How Is it Possible to Explain, Interpret, and Understand Our Social World?
Symbolic Interactionism
Intellectual Tradition of Symbolic Interactionism
Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism
Key Concepts in Symbolic Interactionism
Dramatism
Intellectual Tradition of Dramatism
Assumptions of Dramatism
Key Concepts in Dramatism
Claims of Dramatism
Coordinated Management of Meaning
Intellectual Tradition of Coordinated Management of Meaning
Assumptions of Coordinated Management of Meaning
Key Concepts in Coordinated Management of Meaning
Claims of Coordinated Management of Meaning
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Symbolic Interactionism
Dramatism
Coordinated Management of Meaning
Key Terms
Chapter 5 Organizing and Sending Messages
How Do I Comfort a Hurting Friend Who Has Just Hurt
Me?
Schema Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Schema Theory
Assumptions of Schema Theory
Key Concepts in Schema Theory
Claims of Schema Theory
Schema activation
Schema change
Levels of expertise
Assimilation and accommodation
Constructivism Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Constructivism
Assumptions of Constructivism
Key Concepts in Constructivism
Interpersonal constructs.
Cognitive complexity
Person-centered messages.
Claims of Constructivism
Planning Theory of Communication
Intellectual Tradition of Planning Theory
Assumptions of Planning Theory
Key Concepts in Planning Theory
Goals, plans, and planning
Plan complexity and action fluidity
The hierarchy principle
Claims of Planning Theory
Claims about goals, plans, and planning
Claims about plan complexity and action fluidity
Claims about the hierarchy principle
General claims of planning theory
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Schema Theory
Constructivism
Planning Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 6 Explaining and Understanding Human Behavior
Why Do People Behave as They Do?
Attribution Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Attribution Theory
Assumptions of Attribution Theory
Key Concepts in Attribution Theory
Biases and Errors in Attribution Processes
Research in Attribution Theory
Expectancy Violations Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Expectancy Violations Theory
Assumptions of Expectancy Violations Theory
Key Concepts in Expectancy Violations Theory
Expectancy
Expectancy violations and arousal
Communicator reward valence
Violation valence
Claims of Expectancy Violations Theory
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Attribution Theory
Expectancy Violations Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 7 Discourse and Change
How Can Language Contribute to Social Change?
Structuration Theory/Adaptive Structuration Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Structuration Theory
Assumptions of Structuration Theory
Key Concepts in Structuration Theory
Adaptive Structuration Theory and Research
Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Key Concepts in Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Four main elements of diffusion of innovations
Types of innovation decisions
Claims of Diffusion of Innovations Research
Communication Accommodation Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Communication
Accommodation Theory
Assumptions of Communication Accommodation Theory
Key Concepts in Communication Accommodation Theory
Claims of Communication Accommodation Theory
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Structuration Theory
Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Communication Accommodation Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 8 Communication in Developing Relationships
How Do You Decide if a Relationship Is Worth the Effort?
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Assumptions of Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Key Concepts in Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Claims of Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Relational Uncertainty and Communication in Established Relationships
Key Concepts of Relational Uncertainty
Claims About Relational Uncertainty and Communication
Social Penetration Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Social Penetration Theory
Assumptions of Social Penetration Theory
Key Concepts in Social Penetration Theory
Claims of Social Penetration Theory
Social Exchange Theories
Intellectual Tradition of Social Exchange Theories
Assumptions of Social Exchange Theories
Key Concepts in Social Exchange Theories
Claims of Social Exchange Theories
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Relational
Uncertainty
Social Penetration Theory
Social Exchange Theories
Key Terms
Chapter 9 Communication in Sustaining Relationships
How Do You Keep a Relationship Going?
Dialectical Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Relational Dialectics
Assumptions of Relational Dialectics
Key Concepts in Relational Dialectics
Common Types of Relational Contradictions
Communication Privacy Management Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Communication Privacy
Management Theory
Assumptions of Communication Privacy Management Theory
Key Concepts in Communication Privacy
Management Theory
Privacy rule foundations
Privacy rule development
Boundary coordination operations
Boundary turbulence.
