Introduction to Communication as an Academic Discipline and to Communication Theory

IICS515—2014 Pre-residencyMA-IIC programOctober 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 disciplineSub-fields of scholarly and practical enterprise in communication:Interpersonal communicationSpeech communicationMedia studiesIntercultural communicationInternational communicationPolitical economy of communicationPolitical communicationMedia policyMedia historyHealth communicationOrganizational communicationConflict resolution and mediationVisual communicationPublic relationsTechnology studiesJournalism and media production

1. Rhetoric2. Semiotics

3. Phenomenology4. Cybernetics5. The socio-psychological

tradition6. The socio-

cultural tradition7. The critical

tradition

Humanities:historyliterary and language studies, e.g., English, comparative literaturefine artsclassics

Social sciences: economicspolitical science sociology anthropology psychologylinguisticsphilosophy

Note that communication as a discipline encompasses:

i.The academic study of language, communication, media, culture and technologyii.Media production, e.g., radio, TV, film, digital communicationiii.Professional communication, e.g., public relations, technical writing, professional writing

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

2. Introducing communication theory(from Robert Craig’s

argument)

• 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:

(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 Craigcommunications facultyUniversity of Colorado

Former president, International

Communication Association

Robert Craig's website

What is communication

theory?

Definition of communication theory: Communication theory can be defined “very broadly to include any systematic, critically

reflective, and relatively abstract discourse about communication.”

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”

“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”

Note: this is not from Craig, but here to deepen your understanding of the concept of discourse

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

• 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)

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

In search of a communicational perspective on reality: the transmission vs. the ritual model of communication

The transmission model of communication The constitutive or ritual 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 “sender-message-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 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

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

“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)

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

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

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

The rich interaction between these two levels of metadiscourse then influences real life, and real life these two levels of metadiscourse

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

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

Copy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric

(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 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

Semiotics for beginners site

(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

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

Edmund Husserl, founder of phenomenology

(4) The cybernetic tradition

• Definition of cybernetics:

“Communication in the cybernetic tradition is theorized as information-processing, 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

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

“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 information-processing systems.”

Craig, p. 142

(5) The socio-psychological

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)

• 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

Famous still from the Great Train Robbery, a 1903 silent movie that featured the first violent scenes in film

(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 post-colonial 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 self-consciousness 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

• 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)

The young Marconi with his wireless telegraph, late 19th century

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)