Communication
Communications have been described and defined in many ways. Communication is the transmission of thoughts, messages, information and feelings through speech, writing, signals and behaviour. Devito (1986) viewed communication as transmission. He defined communication as the process or act of transmitting a message from a sender to a receiver, through a channel and with the interference of noise; the actual message or messages sent and received; the study of the process involved in the sending and receiving of messages (p. 61). Gerbner (1967) who took an interaction view of communication defined it as interaction through messages. He considers messages as formally coded symbolic and representational events of some shared significance in a culture, produced for the purpose of evoking significance (p. 430). Devito generally defined communication as the transmission of ideas and information. Gerbner on the other hand saw communication in the light of stimulus-response paradigm, in which a message (stimulus) has meaning based on the interpretations (response) others make of it (Heath and Bryant 2000). Also taking the interaction paradigm, Cronen et al (1982) defined communication as a process through which persons create, maintain, and alter social order, relationships and identities (pp. 85-86).
According to Craig and Muller (2007), theorists use different points of view in defining what communication is. Theorists from different disciplines and fields like cultural studies, economics, ethnography, film studies, linguistics, philosophy, political science, organizational studies, psychology and sociology (Watson 2003, p. 2). Craig (1999) encapsulated these theories by dividing the field of communication into seven traditions of thoughts. These are:
- Rhetorical Tradition – the rhetorical theory was first proposed by the ancient Greek sophists. Based on the rhetorical theory, communication is a practical art of discourse (p. 135).
- Semiotic Tradition – the semiotic tradition, like the rhetorical tradition has a long history. In the semiotic tradition, communication is viewed as intersubjective mediation by signs (p. 136).
- Phenomological Tradition – theories based on the phenomological tradition see communication as dialogue or experience of otherness (p.138).
- Cybernetic Tradition – the cybernetic tradition covers areas such as systems and information science, cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Communication is viewed through the cybernetic tradition as information processing (p. 141).
- Sociopsychological Tradition – communication as viewed by sociopsychological theorists is a process of expression, interaction, and influence (p. 143).
- Sociocultural Tradition – the sociocultural tradition proposes theories that view communication as a symbolic process that produces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns (p. 144).
- Critical Tradition – the critical tradition theorists think that communication occurs in a process of discursive reflection (p.147).
Throughout the history of humankind, many studies have been conducted on communication. These studies yielded numerous theories. Communication studies were mainly focused on interpersonal communication. There has been a shift of focus when mass media technologies were introduced. The term ‘mass media’ was first used in 1920 along with the birth of the radio and mass-circulation newspapers (Laughey 2007). There are several differences between interpersonal communication and mass communication. The differences seem to boil down to quantity. In interpersonal communication, according to Cassata and Asante (1979), the source is usually concerned with one other person or a small group, whereas in mass communication the message is widely and rapidly distributed. In the broadest sense, mass communication refers to communication activities that involve large numbers of people. Traditionally, mass communication has been conceptualized as a process involving messages that are sent to general groups of people (Perry 1996). A ‘mass’ according to Blumer (1946) is consist of a very loosely organized group of people who come from all walks of life, who remain anonymous with each other, and who interact very little among themselves. According to Perry (1996) much of the research conducted on mass communication were focused on the scientific and humanistic study of the communication media and their audiences. These media include magazines, motion pictures, newspapers, radio, television, and a variety of new communication technologies (p. 4).
Lasswell (1948) proposed a model of communication that focuses on mass communication. According to Lasswell, the processes of mass communication can be understood if the stages of communication. The stages of communication according to Lasswell’s model are:
- Who
- Says what
- In which channel
- To whom
- With what effect
Lasswell’s model sees communication as the transmission of messages: it raises the issue of ‘effect rather than meaning. ‘Effect’ implies an observable and measurable change in the receiver that is caused by identifiable elements in the process. Most mass communication research has wholly followed Lasswell’s model (Fiske 1990). Harold Innis (1951) argued that different media, using different materials, had diverse consequences for the human, social control of time and space. This idea is called ‘the bias of communication’. Innis noted the importance of written technologies in ancient civilizations such as the Roman empire. He observed that written systems played an important role in the administration, coordination and regulation of a vast emporium. Written systems were thus required in the recording of decisions and formulation of laws and their communication throughout the empire. McLuhan (1964) applied Innis’ ideas to modern societies. McLuhan made a fundamental distinction between ‘oral’ and ‘written’ cultures. He furthered his study with the comparison of print cultures with the newer electronic cultures of modern media, especially radio and television. Innis and McLuhan provide a fascinating way of identifying the impact and effect of media of communication on human societies by focusing on them as technologies that extend the scope and scale of human, social activity (Scannell 2002).
