Chapter 1: Introducing

Communication
By
Dr. Amy M. Corey

Communication is the process of creating, interpreting, and negotiating meaning.

Communication can be verbal, nonverbal, or textual. It can be aural, visual, or even
physical. Although communication occurs in a variety of different ways, it is always a
learned behaviour. While most human beings are born with the physical abilities to
speak, to hear, to see, and so on, people must learn to communicate through codes,
symbols, and systems of language. In this way, communication is a collective practice
in which people use symbols to generate and interpret meaning.

Models of Communication
In order to explain the social process of communication, scholars have developed
several models. The three most well known models for communication are Linear,
Interactional, and Transactional. As West & Turner (2007) explain, each model sheds
light on the development of communication, but emphasizes different parts of the
communication process. The models provide pictures, or visual representations, of
complex interactions. They are useful because they simplify the basic structure of
communication and can help us to understand that structure not just verbally, but also
visually. Most importantly, they identify the various elements of communication and
serve as a kind of map to show how different parts of the communication process are
interrelated.

Linear Models
Originally developed by Shannon & Weaver in 1948, this model describes
communication as a linear process. (See Figure 1.1.) This model describes how a
sender, or speaker, transmits a message to a receiver, or listener. More specifically,
the sender is the source of the message. A message may consist of the sounds, words,
or behaviours in a communication interaction. The message itself is transmitted
through a channel, the pathway or route for communication, to a receiver, who is the
target or recipient of the message. There may be obstacles in the communication
process, or noise. Noise refers to any interference in the channel or distortion of the
message. This is a fairly simple model in which a message is simply passed from
sender to receiver.
Figure 1.1:
Shannon and Weaver Model

While the linear model was highly influential during the mid-20th century, this model
is perhaps too simple. Its limitations are easy to see if you pause to think about the
beliefs about communication, or assumptions, made in this model. First, this model
assumes that communication only goes in one direction. Here, a person can be a
sender or receiver, but not both. This is problematic because communication in action
is more dynamic than the linear model suggests. In action, communication involves a
give and take between senders and receivers in which listeners are not simply passive
receptacles for a sender’s message. This model is also limited because it provides only
one channel for only one message. Finally, it implies that messages themselves are
clear-cut with a distinct beginning and a distinct end. However, communication is
rarely, if ever, as neat and tidy as a linear model would suggest.

Interactional Models
In the move to a more dynamic view of communication, interactional models follow
two channels in which communication and feedback flow between sender and
receiver. Feedback is simply a response that a receiver gives to a sender. (See Figure
1.2.) Feedback can be verbal (i.e. “yes”) or nonverbal (i.e. a nod or smile). Most
importantly, feedback indicates comprehension. It can help senders know if their
message was received and understood. By focusing on flow and feedback,
interactional models view communication as an ongoing process.

Figure 1.2:
Interactional Model

The final feature of this model is the field of experience. The field of experience refers
to how environment, experiences, culture, and even heredity can influence how a
sender constructs a message. Keep in mind that each person brings a unique field of
experience to an interaction. Likewise, each communication interaction is
unique. While the interactional model is more dynamic than the linear model, it still
contains some limitations. For instance, this model implies that while people can be
both senders and receivers, they cannot do so simultaneously. In lived
communication, roles are not quite so clear-cut and in fact are much more fluid.

Transactional Models
The transactional is the most dynamic of communication models. One notable feature
of this model is the move from referring to people as senders and receivers to
referring to people as communicators. This implies that communication is achieved as
people both send and receive messages. (See Figure 1.3.) Fundamentally, this model
views communication as a transaction. In other words, communication is a
cooperative action in which communicators co-create the process, outcome and
effectiveness of the interaction. Unlike the linear model in which meaning is sent from
one person to another, also unlike the interactional model in which understanding is
achieved through feedback, people create shared meaning in a more dynamic process
in the transactional model.

Figure 1.3:
Transactional Model

This model also places more emphasis on the field of experience. While each
communicator has a unique field of experience, they must also inhabit a shared field
of experience. In other words, communicators must share at least some degree of
overlap in culture, language, or environment if people are to communicate at all. This
model also recognizes that messages will influence the responses, or subsequent
messages, produced in the communication interaction. This means that messages do
not stand alone, but instead are interrelated. The principle of interrelation states that
messages are connected to and build upon one another. The transactional model forms
the basis for much communication theory because (1) people are viewed as dynamic
 communicators rather than simple senders or receivers, (2) there must be some
overlap in fields of experience in order to build shared meaning, and (3) messages are
interdependent.
Resources for Communication Theory

There are many valuable online resources for communication students. The following are just a
few you can use. But remember, these are to be considered starting points for detailed references
and not the primary sources. It is always best to use the original.

