sign in sign up
<<
Home , Conversation, Discourse analysis, Semiotics

FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page ix

INTRODUCTION

HEIDI L. MULLER AND ROBERT T. CRAIG

heorizing : for further . The readings include both Across Traditions, a new introduction to classic texts from the traditions of communi- T communication based on an inte- cation theory and newer selections reflecting grative model for the field, is designed to engage current trends. The book creates a more fully readers in a very practical project of theorizing developed structure for making sense of the var- communication. Craig (1999) envisioned com- ied and constantly evolving ideas that compose munication theory as a field of study that inte- the field of . It also high- grates seven distinct traditions of thought with a lights the possibility, practicality, and usefulness shared focus on practical communication prob- of the project of theorizing communication for lems (see unit II, 5). Leading textbooks everyone ranging from advanced scholars to curi- have adopted the seven traditions model as an ous general readers. overview perspective of the field. Because communication theory actually encompasses hundreds of different that approach com- munication from various, seemingly unrelated THE PROJECT OF THEORIZING points of view, the is notoriously confus- COMMUNICATION ing for beginning students. Making sense of com- munication theory is further complicated by the Communication theory is more than just an diversity of intellectual styles within the commu- expansive litany of abstract formulated nication discipline. Because different theories are by accomplished scholars for others to under- in essence written in different , assem- stand, apply, and investigate. For us, to study com- bling a coherent picture of communication theory munication theory means to become actively often seems like an unwieldy if not overwhelm- engaged in the project of theorizing communi- ing task. Brief textbook overviews of the integra- cation. This is not a project that is somehow tive model are therefore helpful for giving the removed from ordinary life. Theorizing is a for- field some initial unity and structure, thus helping malized of everyday sense-making and students to make sense of it. problem solving. Theorizing begins with a height- Our purpose in this book is to provide a ened awareness of our own communication expe- deeper background for understanding and using riences and expands that awareness to engage that integrative approach to communication with communication problems and practices in theory. For that purpose we have assembled a the social world. Theories are not just intellectual reference collection of primary source readings abstractions; they are ways of thinking and talking along with introductory notes and suggestions that arise from different interests, and they are

ix FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page x

x • THEORIZING COMMUNICATION

useful for addressing different kinds of practical societies. Although the widespread awareness of problems. Over time, specific avenues of thought the importance of communication that Cameron have been surveyed and cleared (and sometimes describes is a fairly new phenomenon, the read- paved) as scholars and others have participated in ings in unit I reveal that our commonplace ideas these specialized forms of . These estab- and ways of talking about communication have lished, cultivated ways of thinking and talking are evolved over many centuries. Communication what we call traditions of communication theory. theory, in essence, extends those commonplace Learning communication theory means learning ideas to enable a more sophisticated, insightful these traditions, learning how to use them as level of about communication prob- lenses for examining communication problems in lems and practices. different ways, and learning how to participate in Ideas in communication theory are often the specialized forms of discourse by which the intellectually refined versions of ordinary practi- traditions of communication theory constantly cal concepts. For example, certain elements of grow, develop, and change. what is now called the transmission or source- To summarize in a different way, learning to message-receiver model of communication were engage in the project of theorizing communica- already present in the ancient of Homeric tion as we approach it in this book has four key Greece (see reading 1). Other ideas about com- requirements. First, we must understand the close munication as transmission emerged with connection between theoretical ways of thinking Christian speculation about the communication and talking about communication and our ways of angels (reading 2), bureaucratic discourse of thinking and talking about communication about the construction of roads and canals in in everyday life. Second, we must understand early modern France (reading 3), and innova- the of practical theory—how theories can tions in electronic media from the telegraph in be explicitly designed and used to address practi- the mid-19th century to the present (reading 4). cal problems. Third, we must understand the Semiotic and cybernetic theories of communica- traditions of communication theory and their use- tion (see units IV and VI) have modified and sys- fulness as a way of integrating the field. Fourth, tematized these now commonplace ideas about however, we must also understand that traditions communication between , flow and circu- should not be reified or taken for granted, and that lation through networks, and have modified and the project of theorizing requires questioning and systematized ways of using to rethinking theoretical traditions as we use them. achieve influence and control at a distance. These four points are explained in more detail in As the process of theorizing reflects on the following sections. ordinary ideas about communication, it also crit- icizes those ideas and generates alternative, more carefully thought out designs for thinking and talking. (the theory of communication UNDERSTANDING METADISCOURSE: through and ) is not just an elabo- COMMUNICATION THEORY AND ration of commonplace ideas about the use of EVERYDAY TALK to communicate. From the 17th-century philosopher ’s critique of the abuses In some sense, everyone is already a communica- of (reading 10) to the most recent tion theorist. That is, throughout society there is of popular ideas about communi- an ongoing conversation about communication cation with extraterrestrial aliens (reading 14), and communication theory in which everyone theorists in this tradition have challenged the is already engaged to some extent. Cameron conventional wisdom about communication in (reading 30) points out that metadiscourse— enlightening and sometimes disturbing ways. everyday talk about communication—has become The theorizing process is creative as well a major preoccupation of people in modern as critical. Locke’s remedies for the abuse of FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xi

