Download Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory and more Summaries Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Mapping the Territory
(Seven Traditions in the Field
of Communication Theory)
In Chapter 1, I presented working definitions for the concepts of communication and theory. In Chapters 2 and 3, I outlined the basic differences between objective and interpretive communication theories. These distinctions should help bring order out of chaos when your study of theory seems confusing. And it may seem confusing. University of Colorado communication professor Robert Craig describes the field of communication theory as awash with hundreds of unre- lated theories that differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. He suggests that our field of study resembles “a pest control device called the Roach Motel that used to be advertised on TV: Theories check in, but they never check out.” 1 My mind conjures up a different image when I try to make sense of the often baffling landscape of communication theory. I picture a scene from the film Raid- ers of the Lost Ark in which college professor Indiana Jones is lowered into a dark vault and confronts a thick layer of writhing serpents covering the floor—a tan- gle of communication theories. The intrepid adventurer discovers that the snakes momentarily retreat from the bright light of his torch, letting him secure a safe place to stand. It’s my hope that the core ideas of Chapters 1–3 will provide you with that kind of space. The fantasy nature of the film is such that I could even imagine Indiana Jones emerging from the cave with all the snakes straightened like sticks of kindling wood, bound together in two bundles—the objective batch held in his right hand and the interpretive batch held in his left. But that’s an overly simplistic fantasy. Craig offers a more sophisticated solution. Craig agrees that the terrain is confusing if we insist on looking for some kind of grand theoretical overview that brings all communication study into focus—a top-down, satellite picture of the communication theory landscape. He suggests, however, that communication theory is a coherent field when we understand com- munication as a practical discipline.^2 He’s convinced that our search for different types of theory should be grounded where real people grapple with everyday problems and practices of communication. Craig explains that “all communication theories are relevant to a common practical lifeworld in which communication is already a richly meaningful term.”^3 Communication theory is the systematic and thoughtful response of communication scholars to questions posed as humans interact with each other—the best thinking within a practical discipline.
C H A P T E R
38 OVERVIEW
The socio-psychological tradition epitomizes the scientific or objective perspec- tive described in Chapter 2. Scholars in this tradition believe there are commu- nication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation. They look for cause-and-effect relationships that will predict the results when people communicate. When they find causal links, they are well on the way to answer- ing the ever-present question that relationship and persuasion practitioners ask: How can I get others to change? In terms of generating theory, the socio- psychological tradition is by far the most prolific of the seven that Craig names. This disciplinary fact of life is reflected in the many theories of this type that I present in the book. When researchers search for universal laws of communication, they try to focus on what is without being biased by their personal view of what ought to be. As social scientists, they heed the warning of the skeptical newspaper editor: “You think your mother loves you? Check it out—at least two sources.” For communication theorists in the socio-psychological tradition, checking it out usu- ally means designing a series of surveys or controlled experiments. That’s been my approach. Teaching at a small liberal arts college where I’ve had the opportunity to be personally involved in the lives of my students, I’ve always wondered if there is a way to predict which college friendships will survive and thrive after grad- uation. As someone trained in the socio-psychological tradition, I began a longi- tudinal study spanning two decades to find out the answer. 6 I asked 45 pairs of best friends to respond to questions about (1) when they became close friends; (2) the similarity of their academic majors; (3) their range of mutual-touch behavior;
Craig thinks it’s reasonable to talk about a field of communication theory if we take a collective look at the actual approaches researchers have used to study communication problems and practices. He identifies seven established tradi- tions of communication theory that include most, if not all, of what theorists have done. These already established traditions offer “distinct, alternative vocab- ularies” that describe different “ways of conceptualizing communication problems and practices.” 4 This means that scholars within a given tradition talk comfort- ably with each other but often take potshots at those who work in other camps. As Craig suggests, we shouldn’t try to smooth over these between-group battles. Theorists argue because they have something important to argue about. In the rest of the chapter I’ll outline the seven traditions that Craig describes. Taken together, they reveal the breadth and diversity that spans the field of communication theory. The classifications will also help you understand why some theories share common ground, while others are effectively fenced off from each other by conflicting goals and assumptions. As I introduce each tra- dition, I’ll highlight how its advocates tend to define communication, suggest a practical communication problem that this kind of theory addresses, and pro- vide an example of research that the tradition has inspired. 5 Since I find that the topic of friendship is of great interest to most college students, the seven research studies I describe will show how each tradition approaches this type of close relationship.