 Dr. Pierce’s Old School Website

 IACACT’s Communicopedia
 National Communication Association web site
 International Communication Association web site
 Canadian Communication association web site
 Association of Internet Researchers

Sidebar 1.1: Research Resources

The transactional understanding of shared meaning has informed variety of

communication theories. In general terms, a theory comprises a way of seeing,
interpreting, and explaining. A theory is a framework for understanding. It illuminates
social practices and helps to make sense of the everyday life-world. Durham &
Kellner (2001) suggest that we consider a theory as “a way of seeing, an optic, that
focuses on specific subject matter” (3). Think about a theory as an optic or a
technology that enhances vision. Just as there are many different communication
theories, there are also many different visual technologies. Sunglasses, contacts, or
even virtual reality goggles each us help to see in a certain way. For instance, when
you put on a pair of glasses, it will cause you to see in a particular way, focusing
things near or far depending on the type of lens. In this way, every different theory
will require a different way of seeing the world of communication. The most
important part of this metaphor is that a particular theory will bring specific aspects of
communication into focus yet may blur others. As you work through this book, pay
attention to the ways in which a particular perspective illuminates certain elements
while leaving others in shadow. Also think about how exploring different theories will
provide a more comprehensive look at communication while also allowing you to
select those that will be of greatest use for your interests in communication studies.
Theories of Meaning and Representation
Focus: Relationships between signs, meanings, and
language systems
Semiotics
Semiotics (or semiology) is the study of signs. In its most basic definition, a sign is
anything that carries meaning. In this sense, a sign represents or stands for something
other than itself. Semiotics was pioneered by the French philosopher

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Saussure studied signs scientifically by breaking

them down into two parts: a signifier and a signified. A signifier is the actual form of
the sign. It may appear as words, images, sounds, etc. For example, as a signifier, the
word rose designates a particular flower. The image in Table 1.1 also designates this
flower. These are examples of signifiers, or the form that a sign may take.

In contrast, a signified is the meaning that is associated with the form of the signifier.
The signified is the meaning that is triggered in your head when you think of the red
rose. Think for a moment. What does a red rose signify? Does it “mean” something
different than a yellow rose, for example? In many cultures, a red rose signifies
passion, whereas a yellow rose signifies friendship. Passion (or friendship), as a
conceptual meaning, is the signified. Signifieds are mental representations. Mental
representations are never purely individual, but instead comprise “shared conceptual
maps” (Hall, 1997, p. 17). Conceptual maps provide a common reference point that
enable people to interpret and understand one another.

Photograph from unsplash.com. Photographer Carlos Quintero.

Table 1.1:
Signifier: A Rose is a Rose is a Rose. Which one is “Real”?

If a sign consists of both a signifier and a signified, what, then, is the relationship
between them? The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. In
other words, there is no necessary connection between a signifier and a signified.
There is no “natural” reason that red signifies passion whereas yellow signifies
friendship. There may be a connection between the parts of a sign, but the connection
is socially, not naturally, determined. In this sense, there is nothing inherent in the
colour yellow that connects it to friendship. According to semiotics, all meanings are
associations.

Another example of the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified can be
found in the word tree. As an English language signifier, tree designates a plant with a
wooden trunk, branches, and leaves. However, in Spanish, árbol is the word, or
signifier, used to designate the very same signified. Arbre is the French signifier. The
same signified can have many different signifiers. Here, the use of different languages
also points out that there is no inherent connection between a signifier and a signified.
Meanings are associations that are culturally determined.

Furthermore, meanings are always relational. We understand meaning based on

similarities to and differences from other signs within a system of signs. Take for
example a traffic light. (See Figure 1.6.) “GO” is associated with green whereas
“STOP” is associated with red. Hall (1997) explains that in part, this is understood
through difference; go is not stop just as green is not red. And of course, there is
nothing inherent in the colour green that connects it to the action “GO.” In fact, the
colour blue could just as easily designate “GO”. This is a symbolic connection.
Figure 1.6: Meanings are Relational. When ‘green’ means “GO!”

Scholars who study semiotics are interested in both symbolic difference and symbolic
association. They study how the placement of signs constructs connections between
otherwise unassociated meanings. Most importantly, they point out that a sign’s
meaning always depends on its context, or the environment of other signs surrounding
it. One of the main areas in which the concept of semiotic association is applied lies in
the critique of advertisements. Take for example advertisements for beer. In print,
online, and on television, beer ads often use images of slender, beautiful, sexually
available women. Visually, these ads juxtapose images of sexuality with images of
alcohol. By surrounding signs for alcohol with signs of sexuality, a semiotic
association is created between the alcohol and sexual satisfaction. In fact, scholars
such as Berger (2007) suggest that consumers never actually purchase the advertised
products, but instead consumers purchase the ideas, or associated meanings, present in
the advertising image. Using the concept of semiotic association, Berger argues that
consumers purchase the promise of sexual satisfaction rather than the actual,
particular brand of beer.

