<<

gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 37 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 4

Mapping the Territory (Seven Traditions in the Field of )

In Chapter 1, I presented working defi nitions for the ofcommunication and theory. In Chapters 2 and 3, I outlined the basic differences between objective and interpretive communication . These distinctions should help bring order out of chaos when your study of theory seems confusing. And it may seem confusing. University of Colorado communication professor Robert Craig describes the fi eld of as awash with hundreds of unre- lated theories that differ in starting point, method, and conclusion. He suggests that our fi eld of study resembles “a pest control device called the Roach Motel that used to be advertised on TV: Theories check in, but they never check out.” 1 My conjures up a different image when I try to make sense of the often baffl ing landscape of communication theory. I picture a scene from the fi lm Raid- ers of the Lost Ark in which college professor Indiana Jones is lowered into a dark vault and confronts a thick layer of writhing serpents covering the fl oor—a tan- gle of communication theories. The intrepid adventurer discovers that the snakes momentarily retreat from the bright light of his torch, letting him secure a safe place to stand. It’s my hope that the core ideas of Chapters 1–3 will provide you with that kind of space. The fantasy nature of the fi lm is such that I could even imagine Indiana Jones emerging from the cave with all the snakes straightened like sticks of kindling wood, bound together in two bundles—the objective batch held in his right hand and the interpretive batch held in his left. But that’s an overly simplistic fantasy. Craig offers a more sophisticated solution. Craig agrees that the terrain is confusing if we insist on looking for some kind of grand theoretical overview that brings all communication study into focus—a top-down, satellite picture of the communication theory landscape. He suggests, however, that communication theory is a coherent fi eld when we understand com- munication as a practical discipline.2 He’s convinced that our search for different types of theory should be grounded where real people grapple with everyday problems and practices of communication. Craig explains that “all communication theories are relevant to a common practical lifeworld in which communication is already a richly meaningful term.”3 Communication theory is the systematic and thoughtful response of communication scholars to questions posed as humans interact with each other—the best thinking within a practical discipline.

37 gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 38 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

38 OVERVIEW

Craig thinks it’s reasonable to talk about a fi eld of communication theory if we take a collective look at the actual approaches researchers have used to study communication problems and practices. He identifi es seven established tradi- tions of communication theory that include most, if not all, of what theorists have done. These already established traditions offer “distinct, alternative vocab- ularies” that describe different “ways of conceptualizing communication problems and practices.” 4 This means that scholars within a given tradition talk comfort- ably with each other but often take potshots at those who work in other camps. As Craig suggests, we shouldn’t try to smooth over these between-group battles. Theorists argue because they have something important to argue about. In the rest of the chapter I’ll outline the seven traditions that Craig describes. Taken together, they reveal the breadth and diversity that spans the fi eld of communication theory. The classifi cations will also help you understand why some theories share common ground, while others are effectively fenced off from each other by confl icting goals and assumptions. As I introduce each tra- dition, I’ll highlight how its advocates tend to defi ne communication, suggest a practical communication problem that this kind of theory addresses, and pro- vide an example of that the tradition has inspired.5 Since I fi nd that the topic of friendship is of great interest to most college students, the seven research studies I describe will show how each tradition approaches this type of close relationship.

THE SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL TRADITION Communication as Interpersonal Interaction and Influence The socio-psychological tradition epitomizes the scientifi c or objective perspec- tive described in Chapter 2. Scholars in this tradition believe there are commu- nication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation. They look for cause-and-effect relationships that will predict the results when people communicate. When they fi nd causal links, they are well on the way to answer- ing the ever-present question that relationship and practitioners ask: How can I get others to change? In terms of generating theory, the socio- psychological tradition is by far the most prolifi c of the seven that Craig names. This disciplinary fact of life is refl ected in the many theories of this type that I present in the book. When researchers search for universal laws of communication, they try to focus on what is without being biased by their personal view of what ought to be. As social scientists, they heed the warning of the skeptical newspaper editor: “You think your mother loves you? Check it out—at least two sources.” For communication theorists in the socio-psychological tradition, checking it out usu- ally means designing a series of surveys or controlled experiments. That’s been my approach. Teaching at a small liberal arts college where I’ve had the opportunity to be personally involved in the lives of my students, I’ve always wondered if there is a way to predict which college friendships will survive and thrive after grad- uation. As someone trained in the socio-psychological tradition, I began a longi- tudinal study spanning two decades to fi nd out the answer. 6 I asked 45 pairs of best friends to respond to questions about (1) when they became close friends; (2) the similarity of their academic majors; (3) their range of mutual-touch behavior; gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 39 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 39