THE SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL TRADITION
Communication as Interpersonal Interaction and Influence
40 OVERVIEW
each partner to prepare a list of his or her closest relationships, including four family members and eight non-family ties. 10 In almost all cases, the eight people who weren’t family were other friends or romantic partners rather than co-workers, coaches, or teachers. Parks then had the two friends trade their lists and asked them questions that probed their relationship with the key people in their friend’s social network. These included:
1. Prior contact: Which people did you know before you met your friend? 2. Range of contact: How many of them have you now met face-to-face? 3. Communication: How often do you communicate with each of them? 4. Liking: How much do you like or dislike each of the ones you know? 5. Support: To what extent does each of them support your friendship? 6. Support: To what extent does your own network support your friendship? Note that the first four questions establish the links within and between the friends’ social networks. Both support questions reveal the feedback friends receive from these support systems. Using a number of traditional measures that assess personal relationships, Parks measured the amount of communication between the friends, the closeness of their relationship, and their commitment to see it continue. When he compared these three measures to the quantity and quality of links to their friend’s social network, the results were striking. Friends who had multiple and positive inter- actions with their partner’s social networks had more communication with, closeness to, and commitment toward their partner than friends who had little involvement and felt little support from these folks. Friendships don’t exist in a vacuum; they are embedded in a network that processes social information.
THE RHETORICAL TRADITION
Communication as Artful Public Address
Whether speaking to a crowd, congregation, legislative assembly, or jury, public speakers have sought practical advice on how to best present their case. Well into the twentieth century, the rhetorical theory and advice from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and other Greco-Roman rhetors served as the main source of wisdom about public speaking. There are a half-dozen features that characterize this influential tradition of rhetorical communication:
- A conviction that speech distinguishes humans from other animals. Cicero suggested that only oral communication had the power to lead humanity out of its brutish existence and establish communities with rights of citizenship. 11
- A confidence that public address delivered in a democratic forum is a more effective way to solve political problems than rule by decree or resorting to force. Within this tradition, the phrase mere rhetoric is a contradiction in terms.
- A setting in which a single speaker attempts to influence multiple listeners through persuasive discourse. Effective communication requires audience adaptation.
- Oratorical training as the cornerstone of a leader’s education. Speakers learn to deliver strong arguments in powerful voices that carry to the edge of a crowd.
Rhetoric The art of using all avail- able means of persua- sion, focusing upon lines of argument, organiza- tion of ideas, language use, and delivery in pub- lic speaking.
CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 41
- An emphasis on the power and beauty of language to move people emotion- ally and stir them to action. Rhetoric is more art than science.
- Oral public persuasion as the province of males. A key feature of the wom- en’s movement has been the struggle for the right to speak in public. Readers of Aristotle’s Rhetoric may be surprised to find a systematic analysis of friendship. He defines a friend as “one who loves and is loved in return.” 12 The Greek word for this kind of love is philia, as in Philadelphia (the city of brotherly love). Based on this mutual love, Aristotle says a friend takes pleasure when good things happen to the other and feels distress when the other goes through bad times—both emotions experienced for no other reason than the fact that they are friends. Aristotle then catalogs more than 20 personal qualities that make people attractive to us as friends. For example, we have friendly feelings toward those who are pleasant to deal with, share our interests, aren’t critical of others, are willing to make or take a joke, and show that they “are very fond of their friends and not inclined to leave them in the lurch.” 13 Although Aristotle wrote 2,500 years ago, this last quality resonates with James Taylor’s promise in the song “You’ve Got a Friend.” If you call out his name, wherever he is, he’ll come running. 14 You might have trouble seeing the link between the main features of the rhetorical tradition and Aristotle’s comments on friendship. After an in-depth study on Aristotle’s entire body of work—not just the Rhetoric —St. John’s Uni- versity philosopher Eugene Garver concluded that Aristotle didn’t analyze friendship as a way to help Greek citizens develop close relationships. 15 Rather, he was instructing orators on how to make their case seem more probable by creating a feeling of goodwill among the audience. If by word and deed a speaker appears friendly, listeners will be more open to the message. Twenty-five years ago I wrote a book on friendship and suggested the title Making Friends. The publisher liked my proposal, but at the last minute added a phrase. I was startled when the book came out entitled Making Friends (and Making Them Count).^16 I’m uncomfortable with the idea of using friends as a means to achieve other goals. According to Garver, Aristotle had no such qualms. Rhetoric is the discovery of all available means of persuasion.