Semiotics also offers a detailed vocabulary for understanding and differentiating

signs. Much of this vocabulary was developed by 20th century American
philosopher C.S. Peirce. He developed definitions and charted the differences between
different types of signs. He defined an iconic sign as one that bears a resemblance to
what is depicted. A photograph of a rose is considered an iconic sign because it bears
a resemblance to a rose (Table 1.1). Likewise, a drawing of a rose is also iconic
(Table 1.1). Symbolic signs, like traffic lights discussed above have no necessary
relationship between signifier and signified. Symbolic signs carry arbitrary meaning.
Finally, unlike a symbolic sign, an indexical sign holds an inherent relationship
between a sign and its meaning. For example, if you were to see smoke coming from a
mountain ridge, it would indicate that there is a fire. In this sense, it can be said that
smoke indexes fire.

Representation
The semiotic tradition has had a tremendous impact on larger theories of
representation. In his influential work in this area, Stuart Hall (1997) explains this is
because, “in language, we use signs and symbols – whether they are sounds, written
words, electronically produced images, musical notes, even objects – to stand for or
represent to other people our concepts, ideas, and feelings” (Hall, 1997, p. 1, emphasis
added). According to Hall, (1 representation is a central communication process by
which people make and share meanings, and (2 language is a significant system of
representation.

Hall explained this concept in three major approaches, or paradigms, of

representation: Reflective, Intentional, and Constituitive. First, the Reflective
Paradigm draws upon the metaphor of a mirror. In this view, language functions like a
mirror to reflect meanings that exist in objects and in the environment. A key
assumption to this approach is that there is one true and unchanging meaning present
in an object. Here, meaning is a product of the object itself. This is also called an
essentialist viewpoint, or “the conventional view…that ‘things’ exist in the material
and natural world; that their material or natural characteristics are what determines or
constitutes them; and that they have a perfectly clear meaning, outside of how they are
represented” (Hall, 1997, p. 5, emphasis original). However, the Reflective Paradigm
is problematic because it focuses on meanings that are simply and objectively
observed by people rather than the meanings that are created and exchanged between
people.

The second approach is the Intentional Paradigm. According to this view, “words
mean what their author intends them to mean” (Hall, 1997, p. 25). An author imposes
his or her unique meaning on an audience through the use of language. It is important
to keep in mind that while as individual speakers or authors, we each use language to
convey unique messages; there is no guarantee that a message will be heard or
understood as intended. One of the problems with the intentional approach to
representation is that there is no way to account for the fact that different listeners or
readers may interpret a sentence, poem, or even a work of art differently.

Finally, Hall explains the constituitive paradigm. Developing the semiotic standpoint,
he states that objects, people, and things in and of themselves do not carry meaning.
Instead, human beings construct meaning for the environment, events, and objects.
This paradigm is closely associated with social constructionism, or the view that
reality is a product of communication. How reality is understood at a given social,
historical moment is determined by the conventions of communication unique to that
moment. Simply put, reality is socially constructed through ongoing and
interconnected patterns of representation.

In the constituitive paradigm, “we must not confuse the material world, where things
and people exist, and symbolic practices and processes through which representation,
meaning and language operate” (Hall, 1997, p. 25). To be clear, constructionists do
not deny the physical existence of the world. Instead, they argue that the physical
world does not exist meaningfully until it has been represented. Constructionists also
recognize that signs always have a material dimension. For instance, there is a
material quality to images or letters on paper or as digital impulses on screen or that
sounds arise from vocal chords to form speech. The key difference for constructionists
lies in that the material world does not present itself objectively to human beings.
Rather, we come to know and to understand only through our communication with
others.

Systems and Interactional Theories

Focus: Relationships between social structures and
social interaction
General Systems Theory
General Systems Theory (GST) is used to study the nature of complex systems.
Systems themselves are collections of different elements that work together to form a
cohesive unit. GST is applied in a variety of different fields from technology and
natural sciences to social sciences. In communication studies, GST has a range of
applications, especially in interpersonal and organizational settings. In this view,
families and corporations are perfect examples of systems. They are each made up of
different elements such as members of a family or divisions of a corporation that
interact to form a single unit, or system. GST focuses on how an individual system
structures the communication within that system.

