Transcript iics515-oc-october_6-2014

Introduction to Communication as an Academic
Discipline and to Communication Theory
IICS515—2014 Pre-residency
MA-IIC program
October 6, 2014
key concepts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
communication or communication studies
the communicational perspective
transmission model of communication
constitutive or ritual model of
communication
discourse
theoretical metadiscourse
practical metadiscourse
outline
1. An introduction to the discipline
of communication
2. Introducing Communication
Theory
Source: Robert Craig article (1999),
“Communication Theory as a
Field”
3. The Seven Fields of
Communication Theory
Source: Robert Craig article (1999),
“Communication Theory as a
Field”
1. An introduction to the discipline of communication
•
We can start with a simple definition of the discipline of communication

“Communication (or communication studies) is the interdisciplinary study of language, communication, media,
culture and technology.”
•
This is arguably the simplest definition of the discipline you will find
Origins of modern communication research:
•
Formal communication research, in the modern sense of the word, starts in the 1920s in the UK (with the “culture and
civilization” model developed by Frank and Queenie Leavis) and propaganda theory (developed by Edward Bernays,
Walter Lippmann, and Harold Lasswell)
Origins of the institutionalization of communication studies at North American universities:
•
A precursor to the establishment of communication programs in universities are the rhetoric and speech
communication departments established at American universities in the late 19 th and early 20th century
•
The first comprehensive departments of communication at a university are established in the late 1940s at the
University of Iowa and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, notably by Wilbur Schramm (the
acknowledged founder of communication as an academic enterprise in the U.S.)
•
The first department of communication at a Canadian university is established in the mid-1960s at Sir George
Williams University (now called Concordia) in Montreal
•
More than almost any other discipline, communication studies straddles the divide between the humanities (e.g.,
literature, history, languages, classics, fine arts) and social sciences (e.g., sociology, anthropology, psychology,
economics)
Definition of communication as a discipline
at the National Communication Association (the major U.S. organization for
communication scholarship)
“The discipline of communication focuses on how
people use messages to generate meanings within and
across various contexts, cultures, channels, and media.
The discipline promotes the effective and ethical
practice of human communication.
Communication is a diverse discipline which includes
inquiry by social scientists, humanists, and critical and
cultural studies scholars. A body of scholarship and
theory, about all forms of human communication, is
presented and explained in textbooks, electronic
publications, and academic journals. In the journals,
researchers report the results of studies that are the
basis for an ever-expanding understanding of how we
all communicate.”
Definition and contextual information at this NCA page
Founders of research in communication (the Leavises and
Edward Bernays) and its academic institutionalization
(Wilbur Schramm)
Understanding communication as a discipline
Note that communication as a
discipline encompasses:
i.
ii.
iii.
The academic study of
language, communication,
media, culture and
technology
Media production, e.g.,
radio, TV, film, digital
communication
Professional communication,
e.g., public relations,
technical writing,
professional writing
Communication (or communication
studies) as an academic discipline
has many component areas of study,
which can include both formally
academic and also practical areas,
e.g., professional communication,
media production, public speaking
1. Rhetoric
Communication theory,
2. Semiotics
which Craig divides into
3. Phenomenology seven discrete traditions (each
4. Cybernetics
of which contains a number
5. The socioof different separate theories,
numbering some 250 in total
psychological
among the seven traditions)
tradition
6. The sociocultural tradition
7. The critical
tradition
Sub-fields of scholarly and practical
enterprise in communication:
Interpersonal communication
Speech communication
Media studies
Intercultural communication
International communication
Political economy of communication
Political communication
Media policy
Media history
Health communication
Organizational communication
Conflict resolution and mediation
Visual communication
Public relations
Technology studies
Journalism and media production
Humanities:
history
literary and language
The various other disciplines studies, e.g., English,
in the humanities and social comparative literature
fine arts
sciences from which
classics
communication draws
Social sciences:
economics
political science
sociology
anthropology
psychology
linguistics
philosophy
Taking a communicational perspective on reality in IICS515
•
•
•
•
We are not merely studying “communication” in IICS515
We are more importantly using communication to understand reality
In this, we are taking a “communicational” perspective on the world
What does that mean?