Claims of Communication Privacy Management Theory
Interactional/Systems Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Interactional/Systems Theory
Assumptions of Interactional/Systems Theory
Key Concepts in Interactional/Systems Theory
Claims of Interactional/Systems Theory
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Relational Dialectics
Communication Privacy Management Theory
Interactional/Systems Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 10 Processes of Persuasion
How Can I Get Others to Do What I Want?
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Assumptions of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Key Concepts in Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Claims of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Intellectual Tradition of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Assumptions of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Key Concepts in the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Claims of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Inoculation Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Inoculation Theory
Assumptions of Inoculation Theory
Key Concepts in Inoculation Theory
Claims of Inoculation Theory
For Further Discussion
Key Terms
Chapter 11 Communication in Organizations
How Do I Get Along With Others in Organizations?
Karl Weick’s Sense Making Tradition
Intellectual Tradition of Sense Making Theory
Assumptions of Sense Making Theory
Key Concepts in Sense Making Theory
Claims of Sense Making Theory
Cultural Approaches
Intellectual Tradition of Cultural Approaches
Assumptions of Cultural Approaches
Key Concepts in Organizational Culture
Claims of Organizational Culture
Deetz’s Multiple Stakeholder Model
Intellectual Tradition of the Multiple Stakeholder Model
Assumptions of the Multiple Stakeholder Model
Key Concepts in the Multiple Stakeholder Model
Claims of the Multiple Stakeholder Model
For Further Discussion
Key Terms
Chapter 12 Theories of Group and Family Communication
How Can I Make Group Work a Positive Experience?
Symbolic Convergence Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Symbolic Convergence Theory
Assumptions of Symbolic Convergence Theory
Key Concepts in Symbolic Convergence Theory
Claims of Symbolic Convergence Theory
Functional Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Functional Theory
Assumptions of Functional Theory
Key Concepts in Functional Theory
Claims of Functional Theory
Family Communication Patterns Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Family Communication Patterns Theory
Assumptions of Family Communication Patterns Theory
Key Concepts in Family Communication Patterns Theory
Claims of Family Communication Patterns Theory
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Symbolic Convergence Theory
Functional Theory
Family Communication Patterns Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 13 Theories of Health Communication
How Do People Use Communication to Make Sense of Health Issues?
Uncertainty Management Theory
Assumptions of Uncertainty Management Theory
Key Concepts of Uncertainty Management Theory
Claims of Uncertainty Management Theory
The Extended Parallel Process Model
Intellectual Tradition of the Extended Parallel Processing Model
Assumptions of the Extended Parallel Processing Model
Key Concepts in the Extended Parallel Processing Model
Claims of the Extended Parallel Processing Model Theory of Planned Behavior
Intellectual Tradition of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Assumptions of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Key Concepts in the Theory of Planned Behavior
Claims of the Theory of Planned Behavior
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Uncertainty Management Theory
The Extended Parallel Process Model
The Theory of Planned Behavior
Key Terms
Chapter 14 Technology and Media Processing
How Do We Make Sense of a Mass of Information?
Agenda Setting Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Agenda Setting Theory
Assumptions of Agenda Setting Theory
Key Concepts in Agenda Setting Theory
Claims of Agenda Setting Theory
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Uses and Gratifications Theory
Assumptions of Uses and Gratifications Theory
Key Concepts in Uses and Gratifications Theory
Claims of Uses and Gratifications Theory
Media Multiplexity Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Media Multiplexity Theory
Assumptions of Media Multiplexity Theory
Key Concepts in Media Multiplexity Theory
Claims of Media Multiplexity Theory
For Further Discussion
Agenda Setting Theory
Uses and Gratifications Theory
Media Multiplexity Theory
Key Terms
Chapter 15 Theories of Communication, Culture, and Critique
How Does Your Culture Affect Your Everyday Life?