In The Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967), Watzlawick, Bavelas, &

Jackson emphasize that although every system is unique, all systems consist of two
components: objects and attributes. An object refers to the parts of a system. Objects
may be members of a family or divisions of a corporation, as noted above. Attributes
refer to the qualities of the objects. For instance, individual characteristics or
personalities are attributes. Most importantly, the interaction among the objects forms
a series of relationships. Relationships tie the individual objects in a system together.

In addition to objects, attributes, and relationships, other fundamental properties of

open systems include: wholeness, interdependence, nonsummativity, equifinality,
feedback, and circularity. Wholeness refers to the idea that any one part of the system
cannot be understood on its own, but only in relation to the other parts of the system.
Systems cannot be understood as pieces, but only as a unit. For example, we can learn
more about the Sinto family by analyzing their interactions together rather than simply
analyzing Pat’s communication behaviours alone. In this way, “family members are
not isolated persons, but their relationships among one another must be taken into
account in order to fully understand the individuals and the family as a unit”
(Littlejohn, 1992, p. 40). Secondly, the parts of a system are interdependent. The
concept of wholeness implies that if there is a change or disruption in one part of the
system, it will affect the whole system. So, if Pat begins to drink heavily, it will have
an impact not only on Pat’s behaviour, but also on the entire Sinto family. In the
systems view, Pat’s drinking cannot be isolated because members of a family are
interdependent. Nonsummativity names the idea that a system is irreducible. In other
words, a system is always more than the sum of its parts. A family as a unit has more
value than the total of its individual members. Equifinality refers to the ability of a
system to achieve the same goal through different means “because it is the nature of
the organization which is determinate” (Watzlawick et al., 1967, p. 127, emphasis
added). Essentially, the principle of equifinality offers different explanations for the
same outcome. As parents, Pat and Terry Sinto may use a variety of different methods
to secure the obedience of their children, Chris and Jessie. Discussion, discipline, or
even bribery can all be used to achieve the same result. Likewise, if corporate
management wants to increase profit in an organizational system, they may cut budget
expenses or increase sales. Either method could achieve the same goal.

Feedback is the information or input received by the system. A system will use the
input to self-regulate. Negative feedback helps a system to adapt and to make
adjustments. For instance, if Chris and Jessie don’t do household chores, Pat and
Terry could use discussion to provide feedback. When Chris and Jessie receive the
feedback, they can then make the necessary adjustments to the system (i.e. do the
chores). This is considered negative feedback not because it is necessarily harsh or
bad, but because it causes a change within the system. In contrast, positive feedback
will keep a system going with no change. So, when Chris and Jessie do not do
household chores and still receive an allowance, they are receiving positive feedback.
As positive feedback, the allowance communicates that there is balance within the
system and that no changes need to be made.
Circularity names the principle that systems develop patterns of recurring
communication. Recurring patterns in turn structure the communication process for
that system. GST brings into focus a cyclical model in which systems are self-
perpetuating. Here, a system creates communication, and communication in turn
sustains the system. For instance, when Pat begins to drink heavily, Terry complains
and nags. When Terry complains and nags, Pat begins to drink heavily. The cycle of
drinking/complaining/complaining/drinking forms a self-continuing system.
Circularity implies a causal and continuous relationship. (See Figure 1.7.)
Figure 1.7: Circularity in General Systems Theory
Symbolic Interactionism
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is largely credited with developing Symbolic
Interactionism (SI). Although Mead published very little during his lifetime, a
collection of his lectures titled Mind, Self, and Society (1934) was published
posthumously. This work laid the foundations for SI. SI was named by Mead’s
student Herbert Blumer, and continued to be developed throughout the 20th century.
SI has been extremely influential in communication studies as well as in sociology.
Because it has been so influential, its applications vary widely. Although approaches
may vary, the major principles of SI concern (1) the role of symbols, (2) the role of
self concept, and (3) the relationship between symbols, self, and society.

(1) Symbols play a significant role in human life and behaviour

SI states that all human life is mediated by symbols and that it is the use of symbols
that defines the human experience. In this way, humanity has a symbolic source, not
merely a biological one. Thus it can be said that human beings are not born, but
instead are made. Secondly, just as humanity is a process, so too, is society itself.
Society is the product of human beings using symbols.

(2) Self concept is a significant factor in human life and behaviour

SI emphasizes the importance of agency. Agency is defined as an individual’s ability

to act within a social system. It implies that an individual has some degree of choice
or independence. SI brings into focus the idea that human beings are actively involved
in shaping their own behaviour. Secondly, SI is concerned with the ways in which
individuals develop self concept. Self concepts are the “relatively stable set of
perceptions people hold about themselves” (West & Turner, 2007, p. 99). They are
self-formed identities that develop over time in interaction with others. Self concepts,
in turn, provide important motives for behaviour. An individual’s beliefs, values,
feelings, and evaluations of themselves affect how they interact with others.
Individuals will interpret, monitor and guide their own behaviour according to their
ideas and perceptions of themselves.

(3) The relationships between symbols, self, and society

People and groups are influenced by social processes. Simply put, social norms
constrain individual behaviour. While individuals have some degree of agency, as
noted above, there is always a tension between individual freedoms and societal
restraints. Finally, SI argues that social norms and even social structures are created
through interaction. Society is neither fixed nor unchanging, but instead is a product
of symbolic interaction that is subject to interpretation and (re)construction.

Lively’s (2009) case study used SI to analyze the professionalism of paralegal

assistants in private law firms. Drawing from Becker (1970), Lively focused on the
way that “the symbol ‘profession’ organizes the way individuals think about work;
‘professional’ and ‘professionalism’ constitute symbols that organize how individuals
think about their own and others’ behaviour or status in the workplace…” (Lively,
2009, p. 346). She analyzed how paralegal assistants actively construct professional
images of themselves. They do so through a common concept of professionalism,
which is defined through displays of competence (knowledge and skills necessary to
perform job tasks) and demeanor (appearance, attitude, and manner). Symbolically,
the degree of adherence to professionalism affected the paralegal’s self concepts. The
degree of adherence to professionalism also constructed a specific corporate culture in
private law firms. SI analysis emphasized that the paralegals have a degree of agency,
or control over their own behaviour. At the same time, they are also constrained by
the norms of professional behaviour in their firm. In the case of paralegal
professionalism, people are using symbols to (1) develop a sense of self, (2) to interact
with others (e.g. attorneys, paralegals, and clients), and (3) to construct meaning and
culture within the law firm itself.
One of the contributors to this book is Dr. Mark Johns from Luther College in Decorah Iowa,
USA. Luther College is a small 4-year residential college and Dr. Johns was the chair of the
Communication Department. Dr. Johns is not only active in the Association of Internet
Researchers (AoIR), he is a Reverend in the Lutheran church. He is a great example of how one
person can blend multiple interests into one career.

Dr. Mark D. Johns – A Symbolic Interactionism Scholar

People and groups are influenced by symbols and social processes. At the same time,
social structure is created through symbolic interaction of people and groups. While
this may sound similar to GST, there are important differences between the two
theories. At base, GST brings into focus the structure of a system and analyzes how
the structure determines behaviour. It is based on the idea that human behaviour is a
product of the system to which it belongs. SI inverts that formula and seeks to explain
how symbol use creates social structures. In SI, social structures are products, not
determinants of interaction

Critical and Cultural Studies

Focus: Relationships between culture, power, and social
difference
Critical and Cultural Studies comprise a branch of theory that explores the
relationships between culture and power. Research here is based on the ideas that (1)
power permeates all social relationships and (2) power finds a material form in
cultural practices and artefacts. Power implies access to and control of both people
and resources. Power may refer to the control of government, institutions, and even
social groups, but for Critical and Cultural research, the concept of power is much
more complex. Power refers to any “…social relations of difference and struggle over
resources of a material or cultural character” (Casey, Casey, Calvert, French, &
Lewis, 2008, p. 216). By referring to the struggle over not just material resources,
such as land or money, but also cultural resources, such as meaning and language,
these theories bring communication and representation into focus. Secondly, Critical
and Cultural Studies point out that “power is not something that is imposed from the
top of society down onto its oppressed bottom layers. Power is everywhere…” (Rose,
2007, p. 143). Consequently, a great deal of this research focuses on every day, often
taken for granted practices. Forms of popular culture, various media texts,
subcultures, and visual images make up the artefacts and data that these researchers
analyze. Finally, as Casey et al. point out, the social relations of difference are key to
Critical and Cultural Studies because this research also seeks to understand the
various ways in which social groups are oppressed. Social groups are often oppressed
along lines of class, gender, race, age, and ethnicity. Research here seeks to bring
oppression to light in order to analyze and abolish it. It is not just academic, but also
practical and political. In this way, Critical and Cultural Studies are dedicated to using
scholarship for progressive social change.

Critical Theory
A great deal of work in this area has been influenced by the work of Karl Marx (1818-
1883). Class was the form of social difference that most interested him. He considered
class division as the most fundamental organizing factor in capitalist society. Marxist
theories analyze how people are divided into classes, and how the capitalist ruling
class (bourgeoisie) dominates and exploits its workers (proletariat). While class
divisions and economic systems are central to understanding Marx, it is also important
to distinguish Marxism as a theory from political and economic systems of
Communism. Politically, a Communist state relies on a single-party system.
Economically, it is based on nationalized industries and the state ownership of
property. Communism is a form of government and an economic system that is more
narrowly defined than Marxism. Marxist theory is a philosophy that provides a critical
analysis of capitalism as well as a theory for social change. In communication studies,
Marxist thought has a much wider range of applications, especially because Marx
himself was not only concerned with economic production, but also with the
production and control of ideas.