Introduction • xi

language still continue to echo several centuries apparent. Why did members of the group show later in teachings and popular advice about effec- up in two different meeting places? What did I tive communication. ’s devastating critique say that made my friend angry with me? How do of the unprincipled nature of (reading 6) I know if this news on TV is just “spin”? Can was soon followed by ’s effort to put the I trust this information I found on the Web? We art of rhetoric on a sounder theoretical foundation also think about our communication when we (reading 7), which in turn has been both extended find ourselves faced with particularly problem- and challenged by later theorists (for examples, atic situations and need to decide what to do. see readings 8 and 9). Phenomenological How do I tell my boss about what went wrong in about genuine dialogue (unit V) have both ques- the meeting today without affecting my chances tioned the possibility of authentic human contact of promotion? As a journalist, how can I remain and articulated the conditions for achieving it. objective while reporting a nasty and misleading Research in social (unit VII) has cor- political campaign? That we think about com- rected naive assumptions about the psychological munication at these points is in keeping with the processes involved in communication while logic of practice. As Craig and Tracy (1995) also providing a wealth of experimentally tested pointed out, “When ongoing action is blocked, hypotheses. Sociocultural theorists (unit VIII) we think: and in thinking we reinterpret the have shown how communication makes human problematic situation so as to continue action” society possible while critical theorists (unit IX) (p. 252). Such is the nature of communication have both unmasked the and power practice. structures that distort communication and envi- A practical approach says that there is no way sioned the possibility of more genuinely demo- to devise or apply a theory that would provide the cratic forms of social life. right answer that would eliminate these problems. As we become more deeply involved in these Rather, communication is inherently problematic. theoretical and everyday on commu- What worked this time in communicating with nication, we gain a fuller understanding of this boss may not be what works next time communication scholarship and become more with another or even the same boss. “The under- aware of our own perspectives on communica- lying is not realism (theory describes tion, more discerning in our observations of the world) or idealism (theory constitutes the communication in the society around us, more world) but rather a reflective (theory articulate critics of communication theory, and informs praxis)” (Craig & Tracy, 1995, p. 252). more thoughtful participants in the communica- The way we think and talk about communication tion process. This is the practicality of the project affects how we communicate, and the way we of theorizing communication. communicate affects how we think about commu- nication; as noted above, we tend to think about communication when we encounter communica- tion problems. UNDERSTANDING THE LOGIC Communication theory and theorizing, as OF PRACTICAL THEORY well as the communication discipline as a whole, can be undertaken from such a practical Thinking practically, when is it that we become perspective (Craig, 1989). In a practical theory, aware of our communication? It could be argued theory is informative to communication practi- that most of the time we do not think about our tioners. Additionally, the actual practices of communication. We simply communicate, whether communication (the way people in fact do by talking with people, watching TV, or brows- communicate) and the communities of practice ing the Web. However, we often think about our (those who engage in a specific way of commu- communication when something goes wrong, nicating) inform communication theory. Finally, when a problem of communication becomes the process of communication theorizing is a FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xii

xii • THEORIZING COMMUNICATION

practical response to experienced communi- able to identify (1) the problems participants cation problems. Rather than seeking to develop faced as well as (2) the principles they used to a theory that enables communicators to eradicate guide their decision making about how to deal communication problems, practical theorizing with these problems, and finally (3) the commu- allows us to engage in discourses through which nication techniques they used to manage these we can examine and problems and can - problems in their actual interaction. Critical vide us with new ways of thinking and talking reflection on these findings allowed the about communication as well as tools to strategi- researchers to construct a practical theory of cally manage problems in our communication. intellectual discussion that was grounded in the This is not, of course, the only possible actual practices of such discussions. Other approach to communication theory. One interesting examples of this kind of theoretical work can be contrast to a practical approach is an empirical seen in Ashcraft’s (2001) examination of a social scientific approach. In an empirical women’s safe-house and in Muller’s (2002) approach, the goal of theory is to explain exploration of collegiate classroom discussion. communication phenomena. Theory construc- The other way of constructing practical tion is done within the parameters of scientific theory is deductively: conceptualizing already methods. Theories are constructed to be testable existing theories—including scientific and philo- and to provide illumination into the underlying sophical theories—in terms of their practical workings of communication in a way that allows applications and applying them to particular for prediction of communicative actions. In this communication problems. This second approach book there are examples of theories constructed is the one for which this book is particularly within this empirical paradigm. Some of these useful. It allows multiple theories to be applied, include readings by Berger and Calabrese and increasing the richness and flexibility of our Bandura (unit VII) and Lang (unit VI). thinking as we consider a practical problem from Another interesting contrast is philosophically various points of view. based normative theories. In this kind of theoriz- This approach is what Tracy and Muller ing, abstract principles are constructed to provide (2001) used with school board meetings that ideal models for how things could or should participants experienced as difficult. The study occur. This theorizing is done in adherence to called into question the naming of the problem rational principles, and the results of this theoriz- by many local participants and media outlets as ing provide a basis for evaluating communication due to the nasty personalities of the board as it actually occurs. Again, in this book there are members and sought to address the nature of examples of theories constructed from a norma- problem formulation. By looking through multi- tive philosophical approach. Some of these ple theoretical lenses, different aspects of the include readings by Plato (unit III), Buber and interaction were found to be problematic, lead- Gadamer (unit V), and Habermas (unit IX). ing to different diagnoses of the school board’s When taking a practical perspective, there are interactional trouble. Was the problem due to the at least two ways in which practical theory can be structure and organization of the meetings, the developed. One is inductively: empirically study- “thin skin” of participants, or their lack of skill ing and analyzing communication problems and in making ? As is seen in this study, the ways people think about and address them. different theoretical lenses can lead to different Craig and Tracy (1995) provide an example of diagnoses, which can each lead to a different this kind of theorizing in which ethnographically potential solution of the problem. Additionally, informed discourse was used to recon- these diagnoses can be used to reflexively cri- struct the dilemmas, ideals, and techniques used tique the practicality of the established theories. by participants in academic discussions. Through This second approach to constructing practi- participation in discussions, analysis of taped cal theory begins to answer the question, Why interaction, and , the researchers were are theories included in this volume that were FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xiii