1. Communication is a primary phenomenon that explains other psychological, social, economic,
political, cultural and religious phenomena (rather than a secondary behaviour and process that we
use other disciplines and their research to interpret)
2. Communication is not an ephemeral thing, but a phenomenon that has tangible and material
consequences in the world; it is a phenomenon as real and consequential as anything (e.g., money,
military power, the state, the market) that we otherwise consider sources of change and influence
in history
3. Communication is best understood not as a means to “transmit” information, but a “constitutive”
force through which our selves, our institutions, and our larger reality are created, maintained, and
changed
4. Communication has become a central concern in our culture, economy and politics, and is a public
trust (e.g., our media system, our public sphere) that requires effective policymaking so as to
ensure that the public’s interests are protected and evolved
5. Communication as a discipline allows us a “meta-discourse” about communication in the world; it
allows us to “talk about talk,” and thus to reflect on the many ways in which we communicate and
the consequences of that for the world
•
Why are we using this long and difficult article from 1999, published in the
journal Communication Theory, as our point of reference here in IICS515
oncampus?
•
This article is arguably the best single overview of the discipline of
communication that is available, and of the place of communication theory in the
discipline
•
Intercultural and international communication are subfields within the larger
discipline of communication (or communication studies)
•
Also, communication theory is just as much a source of influence and ideas in
intercultural and international communication as it is of any area within the
discipline of communication
•
We are therefore using this article for two reasons:
2. Introducing
communication theory
(from Robert Craig’s
argument)
(i) To receive an introduction to the larger discipline of communication, in which
intercultural and international communication are distinct fields of study
(ii) To introduce the various theoretical traditions that make up communication
theory, and that you will encounter in future readings in the MA-IIC degree as
these traditions and their component theories appear in your readings
•
In this article, we thus hear the discipline of communication “thinking” about
itself and what it’s about in a sophisticated way
•
You’re not expected to absorb every point Craig makes, but rather just risk your
exposure to the breadth and depth of what defines theory in the discipline of
communication
Robert Craig
communications faculty
University of Colorado
Former president,
International
Communication Association
Robert Craig's website
Definition of communication theory:
What is  Communication theory can be defined “very broadly to include any systematic, critically
communication reflective, and relatively abstract discourse about communication.”
theory?
Robert Craig, “How We Talk about Talk: Communication in the Public Interest,” p. 663 (this is
not the Craig article we read, but is the same author)
•
Communication theory is not synonymous with the discipline of communication per se, but it
does offer the accumulation of ideas that define the intellectual centre and rationale for the
discipline
•
Communication theory represents the cumulative intellectual productivity of communication
scholars, whatever their particular area of interest or theoretical affiliation, in making critical
and scholarly sense of language, communication, media, culture and technology
•
Theory is emphatically part of what it means to be a a graduate student, as we get past
learning information (as is often typical of undergraduate studies) and come to a more
elevated and panoramic view of our studies
•
Theory is something that people often find obscure, jargon-ridden, and irrelevant to their
personal or professional lives
•
The course is taught in such a way as to take the “fear and loathing” out of theory so that you
will see the personal, intellectual and professional value in understanding theory
•
Theory is about pattern recognition, about finding answers to difficult questions like why and
how things happen, and about exploring the often invisible forces that animate life and are
captured in metaphors and concepts like structure, system, ideology, discourse, agency, etc.
The problem with communication theory
•
Communication theory does not yet exist as a field of study, and it is
Craig’s role here in this article to try to establish a rationale for treating it as
a field of study within communication
•
Communication theory is characterized by a lack of coherence, consensus,
and canon (i.e., a canon is the list of books thought to be classic and
foundational in a given area of interest, e.g., Shakespeare is part of the
English literature canon)
•
All communication theories (remember, Craig tells us there are 250 of
them) are relevant to a world in which we already treat the ordinary word
“communication” as a rich and meaningful term
•
Each of the seven traditions of communication theory Craig identifies (and
within which the 250 theories are sorted) represent different ways of
conceptualizing communication (and by extension, language, media,
technology and culture)

“Communication theory, in this view, is a coherent field of metadiscursive
practices, a field of discourse about discourse with implications for the
practice of communication.” (Craig, p. 120)
•
Craig has used the term “discourse” and “discursive” often here—what
does “discourse” mean?
Definitions of discourse
“A discourse can be thought of as a way of describing, defining,
classifying, and thinking about people, things, and even
knowledge and abstract systems of thought.”
Philip Smith, Cultural Theory: An Introduction
“A discourse is a group of statements which provide a language
for talking about a particular kind of knowledge about a topic.
When statements about a topic are made within a particular
discourse, the discourse makes it possible to construct the topic
in a certain way. It also limits the other ways in which the topic
can be constructed.”
Stuart Hall, “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power”
Note: this is not from
Craig, but here to deepen
your understanding of the
concept of discourse
“A discourse is a socially produced way of talking or thinking
about a topic. It is defined by reference to the area of social
experience that it makes sense of, to the social location from
which that sense is made, and to the linguistic or signifying
system by which that sense is both made and circulated.... A
discourse is then a socially located way of making sense of an
important area of social experience.”
John Fiske's essay, “British Cultural Studies and Television”
Craig’s ambition and structure for this paper
•
Craig offers some general key premises that provide the structure for
this paper
1. Communication theory has not emerged as a field because the different
disciplinary perspectives that contribute to communication theory create
obstacles to coherence, i.e., it’s difficult for a communication theory
drawn from philosophy to relate to one drawn from psychology
2. Communication theory is best understood not as a unified theory—that
is, one brought within a single system of analysis, with every
contradiction reconciled—but rather as a dialogue and a dialectical
framework among the seven traditions Craig will identify
3. This dialogue and dialectic among the 250 theories opens up a
conceptual space– a theoretical metadiscourse – within which these
diverse theories can interact
4. What then emerges from the interaction of these 250 theories, as these
theories are sorted into categories or “traditions” reflecting certain
common and shared patterns among them, are 7 larger theoretical
traditions
• Craig calls these seven traditions “seven alternative vocabularies for
theorizing communication as a social practice”
The incoherence of communication theory
•
•
The thoroughly interdisciplinary nature of communication theory is one of its
richest features
However, such interdisciplinarity makes communication theory somewhat
incoherent, given the sheer number (250) theories and their various disciplinary
points of origin in the humanities and social sciences

“This spirit of interdisciplinarity is still with us and deserves to be cultivated as
one of our more meritorious qualities. The incorporation of so many different
disciplinary approaches has made it very hard, however, to envision
communication theory as a coherent field.” (Craig, p. 121)
•
The interdisciplinary nature of communication theory is illustrated in the 95
different definitions of communication that have been collected in the scholarly
literature
The multitude of theories (250 and probably more today, as the article dates to
1999) leaves communication theory vulnerable to being a motley collection of
disconnected theories – a “sterile eclecticism” – without a means to organize
and build on them, or to ensure a conversation among theories and theorists
The incoherence was made worse by attempts at the foundations of
communication as a discipline in the late 1940s, notably under Wilbur
Schramm, to make communication into a discipline without an apparent
interdisciplinary context and without regard to previous research in other
disciplines on communication and related topics
Most communication research before the founding of communication as a
discipline, because it derived from other disciplines, was really embedded in
research questions and models in those other disciplines, and thus not readily
incorporated into communication
•
•
•
Dialogical-dialectical
coherence:
Craig’s alternative to
communication
theory’s sterile
eclecticism and
interdisciplinary
incoherence
•
Having established the barriers to the coherence of communication theory,
Craig now seeks to create conditions for a genuinely coherent way of organizing
communication theory
•
He argues that there is no point in trying to remove all the differences,
contradictions and points of tension amid the theories, as this would imply that a
“unified field” of communication theory were possible—and it is not possible
•
That said, it is possible to bring the 250-plus theories that define communication
into coherence without reducing their diversity and tension
•
In recognizing that, we can then also appreciate that communication itself can
be credibly defined and organized as a discipline of its own, and not just an
assemblage of borrowed pieces from other disciplines
•
The means by which communication theory (and communication as a
discipline) might be organized coherently is through what Craig calls a
“dialogic-dialectical coherence”
•
He defines this “dialogic-dialectical coherence” as follows:

“… a common awareness of certain complementarities and tensions among
different types of communication theory, so it is commonly understood that
these different types of theory cannot legitimately develop in total isolation
from each other but must engage each other in argument.” (Craig, p. 124)
 By “dialogue” here we mean a conversation among the 250-plus theories (and
ultimately, the seven traditions into which Craig organizes these theories)
 By “dialectic” here we mean a relationship of mutual transformation, where
contact between two or more theories leads to new content being generated, i.e.,
the dialectic as imagined by Aristotle (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)
Toward a new vision for communication theory:
(1) the constitutive model of communication as metamodel
•
The original essay in
which Carey develops
these models, “A
Cultural Approach to
Communication,”
published in his book
above, is available here
in its entirety
Craig here proposes the idea of offering a foundation to the discipline of communication,
and he calls that foundation or rationale the “communicational perspective” on the world
•
That is to say, Craig suggests that communication as a discipline has a unique view of
human life, one just as singular and comprehensive as any other more established
discipline
•
Craig then asks: where might we look for clues as to what is distinctive about a
communicational view of the world?