THE SEMIOTIC TRADITION
Communication as the Process of Sharing Meaning Through Signs
Semiotics is the study of signs. A sign is anything that can stand for something else. High body temperature is a sign of infection. Birds flying south signal the coming of winter. A white cane signifies blindness. An arrow designates which direction to go. Words are also signs, but of a special kind. They are symbols. Unlike the examples I’ve just cited, words are arbitrary symbols that have no inherent meaning, no natural connection with the things they describe. For example, there’s nothing in the sound of the word share or anything visual in the letters h-u-g that signifies a good friendship. One could just as easily coin the term snarf or clag to symbolize a close relationship between friends. The same thing is true for nonverbal symbols like winks or waves. Cambridge University literary critic I. A. Richards railed against the seman- tic trap that he labeled “the proper meaning superstition”—the mistaken belief
Semiotics The study of verbal and nonverbal signs that can stand for something else, and how their interpreta- tion impacts society.
Symbols Arbitrary words and non- verbal signs that bear no natural connection with the things they describe; their meaning is learned within a given culture.
CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 43
The socio-cultural tradition is based on the premise that as people talk, they produce and reproduce culture. Most of us assume that words reflect what actu- ally exists. However, theorists in this tradition suggest that the process often works the other way around. Our view of reality is strongly shaped by the lan- guage we’ve used since we were infants. University of Chicago linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf were pioneers in the socio-cultural tradition. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity states that the structure of a culture’s language shapes what people think and do. 18 “The ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group.” 19 Their theory of linguistic relativ- ity counters the assumption that words merely act as neutral vehicles to carry meaning. Language actually structures our perception of reality. Contemporary socio-cultural theorists grant even more power to language. They claim that it is through the process of communication that “reality is pro- duced, maintained, repaired, and transformed.” 20 Or, stated in the active voice, persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social worlds.^21 When these worlds collide, the socio-cultural tradition offers help in bridging the culture gap that exists between “us” and “them.” Patricia Sias, a communication professor at Washington State University, takes a socio-cultural approach when studying friendships that form and dis- solve in organizational settings. She writes that “relationships are not entities external to the relationship partners, but are mental creations that depend on communication for their existence and form.... If relationships are constituted in communication they are also changed through communication.”^22 Sias uses a social construction lens through which to view deteriorating friendships in the workplace. Sias located 25 people in a variety of jobs who were willing to talk about their failing workplace friendships. Some relationships were between peer
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity The claim that the struc- ture of a language shapes what people think and do; the social construc- tion of reality.
3. Physical contact: Nonsexual touch 4. Trust: Confidence that the other is reliable 5. Unconditional support: Being there for the other in good times and bad 6. Sexual contact: Overt sexual activity 7. Activities: Doing things together of a nonsexual nature The content and order of the top five interpretations of intimacy held rela- tively constant for both opposite-sex and same-sex friendships, whether the respondent was a man or a woman. The notable deviations were that a few more men in opposite-sex friendships thought of intimacy as sexual contact, but in same-sex relationships characterized it as activities together. For Monsour, the major contribution of this study is that for friends in both kinds of relationships, the word intimacy is multidimensional—a polysemic linguistic sign. A symbol like this can easily be misunderstood. Yet if two of the students in Monsour’s study referred to intimacy in a conversation, with a few exceptions, it’s likely that they’d understand what the other was talking about.
THE SOCIO-CULTURAL TRADITION
Communication as the Creation and Enactment of Social Reality
44 OVERVIEW
co-workers, others between a supervisor and a subordinate. All the workers spon- taneously told stories about their deteriorating friendship that revealed how communication between the two co-workers had changed. Although the friend- ships went sour for a variety of reasons—personality problems, distracting life events, conflicting expectations, betrayal, and promotion—the way the friend- ships dissolved was remarkably similar. Almost all workers told stories of using indirect communication to change the relationship. While their friendships were deteriorating, the former friends still had to talk with each other in order to accomplish their work. But these co-workers stopped eating lunch together and spending time together outside the office. While on the job they avoided personal topics and almost never talked about the declining state of their relationship. Even seemingly safe topics such as sports or movies were no longer discussed; small talk and watercooler chitchat disappeared. While linguistic connection was sparse, nonverbal communication spoke loudly. The workers who talked with Sias recalled the lack of eye contact, snappy or condescending tones of voice, and physically backing away from the other. Ideally, social construction research in the office would capture the real-time communication of co-workers, but that would require a videotaped record of office conversations when the friendship was in the process of deteriorating—a high hurdle for Sias to clear. As for contrasting narratives, she notes that “the damaged nature of the relationships made it difficult to recruit both partners in each friendship.”^23 Yet without the actual dialogue of both conversational part- ners to examine, any statement about their co-creation of social reality must remain tentative.
THE CRITICAL TRADITION
Communication as a Reflective Challenge of Unjust Discourse
The term critical theory comes from the work of a group of German scholars known as the “Frankfurt School” because they were part of the independent Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University. Originally set up to test the ideas of Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School rejected the economic determinism of orthodox Marxism yet carried on the Marxist tradition of critiquing society. What types of communication practice and research are critical theorists against? Although there is no single set of abuses that all of them denounce, critical theorists consistently challenge three features of contemporary society:
1. The control of language to perpetuate power imbalances. Critical theorists con- demn any use of words that inhibits emancipation. 2. The role of mass media in dulling sensitivity to repression. Critical theorists see the “culture industries” of television, film, MP3s, and print media as reproducing the dominant ideology of a culture and distracting people from recognizing the unjust distribution of power within society. 3. Blind reliance on the scientific method and uncritical acceptance of empirical find- ings. Critical theorists are suspicious of empirical work that scientists claim to be ideologically free, because science is not the value-free pursuit of knowledge that it claims to be.
Culture industries Entertainment businesses that reproduce the domi- nant ideology of a cul- ture and distract people from recognizing unjust distribution of power within society; e.g., film, television, music, and advertising.
46 OVERVIEW
Communication professor Bill Rawlins (Ohio University) works within this tradition as he studies friendship by taking an in-depth look at the actual con- versations between friends. In his book The Compass of Friendship: Narratives, Identities, and Dialogues, he devotes an entire chapter to a 90-minute recorded conversation between Chris and Karen, two women who agree they’ve been friends for “30 years and counting.” 28 Rawlins provided no guidelines or instruc- tions. The women only know that he is interested in their friendship. After an hour of recounting stories about shared experiences, Chris brings up Karen’s slow retreat into silence the past winter. Obviously bothered by losing contact, Chris continues... Chris: And I thought, “Well that’s okay; everybody has these times when they feel this way.” But I feel like you should alert people that care about you [laughs] to the fact that this is what is goin’ on— Karen: [laughs] Yeah... Chris: “I’m going into my cave. See ya in the spring,” or whatever. Or “I don’t wish to have anything, writing or any communications for a while. Not to worry. Adios. Bye to everybody. Hasta la vista or whatever.” Karen: Yeah. Chris: Or something, because I [pause], I [pause], I... Karen: You were worried.^29 The dialogue above is less than a minute of the women’s conversation, yet it provides a rich resource for Rawlins’ insight into their friendship. Chris quotes to herself at the time that such feelings are commonplace and “OK.” Even so, she believes that Karen “should alert people that care about you to the fact that this is going on... .” They both laugh at this paradoxical recom- mendation that Karen communicate to significant others that she does not intend to communicate with them. Chris rehearses two voices for Karen here: a humorous one that trades on a hibernation metaphor, and then a more seri- ous, explicit statement with Spanish flourishes at the end that seem to add a comical flavor. As Karen affirms this idea, however, Chris surrenders her comic tone and makes the frank request, “Or something,” haltingly trying to offer her reasons, “I [pause], I [pause], I... ,” which Karen completes for her: “You were worried.” In short, Karen again recognizes the emotional basis of Chris’ concerns and legitimates Chris’ suggested policy for communicating social withdrawal. 30 Rawlins’ reconstruction of this segment reveals how he experiences the women’s friendship. After reading his interpretation of the entire conversa- tion, the women independently tell him that he was “right on” and had “nailed it.” 31 That’s because he paid attention to their interpretation of their experience.