(4) their perceived status ; and (5) the extent to which they avoided discussing awkward topics. I also (6) assessed actual self-disclosure by submit- ting them to a procedure akin to The Newlywed Game; and (7) measured their communication effi ciency by watching them play two rounds of the cooperative word game Password . Would any of these measures forecast who would be friends forever? In order to determine the answer, I needed a reliable and valid measure of relational closeness. Glenn Sparks (Purdue University), who is one of two special consultants for this book, joined me in creating such a measure. Based on social psychologist Harold Kelley’s interactional theory, which suggests that close rela- tionships are characterized by “strength, frequency, diversity, and duration,” we developed a composite measure that assessed these properties.7 For example, we gauged relative strength by asking the pair how many friends they now have to whom they feel closer than their college best friend. And we assessed frequency of contact by counting the number of times over the last year that the pair com- municated face-to-face, over the phone, by letter, and through email. Nineteen years after the initial study, Andrew Ledbetter (Texas Christian University), who is my other special consultant for this book, located the study participants and asked them to respond to the measures of relational closeness mentioned above. We weren’t surprised that participants with a longer history as best friends when they came to the study were most likely to remain close two decades later. Past behavior tends to be a good predictor of future behavior. Of more interest to us as communication scholars was the fact that those with similar academic majors and those with better scores on the Password game also remained close.8 Remember that participants’ choice of major and the Password game occurred about two decades earlier, yet these factors still predicted friend- ship long after college. It appears that communicating on the same wavelength and sharing common academic interests is a boon to long-lasting friendship. Theorists and researchers working within the socio-psychological tradition often call for longitudinal empirical studies. Only by using this type of research design could we predict which pairs were likely to be friends forever.

THE CYBERNETIC TRADITION Communication as a System of Processing MIT scientist coined the word to describe the fi eld of artifi cial intelligence. 9 The term is a transliteration of the Greek word for “steers- man” or “governor,” and it illustrates the way feedback makes information pro- cessing possible in our heads and on our laptops. During World War II, Wiener developed an anti-aircraft fi ring system that adjusted future trajectory by taking into account the results of past performance. His of feedback anchored the cybernetic tradition, which regards communication as the link connecting the separate parts of any system, such as a computer system, a family system, a Cybernetics media system, or a system of social support. Theorists in the cybernetic tradition The study of information seek to answer such questions as How does the system work? What could change it? processing, feedback, and How can we get the bugs out? and control in communi- University of Washington communication professor Malcolm Parks studies cation systems. personal relationships by asking both partners to describe their . In one major study of college students’ same-sex friendships, he separately asked gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 40 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

40 OVERVIEW

each partner to prepare a list of his or her closest relationships, including four family members and eight non-family ties. 10 In almost all cases, the eight people who weren’t family were other friends or romantic partners rather than co-workers, coaches, or teachers. Parks then had the two friends trade their lists and asked them questions that probed their relationship with the key people in their friend’s social network. These included: 1 . Prior contact: Which people did you know before you met your friend? 2. Range of contact: How many of them have you now met face-to-face? 3. Communication: How often do you communicate with each of them? 4. Liking: How much do you like or dislike each of the ones you know? 5. Support: To what extent does each of them support your friendship? 6. Support: To what extent does your own network support your friendship? Note that the fi rst four questions establish the links within and between the friends’ social networks. Both support questions reveal the feedback friends receive from these support systems. Using a number of traditional measures that assess personal relationships, Parks measured the amount of communication between the friends, the closeness of their relationship, and their commitment to see it continue. When he compared these three measures to the quantity and quality of links to their friend’s social network, the results were striking. Friends who had multiple and positive inter- actions with their partner’s social networks had more communication with, closeness to, and commitment toward their partner than friends who had little involvement and felt little support from these folks. Friendships don’t exist in a vacuum; they are embedded in a network that processes social information.