•
He begins his inquiry into what elements would make for a distinctive communicational
view of reality by reviewing a famous debate and dualism in communication theory: that
is, the contrast of the transmission model and the constitutive or ritual model of
communication
•
This contrast is identified with one of the major figures in communication theory in the
U.S., James Carey, and we will explore the two in the next slide in a table form
•
For Craig, the constitutive model – which argues that communication creates reality – is
the key and pathway to taking a communicational perspective on the world
•
We can think of the constitutive model in another way as a model of communication as
social construction—as the creation of the meaningful social world we live in
through discourse, apart from the objects, buildings, infrastructure, nature and
other people (that are themselves not discursive, being objectively “real” and
material)
•
Craig defines each of the two models here in the following terms:
Transmission model:
 “a process of sending and receiving messages or transferring information from one mind
to another” (Craig, p. 125)
Ritual or constitutive model:
 “a constitutive process that produces and reproduces shared meaning.” (Craig, p. 125)
In search of a communicational perspective on reality:
the transmission vs. the ritual model of communication
The transmission model of communication
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This is the original conceptualization of
communication when the discipline was founded in
the late 1940s
It posited that communication was a one-way process,
insofar as it was defined by a sender transmitting a
message to a receiver
For that reason, it is sometimes called the “sendermessage-receiver” model
The content of the message was assumed to be
transparent, explicit, and not problematic in any way
The sender was defined in active and rather powerful
terms, the receiver in quite passive terms
There was little or no room for feedback by the
receiver
Success in communication was thus evaluated in terms
of whether the message was received accurately or not
Much of broadcasting, marketing, PR, and political
communication was originally defined in
transmission terms
The constitutive or ritual model of communication
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The constitutive or ritual model of communication
argues that the point of communication is largely not
about the transmission of information, but about the
creation of social reality
While, of course, information is sent in
communication, much of communication serves to
constitute (that is, to create or produce) the essential
meanings, relationships, and structural patterns that
make up reality as we know it
The meaning of what is communicated is not captured
in the message, but rather reflected in the reality that
the sender and receiver co-produce
Insofar as we co-produce reality every day, and do so
in familiar and customary ways, we can consider this a
“ritual” model of communication
In the ritual or constitutive model, we recognize that
much of what communication does is to reproduce the
status quo, as our social reality needs constant
maintenance and attention
That said, we can also use communication, as seen in
the ritual model, to change reality too, e.g., we offer a
fresh idea, a provocative political message, a
campaign or slogan that compels people to see reality
in a new way
The example of reading a newspaper each day as
an illustration of the ritual model
The original transmission model
Source: Claude Shannon and Warren
Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of
Communication (1949)
For deeper reference on the
transmission model, see this page at this
communication theory site
Attributes of the
constitutive or ritual
model that qualify it
as a way of thinking
about the
communicational
perspective on
reality
“Today, the central social
issues have to do with who
participates in what ways in
the social processes that
construct personal identities,
the social order, and codes
of communication.” (Craig,
p. 126)
1.
The constitutive model is one which locates communication within a broader
context of intellectual and cultural history (where the transmission model is quite
ahistorical, i.e., removed from and indifferent to history)
2.
