Innis on Hitler
Harold Innis’s book, The Bias of Communication is a “classic” but also has been, in my opinion correctly, described as “difficult” and “a struggle” because the book does not develop a sustained argument. However, Innis’s work may better be understood as an “idea file.” In the introduction to the book, Paul Heyer and David Crowley recommend that it be read as an “idea file,” or as a database composed of information gleaned from secondary readings, thoughts, and notes (x). They state, “We suggest readers consider approaching Bias in this manner, as an informative and exciting glimpse of a mind in process as well as the outline of a larger scholarly project” (x).
One of the ideas contained in Innis’s work is that the development of the radio caused specific political effects. One of Innis’s broad conclusions is that, “an appeal to the ear made it possible to destroy the results of the Treaty of Versailles as registered in the political map based on self-determination. The rise of Hitler to power was facilitated by the use of the loud speaker and the radio” (81). Innis’s argument is that the radio allowed the creation of an appeal to (German) language communities living outside of the German state.
In some ways, this is a very useful idea. However, Innis’s “idea file” approach leaves much to be desired. Because this idea, like most of Innis’s claims, is neglected and not fully developed, it is difficult to accept. One of my greatest concerns is that Innis fails to fully recognize that one need not be a native speaker of a language in order to communicate in that language. Innis briefly mentions propaganda in a sentence (81) but fails to explore the meaning of that sentence. Fortunately Susan J. Douglas, although writing about a different time period, does so. She notes that even the early radio was used by Germany to present its case to the American public and this was also attempted by the British Marconi Company (275). While radio might encourage language communities, Innis’s idea needs to more fully address why the ability of others to communicate in another nation’s language lacks importance.
Likewise, Innis’s thought contains an interesting understanding of German language communities prior to the resolution of World War II. In essence, he is arguing that Germans composed a diasporic community. While this idea is not explained further, prior to the defeat of Hitler, ethnic Germans lived in nations that were reachable through radio broadcasts from Germany, and were located in places such as Czechoslovakia and Poland. I think the idea that radio technology, compared to print, is more effective in reaching diasporic communities is potentially useful. However, Innis needs to explain why these diasporic communities were so easily tapped by Hitler. In contrast to Innis, Miller and Slater explore how the Internet has connected the Trini diaspora. For example, they note that “Internet facilities- above all the chat room- provide places in which to be Trini, and as part of this they become Trini places” (88). The Internet performs a similar function for Trini’s as Innis argues the radio did for Twentieth Century Germans. Yet, the Trini’s are not attempting to establish a Trini empire. While this may be due to Trinidad’s lack of military power, I do not think this is the main explanation. Innis needs to explain how the radio led to the conquests of Hitler in much more detail. Why was the German diaspora such an easily tapped resource?
Finally, I believe that many of the concerns I have with Innis’s work are related to his emphasis on structure at the expense of agency. Innis’s argument seems to suggest that once a technological structure is in place, certain results will follow. The radio is created and Hitler and World War II is its result. However, this account does not explain why these results are not seen across the board. If the radio creates a drive for empire, then why have we not seen every diasporic community become a foundation for empire? For example, there has historically been a large Chinese diaspora. Yet after the creation of the radio, television, and the Internet, we have not seen the rise of a movement to unify the Chinese diaspora living in states not historically associated with modern China under the control of the Chinese government. While China has recovered Hong Kong and would like to establish control of Taiwan, it does not seem interested in taking control of geographic locales such as the Philippines or Singapore, where there are large ethnic Chinese communities. The explanation seems to be at least partially due to agency. Not every culture or every individual experiences the medium in the same way.
Furthermore, how does a nationalist voice compete with a foreign propagandist? This cannot be explained through language or the medium alone. It is probable that a foreign enemy can find a native speaker to convey their propaganda or a non-native speaker that speaks the language as well a native speaker. The reason seems to rest in agency, listeners encounter and experience propaganda differently depending on whether it originates within or outside of ones own nation. The radio cannot fully explain Hitler’s success unless the agency of ethnic Germans is considered.
Did the radio play a role in Hitler’s rise to power? Probably. Was the radio also used to contest Hitler's power? Probably. However, Innis does not provide us with enough information in order to reach a conclusion. In any event, I cannot accept that the role of the radio was as straightforward as Innis claims. While the radio may have aided Hitler, it did not give birth to him. Innis’s broad structural contentions provide sites for more nuanced explorations. However, their deterministic, structural presentation suggests that these are more “thoughts” or “idea files” than developed, detailed arguments that one can easily accept.