THE RHETORICAL TRADITION Communication as Artful Public Address Whether speaking to a crowd, congregation, legislative assembly, or jury, public speakers have sought practical advice on how to best present their case. Well into the twentieth century, the rhetorical theory and advice from , , Cicero, Quintilian, and other Greco-Roman rhetors served as the main source of wisdom about . There are a half-dozen features that characterize The art of using all avail- this infl uential tradition of rhetorical communication: able means of persua- sion, focusing upon lines • A conviction that distinguishes humans from other animals. Cicero of argument, organiza- suggested that only oral communication had the power to lead humanity out tion of ideas, of its brutish existence and establish communities with rights of citizenship. 11 use, and delivery in pub- lic speaking. • A confi dence that public address delivered in a democratic forum is a more effective way to solve political problems than rule by decree or resorting to force. Within this tradition, the phrase mere rhetoric is a contradiction in terms. • A setting in which a single speaker attempts to infl uence multiple listeners through persuasive . Effective communication requires audience adaptation. • Oratorical training as the cornerstone of a leader’s . Speakers learn to deliver strong arguments in powerful voices that carry to the edge of a crowd. gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 41 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 41

• An emphasis on the power and beauty of language to move people emotion- ally and stir them to action. Rhetoric is more art than science. • Oral public persuasion as the province of males. A key feature of the wom- en’s movement has been the struggle for the right to speak in public. Readers of Aristotle’s Rhetoric may be surprised to fi nd a systematic analysis of friendship. He defi nes a friend as “one who loves and is loved in return.” 12 The Greek word for this kind of love is philia, as in Philadelphia (the city of brotherly love). Based on this mutual love, Aristotle says a friend takes pleasure when good things happen to the other and feels distress when the other goes through bad times—both emotions experienced for no other reason than the fact that they are friends. Aristotle then catalogs more than 20 personal qualities that make people attractive to us as friends. For example, we have friendly feelings toward those who are pleasant to deal with, share our interests, aren’t critical of others, are willing to make or take a joke, and show that they “are very fond of their friends and not inclined to leave them in the lurch.” 13 Although Aristotle wrote 2,500 years ago, this last quality resonates with James Taylor’s promise in the song “You’ve Got a Friend.” If you call out his name, wherever he is, he’ll come running. 14 You might have trouble seeing the link between the main features of the rhetorical tradition and Aristotle’s comments on friendship. After an in-depth study on Aristotle’s entire body of work—not just the Rhetoric —St. John’s Uni- versity philosopher Eugene Garver concluded that Aristotle didn’t analyze friendship as a way to help Greek citizens develop close relationships. 15 Rather, he was instructing orators on how to make their case seem more probable by creating a feeling of goodwill among the audience. If by word and deed a speaker appears friendly, listeners will be more open to the message. Twenty-fi ve years ago I wrote a book on friendship and suggested the title Making Friends . The publisher liked my proposal, but at the last minute added a phrase. I was startled when the book came out entitled Making Friends (and Making Them Count).16 I’m uncomfortable with the idea of using friends as a means to achieve other goals. According to Garver, Aristotle had no such qualms. Rhetoric is the discovery of all available means of persuasion.

THE SEMIOTIC TRADITION Communication as the Process of Sharing Through Semiotics is the study of signs. A is anything that can stand for something The study of verbal and else. High body temperature is a sign of infection. Birds fl ying south signal the nonverbal signs that can coming of winter. A white cane signifi es blindness. An arrow designates which stand for something else, direction to go. and how their interpreta- tion impacts society. Words are also signs, but of a special kind. They are . Unlike the examples I’ve just cited, words are arbitrary symbols that have no inherent meaning, no natural connection with the things they describe. For example, Symbols there’s nothing in the sound of the word share or anything visual in the letters Arbitrary words and non- h-u-g that signifi es a good friendship. One could just as easily coin the term snarf verbal signs that bear no natural connection with or clag to symbolize a close relationship between friends. The same thing is true the things they describe; for nonverbal symbols like winks or waves. their meaning is learned Cambridge University literary critic I. A. Richards railed against the seman- within a given . tic trap that he labeled “the proper meaning superstition”—the mistaken belief gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 42 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