The constitutive model views communication on “reflexive” terms; to be
“reflexive” is to be self-aware, and thus sensitive to what communication is made
of, and the conditions under which it occurs
•
Here we appreciate that, as viewed through the constitutive model, how we
communicate influences culture, and culture likewise constitutes communication
3.
The constitutive model is sensitive to the fact that communication theories have
practical and political consequences. In its critique of the transmission model, the
constitutive model acknowledges that the transmission model often supported the
power of the broadcast industries, marketing and advertising, etc.
4.
The constitutive model is identified with and supportive of a communicational
perspective on reality, notably insofar as the constitutive model attaches
communication as a human phenomenon directly to the larger society (insofar as
we create or construct the social order when we communicate).
•
Theories borrowed from other disciplines to explain communication (media,
culture and technology) are not based on the communicational perspective
Disciplines, such as communication studies, emerge when our existing ways of
explaining reality no longer seem adequate
Our world today is such that we recognize the centrality of language,
communication, media, culture and technology to it, and thus the creation of the
disciple of communication studies is warranted
•
•
Toward a new vision for communication theory:
(2) communication theory as metadiscourse
•
•
•
•
Thinking of communication theory as metadiscourse allows us to
avoid the problem of “sterile eclecticism” (or looked at more
positively, “productive fragmentation”) because we recognize that all
these 250-plus theories are all forms of reflecting on communication
They are, in this sense, all forms of “talking about talk,” of
communicating about communication, and in this sense have
something in common despite their incredible diversity of subject
matter, point of view, disciplinary origins, etc.
We are familiar with the experience and nature of metadiscourse
because we engage in metadiscourse – talk about talk – in our
everyday lives all the time, when we reflect on how someone said
something, why a misunderstanding has occurred, what sex and
violence in TV portends, whether net neutrality in the Internet is a
good thing, etc.
Communication theory is therefore an academic, self-conscious and
systematic form of the very metadiscourse we engage in everyday
 “… the technical practice of communication theory largely derives
from our ordinary, everyday practices of communication…. I envision
communication theory as an open field of discourse engaged with the
problems of communication as a social practice, a theoretical
metadiscourse that emerges from, extends, and informs practical
metadiscourse.” (Craig, p. 129)
Theoretical and practical metadiscourse:
communication studies as a “practical” discipline
Theoretical metadiscourse
enriches our practical
metadiscourse, allowing us to
test our everyday ideas about
communication against the
more intellectually rigorous
nature of communication
theory
Real life and all the
communication we experience
and practice there
Communication theory can
thus draw deductively (i.e.,
reasoning from theory
downward to real life) from
theories about
communication in other
disciplines, and inductively
(i.e., reasoning from real life
upward to theory) from
practical metadiscourse and
direct scholarly observation
of communication in real life
Theoretical metadiscourse, i.e.,
communication theory
The rich interaction
between these two
levels of
metadiscourse then
influences real life,
and real life these
two levels of
metadiscourse
Practical metadiscourse keeps
communication theory “honest”
and in touch with everyday
reality; real life is thus imagined
as a laboratory for thinking
about and innovating with
communication
Moreover, we are already
accustomed to reflecting on
communication in real life, and
drawing certain assumptions
(“metadiscursive
commonplaces,” as Craig calls
them) from it, so
communication theory is a
natural step forward from that
practical metadiscourse
Practical metadiscourse, i.e.,
where we reflect in everyday life
about communication, e.g.,
thinking about an interpersonal
conflict, whether negative
political ads work, etc.
3. Introducing the
“seven fields” of
communication
theory
(from Robert
Craig’s
argument)
•
Craig reminds us of the two foundational premises we just explored
(1) A constitutive model of communication, i.e., one that sees communication as the means
by which we produce, maintain, and change reality, thus providing us with a foundation
to understand the value of a communicational perspective on the world
(2) A conception of communication theory as “metadiscourse” in contact with the practical
“metadiscourse” we already generate within our real lives when we talk and think about
communication, media, culture and technology
•
There are many ways in which we could organize the 250-plus theories that
communication theory comprises
•
For instance, we could organize them as follows:
 By disciplinary origin, i.e., what other discipline did communication draw the theory
from?
 The level at which the theory is organized and applied, i.e., are we addressing
interpersonal life, large structures in media, or a global process?
