Theory-Jamming: Uses of Eclectic Method in an Ontological Spiral

Ok, I’m going to be honest. Reading the article Theory Jamming by Professor Stockwell (2006) was a hard slog and it lost me. But from re-reading sections what I can gather is this:

According to Professor Stockwell (2006) in his article Theory Jamming, Communication theory has never had one specific definition. Over the years there have been many attempts at defining Communication theory and many schools have their own. The split between mass communication and cultural/media studies came when Paul Lazarsfeld, a sociologist broke away from Theodor Adorno, a critical theorist. By the 90s there was a “war” in universities between the disciplines. Now there is even more confusion with new communication studies. Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver attempted to combine the “hard science” and “liberal arts” which has become an example of how disparate ideas can connect productively (Stockwell, 2006). Stockwell posed the question of “Where can we get the traction to move beyond twentieth century Balkanisation of communications theory to embrace the whole?” The “jam” comes from the 30s when musicians would play together unrehearsed, improvising on certain melodies. The Theory-jammer works the same way, the play between the possible and impossible. Potamo, “encouraged his pupils instead to learn from a variety of masters”, eclecticism sought the best from each school, “all that teaches righteousness combined, the complete eclectic unity” (Kelley 578) (Stockwell, 2006). So then the idea of this eclecticism comes into play.

Stockwell, Stephen 2006, Theory-Jamming: Uses of Eclectic Method in an Ontological Spiral, online article, cited 30/08/2013