42 OVERVIEW

DILBERT © Scott Adams/Dist. by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

that words have a precise defi nition. For Richards and other semiologists, mean- ing doesn’t reside in words or other symbols; meaning resides in people. Most theorists grounded in the semiotic tradition are trying to explain and reduce the misunderstanding created by the use of ambiguous symbols. Communication professor Michael Monsour (University of Colorado Den- ver) recognized that the word intimacy used in the of friendship might mean different things to different people, and the disparity could lead to con- fusion or misunderstanding. So he asked 164 communication students what they meant by intimacy when used in reference to their same-sex and their opposite- sex friends. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents were female, two-thirds were single, and two-thirds were under the age of 30. Participants offered 27 distinct interpretations of intimacy between friends, and the number of meanings sug- gested by each respondent ranged from 1–5, with an average of two different meanings per person.17 Seven meanings were mentioned often enough to include them in the fi nal analysis. Self-disclosure was by far the meaning of intimacy mentioned most. In rank-order of frequency, the seven interpretations were: 1 . Self-disclosure: Revelations about self that the friend didn’t know 2. Emotional expressiveness: Closeness, warmth, affection, and caring gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 43 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 43

3. Physical contact: Nonsexual touch 4. Trust: Confi dence that the other is reliable 5. Unconditional support: Being there for the other in good times and bad 6. Sexual contact: Overt sexual activity 7. Activities: Doing things together of a nonsexual nature The content and order of the top fi ve interpretations of intimacy held rela- tively constant for both opposite-sex and same-sex friendships, whether the respondent was a man or a woman. The notable deviations were that a few more men in opposite-sex friendships thought of intimacy as sexual contact, but in same-sex relationships characterized it as activities together. For Monsour, the major contribution of this study is that for friends in both kinds of relationships, the word intimacy is multidimensional—a polysemic linguistic sign. A like this can easily be misunderstood. Yet if two of the students in Monsour’s study referred to intimacy in a , with a few exceptions, it’s likely that they’d understand what the other was talking about.

THE SOCIO-CULTURAL TRADITION Communication as the Creation and Enactment of Social Reality The socio-cultural tradition is based on the premise that as people talk, they produce and reproduce culture. Most of us assume that words refl ect what actu- ally exists. However, theorists in this tradition suggest that the process often works the other way around. Our view of reality is strongly shaped by the lan- guage we’ve used since we were infants. University of Chicago linguist and his student were pioneers in the socio-cultural tradition. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis of states that the structure of a culture’s language shapes what people think and do. 18 “The ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group.” 19 Their theory of linguistic relativ- Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ity counters the assumption that words merely act as neutral vehicles to carry of linguistic relativity meaning. Language actually structures our perception of reality. The claim that the struc- ture of a language shapes Contemporary socio-cultural theorists grant even more power to language. what people think and They claim that it is through the process of communication that “reality is pro- 20 do; the social construc- duced, maintained, repaired, and transformed.” Or, stated in the active voice, tion of reality. persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social worlds. 21 When these worlds collide, the socio-cultural tradition offers help in bridging the culture gap that exists between “us” and “them.” Patricia Sias, a communication professor at Washington State University, takes a socio-cultural approach when studying friendships that form and dis- solve in organizational settings. She writes that “relationships are not entities external to the relationship partners, but are mental creations that depend on communication for their existence and form. . . . If relationships are constituted in communication they are also changed through communication.”22 Sias uses a social construction lens through which to view deteriorating friendships in the workplace. Sias located 25 people in a variety of jobs who were willing to talk about their failing workplace friendships. Some relationships were between peer gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 44 12/01/11 8:32 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