 The underlying epistemology, i.e., epistemology is the theory of knowledge, and is
defined as the way in which we know something, e.g., do we know something rationally,
intuitively, empirically, etc.
•
However, Craig argues that organizing all of communication theory into seven discrete
fields that each demarcate distinctive ways of imagining communication has the benefit
of bringing all these theories into a conversation with each other

“[The seven traditions approach] divides the field according to underlying conceptions of
communicative practice. An effect of this shift in perspective is that communication
theories no longer bypass each other in their different paradigms or on their different
levels. Communication theories suddenly now have something to agree and disagree
about – and that ‘something’ is communication, not epistemology.” (Craig, p. 135)
(1) Rhetoric or
the rhetorical
tradition
•
Definition of rhetoric:

“[R]hetoric is the collaborative art of addressing and guiding decision and judgment—
usually public judgment that cannot be decided by force or expertise.” (Craig, p. 135)
•
Rhetoric is the art of speaking and writing effectively, and often but does not
necessarily imply persuasive and performative communication, e.g., a political stump
speech, an op-ed in a newspaper, a lecture in a university class
We can also speak of “visual rhetoric,” inasmuch as images persuade and perform
meaning for us
Rhetoric is the oldest form of communication theory, and dates to the practices of the
“rhetors” (professional speakers, as in courts of law or in politics) in Ancient Greece
Rhetoric defines as its task the solution, through effective speech or writing, of
problems or “exigencies”(i.e., urgent needs) in society
Rhetoric is thus a means through which communication directly intervenes in the
decision-making processes in society, notably in democratic societies where public
opinion can be appealed to and moved to action
•
•
•
•
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does rhetoric support?
•
We acknowledge the value of hearing different opinions in society
•
We recognize that some people are more rhetorically gifted than others, and
acknowledge public eloquence and effective rhetoric when we encounter it
Copy of Aristotle’s
Rhetoric
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does rhetoric challenge?
•
Rhetoric challenges the idea that words are less important than action, that truth is
somehow separate from opinion, and that telling the truth is somehow separate from
rhetorical performance
(2) Semiotics or
the semiotic
tradition
•
•
•
Semiotics is a tradition of communication theory that also dates to the
Ancient World, e.g., Hippocrates and St. Augustine, and is later further
developed in writing by the 17th century political theorist John Locke
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, is acknowledged as the major
modern figure in semiotics
Here is Saussure’s own definition of semiotics from his 1916 book, Course
in General Linguistics:
 “It is... possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as
part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of
general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeîon,
'sign'). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them.”
•
•
•
Semiotics for beginners site
Semiotics is “the science of signs,” and it views social reality as something
constituted by structures of meaning that have language (notably, “signs”) as
their basis
Signs are the building blocks of reality, and as they aggregate together, create
the world around us
Craig makes a number of points about semiotics
 Signs construct their users, i.e., they create our identity or “subject positions”
 Meaning is public and fluid in nature
 The nature of understanding is not a matter of our interior consciousness, but
a reflex as we encounter a sign in the world
 Codes (e.g., the English language) and media (e.g., books, TV) are not neutral
vehicles for the transmission of meaning, but have semiotic properties of their
own and shape meaning accordingly
(3) The
phenomenological
tradition
•

Definition of phenomenology:
The study of “structures of conscious experience as experienced from the first-person view, along
with relevant conditions of experience”; it is the study of “experience or consciousness”
From the entry for “phenomenology” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Phenomenology is the philosophy of experience—of the existential texture of life and our contact
with other people and the objective world there
Phenomenology distinguishes between the phenomena (the world of our senses and
consciousness) and the noumena (the world of other people, and of objects, meanings, and
experiences in the world); the noumena is something we only make contact with on rare and
extraordinary occasions
As Craig describes it, it is a “dialogue or experience of otherness”
As it applies to communication, a phenomenological approach is interested in what it means and
how to achieve authentic, unmediated contact with others and the objective world
We sense the idea of phenomenology when we feel we really understand someone, or are ourselves
understood; or when, whether in society or in the presence of nature, we feel truly connected
Phenomenology sets aside such conventional dualisms as body/mind, subject/object, believing this
act as obstacles to authentic experience
Phenomenology argues that authentic communication is achieved when we set aside our own
“agendas” and goal-seeking, and just try to be in the presence of someone or thing
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does phenomenology support?
•
Phenomenology holds open the possibility of authentic communication and experience, the
desirability of a lack of mediation, and the emotional and psychological benefits of dialogue and
benefit
Edmund Husserl, founder of
phenomenology
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does phenomenology challenge?
•
Phenomenology points to the fragility of communication—the sheer difficulty of making contact
with other people
•
Phenomenology reminds us that the body/mind, fact/value, subject/object distinction is not solid or
reliable
(4) The cybernetic
tradition
•
Definition of cybernetics:

“Communication in the cybernetic tradition is theorized as informationprocessing, and explains how all kinds of complex systems, whether living
or non-living, macro or micro, are able to function and why they often
malfunction.” (Craig, p. 141)
•
The major early figures in the cybernetic tradition are Alan Turing, Claude
Shannon, and Norbert Wiener, all pioneers of computing who were also
interested in communication
Cybernetics is best represented by the transmission model, as previously
introduced in the lecture
Cybernetics looks to the world of computers and also biology to draw
insight into how human communication works
•
•
“In general, then, cybernetics…
cultivates a practical attitude that
appreciates the complexity of
communication problems and
questions many of our usual
assumptions
about
the
differences between human and
non-human
informationprocessing systems.”
Craig, p. 142
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does cybernetics
support?
•
Cybernetics acknowledges the analogies or points of comparison between
machines and biological organisms and human processes like
communication
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does cybernetics
challenge?
•
Cybernetics challenges commonplace assumptions about the nature of
consciousness and humanity itself (given our growing intimacy with
technology)
•
Cybernetics challenges the distinctions between mind and matter, the real
and the simulated
(5) The sociopsychological
tradition
•
The socio-psychological tradition views communication as “a process of expression,
interaction, and influence” (Craig, p. 143)
•
The socio-psychological tradition has been the dominant tradition in communication for
much of its history, notably within what is called the theory of “media effects”
The socio-psychological tradition has a strong emphasis on the scientific method, and the
use of empirical and experimental evidence in its research
This tradition has defined much of the research into sexuality, violence and body image in
media, and likewise has had significant influence on defining the general public’s
understanding of communication and media
•
•
“Communication, in short, is the process by which individuals interact and influence each other.”
(Craig, p. 143)
•
Famous still from
the Great Train
Robbery, a 1903
silent movie that
featured the first
violent scenes in
film
Communication is here imagined as that which explains the causes and effects of social
behaviour, and seeks to understand how we might influence that behaviour
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does the socio-psychological
tradition support?
•
The socio-psychological tradition appeals because we recognize that personality is a large
part of communication
•
The socio-psychological tradition acknowledges how much social context and our existing
beliefs, attitudes and emotional states are involved in defining communication
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does the socio-psychological
tradition challenge?
•
The socio-psychological tradition challenges our common-sense belief that we are rational
beings and are highly autonomous; it recognizes how much we are driven by our
subconscious and non-rational parts of our being
(6) The socio-cultural tradition
•
This is the tradition most strongly influenced by sociology and anthropology
•
Among the major theories in the sociocultural tradition are symbolic interactionism and Pragmatism, both originating in the U.S. in
the early 20th century, and various kinds of discourse analysis
•
This tradition defines communication as follows:

“Communication in these traditions is typically theorized as a symbolic process that produces and reproduces shared socio-cultural
patterns. So conceived, communication explains how social order (a macro-level phenomenon) is created, realized, sustained, and
transformed in micro-level interaction processes.” (Craig, p. 144)
•
The sociocultural tradition recognizes how much of communication is concerned with the reproduction of the social order
•
That said, we also recognize in this tradition ample room for creativity and challenge to the social order
•
The socio-cultural tradition is this interested in the balance of these things—the reproduction of social order and yet capacity for
creativity, challenge and subversion of that same order
What aspects of practical metadiscourse or common sense does the socio-cultural tradition support?
