More information about theories of communication

 

Communication is, at its most simple, 'social interaction through messages' (Fiske 1990: 2). Thompson (2003) unpacks this further.

The 'social', he suggests, implies that communication takes place in a social context, and that context has a bearing on the success or otherwise of the communication and the nature of the communication. It is therefore not just about transmitting information from one setting to another; rather, it is about communicating a relationship. Thompson goes on to make a distinction between the 'basic' message we want to convey, and the 'meta' message (that is, how we want someone to take the message). He adds that how we convey the message might be intentional or unintentional (e.g. if we are nervous in a given situation).

Another way of thinking about communication is offered by Rosengren (2000: 38), who argues that 'we cannot not communicate'. This means that we communicate all the time - even when we are trying to convey as little as possible. We are 'prisoners of our physiology', because we will blush and show discomfort even when we try not to do so.

Thompson (2003: 12) also makes the point that our actions are based not simply on the objective world out there, but on our subjective interpretation of that world. So we have an interaction between the subjectivity of the individual, and her or his perception of the wider social world and objective dimension.

Thompson traces the development in models of communication from the earliest to the most recent:

Process model - psychological research from the 1940s onwards understood communication as a process of a transmitter, a noise and a receiver - 'noise' sometimes gets in the way and interferes with the communication (e.g. distractions or emotions). This has been criticised more recently as not taking enough account of the social context or of meaning.

Transmitter Arrow noise Arrow receiver

Semiotics - offers a different approach, with a focus on symbols and meaning. So, words are understood as forms of sign, which tell us about culture, and about power. Thus some meanings are valued while others are not - there is a hierarchy of meanings, with some given more weight and acceptability than others. And some words and gestures will have different meanings in different cultures.

More recent post-modern and post-structural approaches take this even further. For example, Foucault (1972) and other sociologists argue that power relations are embedded in discourses (in ideas and practices) which create and recreate the world which we know. Much of this is unexplored - we take it for granted - it is the 'wallpaper of our lives', unremarkable and simply the way we see the world. This approach to communication challenges us to examine this critically, perhaps for the first time - to realise that language does not simply reflect reality; it also constructs reality.

On a similar vein, Bourdieu (1991) argues that some people have more 'cultural capital' than others. Through their education, upbringing and social class, they are in a stronger position to operate within a range of social situations and to communicate with them. So, we do not start on a level playing field, and, in the scenario, there will be interesting issues to explore in relation to Jean and Nazra's very different situations. Jean's working class background, and her lack of higher education, may make her feel less 'in control' than we might assume at first sight.