Genderlects
Intellectual Tradition of Genderlects
Assumptions of Genderlects
Key Concepts in Genderlects
Report talk / rapport talk
Polite or powerless speech
Different ways of listening
Troubles talk
Claims of Genderlects
Critiques of Genderlects
Face Negotiation Theory
Intellectual Tradition of Face Negotiation Theory
Assumptions of Face Negotiation Theory
Key Concepts in Face Negotiation Theory
Individualist and collectivist cultures
Power distance
Self-construal
Claims of Face Negotiation Theory
Propositions
Core competencies
Critiques of Face Negotiation Theory
Cultural Studies
Intellectual Tradition of Cultural Studies
Assumptions of Cultural Studies
Key Concepts in Cultural Studies
The circuit of communication
Dominant reading
Negotiated reading
Oppositional reading
Resisting intellectuals
Critiques of Cultural Studies
Summary and Conclusion
For Further Discussion
Key Terms
Glossary Endnotes
1 MAKING SENSE OF COMMUNICATION
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW
MOMENTS AFTER BEING announced as the recipient of the 2015 Grammy Award for album of the year, singer-songwriter Beck nearly had his acceptance speech interrupted by Kanye West. Six years earlier, West had infamously stormed the stage at the MTV Video Music Awards, interrupting Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech for best music video of the year to argue that Beyoncé should have won instead. As he approached Beck at the Grammy Awards, many in the audience thought he was spoofing his earlier interruption of Taylor Swift. In a backstage interview later that night, however, West expressed his dissatisfaction with the Grammy selection committee for not recognizing true artistry.
Whether you watched the Grammy Awards or heard later about Kanye West’s antics, you likely noticed his bizarre behavior. Like most people do when they’re confused, you search for a reason, an explanation for why West expresses himself the way he does.
You search, that is, for a communication theory.
We know the feeling. Each of us Kory, Paul, Larry, and Angela wants to understand why people communicate the way they do. That’s what led us to take communication courses, as you are doing now, and eventually to teach and study the many ways in which people interact. One lesson we’ve learned is that communication is often more complex than it appears. You may easily be able to come up with reasons why Kanye West behaves as he
does, but does your explanation take the right factors into consideration? Does it ignore causes that are relevant, or take account of factors that don’t really matter?
Those are the types of questions that communication scholars deal with every day. Most communication behaviors can be explained in more than one way, and it is the job of communication scholars such as the ones we’ll introduce you to in this book to examine which explanations are the most useful.
Before we start looking at communication theories, let’s take some time to talk about communication itself. In this chapter, we’ll discuss the characteristics that communication behaviors share. Then we’ll explore the communication discipline by looking at our past, our present, and our future. We believe having that background will be useful as you begin your study of communication theories.
HOW WE THINK ABOUT COMMUNICATION
Although you communicate virtually every day of your life, you probably don’t think very often about what communication is, exactly. If you asked 20 friends to define the term, you might find little agreement on what communication means, despite the fact that they all know how to do it. The situation isn’t much different among communication scholars, who have also generated many dozens, if not hundreds, of definitions for what we study.
It’s not essential that we all agree on precisely what communication is and is not before we can explore the value of theories. Discussions about the definition of communication can be valuable and we believe they should be encouraged. At the same time, however, it’s useful to begin our journey into the world of communication theory with some shared ideas in mind. Therefore, instead of imposing one necessarily limited definition of what communication is, we have chosen to describe some of the most important characteristics of communication. Our list certainly won’t be exhaustive, but it will introduce you to some of the features of communication that matter most.
1. Communication is a process. Communication is something we do. As a process, communication unfolds over time, and what happens at one point can affect what occurs later. If a friend
violates your trust by sharing information you expected her to keep secret, that communication act might prevent you from confiding in her the next time you have something to share.
2. Communication is symbolic. We can never get into other people’s brains to know exactly what they’re thinking, so we rely on symbols, which are representations of ideas, to understand each other. Words are symbols. The word tree isn’t actually a tree; it just represents the idea of one. Gestures, facial expressions, and many other communicative behaviors are also symbols because they signify ideas.
3. Communication focuses on meaning. Because communication is symbolic, an important task is to figure out what meaning, or message, each symbol conveys. When you say “I love you,” what does that mean? What message are you sending through your posture, or through your silence? You’ve probably had the experience of being misunderstood and telling another person “That isn’t what I meant.” If so, then you understand how challenging the process of meaning-making can be.