44 OVERVIEW

co-workers, others between a supervisor and a subordinate. All the workers spon- taneously told stories about their deteriorating friendship that revealed how communication between the two co-workers had changed. Although the friend- ships went sour for a variety of reasons—personality problems, distracting life events, confl icting expectations, betrayal, and promotion—theway the friend- ships dissolved was remarkably similar. Almost all workers told stories of using indirect communication to change the relationship. While their friendships were deteriorating, the former friends still had to talk with each other in order to accomplish their work. But these co-workers stopped eating lunch together and spending time together outside the offi ce. While on the job they avoided personal topics and almost never talked about the declining state of their relationship. Even seemingly safe topics such as sports or movies were no longer discussed; small talk and watercooler chitchat disappeared. While linguistic connection was sparse, spoke loudly. The workers who talked with Sias recalled the lack of eye contact, snappy or condescending tones of voice, and physically backing away from the other. Ideally, social construction research in the offi ce would capture the real-time communication of co-workers, but that would require a videotaped record of offi ce when the friendship was in the process of deteriorating—a high hurdle for Sias to clear. As for contrasting , she notes that “the damaged nature of the relationships made it diffi cult to recruit both partners in each friendship.”23 Yet without the actual dialogue of both conversational part- ners to examine, any about their co-creation of social reality must remain tentative.

THE CRITICAL TRADITION Communication as a Reflective Challenge of Unjust Discourse The term comes from the work of a group of German scholars known as the “Frankfurt School” because they were part of the independent Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University. Originally set up to test the ideas of Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School rejected the economic of orthodox yet carried on the Marxist tradition of critiquing society. What types of communication practice and research are critical theorists against? Although there is no single set of abuses that all of them denounce, critical theorists consistently challenge three features of contemporary society: 1 . The control of language to perpetuate power imbalances. Critical theorists con- demn any use of words that inhibits emancipation. Culture industries Entertainment businesses 2 . The role of in dulling sensitivity to repression. Critical theorists see that reproduce the domi- the “culture industries” of television, fi lm, MP3s, and print media as reproducing nant of a cul- the dominant ideology of a culture and distracting people from recognizing the ture and distract people unjust distribution of power within society. from recognizing unjust distribution of power 3 . Blind reliance on the scientifi c method and uncritical acceptance of empirical fi nd- within society; e.g., , ings. Critical theorists are suspicious of empirical work that scientists claim to be television, music, and ideologically free, because science is not the -free pursuit of knowledge that . it claims to be. gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 45 12/01/11 8:32 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 45

University of Louisville communication professor Kathy Werking agrees that personal relationship research decisions aren’t neutral. In a chapter titled “Cross- Sex Friendship Research as Ideological Practice,” Werking acknowledges that the reigning cultural model of relationships between women and men is one of romance. Yet she is critical of scholars for continually reproducing this hetero- sexual ideology to the point where it seems natural or just common sense to assume that all close male–female relationships are about sex and romance. 24 In support of her ideological critique, Werking notes that academic journals devoted to the study of personal relationships publish vastly more articles on dating, courtship, and marriage than they do on opposite-sex friendships. Even when a rare study of opposite-sex friendship is reported, the author usually compares this type of relationship unfavorably with romantic ties that “may or may not include equality, are passionate, and have the goal of marriage.” 25 Friendship, Werking claims, is best “based on equality, affection, communion, and is an end in itself.” 26 This disconnect puts opposite-sex friends in a bind. They have no language that adequately describes or legitimizes their relation- ship. The term just friends downplays its importance, platonic friends has an archaic , and if they use the word love, it must be qualifi ed so that no one gets the wrong idea. Werking also criticizes Western scholars for the individualistic ideology that permeates their opposite-sex research. She says they equate biological sex char- acteristics with gender identity—an assumption that precludes the possibility that masculine and feminine orientations are socially created and can change over time. They also assume that the perceptions of one friend adequately rep- resent the complexity of what’s going on in the relationship. And rather than observe friends’ actual interactions over time, they naively rely on freeze-frame responses on a structured survey to provide suffi cient information to understand a relationship. Werking claims that all of these research practices do an injustice to men and women in opposite-sex relationships.

THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL TRADITION Communication as the Experience of Self and Others Through Dialogue Although phenomenology is an imposing philosophical term, it basically refers to the intentional analysis of everyday life from the standpoint of the person who is living it. Thus, the phenomenological tradition places great emphasis on people’s perception and their interpretation of their own experience. For the phenomenologist, an individual’s story is more important, and more authorita- tive, than any research hypothesis or communication axiom. As psychologist Phenomenology Carl Rogers asserts, “Neither the Bible nor the prophets—neither Freud nor Intentional analysis of ev- research—neither the revelations of God nor man—can take precedence over eryday experience from my own direct experience.”27 the standpoint of the per- son who is living it; ex- The problem, of course, is that no two people have the same life story. Since plores the possibility of we cannot experience another person’s experience, we tend to talk past each understanding the experi- other and then lament, “Nobody understands what it’s like to be me.” Thus, ence of self and others. theorists who work within the phenomenological tradition seek to answer two questions: Why is it so hard to establish and sustain authentic human relationships? and How can this problem be overcome? gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 46 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

46 OVERVIEW

Communication professor Bill Rawlins (Ohio University) works within this tradition as he studies friendship by taking an in-depth look at the actual con- versations between friends. In his book The Compass of Friendship: Narratives, Identities, and Dialogues, he devotes an entire chapter to a 90-minute recorded conversation between Chris and Karen, two women who agree they’ve been friends for “30 years and counting.” 28 Rawlins provided no guidelines or instruc- tions. The women only know that he is interested in their friendship. After an hour of recounting stories about shared experiences, Chris brings up Karen’s slow retreat into silence the past winter. Obviously bothered by losing contact, Chris continues . . . Chris: And I thought, “Well that’s okay; everybody has these times when they feel this way.” But I feel like you should alert people that care about you [laughs] to the fact that this is what is goin’ on— Karen: [laughs] Yeah . . . Chris: “I’m going into my cave. See ya in the spring,” or whatever. Or “I don’t wish to have anything, or any for a while. Not to worry. Adios. Bye to everybody. Hasta la vista or whatever.” Karen: Yeah. Chris: Or something, because I [pause], I [pause], I . . . Karen: You were worried.29 The dialogue above is less than a minute of the women’s conversation, yet it provides a rich resource for Rawlins’ insight into their friendship. Chris quotes to herself at the time that such feelings are commonplace and “OK.” Even so, she believes that Karen “should alert people that care about you to the fact that this is going on. . . .” They both laugh at this paradoxical recom- mendation that Karen communicate to signifi others that she does not intend to communicate with them. Chris rehearses two voices for Karen here: a humorous one that trades on a hibernation , and then a more seri- ous, explicit statement with Spanish fl ourishes at the end that seem to add a comical fl avor. As Karen affi rms this idea, however, Chris surrenders her comic tone and makes the frank request, “Or something,” haltingly trying to offer her reasons, “I [pause], I [pause], I . . . ,” which Karen completes for her: “You were worried.” In short, Karen again recognizes the emotional basis of Chris’ concerns and legitimates Chris’ suggested policy for communicating social withdrawal.30 Rawlins’ reconstruction of this segment reveals how he experiences the women’s friendship. After his interpretation of the entire conversa- tion, the women independently tell him that he was “right on” and had “nailed it.”31 That’s because he paid attention to their interpretation of their experience.

FENCING THE FIELD OF COMMUNICATION THEORY The seven traditions I’ve described have deep roots in the fi eld of communica- tion theory. Team loyalties run strong, so theorists, researchers, and practitioners working within one tradition often hear criticism from those in other traditions that their particular approach has no legitimacy. In addition to whatever arguments gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 47 1/3/11 8:44 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 47

