A first look at communication theory
Chapter 1: Launching your study of communication theory
WHAT IS A THEORY AND WHAT DOES IT DO?
In previous editions we used theory as “an umbrella term for all careful, systematic, and self-
conscious discussion and analysis of communication phenomena,” a definition offered by the late
University of Minnesota communication professor Ernest Bormann. We like this definition because
it’s general enough to cover the diverse theories presented in this book. Yet the description is so
broad that it doesn’t give us any direction on how we might construct a theory, nor does it offer a
way to figure out when thoughts or statements about communication haven’t attained that status.
For Burgoon, a theory consists of a set of systematic, informed hunches about the way things work:
A Set of Hunches
If a theory is a set of hunches, it means we aren’t yet sure we have the answer. When there’s no
puzzle to be solved or the explanation is obvious, there’s no need to develop a theory. Theories
always involve an element of speculation, or conjecture. By referring to a plural “set of hunches”
rather than a single “hunch,” Burgoon makes it clear that a theory is not just one inspired thought or
an isolated idea.
Informed Hunches
For Burgoon, it’s not enough to think carefully about an idea; a theorist’s hunches should be
informed. Before developing a theory, there are articles to read, people to talk to, actions to observe,
or experiments to run, all of which can cast light on the subject. At the very least, theorists should be
familiar with alternative explanations and interpretations of the types of phenomena they are
studying.
Pepperdine University emeritus communication professor Fred Casmir’s description of theory
parallels Burgoon’s call for multiple informed hunches: Theories are sometimes defined as guesses—
but significantly as “educated” guesses. Theories are not merely based on vague impressions nor are
they accidental by-products of life. Theories tend to result when their creators have prepared
themselves to discover something in their environment, which triggers the process of theory
construction.
Hunches That Are Systematic
Most scholars reserve the term theory for an integrated system of concepts. A theory not only lays
out multiple ideas, but also specifies the relationships among them. In common parlance, it connects
the dots. The links among the informed hunches are clearly drawn so that a pattern emerges. As you
read about any theory covered in this book, you have a right to expect a set of systematic, informed
hunches.
Images of Theory
Theories as Nets: Philosopher of science Karl Popper said that “theories are nets cast to catch what
we call ‘the world’. . . . We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer.”5 This metaphor
highlights the ongoing labor of the theorist as a type of deep-sea angler. For serious scholars,
theories are the tools of the trade. The term the world can be interpreted as everything that goes on
under the sun—thus requiring a grand theory that applies to all communication, all the time.
Conversely, catching the world could be construed as calling for numerous special theories—
different kinds of small nets to capture distinct types of communication in local situations. But either
way, the quest for finer-meshed nets is somewhat disturbing because the study of communication is
,about people rather than schools of fish. The idea that theories could be woven so tightly that they’d
snag everything humans think, say, or do seems naive. The possibility also raises questions about our
freedom to choose some actions and reject others.
Theories as Lenses: Many scholars see their theoretical constructions as similar to the lens of a
camera or a pair of glasses, as opposed to a mirror that accurately reflects the world out there. The
lens imagery highlights the idea that theories shape our perception by focusing attention on some
features of communication while ignoring other features, or at least pushing them into the
background. Two theorists could analyse the same communication event—an argument, perhaps—
and, depending on the lens each uses, one theorist may view the speech act as a breakdown of
communication or the breakup of a relationship, while the other theorist will see it as democracy in
action. A danger of the lens metaphor is that we might regard what is seen through the glass as so
dependent on the theoretical stance of the viewer that we abandon any attempt to discern what is
real or true.
Theories as Maps: A good map helps us understand unfamiliar terrain. It’s designed with a purpose.
Within this analogy, a communication theory is a kind of map that’s designed to help you navigate
some part of the topography of human relationships. In a sense, this book of theories is like a scenic
atlas that pulls together 32 must-see locations. However, we must remember that the map is not the
territory.6 Like a still photograph, no theory can fully portray the richness of interaction between
people that is constantly changing, always varied, and inevitably more complicated than what any
theory can chart. As a person intrigued with communication, aren’t you glad it’s this way?
WHAT IS COMMUNICATION?
So far we’ve discussed theory, but what about communication? What is it, exactly? To ask this
question is to invite controversy and raise expectations for clarity that can’t be met. When it comes
to defining what it is we study, there’s little discipline in the discipline. At the conclusion of his study,
Dance suggested that we’re “trying to make the concept of communication do too much work for
us.” Other communication theorists agree, noting that when the term is used to describe almost
every kind of human interaction, it’s seriously overburdened. Rather than giving the final word on
what human activities can be legitimately referred to as communication, this designation would
highlight the essential features of communication that shouldn’t be missed. So for starters, we offer
this working definition: Communication is the relational process of creating and interpreting
messages that elicit a response.
1. Messages
Messages are at the core of communication study. When academic areas such as psychology,
sociology, anthropology, political science, literature, and philosophy deal with human
symbolic activity, they intersect with the study of communication. The visual image of this
intersection of interests has prompted some to refer to communication as a crossroads
discipline. The difference is that communication scholars are parked at the junction focusing
on messages, while other disciplines are just passing through on their way to other
destinations. All the theories covered in this book deal specifically with messages.
Communication theorists use the word text as a synonym for a message that can be studied,
regardless of the medium. A text is a record of a message that can be analyzed by others
(e.g., a book, film, photograph, or any transcript or recording of a speech or broadcast).
2. Creation of Messages
This phrase in the working definition of communication indicates that the content and form
, of a text are usually constructed, invented, planned, crafted, constituted, selected, or
adopted by the communicator. Each of these terms is used in at least one of the theories in
this book, and they all imply that the communicator is making a conscious choice of message
form and substance. There is a long history of textual analysis in the field of communication,
wherein the rhetorical critic looks for clues in the message to discern the motivation and
strategy of the person who created the message. There are, of course, many times when we
speak, write, or gesture in seemingly mindless ways—activities that are like driving on cruise
control. These are preprogrammed responses that were selected earlier and stored for later
use. In like manner, our repertoire of stock phrases such as thank you, no problem,
whatever, or a string of swear words were chosen sometime in the past to express our
feelings, and over time have become habitual responses. Only when we become more
mindful of the nature and impact of our messages will we have the ability to alter them.
That’s why consciousness-raising is a goal of several theories in this book—each one seeks to
increase our communication choices.
3. Interpretation of Messages
Messages do not interpret themselves. The meaning that a message holds for the creators
and receivers doesn’t reside in the words that are spoken, written, or acted out. Many
communication scholars believe that words don’t mean things, people mean things. Words
and other symbols are polysemic—they’re open to multiple interpretations. Polysemic: A
quality of symbols that means they’re open to multiple interpretations.
4. A Relational Process
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that “one cannot step into the same river
twice.”12 These words illustrate the widespread acceptance among communication scholars
that communication is a process. Much like a river, the flow of communication is always in
flux, never completely the same, and can only be described with reference to what went
before and what is yet to come. In the opening lines of her essay “Communication as
Relationality,” University of Georgia rhetorical theorist Celeste Condit suggests that the
communication process is more about relationships than it is about content. Communication
is a process of relating. This means it is not primarily or essentially a process of transferring
information or of disseminating or circulating signs (though these things can be identified as
happening within the process of relating).13 Communication is a relational process not only
because it takes place between two or more persons, but also because it affects the nature
of the connections among those people.
5. Messages That Elicit a Response
This final component of communication deals with the effect of the message on people who
receive it. At the end of his groundbreaking book on communication theory, Dance
concludes, “ ‘Communication,’ in its broadest interpretation, may be defined as the eliciting
of a response.”14 If a message fails to stimulate any cognitive, emotional, or behavioral
reaction, it seems pointless to refer to it as communication. But even when a certain
message evokes feelings that we might not even know about, the interaction qualifies as
communication.
Chapter 2: Talk about theory
Behavioral scientist: A scholar who applies the scientific method to describe, predict, and explain
recurring forms of human behavior.
Rhetorician: A scholar who studies the ways in which symbolic forms can be used to identify with
people, or to persuade them toward a certain point of view.
, Glenn: An Objective Approach
Social scientists want to explain and predict human behavior. How do scientists satisfy these
interests? After observing behavior, we identify or construct a theory that offers insight into what
we’ve observed.
According to Schwartz, successful persuasive messages evoke past experiences that create resonance
between the message content and a person’s thoughts or feelings. Schwartz believed that resonance
leads to persuasion. It’s not arguments that persuade people as much as it is memories of personal
experiences triggered by the message.
Theories need to be validated. For scientists, it’s not enough to identify a theory that seems to apply
to the situation. We want an objective test to find out if a theory is faulty. For example, I’d want to
discover if commercials that trigger warm emotional memories are better than other ads at selling
products or generating good feelings toward the sponsor. Testing audience response is a crucial
scientific enterprise. Even though a theory might sound plausible, we can’t be sure it’s valid until it’s
been tested. In science, theory and research walk hand in hand.
Objective approach: The assumption that truth is singular and is accessible through unbiased sensory
observation; committed to uncovering cause-and-effect relationships.
Marty: An Interpretive Approach
Archetypal myths are those that draw upon a universal experience—what psychoanalyst Carl Jung
called the “collective unconscious.” Deep within the mental makeup of all human beings is the
archetype of the birth-death-rebirth cycle. The use of such archetypes, according to rhetorical
theorist Michael Osborn, touches off “depth responses” that emotionally resonate at the core of our
being.
Interpretive approach: The linguistic work of assigning meaning or value to communicative texts;
assumes that multiple meanings or truths are possible.
OBJECTIVE OR INTERPRETIVE WORLDVIEWS: SORTING OUT THE LABELS
Glenn is a social scientist who works hard to be objective. When we refer to theorists and
researchers like Glenn throughout the book, we’ll use the terms scientist and objective scholar
interchangeably. Marty is a rhetorical critic who does interpretive study. Here the labels get tricky.
While it’s true that all rhetorical critics do interpretive analysis, not all interpretive scholars are
rhetoricians. Most (including Marty) are humanists who study what it’s like to be another person in a
specific time and place. But a growing number of postmodern communication theorists reject that
tradition. These interpretive scholars refer to themselves with a bewildering variety of brand names:
social constructionists, critical theorists, hermeneuticists, poststructuralists, deconstructivists,
phenomenologists, cultural studies researchers, and social action theorists, as well as combinations
of these terms. Writing from this postmodernist perspective, University of Utah theorist James
Anderson observes: With this very large number of interpretive communities, names are
contentious, border patrol is hopeless and crossovers continuous. Members, however, often see real
differences. All of these scholars, including Marty, do interpretive analysis—scholarship concerned
with meaning—yet there’s no common term like scientist that includes them all. So from this point
on we’ll use the designation interpretive scholars or the noun form interpreters to refer to the entire
group, and use rhetoricians, humanists, postmodernists, or critical scholars only when singling out a
particular subgroup. The separate worldviews of interpretive scholars and scientists reflect
contrasting assumptions about ways of arriving at knowledge, the core of human nature, questions
of value, and the purpose of theory. The rest of this chapter sketches out these differences.
