Present interest in communication research in the social and physical sciences raises some interesting and difficult questions for the economic historian. Arthur Cole, who claims that he is merely trying to carry further the work of Harold Innis and others at Toronto, but who is surely the moving spirit in this session, has suggested that we might begin by pin-pointing a few leading questions for examination. Is this comparatively recent development to be regarded as merely a passing phase in the history of fashions in thought? Is the process of relating communication to economic change mainly a process of sophistication and is there anything to argue about in this relationship? Or, on the other hand, does it in fact amount to a major break-through in scientific and historical analysis, something comparable to the impact made on economics about a century ago by the Austrian School?

The advantage of having a tightly woven thesis to present to you is that it can be used in the introductory paper as a rug to be yanked violently from under my feet. If caution leads Professor Easterbrook “to remain, at least for the time being, in the informational camp,” it is obvious that only a total absence of caution would lead me, a professor of English, to venture before the leaders in the field of economic history in the role assigned to me today.

In a review of a recent play by T. S. Eliot, the critic sums up the action as “a tragedy of non-communication between parent and child.” We may be sure the reviewer did not intend to raise a doubt in the reader's mind as to whether the father or son in question had difficulty in getting to a telephone, finding a telegraph office or deciphering one another's handwriting. The level of communication he must have had in mind lies deep in the human dependency on expressive symbols. These primary factors of human experience—primary in the sense that nothing stands between them and the raw sensations and impulses—are made up of words, gestures, and images which are, in turn, invariably organized in systems or complexes. These we call by such names as aims, standards and ideals or, more generally, attitudes.

The purpose of this paper is to serve as a point of departure for discussion of the relationship of regional differentiation and growth to general economic development. In addition to touching on methodological problems, I hope to establish two specific points: (a) that the needs of economic history call for particular perspectives in delimiting regions, and (b) that study of regional interaction can provide insights in an understanding of national economic development.

My notes this morning are a continuation of Professor Broude's paper which has been circulated. I take the position that study of regional, interregional, and spatial interaction can provide insights for understanding not only national but all economic development. Put even more strongly, a well-balanced economic history must explicitly consider spatial processes and the evolving web of interregional relationships.