each group might muster to defend their choice, they can also claim “squatters’ rights” because scholars who went before had already established the right to occupy that portion of land. Taking the real estate metaphor seriously, in Fig- ure 4–1 , I’ve charted the seven traditions as equal-area parcels of land that collectively make up the larger fi eld of study. A few explanations are in order. First, it’s important to realize that the location of each tradition on the map is far from random. My rationale for placing them where they are is based on the distinction between objective and interpretive theories outlined in Chapter 2. According to the scientifi c assumptions presented in that chapter, the socio- psychological tradition is the most objective, and so it occupies the far left posi- tion on the map—solidly rooted in objective territory. Moving across the map from left to right, the traditions become more interpretive and less objective. Some students wonder why rhetoric is rated more objective than semiotics. It’s because rhetoricians have traditionally regarded what language refers to as “real,” whereas semiologists perceive the relationship between a word and its as more tenuous. I see the phenomenological tradition as the most sub- jective of the seven traditions, and so it occupies the position farthest to the right—fi rmly grounded in interpretive territory. The order of presentation in this chapter followed the same progression—a gradual shift from objective to inter- pretive concerns. Scholars working in adjacent traditions usually have an easier time appreciating each other’s work. On the map they share a common border. Professionally, they are closer together in their basic assumptions. Second, hybrids are possible across traditions. You’ve seen throughout this chapter that each tradition has its own way of defi ning communication and its own distinct vocabulary. Thus, it’s fair to think of the dividing lines on the map as fences built to keep out strange ideas. Scholars, however, are an independent bunch. They climb fences, read journals, and fl y to faraway conferences. This cross- pollination sometimes results in theory grounded in two or three traditions. Finally, the seven charted traditions might not cover every approach to communication theory. Craig recently suggested the possibility of a pragmatist tradition —a pluralistic land where different perspectives on truth could all be

Phenomenological Semiotic Cybernetic

Objective Interpretive Territory Critical Territory

Rhetorical Socio- psychological Socio-cultural

FIGURE 4–1 A Survey Map of Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 48 12/01/11 8:34 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

48 OVERVIEW

Pragmatism legitimate in different ways. He pictures it as a tradition that “orients to practi- An applied approach to cal problems, and evaluates ideas according to their usefulness rather than by knowledge; the philoso- an absolute standard of truth.” 32 It would be a location where he sees his own phy that true understand- ing of an idea or situation work fi tting in well. Craig’s openness to considering new territories leads me to has practical implica- offer a quite different stream of theory running through the fi eld of communica- tions for action. tion. My candidate is an ethical tradition.

THE ETHICAL TRADITION Communication as People of Character Interacting in Just and Beneficial Ways More than most academic disciplines, the fi eld of communication has been con- cerned with ethical responsibility. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, commu- nication scholars have grappled with the obligations that go along with the opportunities we have to communicate. Contemporary discussions of morality are increasingly beleaguered by the rise of ethical relativism.33 Yet despite the postmodern challenge to all claims of Truth, at the turn of the century, the National Communication Association (NCA) adopted a “Credo for Communica- tion Ethics” (see Appendix C). 34 Like most attempts to deal with communication ethics, it addresses the problem of what is ethical and starts with the issue of honesty lying. I’ll cite three of the creed’s nine principles in order to illustrate the major streams of thought within the ethical tradition: 35 1 . We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. This principle centers on the rightness or wrongness of a com- munication act regardless of whether it benefi ts the people involved. It speaks to the question of obligation. Is it always our duty to be honest? 2 . We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences of our own com- munication and expect the same of others. This principle is concerned with the harm or benefi t that results from our words. It raises the question of outcomes. Will a lie promote well-being or prevent injury? 3 . We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages. This principle focuses on the character of the com- municator rather than the act of communication. It bids us to look at our motives and attitudes. Do I seek to be a person of integrity and virtue? These are diffi cult questions to answer, and some readers might suggest that they have no place in a communication theory text. But to deal with human intercourse as a mechanical process separate from values would be like discuss- ing sexual intercourse under ground rules that prohibit any reference to love. And within the ethical tradition, communication theorists do offer answers to these questions. Many of these theorists come out of the rhetorical or critical traditions. Others are spread across the objective–interpretive landscape I’ve drawn in Figure 4–1, so I won’t try to locate the ethical tradition in any single spot. I have, however, encapsuled the thoughts of a dozen ethical theorists into 13 brief summary statements. I refer to them as ethical refl ections and place each one alongside a theory with which it naturally resonates. As for an ethical approach to friendship, the fi nal chapter of Bill Rawlins’ book The Compass of Friendship suggests what a friendship aligned with a moral compass looks like. The friends negotiate their relationship voluntarily, care gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 49 12/01/11 8:32 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

