The paper of Greg Hearn and Tony Stevenson on the «The Future of Communication Studies» covers a very broad range of issues with a great deal of concision. The definition of communication studies as «the way one studies human communication and the exchange of meaning» is very helpful even if, at times, the authors do not stress it enough it in their own analysis.
 
 Two major areas are identified within the field of the «future of communication studies»: «unresolved issues» and «tensions in communication theory». Although the article concludes with a section entitled «Action research in communication futures» which partly deals with concrete socio-cultural issues, the theoretical dimension appears to have been the major preoccupation of the study.
 Communication being a very young field of study, it may be a little premature, if not a bit presumptuous to speak of «communication theory» without a minimum of methodological precautions so as to emphasize the limits of our present state of knowledge. These limits, in our opinion, do not seem to have been sufficiently emphasized.

 It is quite appropriate to speak of a «lack of dialogue between different traditions of communication theory». This is mostly due to the great diversity of disciplines, from the exact sciences and the social and human sciences to the fields of engineering, which are directly concerned with «communication theory». The problem consists in how to make these disciplines work together. The more so as «knowledge» is less and less to be found in a single discipline but at the intersection of two or more disciplines.

 There is a much more serious «lack of dialogue» than the one one between the «different traditions of communication theory». It is «the lack of cultural dialogue» which hinders true communication between the «North» and the «South».

 This brings up the vital issue of «values» and their strategic role in the preservation of civilizational diversity  at a time when «soft power» is being used to impose a single set of values and norms . Hearn and Stevenson did well to note the fact that,
 
«the dominant, mostly western preference for either-or-choice, a legacy of our two  thousand year old European-Greek logic.. denies the plurality of multiple choice.»

 This analysis does not apply only to logical choices but the refusal of the subjects of this legacy (the authors speak of «our» legacy) to accept the validity of other systems of value. Values have become the main subject of current and future conflicts and communication is today the key weapon in these new battles.
 
 The acting U.S. representative to the WTO (World Trade Organization), when announcing the conclusion of the international agreement on the deregulation of telecommunications said a few weeks ago, «The United States has effectively exported the American values of free competition, fair rules and effective enforcement.» The journalist who reported the above words added the following comment,

«When the acting U.S. trade representative , Charlene Barshefsky, announced Saturday tht the United States had approved a huge accord to open the world’s highly protected tele- communications to frenzied American style competition, she made it clear that this agreement was something far larger than commerce ...In fact, exporting U.S. values, and turning America’s passion for deregulation into a tool of foreign policy, is what the new agreement is all about.»

 The above are simply meant to remind us of the cultural as well as of the economic weight of the communication sector which represents now about $3000 billion dollars (around 60% of the total world gross product). Some firms, in the sector of communication, have turnovers of tens of billions of dollars - equivalent to several times the gross domestic product of many members of the United Nations.

 «Globalisation» which emphasizes «deregulation» and «competition» are being pushed down the throats of many governments do not represent the perfect solution at a moment where a minimum set of international norms and regulations are essential to ensure coherence, social justice, fairness, equity and ethical standards.

 Almost twenty years ago, the World Future Studies Federation devoted its World Conference to «the future of communication and cultural identilty» (Cairo, September 1978). The proceedings of that Conference are worth reading today. Without memory there can be no communication.

 One must also recall the Sean McBride Report to UNESCO, «Many voices, one world» (1980)- a brilliant and well documented plea for the preservation of diversity. A document that no study of the future of communication studies can ignore.

 The McBride Report insisted on the implications of technology and a concern for its consequences. An assessment which is still valid today,

"The technological explosion in communication has both great potential and great danger. The outcome depends on crucial decisions and on where and by whom they are taken. Thus, it is a priority to organize the decision-making process in a participatory manner on the basis of a full awareness of the social impact of different alternatives."
 

 Hearn and Stevenson are on the same frequence as the two above-mentionned studies when they write that «communication futures nessitates examining cultural and technological domains» - two areas which call for the foremost attention because they are linked. They are also the main determinants of the solutions of what the authors have summed up as «unresolved issues» :

«If we arbitrarily choose the past half century, it is disturbing to see that mutual understanding, if that is a purpose of human communication, has hardly improved during the period in which university departments of communication have become ubiquitous... There are still wars, domestic violence, gender battles and racial intolerance... problems manifested in bipolar tensions such as: west versus east; north versus south; rich versus poor ..»

 The article we have attempted to comment is a most stimulating essay that suffers simply from its concision. A concision which does not facilitate the understanding of the theoretical developments due to a recourse to a telegraphic style at times. This does affect the overall value of the study and the relevance of the questions it raises. The part entitled «Future research agenda» is one of the tests of that relevance. It insists on the need «to ground the study of communication in addressing human and social problems, which continue to plague humanity and are amenable to communicative solutions.»

 At the time when the world is in a transition from a society of production to a society of knowledge, pluralism, diversity, mutual respect and tolerance are key ingredients for a better future. This is what one gathers from the conclusion of the authors - and can not but agree with it because these objectives are the best protection against a cyber dictatorship.

                            Mahdi Elmandjra
                            Rabat, 11 May 1997