MCM511 Handouts Lectures 1-45

Theories of Communication (MCM511)

Table of Contents: Page no.

From Communication To Mass Communication ………………………. Normative Theories ……………………………………………………. Hutchins Commission On Freedom, Chicago School & Basic Principles Of Social Responsibility Theory………………………………………… Civic Journalism, Development Media Theory & Democratic Participant Theory………………………...…………………....................................... Limitation of the Press Theory ………………………................................ McQuail’s Four Kinds Of Theories…………...……………………….... Propaganda Theories ………………………...………………………… Paradigm Shift & Two Step Flow of Information……………...………… Middle Range Theories ………………………...……………………….. Klapper’s Phenoministic Theory………………………………………… Diffusion of Innovation Theory ………………………………………… Challenging the Dominant Paradigm ……………………........................... Social Cognitive Theory ………………………............................................. Modeling from Mass Media …………………………………………….. Priming Effect ………………………...………………………................. Cultivation of Perceptions of Social Reality…………………....................... Systems Theories of Communication Processes ...……………………….. Emergence Of Critical & Cultural Theories Of Mass Communication....... Revision ………………………...………………………............................ Critical Theories & Role Of Mass Communication In A Society -The Mediation Of Social Relations………………………...………………… Role of Mass Media in Social Order & Marxist Theory...……………….. Key Principles used in Marxism………...……………………….............. Consumer Society ………………………...................................................... Communication and Culture ………………………...…………………. Hegemony ………………………...………………………....................... Culture Industry ………………………......................................................... Political Economy Theory (I) …………...………………………............. Political Economy Theory (II) ………………………...……………....... Political Economy Theory (III) .……………………….............................. Agenda Setting Theory ……………………….............................................. Framing & Spiral of Silence ………………………...…………………… Spiral of Silence ………………………...……………………………….. Marshall McLuhan: The Medium Is The Message And Massage…...…….. Knowledge Gap Theory ………………………...………………………. Media System Dependency Theory ……………………….......................... Uses and Gratifications Theory………………………...……………….. Reception Theory ………………………........................................................ Framing and Frame Analysis ………………………..................................... Trend in Mass Communication (I)……………………...………………...

Defining communication

Communication is seen as central to our everyday ideas about what makes life worth living. It is not surprising that academicians have attempted to unravel the secrets of the communication process. In this section of the study we will examine the theorizing and theories of this discipline of communication. To understand communication theory we need to understand the nature of communication.

Nature of communication

People define terms in different ways, and those differences in definition can have a profound impact on the extent to which we understand each other and the way we move forward with both academic and everyday pursuits.

Given the variety of ways in which words are used and understood, we are often ill-served to search for the single, so-called correct definition of a term.

In other words, it is better to evaluate definition in terms of their utility rather than in terms of their correctness. So we should not assume that there is always a single right way to define a concept. There is a great deal of variation in the definitions. Some are very abstract and some are extremely specific. Few definitions are cited below.

Communication is the process by which an individual (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal) to modify the behavior of other individuals (the audience). (Hovland Janis and Kelly in 1953)

Communication is the process by which we understand others and in turn endeavor to be understood by them. It is dynamic, constantly changing and shifting in response to the total situation (Anderson, 1959)

Communication is all of the procedures by which one mind can affect another (W. Weaver, 1949) Communication means that information is passed from one place to another. (Miller, 1951)

These definitions are incomplete in the sense that Weaver’s definition is incredibly broad; it includes all the procedures by which one “mind” could have an effect on another, whereas the other definitions excludes too many activities that we normally think of as communication. However through this definitional turmoil many conceptual features have emerged as important points of discussion.

Conceptualizing communication: points of convergence

Communication is a process:

Process-oriented conceptualization of communication suggests that it is continuous and complex and cannot be arbitrarily isolated. David Berlo in 1960 popularized this idea in these words.

“If we accept the concept of process, we view events and relationships as dynamic, on-going, everchanging, continuous. When we label something as a process we also mean that it does not have a beginning, an end, a fixed sequence of events. It is not static at rest. It is moving. The ingredients within a process interact; each affects all others.”

So when we look at communication as a process, we see that even simple interactions are influenced in complex ways by the past and will also have important implication for the future. In early conceptualizations of communication this process was seen as a primarily linear one, in which communication moved from a source to a receiver. As we can see in the Lasswell’s classical model of

Who?

Says what?

To whom?

Through what channel?

With what effect?

Lasswell’s linear model of communication is not accepted for it does not incorporate a feedback loop from receiver to source. Rather most communication researchers now take a transactional approach to

Transactional approach

Communication is transactional and hence highly complex. The concept of transaction is useful to contrast it with the related ideas of action and interaction.

If we consider communication to strictly action, a source presenting a message to a receiver or an audience, we would not consider the reaction of the audience or feedback from it. This is a one way linear model of communication which is also labeled the hypodermic needle model or magic bullet model of communication. It suggests that communication is a simple process of injecting our messages into receivers.

In contrast, if we communicate from an interaction perspective, we move from beyond the hypodermic needle to consider the importance of feedback from the receiver. This is the interaction model; we look at not only the message of the source but also the reaction of the receiver. Burgoon and Ruffner in 1978 said:

“People are simultaneously acting as a source and receiver in many communication situations. A person is giving feedback, talking, responding, acting and reacting continually through a communication event. Each person is constantly participating in the communication activity; all of these things can alter the other elements in the process and create a completely different communication event. This is what we mean by transaction”.

A view of communication as transactional also emphasizes the importance of context. That is, not only do participant constantly influence each other, they are also influenced by the context in which they interact, e.g. comment made in an organization can take on a very different meaning depending on whether it is heard in a formal performance appraisal meeting or in casual conversation in the cafeteria.

Communication is symbolic:

A third area of convergence in conceptualizations of communication is the belief that communication is symbolic. To explore this concept, it is useful to talk briefly about the more general concept of sign, investigated by the field of semiotics.

Semioticians see a sign as consisting of two inextricably linked parts - signifier and the signified. Consider the work book and the object made of paper and glue that you hold in your hand right now. In this case, the signifier is the word book and the signified is the signified is the concept of the book and the referent is the physical object you are holding. This relationship is obviously not a perfect one-to one correspondence and is often an arbitrary relationship in that there is no natural correspondence, for instance, between the letters b-o-o-k and the object to which they refer.

Thus, symbols hold an arbitrary, rather than natural, relationship to what is symbolized, and a symbol has no inherent meaning.

Other semioticians have also tried to understand these notions more or less in the same manner. For example theorists, Ogden and Richards in 1946 explained this relationship in terms of a semantic triangle in which the three points of the triangle are the symbol (the word book) the referent (the physical object) and the reference (what you mean by book when you use the symbol). In this triangle, the link between the symbol and the referent is arbitrary. That is, you might be quite clear about what