CHAPTER 4: MAPPING THE TERRITORY 49

about each other’s well-being, respect each other as equals, and engage in ongo- ing learning about each other. They also trust and are trustworthy, are respec- tively honest, and give special attention to the other’s needs and desires. 36 With or without my addition of an ethical tradition, Craig’s framework can help make sense of the great diversity in the fi eld of communication theory. As you read about a theory in the section on media effects, remember that it may have the same ancestry as a theory you studied earlier in the section on relation- ship development. On the fi rst page of each of the next 32 chapters, I’ll tie each theory to one or more traditions. Hopefully this label will make it easier for you to understand why the theorist has made certain choices. So, after four chapters of introduction and integration, let’s begin.

QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS 1. Considering the differences between objective and interpretive theory, can you make a case that the rhetorical tradition is less objective than the semiotic one or that the socio-cultural tradition is more interpretive than the critical one? 2. Suppose you and your best friend have recently been on an emotional roller coaster. Which of the seven highlighted defi nitions of communication offer the most promise of helping you achieve a stable relationship? Why? 3. Communication departments rarely have a faculty representing all seven tra- ditions. In order to create specialties and minimize confl ict, some recruit from just one. What tradition(s) seems well-represented in your department? 4. The map in Figure 4–1 represents seven traditions in the fi eld of communica- tion theory. In which region do you feel most at home? What other areas would you like to explore? Where would you be uncomfortable? Why?

A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: Robert T. Craig, “Communication Theory as a Field,” Commu- nication Theory, Vol. 9, 1999, pp. 119–161. Communication as a practical discipline: Robert T. Craig, “Communication as a Practical Discipline,” in Rethinking Communication: Vol. 1, Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1989, pp. 97–122. Anthology of primary resources for each tradition: Heidi L. Muller and Robert T. Craig (eds.), Theorizing Communication: Across Traditions, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2007. Socio-psychological tradition: Carl Hovland, Irving Janis, and Harold Kelley, Communi- cation and Persuasion, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1953, pp. 1–55. Cybernetic tradition: Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, Avon, New York, 1967, pp. 23–100. Rhetorical tradition: Thomas M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, Longman, New York, 1990, pp. 1–52. Semiotic tradition: C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1946, pp. 1–23. Phenomenological tradition: Carl Rogers, “The Characteristics of a Helping Relation- ship,” in On Becoming a Person, Houghton Miffl in, Boston, MA, 1961, pp. 39–58. gri34307_ch04_037-050.indd Page 50 12/01/11 8:32 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles

50 OVERVIEW

Socio-cultural tradition: Benjamin Lee Whorf, “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behaviour to Language,” in Language, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 1941, pp. 123–149. Critical tradition: Raymond Morrow with David Brown, Critical Theory and Methodol- ogy, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 3–34, 85–112. Ethical tradition: Richard L. Johannesen, “Communication Ethics: Centrality, Trends, and Controversies,” in Communication Yearbook 25, William B. Gudykunst (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001, pp. 201–235. Pragmatic tradition: Robert T. Craig, “ in the Field of Communication Theory,” Communication Theory, Vol. 17, 2007, pp. 125–145. Critique of Craig’s model and his response: David Myers, “A Pox on All Compromises: Reply to Craig (1999),” and Robert T. Craig, “Minding My Metamodel, Mending Myers,” Communication Theory, Vol. 11, 2001, pp. 218–230, 231–240. gri34307_ch05_051-066.indd Page 51 1/3/11 9:07 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

DIVISION TWO Interpersonal Communication

INTERPERSONAL MESSAGES CHAPTER 5. Symbolic Interactionism (Mead) CHAPTER 6. Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) (Pearce & Cronen) CHAPTER 7. Expectancy Violations Theory (Burgoon) CHAPTER 8. Constructivism (Delia) RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 9. Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor) CHAPTER 10. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger) CHAPTER 11. Social Theory (Walther) RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE CHAPTER 12. Relational Dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery) CHAPTER 13. Communication Privacy Management Theory (Petronio) CHAPTER 14. The Interactional View (Watzlawick) INFLUENCE CHAPTER 15. Social Judgment Theory (Sherif) CHAPTER 16. Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo) CHAPTER 17. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)

51