For Marx, those who control the means of production control much more than
economic flows, they also control the flow of culture, ideas, and values in society.
In The German Ideology (1845), Marx writes that “the ideas of the ruling class are, in
every age, the ruling ideas: i.e. the class which is the dominant material force in
society, is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class which has the
means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the
means of mental production…” (Marx, 1845/1963, p. 93). Simply put, those who
control economic production also control cultural production. Because ‘the one who
pays the piper calls the tune,’ capitalist forms of culture, art, and media become the
bearers of capitalist ideology.

Developing Marxist thought in the 20th century were scholars from The Frankfurt
School for Social Research (f. 1923). Scholars such as Theodor Adorno (1903-1969),
Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), and Herbert Marcuse
(1898-1979) were also concerned with the production and distribution of culture and
ideology. They argue that public discourse has been eclipsed by private industry and
that consumer goods have come to dominate people’s consciousness. Making a
distinction between true needs and false needs, they consider unnecessary consumer
goods to be false needs. They considered true needs to be the deep, essential needs of
human beings. Human beings need to be independent, autonomous, creative
participants in the life-world. People need to have a voice in the public sphere and to
be active in their own government. However, capitalism has remained strong by
inculcating desires for unnecessary cultural commodities. You need only walk into a
local Super-Mart to see what the Frankfurt School theorists mean. Take, for example,
the dozens of different brands, varieties, and even scents of air fresheners available.
Or conduct a web search, where examples of unnecessary commodities abound
online. They argue that the proliferation of commodities is distracting and prevents
people from fulfilling their true needs for autonomy and creativity. True needs are
eclipsed by false needs. Under capitalism, freedom of choice is reduced to the
freedom to choose between consumer goods, not between political or economic
systems. In this way, the right to make political choices has become less important
than the right to make consumer choices.

These theorists were also concerned with the transformation of culture into industry.
The process of commodifiction names how a piece of culture such as music or a work
of art can become a product whose value lies only in its price rather than in its artistic
quality. Some theorists, like Theodor Ardorno, were particularly concerned with
popular music. For him, popular music was a product to be bought and sold rather
than an authentic work of art or a creative expression. He argued that this was an
effect of the mass production techniques used after the industrial revolution. If
popular music was to be produced in a standardized way, it would lose its unique
artistic qualities. He also argued that by using assembly-line techniques, the
production of a musical album was no different than the production of a bar of soap or
an automobile. While mass production ensured that a greater number of units could be
purchased at a lower price, Adorno argued that profit motives would have negative
effects on the artistry of popular music, and culture in general.

He also regarded mass production as a dangerous development because it threatened

to break down the traditional cultural hierarchy. This hierarchy values High Culture
such as fine art or opera because it is exclusive and refined. It also values Low Culture
such as folk music or mendhi (henna tattoos) because they are produced for small,
local communities and are therefore unique and authentic. However, these forms of
culture have lost their inherent value as they have become mass-produced. For
example, Frankfurt School theorists would argue that Vincent Van Gough’s “The
Starry Night” is a work of fine art (an example of High Culture). However, it is
degraded when reproduced onto thousands of coffee mugs or refrigerator magnets.
Likewise, mendhi has been practiced in many Eastern cultures for centuries (an
example of Folk or Low Culture). It, too, has lost unique cultural value because
thousands of identical stencils for henna tattoos can now be easily purchased nearly
anywhere in the West. Both of these examples show a concern for culture and
commodification.

From Critical Theory to Cultural Studies

Marxist and Frankfurt School theories are successful in analyzing the relationships
between culture and economy. Clearly, this line of research remains focused on class
hierarchy as the most important feature of social difference. However, Critical Theory
may not adequately address other categories of social difference such as gender, race,
or sexuality. Cultural Studies picks up here by bringing into focus other features of
social difference. Additionally, Cultural Studies does not simply critique the dominant
or “ruling” ideology, but instead, looks at the struggle between different ideologies.
The assumption made here is that society is comprised of different social groups who
vie for power through cultural resources. The struggle does not occur on a grand
battlefield, but instead the struggle occurs in people’s everyday practices and forms of
popular culture. For instance, television viewing, cinema, web surfing, and
subcultures of music and fashion are important elements of daily life in many Western
cultures. Cultural Studies does not view these as “innocent” amusements, but instead
brings into focus the struggles between culture, entertainment, power, and ideology.