The seven traditions I’ve described have deep roots in the field of communica- tion theory. Team loyalties run strong, so theorists, researchers, and practitioners working within one tradition often hear criticism from those in other traditions that their particular approach has no legitimacy. In addition to whatever arguments
FENCING THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 47
FIGURE 4–1 A Survey Map of Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory
Cybernetic
Objective Territory
Interpretive Territory
Socio- psychological
Rhetorical
Socio-cultural
Critical
Semiotic Phenomenological
each group might muster to defend their choice, they can also claim “squatters’ rights” because scholars who went before had already established the right to occupy that portion of land. Taking the real estate metaphor seriously, in Fig- ure 4–1, I’ve charted the seven traditions as equal-area parcels of land that collectively make up the larger field of study. A few explanations are in order. First, it’s important to realize that the location of each tradition on the map is far from random. My rationale for placing them where they are is based on the distinction between objective and interpretive theories outlined in Chapter 2. According to the scientific assumptions presented in that chapter, the socio- psychological tradition is the most objective, and so it occupies the far left posi- tion on the map—solidly rooted in objective territory. Moving across the map from left to right, the traditions become more interpretive and less objective. Some students wonder why rhetoric is rated more objective than semiotics. It’s because rhetoricians have traditionally regarded what language refers to as “real,” whereas semiologists perceive the relationship between a word and its referent as more tenuous. I see the phenomenological tradition as the most sub- jective of the seven traditions, and so it occupies the position farthest to the right—firmly grounded in interpretive territory. The order of presentation in this chapter followed the same progression—a gradual shift from objective to inter- pretive concerns. Scholars working in adjacent traditions usually have an easier time appreciating each other’s work. On the map they share a common border. Professionally, they are closer together in their basic assumptions. Second, hybrids are possible across traditions. You’ve seen throughout this chapter that each tradition has its own way of defining communication and its own distinct vocabulary. Thus, it’s fair to think of the dividing lines on the map as fences built to keep out strange ideas. Scholars, however, are an independent bunch. They climb fences, read journals, and fly to faraway conferences. This cross- pollination sometimes results in theory grounded in two or three traditions. Finally, the seven charted traditions might not cover every approach to communication theory. Craig recently suggested the possibility of a pragmatist tradition —a pluralistic land where different perspectives on truth could all be
CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 49
about each other’s well-being, respect each other as equals, and engage in ongo- ing learning about each other. They also trust and are trustworthy, are respec- tively honest, and give special attention to the other’s needs and desires. 36 With or without my addition of an ethical tradition, Craig’s framework can help make sense of the great diversity in the field of communication theory. As you read about a theory in the section on media effects, remember that it may have the same ancestry as a theory you studied earlier in the section on relation- ship development. On the first page of each of the next 32 chapters, I’ll tie each theory to one or more traditions. Hopefully this label will make it easier for you to understand why the theorist has made certain choices. So, after four chapters of introduction and integration, let’s begin.
1. Considering the differences between objective and interpretive theory, can you make a case that the rhetorical tradition is less objective than the semiotic one or that the socio-cultural tradition is more interpretive than the critical one? 2. Suppose you and your best friend have recently been on an emotional roller coaster. Which of the seven highlighted definitions of communication offer the most promise of helping you achieve a stable relationship? Why? 3. Communication departments rarely have a faculty representing all seven tra- ditions. In order to create specialties and minimize conflict, some recruit from just one. What tradition(s) seems well-represented in your department? 4. The map in Figure 4–1 represents seven traditions in the field of communica- tion theory. In which region do you feel most at home? What other areas would you like to explore? Where would you be uncomfortable? Why?
QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS
A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: Robert T. Craig, “Communication Theory as a Field,” Commu-
nication Theory, Vol. 9, 1999, pp. 119–161. Communication as a practical discipline: Robert T. Craig, “Communication as a Practical Discipline,” in Rethinking Communication: Vol. 1, Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1989, pp. 97–122. Anthology of primary resources for each tradition: Heidi L. Muller and Robert T. Craig (eds.), Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2007. Socio-psychological tradition: Carl Hovland, Irving Janis, and Harold Kelley, Communi- cation and Persuasion, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1953, pp. 1–55. Cybernetic tradition: Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, Avon, New York, 1967, pp. 23–100. Rhetorical tradition: Thomas M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, Longman, New York, 1990, pp. 1–52. Semiotic tradition: C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1946, pp. 1–23. Phenomenological tradition: Carl Rogers, “The Characteristics of a Helping Relation- ship,” in On Becoming a Person, Houghton Miffl in, Boston, MA, 1961, pp. 39–58.
50 OVERVIEW
Socio-cultural tradition: Benjamin Lee Whorf, “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behaviour to Language,” in Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 1941, pp. 123–149. Critical tradition: Raymond Morrow with David Brown, Critical Theory and Methodol- ogy, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 3–34, 85–112. Ethical tradition: Richard L. Johannesen, “Communication Ethics: Centrality, Trends, and Controversies,” in Communication Yearbook 25, William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001, pp. 201–235. Pragmatic tradition: Robert T. Craig, “Pragmatism in the Field of Communication Theory,” Communication Theory, Vol. 17, 2007, pp. 125–145. Critique of Craig’s model and his response: David Myers, “A Pox on All Compromises: Reply to Craig (1999),” and Robert T. Craig, “Minding My Metamodel, Mending Myers,” Communication Theory, Vol. 11, 2001, pp. 218–230, 231–240.
