It is interesting to note that, etymologically, the word communication and community have the same root. Both communication and community speak to the idea of ”making common” or bringing together. In that regard, Shepherd (2001) observes that "the simultaneous experience of self and other might serve well as a definition of communication" (p. 32), adding that "when communication occurs, something communal is made… it is something synergistic. It is community" (p. 32). In communication, we "partake of one another; each is taken into the other and made a part of the other (hence another associated word, communion)" (p. 32).
This leads to a community-centred view of communication. Looked at this way, we can see that communication allows us to initiate and negotiate communities of shared understanding. Whether we are communicating with one person, a group, or mass audiences, we are engaging in community building through communication. At all levels (interpersonal, family, church, work place), the quality of the community we build will depend on the quality and character of our communication and how we are able to negotiate and share mutually beneficial meaning.
Defining communication as a meeting of minds aligns with a cultural or interpretive view of the communication process. However, early communication theorists held a transmissive view of communication, variously known as a "magic bullet theory," "hypodermic needle theory," "transportation theory" or "conveyor belt theory" of communication (Cassata & Asante, 1979, p. 79). This view is based on a linear model of the communication process, with a simplistic presupposition that the meaning encoded by the sender will largely be the same meaning decoded by the receiver of the message. Scholars today acknowledge that communication is more than the transmission of information. This cultural or interpretive approach assigns moderate effects to messages and holds that communication is not automatic, simply because a message has been sent. In this view, communication only occurs when some degree of shared meaning is in fact achieved between the sender and receiver of the message.
The perspective that one takes (transmissive or cultural view) will influence approaches to research. Those inclined towards a transmissive view will be drawn towards quantitative social science research methodologies that seeks to measure the effects of messages on the audience (with the expectation that the message would have produced the intended/expected effects). Those inclined towards a cultural view of communication are likely to use research methods drawn from the humanities, such as an ethnographic approach.
The way one defines communication also has practical implications. If a person views information and communication as synonymous, it may lead them to conclude that once a message has been expressed, understanding has resulted. In interpersonal interactions, this may result in less effort to ensure true understanding. Those who believe it takes more than messages to impart meaning are more likely to check and verify that there is consistency between intended meaning and the interpretation of the receiver. Separating message and meaning also means that the person communicating has the right to say, "This is not what I meant." The receiver who subscribes to this view will accord this right to the sender of the message, giving him/her the opportunity to clarify their intended meaning, so that true communication or "meeting of minds" can be achieved.
References
Cassata, M. B., & Asante, M. K. (1979). Mass communication: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Shepherd, G. J. (2001). Community as the interpersonal accomplishment of communication. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 25-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment