The Chicago School defined communication as culture-making, not information transfer

Evidence

Moreover, the Chicago School scholars conceived communication as something more than the imparting of information. Rather, they characterized communication as the entire process whereby a culture is brought into existence, maintained in time, and sedimented into institutions. Therefore, they saw communication in the envelope of art, architecture, custom and ritual, and, above all, politics. — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 581

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels the ritual vs. transmission distinction that grounds Carey’s whole project. — connects to: Studying culture is fundamentally studying communications — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 251; Communication constitutes reality rather than merely representing it — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 382; Society is constituted by communication, not by similarity of customs. (+1 more)
• DEFINE: Articulates the core definitional move of the Chicago School’s communication theory.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 581

Broader Connections

• Communication constitutes reality rather than merely representing it #corroborates (0.85) — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 382
• Society is constituted by communication, not by similarity of customs. #expands (0.75)
• Studying culture is fundamentally studying communications #expands (0.70) — James W. Carey, Communication as Culture- Essays on…, 251
• Culture names the forms, not the content, of social relationships #expands (0.70) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 882