One of the most notable theories of communication was Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) Mathematical Theory. Shannon and Weaver developed their theory while working in the Bell Telephone Laboratories in the United States during the Second World War. Their aim was to discover how the channels of communication could be employed in the most efficient manner. They considered the telephone cable and the radio wave as the main channels (Fiske 1990, p. 6).
Shannon and Weaver’s model is broadly understandable at first glance. They identified three levels of problems in the study of communication. These are:
§ Level A (Technical Problems) – deals with the question of accuracy in the transmission of symbols of communication
§ Level B (Semantic Problems) – deals with the question of precision in the transmission of the desired meanings of symbols
§ Level C (Effectiveness Problems) – deals with the question of the effectiveness of the received meaning in affecting conduct
Fig. 1: Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) Model
In Shannon and Weaver’s model, the source is seen as the decision maker. The source decides which message to send or he selects one out of a set of possible messages. This selected message is then transformed by the transmitter into a signal which is sent through the channel to the receiver. For a telephone the channel is a wire, the signal an electrical current in it, and the transmitter and receiver are the telephone handsets (Fiske 1990, pp. 7-8).
Another notable thought was presented by Schramm (1945). Schramm presented a variant of Shannon and Weaver’s pioneering diagram (see figure 2). Schramm has added a major difficulty in practical human communication: the problem of understanding as a function of shared experience. The senders as well as the receiver of a message have a field of experience, which influence their understanding. Additionally, Schramm has pointed out the importance of feedback.
Fig. 2: Schramm’s Model (1954)
Schramm contributed substantially to the understanding of the communication process by noting that communicators simultaneously send and receive. In this way, he fostered the trend toward an interaction paradigm for communication. His model could explain that while one person is speaking, the other is listening (Heath and Bryant 2000, p. 66).
Mediated Communication
Mediated communication according to Wood and Smith (2005) separates the communicators through some technology – from the simplest types like paper to the most sophisticated kind of computer devices like a wireless Web unit (p. 6). The field of Computer-mediated communication (CMC) studies how human behaviors are maintained or altered by exchange of communication through machines (Wood and Smith 2005, p. 4).
Gidden’s (1984) theory of structuration is based on the duality of structures: humans both draw on the rules and resources that compose social structure (a feature of interaction called production) and manifest structural rules and resources that exist as consequences of the interaction (a feature called reproduction). Giddens identifies two forms of interaction – social integration and system integration. Social integration according to Giddens is reciprocal face-to-face interaction of individuals. System integration on the other hand is the reciprocity among actors or groups across extended space or time, mediated by writing or in diverse ways (McPhee 1998). According to Giddens, the distanciation of time and space is a medium of modern power and relations. Social life and social systems are being stretched by different mediums. The emergence of electronic communication technologies has led to the disengagement of time and space. Through the use of electronic communication technologies, transmission of information or symbolic forms over space is possible even without the physical transportation of objects. Media forms according to Giddens (1984) extend presence availability beyond contexts of physical proximity and the immediate physical limits of the body (p. 122).
Goffman (1979) describes social life using the metaphor of drama. According to Goffman, everyone plays a multiplicity of roles on different social stages. For each ‘audience’, one offers a somewhat different version of his self. For Goffman, the performance of any social role is literally a performance. In performing a social role, one displays selected behavior that cannot go on continuously and which must, to some extent, consciously or unconsciously, be planned and rehearsed. Just like in a play, performing our social roles require a properly set stage, careful control of actions and the separation of one role from another. In keeping with the metaphor of drama, Goffman moved to dividing an individual’s behavior into two. One is backstage behavior and the other is the onstage behavior. Onstage, the performers are in the presence of their ‘audience’ for a particular role, and they play a relatively ideal conception of a social role. The backstage is where the role performer’s ‘teammates’ relax, rehearse, develop strategies for future performances, and joke about their behaviors onstage (cited in Meyrowitz 1985).
Meyrowitz (1985) adopted Goffman’s belief that social life as a kind of multi-staged drama in which everyone performs different roles in different social arenas, depending on the nature of the situation, one’s particular role in it, and the make up of the audience. According to Meyrowitz, the media creates a ‘middle region’ (between Goffman’s backstage and onstage categories of behavior). According to Meyrowitz media blur the line between the backstage and frontstage behaviors. He added that media tear down unique places that contained specific behaviors. Media create the basis for new group identities (p. 157). According to Meyrowitz (1985) electronic media affect people not mainly through their content. Rather electronic media affect people by changing the situational geography of social life. According to Meyrowitz, the birth of ‘electronic society’ has paved the way for ‘placelessness’. His main argument is that social roles and hierarchies that dictate the ‘place’ of an individual in the society are being altered as electronically mediated communication surpasses the boundaries of physical settings, making these boundaries more penetrable.