Cultural Studies also brings into focus cultures of resistance. For instance,
in Subculture: The Meaning of Style (1979), Dick Hebdige analyzed the punk rock
movements of the late 1970s and early 1980s in Britain. Viewed in mainstream
society as a social problem, Hebdige instead looked at the aggressive, even anarchist
bases of punk as an important cultural expression of disenfranchised youth. He argued
that punk must be seen in the social context of economic decline and racial unrest.
Instead of condemning punk as a menace to society, he explored the complex and
dynamic practices by which British youth expressed their disillusion through creating
unique styles of music and fashion. Through punk, British youth created a means not
just to mark a distinctive identity, but also a political position against the status quo.

Other case studies concerning musical subcultures have focused on diaspora, or the
spread of large group migrations as people move outside of their traditional
homelands. For instance, Bennett (2002, 2001/2005) analyzed how East Indian youth
transformed bhangra, a form of Punjabi folk music. As many Indian families settled in
large Western cities including Toronto, London, and New York, they were forced to
negotiate tensions between tradition and assimilation. Indian diasporic youth
responded by mixing the traditional bhangra style with other genres of music such as
techno, pop, rap, and reggae. These practices created “…a means for young Asians to
construct new identities which both reflect their cultural roots while at the same time
articulating new cultural sensibilities based on their experiences growing up in
Britain” (Bennett, 2001/2005, p. 105), Canada, and U.S.A, respectively. By creating a
new musical subculture, East Indian youth found a way of honouring their heritages
while also carving out an identity distinct to a younger generation.

Ethnicity and identity are important topics in this field. Cultural Studies research also
focuses on how people use popular culture to create, or even claim,
identity. Claiming generally refers to white middle class youth who take up cultural
practices that are outside of their own ethnic upbringing. For example, many teens
have adopted an ethnic identity through the music, dance, fashion, and slang popular
in hip-hop and Latino cultures. Nell Bernstein (2006) calls the phenomena “goin’
gangsta” or “choosin’ cholita.” The phenomena have even been parodied on television
programs such as The Simpsons and South Park as well as in films such as Malibu’s
Most Wanted. For many teens, ethnicity is the “spice” that livens up the dish of
mainstream white culture. bell hooks (1999) has called this process “eating the
Other.” Here, white youth metaphorically consume Other cultures when claiming an
ethnic identity. This line of thought analyzes white privilege and takes a critical stance
on power and racism.

These examples of Cultural Studies research focus on subculture and resistance, as

well as power and ethnicity. Yet other research in Cultural Studies has been heavily
influenced by Feminist Theory. These studies bring issues of gender and sexuality
into focus. Much work here examines negative or narrowly stereotyped
representations of women in television, film, advertisements, and other forms of
popular culture. For instance, in Dreamworlds: Desire, Sex, and Power (1991, 1995,
2008), Sut Jhally analyzed the ways in which women are portrayed in music video. In
a detailed investigation, he identified the roles of women as highly sexualized and
argued that through these representations women are symbolically annihilated.
Symbolic annihilation refers to the ways in which women are absent, trivialized, or
otherwise marginalized. His critique seeks to open a dialogue about these issues and
to combat stereotypes. As this body of work continues to grow, greater attention is
also being paid to issues of masculinity. (See Chapter 4: Gendered Communication)
Ultimately, this branch of Cultural Studies works to open up definitions of
masculinity, femininity, and sexuality as well as to work toward creating a more
democratic space of representation.
Wrapping It Up
The world of communication is dynamic, complex, and diverse. Its different elements,
environments, and expressions will be explored throughout this book. As you work
through the various chapters, remember the optical metaphor discussed earlier. Each
chapter will provide a unique way of seeing communication by bringing specific
aspects into focus. In doing so, the chapters will help you to expand your horizons by
illuminating different communication contexts and features. The more perspectives
you explore, the better able you will be to develop a richer and more comprehensive
understanding of human communication.

Glossary
Shared Conceptual Maps

Groups of mental labels that describe how mental labels are grouped together or
classified. While mental labels do exist inside an individual’s head, they also must be
socially determined. In this way, shared conceptual maps provide a common reference
point that enable people to think individually yet also to interpret and understand one
another collectively.

Critical Theory

This is a branch of research that focuses on the relationships between culture and
power. Critical Theory is based in Marxist philosophy and analyzes the control and
circulation of ideas within capitalist societies. This research identifies the
relationships between culture and economy and focuses on class as the most important
feature of social difference.

Cultural Studies

While related to Critical Theory, Cultural Studies also focuses on other features of
social difference such as gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity. This research is
concerned with the process in which different social groups vie for power through
cultural resources.