4. Communication is ever-present. Finally, communication is with us constantly. Your behaviors can send messages to other people whether you intend those messages or not. Have you ever tried hard to stay awake during class? In spite of your efforts to look interested, your slouching posture and droopy eyelids were likely communicating your fatigue to others. Likewise, you are continually receiving messages from the people around you, whether those messages are intentional or unintentional.
Now that we understand some of the fundamental features of communication, let’s look at how communication came to be a focus of academic study.
Let’s Discuss
1. How do you see the process of communication unfold in your own
life?
2. What does it mean to call communication “ever-present”? Is it possible not to communicate at all?
WHERE THE COMMUNICATION DISCIPLINE CAME FROM
The study of communication has a long, rich history. Each of us has our own personal story to tell, filled with the important people and life events that have made us who we are today. Similarly, every field of study has its own biography or “story” that helps others understand how that field came into being.
The communication process is fundamental to everything we do as human beings. As a result, the question of how we communicate with each other has been a topic of fascination for centuries. Scholars and laypersons alike have been motivated to understand what communication is, how it works, why it works better in some instances than others, and how it can best be taught. In fact, many of the communication principles we teach today can be found in the writings and teachings of such classical philosophers as Plato and Aristotle. Thus, by briefly reviewing the historical roots of the communication discipline, we can gain insight into where we are today as a field of study and catch a glimpse into our future.
In this section, we will briefly review three classical patterns of thought about communication that emerged in ancient Greece: the Sophistic tradition, the Platonic tradition, and the Aristotelian tradition.1 We will then discuss how each of those traditions continues to inform the study of communication, as scholars in both the humanities and the social sciences further our understanding of how our everyday lives are created and sustained out of our continuing and constant interaction.2
COMMUNICATION AND THE CLASSICS
The formal study of communication began with the rise of democracy in Greece during the fifth century B.C. 3 It came about largely in response to the conceptual and practical concerns of the Greek people. Philosophers in
ancient Greece were debating such timeless questions as What is real?, What is truth?, and What is knowledge? The practical concerns of the Greeks, however, were focused more on certain political events and economic selfinterest. For instance, the citizens of Syracuse had overthrown their tyrannical governor and established democratic rule. As a result, the courts were flooded with lawsuits for the return of confiscated property. Because Greek culture valued the spoken word and citizens were required to argue their own cases in court, a tremendous need arose for someone to teach plaintiffs and defendants how to effectively argue their cases. Thus, the birth of communication theory was a practical response to a social dilemma, and the person credited by most classical theorists and historians with inventing communication theory was Corax of Syracuse.
The Sophistic tradition. In ancient Greece, the term rhetoric was used to refer to the study of communication, and those who taught communication were called rhetoricians. Corax was a specialist in forensic rhetoric who started his own business teaching Greek citizens how to effectively argue their cases in court.4 In the Art of Rhetoric, Corax outlined a series of legal communication strategies and public speaking principles to help people win their lawsuits. His theories of legal and public communication were then introduced to Athens and the Greek mainland by his student Tisias in 428 B.C. Corax and Tisias defined rhetoric as “the craft of persuasion,” and they developed a following of traveling teachers known as the Sophists who practiced and refined the theories taught by Corax.5
The Sophists believed that reality, truth, and knowledge were socially constructed through communication. In other words, they acknowledged that language could name things that had not yet been seen, and could conceal as well as reveal aspects of reality. Their beliefs and teaching practices, however, would come under the scrutiny of philosophers such as Plato, who argued that Sophists did little more than use clever arguments to deceive audiences. Critics believed that Corax and Tisias were simply teaching Greeks a set of persuasive “tricks” to make a weak case sound strong. As a result, the Sophists have been disparaged throughout much of Western history.
Despite those criticisms, the Sophists were the first among classical theorists to identify social needs and practical dilemmas that could be addressed using communication theory. Not only did they develop debating exercises to help individuals win their lawsuits, they also recognized the
expectation of every Greek citizen to participate personally in government, as well as the importance of ceremonial gatherings in Greek culture. In response to those social needs, the Sophists developed schools of rhetoric and communication where they taught the use of persuasive and ornamental language to accomplish legal and political goals.
Many of the practical questions and social dilemmas that the Sophists attempted to address 2,500 years ago are still with us today. In February 2008, for instance, Roger Clemens testified before Congress that he had not used performance-enhancing drugs during his career as a major league baseball player. Despite his efforts to defend his professional and personal reputation, Congress concluded that his testimony was not believable or persuasive enough to settle the case and to avoid perjury charges. Ceremonial gatherings also remain an important context in which public speakers must carefully craft and deliver persuasive appeals to win over their audiences. In January 2011, President Barack Obama was faced with the daunting task of delivering a eulogy for the six victims of a gunman who attempted to murder Representative Gabrielle Gifford of Arizona, including Christina Taylor Green, a nine-year-old girl who was shot and killed while meeting her congresswoman at the local Safeway. In the days surrounding the victims’ funerals, many legal and political correspondents debated the merits of President Obama’s eulogy and the implications it had for gun-control laws in the United States.
Many of us have also had friends participate in student government. To get elected, they had to present their ideas publicly in a manner that persuaded other students to vote for them. As those examples reflect, practical questions such as how best to defend a case before a jury of peers, how to present a set of ideas publicly in a competent manner, and how to deliver a persuasive speech effectively all remain relevant today. Although they developed their schools of rhetoric to teach Greeks how to speak in public, the Sophists recognized that the most valuable communication theories were those that help people answer practical questions and achieve their personal goals. Consequently, the Sophistic tradition represents a pattern of thinking about communication that is still evident in some approaches to communication theory today.
The Platonic tradition. The second pattern of thought about communication to emerge in ancient Greece came from Plato (427–347 B.C.), who was a student of Socrates and a serious critic of life in Athens. Plato was
convinced that Greek democracy had resulted in a public rejection of timeless ideals, such as truth and justice. In fact, he held the Sophists primarily responsible for misleading the Greek people about the true nature of reality and language. When Plato began his writing, rhetoric had become an important part of Greek academic life, so much so that it was considered the “queen of subjects” as “higher education meant taking lessons from the rhetor.”6 Schools of rhetoric were competing successfully with schools of philosophy, and many Greek citizens were more attracted to rhetorical teachings than to philosophical teachings. In response to the growing success of the Sophists, Plato established himself as the greatest critic of their approach to communication. He argued that rhetoric was not a science based on knowledge of right and wrong, but was instead a mere skill that depended on knowledge of human weakness and a manipulation of human language. Plato started the Academus, a formal school where he argued for a theory of communication based on knowledge of a true reality. For Plato, reality consisted of timeless, changeless forms that exist beyond the evolving world of appearances and perceptions. He argued that through proper training, philosophers could attain knowledge of reality and could offer the truth rather than mere opinions to listeners. Plato believed that language was a necessary evil, an imperfect means of expressing inner thoughts and desires that could only distort true reality. Thus, he established his school, wrote The Republic, and used his writings to train the intellectual elite to critique and censor those who used language irresponsibly (such as the Sophists).
In essence, the Sophists and Plato represent opposite ends of a continuum regarding the nature of reality, truth, and language. The Sophists believed in a subjective reality that was socially constructed through language. In contrast, Plato believed in an objective reality that could only be revealed through critical inquiry by trained philosophers. Whereas the Sophists embraced ornamental language and taught ordinary citizens rhetorical strategies to help them win their cases, Plato trained future philosophers how to critique communication practices that distorted the true nature of reality. In the end, Plato argued that communication theory must be concerned not only with public speaking strategies and eloquence, but also with human communication in general. His writings outlined a philosophical theory of human communication that would later serve as a guide for the third pattern of thought to emerge from ancient Greece.
The Aristotelian tradition. No one from ancient Greece was more influential in the development of communication theory than Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). As one of Plato’s former students, Aristotle tried to bridge the gap between the Sophists’ attention to the practical questions driving the actual world of human affairs, and Plato’s philosophical quest for truth and certainty. He believed theories of human behavior should be based on empiricism, or careful observation of the physical world, and meticulous reasoning according to the standards of logic. Aristotle established his own school in Athens in 335 B.C. called the Lyceum, and his Rhetoric is considered by many scholars to be the single most influential work in the history of Western thought about communication.7
In his efforts to balance the philosophical training of Plato with the pragmatic concerns of the Sophists, Aristotle reported the first systematic, empirical investigation of human communication. He defined rhetoric as “an ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion,”8 and he argued that communication theory is a science concerned with understanding human thought and action through analysis of language behavior. Aristotle devoted quite a bit of time to teaching his students how to build successful arguments, how to arrive at truthful conclusions, and how to make the best use of different kinds of evidence. He identified various topics they address when engaged in legal, political, or ceremonial speaking. He also suggested that speakers could persuade audiences using three general sources of proof: logos, which is established through the wording and logic of the message; pathos, which is established through emotional appeals; and ethos, which is established through the personal character and integrity of the speaker. In fact, through his discussions of ethos, Aristotle became one of the first scholars to identify source credibility which is the audience’s perceptions of the speaker’s competence, character, and goodwill as an important component of public speaking. Consequently, those fortunate enough to study with Aristotle would have left his Lyceum with a better understanding of the rules for effective arguments, the role that human emotions play in persuasion, the importance of understanding and audience, the methods for improving style and delivery, and the value of rhetoric in discovering and communicating truth.
Considered together, the Sophistic, Platonic, and Aristotelian traditions that emerged from ancient Greece provide us with a brief glimpse of where the communication discipline came from. Some classical theorists were
primarily interested in teaching (and selling) speaking strategies to help people achieve their personal and professional goals. Others were more interested in using rhetoric to pursue truth and justice; still others wanted to understand the pervasiveness of communication at all levels of human interaction. Across each of those schools of thought, however, the classical theorists recognized the “futility of prescribing practice without a theoretical framework as well as the emptiness of theory without reference to practice.”9 In fact, the recognition that communication practices should be guided by empirical theories, and that empirical theories should never be divorced from the social and practical concerns of the people using them, remains a primary concern of scholars today.
Let’s Discuss
1. In what ways do you use communication to be active in civic life?
2. Think of a speaker you find to be highly credible. What does that speaker say or do that give him or her credibility in your mind?
Test Your Understanding
Many of the ideas represented in the three classical patterns of thought about communication are still evident today. Read each of the examples below and see if you can identify which example best represents the Sophistic, Platonic, and Aristotelian tradition:
In 1991, marketing consultants recognized the negative health connotations associated with the word “fried” and recommended that Colonel Sanders change the name of his company from Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC. (Answer: Sophistic tradition)
After observing his elite skill as a professional golfer and his tremendous success on the PGA circuit, Gatorade and Gillette
hired Tiger Woods to endorse their respective lines of product. In November 2009, however, Tiger was involved in a car accident that launched several investigations and ultimately revealed his marital infidelity. In the months following his car accident, both companies ended their endorsement deals with Tiger, citing reasons other than their concerns about Tiger’s character. (Answer: Aristotelian tradition)
In the 2004 documentary, “Super Size Me,” Morgan Spurlock attempts to reveal the effects of fast food by going on a 30-day diet in which he eats only McDonald’s food. His film documents the drastic effects of eating only McDonald’s food on his physical and psychological well-being, and he exposes the fast food industry’s corporate influence and their attempts to encourage poor nutrition for its own profit. (Answer: Platonic tradition)
FROM ANCIENT GREECE TO CONTEMPORARY TIMES
The study of human communication continued to evolve in the centuries following ancient Greece, and scholars built and extended the theoretical ideas and speaking principles outlined in the classics.10 Historically, the study of rhetoric had focused on oral communication and public speaking, yet by the late 19th century, that focus had shifted to written communication. The study and teaching of rhetoric eventually became the province of departments of English,11 and English teachers were stressing written arguments and the study of literature to the exclusion of oral communication. On the other hand, a separate group of teachers who emphasized elocution the study of voice, articulation, and gesture had become so focused on the details of speech delivery that their work started drawing criticism in the early 20th century. In response, dissatisfied English and elocution teachers joined forces and created many of the early departments of speech. Two traditions emerged during the early part of the 20th century that are still influential today: the humanistic tradition and the social scientific tradition.