Thompson (1994) identified three types of interaction. He named the first type as the ‘face-to-face’ communication. Face-to-face communication happens in a situation where there is co-presence. The flow of information in face-to-face communication is two-way and each participant perform alternate roles. Different symbolic cues can be used by the participants in a face-to-face communication. Thompson identified the next type as the mediated interaction. The mediated interaction makes use of a technical medium like the telephone. In mediated communication the participants are remote in space, in rime or in both. The third type of interaction is what Thompson called as the mediated quasi-interaction. mediated quasi-interaction takes place in mass communication media. It is oriented towards an indefinite range of potential recipients. Mediated quasi-interaction is monological in character and the communication flow in a unidirectional manner. Mediated quasi-interaction creates a particular social situation in which individuals are linked together in a process of communication and symbolic exchange. As a result, the media may be said to have altered the ‘interaction mix’ of social life. Once symbolic forms gain extended availability across time and space the traditional boundary between public and private may be transformed; hence the private domestic setting has become a principal site of mediated publicness (p. 243). The media according to Thompson (1994) open up the possibility of the desequestration of experience, revealing portrayals of experience to which people would not other wise have access in their day-to-day lives. The media, Thompson added, produce a continuous intermingling of different forms of experience, an intermingling that makes the day-to-day lives of most individuals today quite different from the lives of previous generations (p. 227).
Blumer’s (1969) theory of symbolic interactionism focuses on the importance of meaning and interpretation as essential human processes. People create shared meanings through their interactions and those meanings become their reality. Blumer articulated identified three most important arguments as fundamental to symbolic interactionism:
- Human beings act toward stimuli on the basis of the meanings that these stimuli have for them
- The meanings attributed to stimuli arise out of social interactions individuals maintain with members of his or her social world
- The meanings attached to the stimuli that the individual encounters are interpreted
According to interactionism theory, people act individually or in groups in relation to others in specific social environments. In the interactionism theory, the media is seen to contain ‘significant symbols’ that carry meaning. These meanings are not self-evident so they must be learned. Therefore, the individual has a role to play in deciphering media. Each person is at once actor and acted upon.
References
Blumer, H 1946, ‘Elementary collective groupings’, in A. M. Lee (ed.), New
outline of the principles of sociology (pp. 178-198), Barnes & Noble, New York.
Blumer, H 1969, Symbolic interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cassata, M B & Asante, M K 1979, Mass Communication: Principles and
Practices, Macmillan, New York.
Craig, R T 1999, ‘Communication Theory as a Field’, Communication Theory,
vol. 9, no. 2, p. 132.
Cronen, V E, Pearce, W B and Harris, L M 1982, ‘The Coordinated
Management of Meaning: A Theory of Communication’, in F E X Dance (ed.), Human Communication Theory: Comparative Essays (pp. 61-89). Harper & Row, New York.
Devito, J A 1986, The Communication Handbook: A Dictionary, Harper and
Row, New York.
Fiske, J 1990, Introduction to Communication Studies, Routledge, London.
Gerbner, G 1967, ‘An Institutional Approach to Mass Communications
Research’, in L Thayer (ed.), Communication: Theory and Research (pp. 429-445). Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Giddens A 1984, The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of
structuration, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Heath, R L & Bryant J 2000, Human Communication Theory and Research.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Innis, H A 1951, The Bias of Communication, University of Toronto Press,
Toronto.
Lasswell, H 1948, ‘The structure and function of communication in society’, in
Bryson, L (ed.), The Communication of Ideas, Institute for Religious and Social Studies, New York; also in Schramm, W , (ed.), 1960, Mass Communications, University of Illinois Press, Illinois.
McLuhan, M 1964, Understanding Media, McGraw-Hill, New York.
McPhee, R D 1998, ‘Giddens’ Conception of Personal Relationship and Its
Relevance to Communication Theory’, in R L Conville and L E Rogers (eds.), The Meaning of “Relationship” in Interpersonal Communication (pp 83-106), Prager, Westport, Connecticut.
Meyrowitz J 1985, No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on
social behavior, Oxford University Press, New York.
Perry, D K 1996, Theory and Research in Mass Communication: Contexts
and Consequences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Scannell, P 2002, ‘History, Media, Communication’, in K B Jensen (ed.), A
Handbook of Media and Communication Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies (pp. 191-205), Routledge, London.
Thompson, J 1994, ‘Social Theory and the Media’, in D Crowley & D Mitchell
(eds.), Communication Theory Today, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Wood, A F & Smith, M J 2005, Online Communication, Linking technology, Identity, and Culture, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment