . O ur conve rsations also fell into a pattern

- he would tell me wh at Bett e and each of his so ns were dOing , and then ask

me about m y husband and childre n . I would ask him what he was working on,

and he would describe deadlines hanging over his head , and essays promised

that were not materializing , and then switc h almost immedi ately int o a

discussion of wh at was troubli ng him most - dep artmental issues . I would listen carefully, try to sort out th e pe ople and issues in play, and

the n laun ch into ad vice - some versio n of 'ign ore that person , tha t program,

that batt le . ' Let it all go ! Focus on teaching and \-\Tiling . leave all the se

in tractabl e , insolub le wo rri es alone ! He woul d giv e me a pained smile , tell me

he kn ew I was right , say that Bette agrced with me , and that he knew th ese

were unwinn able battles bu t " " . and then he would offer yc t another ang lc

that might , this time , unlock th e kno t , calm the waters, move th ings forwar d .

And we would have the exact same exchange the nex t tim e we m et , and the

t ime after that .

W hy did we keep haVing the same conversation , yea r after year? I now

realize that I was engag ·<I in m y own unwinnable ba ttl e - to ge t him to

beco me som eone who marshaled his energies and detached from departmental

pol itics and thereb y had far m ore tim to wr ite. What I then took to be

dist ract ion s were for him , I now rea lize , essen tial wor k, His w ork in the worl d

was not just wri tin g and teaching , but the creation , mainten ance , rep air and

transformation of uni versit y lie . And it was th rough talk (in classrooms,

hallwa ys, com mi ttee meetings, site visits , cares and bar s) not just in ~ i tt i ng

alone wr itin g , that such work was to be accomplished .

He gavc us many wonderful essays, I kn ow, but r wa nted him to write

many , many more . I suppose I wanted to ensure he would leave us a vast

legacy or print , swa ths of word s that would cont inue to spe ak - so I could

continue to hear him - across time and spacc . O ne of th e joys of academe is

that we converse , so rt o f, w ith peopl e like William James , John Dewey, C.

\Vright Mills and Hannah Arendt. His essays wi ll let read er s converse wi th

Jam es \V . Carey, sort of, for years to co m e . But never have the lim its o f print

seemed mar poignant to me tha heing " or;' h ·u .

W e ar c left with Carey's \\

forms of com me moration. \Vhe

myself ea ting the foods he Ion

somehow it was co mforting. ln tr th e chance to wri te and prcsen

worked on a chapte r for .1 book

(j ensen 2007a, 20071> , 2007c, in

full y, at least for me . Since Carev's death I have ~

J

fiercely - recreating the voraciou

he did with me, I am usinc lavor itb

to see k out and read parti cular r»

fountain pen , and tr ying to an

eloquence. I am also savine )' l'S to J b

m ysel f?) that I am do ino more tl b

tabl e. ' These may not be wise ch

an yth ing close to his talents or en

co mmemora tive acts .

For me , Carey 's legacy is both

did not prot ect that distinction in

a call for pap ers fo r an issue in h

m emoirs were not appro priate'. Th

to the field of comm unication, nc

there is m uch institu tional legal':

personal and inst itutional always i

onl y in a worl d of print, conce ~

so und, taste , tou ch .. . and each (

media of pr int and phot ographv gi'

wa s for Carey the most enga(Tina b b

So it seems to me that if we w

seeUl'ing turf or reputat ions or Ie, that we can catch the stor ies that a

better , to eac h other . 'We do not

conversati on . Th at conversation, I

began before we we re born , and

James W. Carey emb odied a

and most engaging form of huma

part of academi c life thro ugh choo

and time for talking together abos

power , on personal not profession

he academic community has a

all, he believed, have an equal

choose NOT to participate and

I Irom F. Scott Fitzgerald - are

This was, to his way of thinking,

atte rn of having dinner together

iversation s also fell into a pattern

is sons were doing, and then ask

sk him what he was working on,

T his head , and essays promised

tch almost immediately into a

. departmental issues.

'ie people and issues in play, and

;norc tha t person , that program,

ng and writing, leave all these

:l give me a pained smi le, tell me

vith me, and that he kn ew these

c would offer yet another angle

he wat ers, move th ings forward.

.' the next time we met, and the

'crsation , year after year? I now

.innablc battle - to get him to

and detached from departmental

write. What I th en took to he

itial work. His work in the world

rcation, main tenance, repair and

'as through talk (in classrooms,

afcs and hal'S) not just in sitting

om plished.

lOW, but I wanted him to write

ensure he would leave us a vast

I continue to speak - so I could

e. One of th e joy s of acad eme is

'William James, John D ewey, C. 'S will let readers converse with

But never have th e limits of print

TH E M EAN I N G OF TAU( 221

seemed more poignant to me than now, when there ar e no more Carey essays

being written.

VVc are left with Carey's written words, our m emori es, and our own

forms of commemoration. When my father di ed a few years ago, I found

myself eating the foods he loved: an unexpected way to honor him, but

somehow it was comforting. In the months since Jim Carey's death, I have had

the chance to write and present several essays of remembrance, and I've

worked on a chapter for a book in his honor on American cultural studies

(Jensen 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, in preparation. But these acts do not honor him

fully, at least for me. Since Ca rey' s death I have also found myself r eading more widely and

fiercely - r ecreat ing th e voracious pace that fud ed my years at the Illinois. As

he did with m e, I am using favorite literary allusions, and encouraging students

to seck out and read particular novels, plays, poems. I am once again using a

fountain pen, and trying to answer my c- rnails with more thought and

eloquence . I am also saying ye s to more things; I suppose I want to show (him?

mvsclfr) that I am doing more than Simply 'warming a seat at th e common

table.' These may not he wise choices in the long run, because I do not have

anything close to his talents or energy. But for now they feel like appropriate

commemorative acts.

For me, Carey's legacy is both personal and institutional, partly because he

did not protect that distinction in his work or his life. Recently, a journal sent

a call for papers for an issue in honor of Carey that stated emphatically that

memoirs were not appropriate. The issue was to focus on Carey's contributions

to the field of communication, not to those who knew him. That is fine, and

there is much institutional legacy to honor. But Carey taught me that the

personal and institutional always interpenetrate . .As he taught, we do not live

only in a world of print, co ncepts an d fields - w e live in a world of sight,

sound, taste, touch ... and each o ther. Death robs us of that connect ion . The

m ed ia of print and photography give us attenuated and distor t ed access to what

was for Carey the most engaging form of comm unicat ion - face-to -face .

So it seems to me that if we want to honor Carey's legacy , w e clo so not hy

securing turf or reputations or legacies. W e honor him by listening hard, so

that we can catch the stories that are being told, and then tell them again, even

better, to each other. We do not need to defend a turf, but to contribute to a

conversation. That conversation, Carey reminded us (quoting Kenneth Burke)

hegan before we were born, and will go on long after w e are dead.

James 'vV. Carey embodied a way of life based in tal k - the least coercive

and most engaging Iorrn of human relationship. He showed us all how to be

part of academic life through choosing, in small wa ys and large, to make space

and time for talking together about ideas. His work centered on m eaning, not

power, on personal not professional relationships, and on loyalty to qu estions,

222 CUL TURA L S TUD I ES Steve J nes not disciplines. He imagined univ ersities a. humane, civil and gen erous pla ces . How int oxicat ing that pos sibilit y remains.

References

Jensen , J. (2007a) 'Some thing fine r ami better : in honor of James Carey', Popular

Communication , vol. 5, no . 1, pp. 5-6. Jensen, J . (2007b) 'Cas ting spells: Care)' as teacher ', Critical Studies in Media

Communication , vol. 24 , no . 2, Jun e, pp . 172-1 76. Jensen , J . (2007c) 'Only connect : Carey and the art of teaching with quotations',

paper pre sented at me morial conference at Co lumbia University, October . Jensen, J. (In preparati on) 'Popular culture: asking the right questions', in Key

Concepts in Critical and Cultural Stu dies, eels . Clifford Christians & Linda Steiner, Champaign, IL, Universit y of Illinois Press.

McCarth y, M. ( 1952) The Grol'e.l rfA cadcme, O rlando , FL, Harcourt Brace, P: 75.

A UNIVERSITY, IF YC

James W. Carey and

trad it ion

Although the pI' ss is the institution spent his professional life in universi acadcmv as inst itutions in need of CI

J

Carey was deeply int er ested in 1

which ideas were shar ed .U1d throi I believe he was int erested in higher that it provides a public sphere (or , sph er e) in whi ch multiple co nverser

const itute the pn'sent, and imagine a I do not wish to imply that as ins

parallel or grea tly similar. Th ough 0111

them, so far as I am aware Care y I1l

most impo rtant cha racteris tic that the Carey 's ideas abo ut journalism and c

ed ucation, is that the y advocate a spc dcrnocracv.

/

Carey wrot e ex te nsively about JOL

the un iversity and de mocracy. He did, co mmence me nt exe rc ise of the Collego Illinois at Urbana-Champaign over \\ dean) speak of public univcrsiti . ,111

ed ucate d , democratic citizenr y. Irnplic Morrill Act, the name given the Land

At least on e eo lkge in every State accessible to all , but especially tc scien ce for the pr act ical avocatior

the higher gr aces of classical stuc now so greatly apprecia tes \\' agric ult ure, the founda tion of a loo k for troops of ea rnes t Ir ieru

Cultural Studies Vol. 23. No I S 09- ·2386 printjl N 1 h tP:/lwww.tandf.c .ukIJourr