•
The socio-cultural tradition is sensitive to the understanding that people are products of their social environments, that social change
can be disruptive, and that much of our behaviour and identity can be explained in terms of group norms, beliefs and practices as
they influence the individual
•
The socio-cultural tradition is particularly sensitive to diversity

“Sociocultural theory cultivates communicative practices that acknowledge cultural diversity and relativity, values tolerance and
understanding, and emphasize collective more than individual possibility.” (Craig, p. 146)
•
(7) The critical tradition
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The critical tradition is identified with a number of theories in
communication, including the Frankfurt School, cultural studies,
feminism, the political economy of communication, and postcolonial theory
The critical tradition has a significant home in the work of Karl
Marx, and the philosophical lineage there relating to his critique of
capitalism
The critical tradition, in Craig’s view, can be traced to Plato’s
explanation of Socrates’ view of the dialectic
As reflected in this idea of the dialectic, we have the view that
communication is inherently unstable because it is always subject
to contradiction, self-critique and transformation
Authentic communication thus proceeds within what Craig calls a
process of “discursive reflection,” and one that moves toward a
transcendence that cannot ultimately be achieved
This interest in “discursive reflection” – in a critical selfconsciousness about communication, among other things – is very
similar to the metadiscourse that Craig speaks of in his article
The basic problem that the critical tradition explores is the role of
ideology and the issue of socio-economic inequality and material
forces in our lives
The critical tradition is thus sensitive to how communication can
both serve the status quo, e.g., propaganda, and also seek to change
it, e.g., media strategies as used by social movements
In this sense, following Marx’s famous dictum that “philosophers
have only interpreted the world, but the point is to change it,” the
critical tradition also believes communication theory to be a source
of social change and “praxis” (theoretically informed action in and
on the world)
Concluding
thoughts in Craig
•
•
•
•
•
•
The young Marconi with his wireless
telegraph, late 19th century
•
Organizing communication theories – the 250-plus that exist – in this
seven-fields approach means that we can articulate themes and problems
in communication theory on a higher, more systematic plane
Each of these seven traditions in themselves is subject to an internal
process of dialogue and dialectic, insofar as the theories within a given
tradition are in constructive tension with each other
With this seven-fields way of organizing theory, we can also better locate
communication theory (and the discipline of communication studies)
within the even larger context that is the social sciences and the
humanities in general
The seven fields are not exhaustive, inasmuch as there are other fields one
could imagine as standing alone, e.g., a feminist tradition or a spiritual
tradition of communication theory
Scholars, as they do communication research, should try to do so with an
awareness of the entirety of communication theory, not their tiny
specialized corner of the discipline
The theoretical matrix Craig developed has the benefit of illustrating both
the interdisciplinary origins and the disciplinary nature of communication
studies
Graduate students benefit by seeing the totality of the legacy of their
discipline – what Craig calls the discipline’s “social knowledge” -- and
thus can locate their work within the seven fields, as well as innovate
within and challenge the field structure too
“[T]he field of communication theory marks out a common discursive space –
a space for theoretical metadiscourse – in which more specialized
theoretical discourses can engage with each other and with practical
metadiscourses on questions of communication as a social practice.”
(Craig, p. 154)
Selected sources on the
history of the discipline
of communication and
of communication
theory
•2013 interview with Robert Craig about the future of
communication theory and theorizing
•Hanno Hardt. Critical Communication Studies:
History & Theory in America.
•Everett Rogers. A History of Communication Study.
•John Durham Peters. Speaking into the Air: A
History of the Idea of Communication.
• John Durham Peters, Elihu Katz, and Tamar Liebes.
Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any?
Should There Be?
•Wilbur Schramm. “The Beginnings of
Communication Study in the United States.”
•Dan Schiller. Theorizing Communication: A History.
•Veikko Pietila. On the Highway of Mass
Communication Studies.
Communication theory sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media
Media Education Foundation (premier media education site for
videos on theory and issues relating to media)
McLuhan and Innis site at the National Library in Ottawa
Communication Studies, Media Studies, and Cultural Studies
site (CCMS)
Media and Communication Studies site (MCS)
Media theory resources at University of Twente
Semiotics for Beginners
Critical Media Study
Cultural Studies and Critical Theory
Voice of the Shuttle (see the media studies and cultural studies
section of this much larger site for many links to resources)
Theory.org/uk (a very playful theory site)
Changing Minds (a site devoted to persuasion and
communication)