The humanistic tradition. Despite the movement of some away from the focus on literature found in English departments in the early 1900s, the
study of rhetoric was well established and a number of rhetorical scholars began to revitalize traditional studies of rhetorical theory. The humanistic approach to rhetorical theory began to take shape in the early 1920s as scholars used rhetorical criticism to analyze the methods used by a public speaker to influence an audience. Today, rhetoricians use the historical and critical methods of the humanities to examine how messages and other symbols influence public responses to political events and ethical dilemmas. For such scholars, the study of communication is a humanistic endeavor, one with a rich and long tradition that emerged from classical writings such as Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Plato’s The Republic. With a focus on human values and a desire to improve the human condition, communication scholars in the humanities examine how reason, ethics, and social justice inform our understanding of what it means to be human in cultural, social, and personal contexts. Students interested in the humanistic approach to communication typically take classes in classical, medieval, and modern rhetorical theory, rhetorical criticism, and public address, as well as courses in related fields of history or political science.
The social scientific tradition. Unlike the rhetoricians, others were interested in creating a new discipline of communication that would focus on interaction between people. As a result, they began searching for appropriate ways (or methods) to observe human communication. During that time, many disciplines were being influenced by the scientific method, a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, and hypotheses are formed and empirically tested. By 1915, the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking (which today is called the National Communication Association) was recommending that communication scholars take courses in departments of physiology, psychology, and sociology to learn the methods of science.12 Those scholars believed they could understand something only by reducing it to its most basic elements, manipulating those elements in controlled laboratory environments, and observing the results. In many ways, those social scientists subscribed to Aristotle’s belief in using empirical observation and reasoning draw conclusions about our social world.
By the 1920s, communication researchers who were employing social scientific methods began publishing research reports on oral communication. One of the most influential bodies of research to emerge during that period examined audience psychology and attitude change. Early communication
scientists explored audience reactions to public speeches and debates, as well as the effects of different kinds of message content on attitudes, opinions, and information retention. For instance, scholars used structured interviews to examine audience reactions to such events as the 1939 radio broadcast of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds. After World War II, scholars in the late 1940s and early 1950s began investigating the effects of propaganda, which in turn prompted communication theorists to view human interaction as a process consisting of different kinds of variables (sender, message, channel, receiver, feedback, etc.). From the 1950s to the 1970s, many social psychologists and communication scholars conducted experiments in which they manipulated the credibility of a source, the content of a message, and/or the structure of a message to observe the effects on audience attitude. Other scholars used laboratory experiments to examine group dynamics and leadership, surveys to study audience reactions to various print and electronic media, and both forms of research to examine interpersonal relationships.
As a result, the late 1960s witnessed a growing tension between communication scholars in the humanities and those in the social sciences, as each community viewed the other as conducting different kinds of scholarship. By the 1970s and early 1980s, however, communication scholars started to seek an integration of the two traditions. Today, many departments of communication teach both humanistic and social scientific approaches. Let’s look more closely at the contemporary discipline of communication in the next section.
THE COMMUNICATION DISCIPLINE TODAY
The history of the discipline is an important story reminding us all that the past matters. But the story of today’s communication discipline may be even more compelling because communication is such an indispensable part of our daily lives. The contemporary communication field is made up of scholars and practitioners who seek to explore, invent, and understand communication in dynamic, complex, and ever-changing social and cultural landscapes. In this section we focus on three organizing frameworks for communication that reflect important contemporary principles and practices: communication contexts and interdisciplinary challenges; professional organizations and networks; and, diversity and growth of the discipline.
COMMUNICATION CONTEXTS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY CHALLENGES
Our review of the past recognized that the communication field includes rhetorical, humanistic, and social scientific traditions, each with the goal of understanding human interaction. But in what ways do scholars and practitioners in the discipline organize the study of human communication? How do we make sense of the overwhelming complexity of communication and meaning-making in our everyday lives? One way to answer those questions is to focus on a specific framework of experience.13 We have already discussed the social scientific, rhetorical, and humanistic traditions as one framework for analysis, but scholars often distinguish communication studies, with a primary focus on different forms of human face-to-face interaction, from media studies, with a primary focus on the mediated forms of human interaction where technologies connect people in non face-to-face interactions, such as texting, radio broadcasts, newsprint, tweets, blogs, and Skype.14 Although that distinction might be a good starting point for organizing communication theory and practice, it implies that technology does not influence and intersect directly in our human face-to-face encounters. On the contrary, one of us (L.E.) attended a conference recently where he was talking face-to-face with four other colleagues, only to notice that all four were texting other people at the same time! Perhaps the distinction between media and communication studies is not quite as useful as it may first appear.
Understanding communication in context. A common framework for understanding communication studies is the delineation of communication contexts. Put simply, a context can be thought of as a situation, environment, or particular type of experience.15 For example, having your “first big fight” with a new romantic partner could be studied from the context of romantic relationships or from the context of conflict communication.16 Similarly, you could study the promotion to a new leadership position in your marketing firm in either an organizational context or a leadership context. Thus, context provides a more focused orientation to your experiences in a given situation. One way to determine which contexts communication scholars find compelling is to look at the types of courses offered in departments of communication. A recent study of course offerings at 4-year colleges and universities found that the top ten courses offered in our discipline are:17
1. Interpersonal communication
2. Group communication
3. Organizational communication
4. Persuasion
5. Public speaking
6. Intercultural communication
7. Communication research methods
8. Communication theory
9. Argumentation and debate
10. Gender and communication
Of course, communication courses also cover a broad spectrum of other topics, including family communication, instructional communication, rhetoric and public address, health communication, conflict and negotiation, nonverbal communication, language and oral interpretation, and communication and aging. Is majoring in communication a good choice? Check out “Communication as a Unique Discipline?” to find out.
Communication as a Unique Discipline?
Over the last 20 years or so communication scholars have asked about the relevance or importance of the discipline. What is unique about the communication discipline? Why do we need departments of communication studies? Is there any context in communication programs that can’t be better addressed in other university departments? Consider these examples:
You want to study intimacy in interpersonal relationships, so why not get a degree in psychology rather than communication studies? Is it possible that a degree in psychology will result in the same types of knowledge as a degree in communication? What if you want to study group dynamics? Wouldn’t a degree in sociology make as much sense as a degree in communication? Imagine that you want to focus on intercultural communication so you can work overseas. Since anthropology has traditionally studied cultures, wouldn’t a degree in anthropology better serve your interests?
Throughout this course, one important task is to consider the ways in which communication is separate and distinct from other disciplines. Work with your instructor and other students to consider why communication studies matter and what unique features our discipline possesses. As a hint, consider the role of symbols in defining and understanding communication. Also, ask your instructor or other communication instructors what practical implications they think the study of communication has for everyday interactions.
Questions about communication also vary by level of analysis. 18 That way of framing questions asks us to consider differences between individual-level issues (self-talk), pair-level issues (friendships, romantic relationships), group-level issues (families, work teams), organizational-level issues (corporations, non-profit groups), and public-level issues (national elections, government protests). A level of analysis approach is useful for exploring potential differences in communication and human experience. For example, communication between two friends is vastly different than communication between two political parties. Likewise, communication with oneself may operate very differently than communication in an Alcoholics Anonymous group. Differences and similarities in communication levels may emerge based on the number of people involved, whether the people like or want to like each other, what goals the people are pursuing, and many other factors.
Let’s Discuss
1. The modern communication discipline addresses a wide variety of questions. Which questions about communication do you find most compelling?
2. Suppose you wanted to know more about how people can persuade others effectively. How would you approach that question from a humanistic perspective? How about a social scientific perspective?