General Systems Theory (GST)

GST is used to study the nature of complex systems. It explores the structure of a
system by charting out how a system is organized. It views a system as a whole
(rather than a sum of its parts) that is circular or self-perpetuating. GST brings into
focus the structure of a system and analyzes how the structure determines behaviour.
 It is based on the idea that human behaviour is a product of the system to which it
belongs.

Interactional models of communication

This model follows two channels in which communication and feedback flow
between sender and receiver. This model adds the concept of field of experience to the
communication process.

Linear model of communication

This model is credited to Shannon & Weaver (1949), and includes a sender (source of
message) and receiver. It is a one-way path for communication.

Paradigms of representation

A paradigm is a major approach, or a comprehensive set of ideas that make up a way

of viewing the world. The three paradigms of representation are Reflective,
Intentional, and Constituitive. Each makes up a unique way of viewing the process of
meaning-making.

Semiotics

The study of signs. A sign is anything that stands for something else. Semiotic studies
are concerned with the relationship between a sign and its meaning. They take a sign
apart to see how meanings are associated with signs and how systems of signs shape
the social construction of meaning.

Transactional Models

These models move away from referring to people as senders and receivers to
referring to people as communicators. Fundamentally, this model views
communication as a transaction – a cooperative action in which communicators co-
create the process, outcome and effectiveness of the interaction.

Understanding This Chapter

1. One of the basic tenets of communication theory is that one “cannot, not
communicate.” Do you think this is true? Why or why not?
2. There are three basic models of communication discussed in this chapter. Do
you think that it is time to develop a fourth model? Perhaps one that addresses the
interactivity of digital and internet communication? What would it look like? Can you
draw it?
3. Is Marxist theory still relevant to today’s society? Why or why not?
4. Multiple Online Games like Fortnite are virtual worlds where people
congregate and interact using avatars. If you were to analyze Fortnite using
“Semiotics” would you classify the avatars as signifiers? signifieds? signs? symbols?
Perhaps they are none of these?

References
Adorno, T. (1991). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. London:
Routledge.

Becker, H. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago: Aldine.

Bennett, A. (2001, 2005). Cultures of popular music. Berkshire and New York: Open
University Press.

Berger, A. A. (2007). Ads, fads, and consumer culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littleford.

Bernstein, N. (2006). Goin’ gangsta, choosin’ cholita. In S. Maasik & J. Solomon

(Eds.) Signs of life in the USA: Readings on popular culture for writers (5th ed). (pp.
606-611). Boston: Bedford St. Martins.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall.

Casey, B., Casey, N., Calvert, B., French, L., & Lewis, J. (2008). Television studies:
The key concepts, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. (Eds.) (2001). Media and cultural studies: Key works.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation in S. Hall (Ed.) Representation: Cultural

representations and signifying practices (pp. 13-73). London: Sage.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of style. London: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1999). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press.
Jhally, S. (Writer, Editor, Producer). (2008). Dreamworlds 3: Desire, sex, and power in
music video. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlejohn, S. J. (1992). Theories of human communication (4th ed.) Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Lively, K.J. (2009). Occupational claims to professionalism: The case of paralegals.

Symbolic Interaction 24 (3), 343-365.

Marx, K. (1963). Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy. T. Bottomore &

M. Rubel (Eds.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.
C.W. Morris (Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peirce, C.S. (1960). Collected papers (c. Hartshorn & P. Weiss, Eds.) Cambridge, MA:
The Kelnap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual

materials. 2nd ed. London: Sage

Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in general linguistics. London: Fontana.

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human

communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New
York: W.W. Norton & Co.

West, R., & L.H. Turner. (2007). Introducing communication theories: Analysis and
application (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
 

For Further Reading

Anderson, J.A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New
York: Guilford Press.
Audi, R. (Ed.) (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. A. Lavers (trans.) London: Paladin Books.

Barthes, R. (1988). The semiotic challenge. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bennett, A. (2000). Popular music and youth culture: Music, identity and place.
London: Macmillan.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social construction of reality: A treatise in

the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

During, S. (2005). Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Griffin, E. M. (2009). A First look at communication theory (7th ed.) New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Hall, S. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart

Hall. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10, (2), 45-60.

Hoggart, R. (1958). The uses of literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Manis, J., & Meltzer, B. (Eds.) 1978. Symbolic Interaction Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Strinati, D. (1995/2001). An Introduction to theories of popular culture. London and

New York: Routledge.

von Bertalanffly, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development,

applications. New York: Braziller.

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London:

Fontana.

About the Author

Amy M. Corey holds a doctorate in Communication Studies from the University of
Denver. Her research focuses on Culture and Communication and she has published
critical work on popular culture and online interaction. She teaches a variety of
courses, including Communication Theory and Research.