Introduction • xiii

not constructed from a practical perspective? it helps to understand that every theory follows These theories can be applied practically, and certain traditions and not others. A tradition is through following the logic of practice, they can something handed down from the past, but no be applied to particular problems and critiqued living tradition is static. Traditions are constantly with regard to their usefulness. Craig (reading 5) changing. Outside of some tradition, in fact, argues that all communication theories have change and innovation would have little mean- practical implications. Every theory implies a ing. Even just applying traditional ideas to a new practical orientation to communication that can situation typically requires some and be useful for addressing some range of problems involves changing the ideas in some way. and undoubtedly is biased toward some interests Theorists invent new ideas to solve problems and segments of society over others. Issues of they perceive in existing ideas in a particular gender, for example, are highlighted by some tradition. Gadamer (see reading 17), one of the theories while being ignored by most other the- greatest philosophers of tradition, pointed out ories. Some theories conceptualize problems that every new work in a tradition stands as an from a more social or cultural point of view; answer to some question it poses about the tradi- others from a more individualistic point of view. tion, and that every work will, in turn, be ques- The diversity of theories allows us to consider tioned by later works that continue the tradition the advantages and disadvantages of approach- (Gadamer, 1984, pp. 333–341). Later works in a ing problems in different ways. Debate in the tradition build upon earlier works, which is why field should focus on the practical interests in this book we have organized the readings in served by theories and the biases, gaps, and each tradition chronologically. areas of agreement and disagreement among It would be impossible to live a meaningful those different practical approaches. This form human life outside of all traditions. Traditions of dialogue among diverse theories is what have shaped our identities and thereby have a Craig calls “dialogical-dialectical coherence” certain unavoidable authority over us. As (reading 5). Within the project of theorizing, the Gadamer explained, “The validity of morals, for logic of practical theory highlights that the more example, is based on tradition. They are freely familiar we become with communication theo- taken over, but by no means created by a free rizing, the more aware we will become of a insight or justified by themselves. This is pre- wider range of communication problems, the cisely what we call tradition: the ground of their more facile we will become with ways to think validity” (1984, p. 249). Gadamer also used the and talk about these problems, and the more example of legal interpretation. When the courts options we will perceive for managing problem- interpret a law they consider legal precedent and atic situations. The more thoroughly we under- case law—a tradition of legal interpretation— stand established ways of thinking and talking along with the wording of the statutes them- about communication (communication theo- selves. The of a law changes over time ries), the more lenses we will have available as new cases bring up new issues and circum- through which to identify and diagnose commu- stances change, revealing biases and gaps in nication problems. older interpretations of the law. Judges of course frequently disagree about the meaning of the law, and this state of disagreement is also characteris- tic of traditions. Traditions are not homogeneous. THEORIZING TRADITIONS: Every tradition is characterized by a history of THE USEFULNESS OF HISTORY about beliefs and values that are important to the tradition. “Traditions, when A third aspect of the project of theorizing is that vital, embody continuities of conflict,” wrote of understanding and using traditions of theory. MacIntyre (1981, p. 206), another important the- To make sense of the differences among theories, orist of tradition and social practices. “A living FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xiv

xiv • THEORIZING COMMUNICATION

tradition then is an historically extended, socially communication theory, were incorporated into embodied argument, and an argument precisely the field. Retrospectively, they came to be seen as in part about the goods which constitute that tra- traditions of communication theory, which is how dition” (MacIntyre, 1981, p. 207). Critical theo- the field came to include the multiple traditions rists (see unit IX) rightly question the authority that it now does. The problem we now face in the of traditions, but as Gadamer would point out, project of theorizing is how to use these multiple in doing so they are following the traditions of traditions most productively for the betterment of . . Placing theories within traditions thus high- Each of the seven traditions has different lights the innovativeness of theories by showing things to say about society as well as about the how each one carries forward certain ideas and nature of communication. The rhetorical tradition assumptions from a particular history of argu- is the oldest of the seven traditions, in this volume ments while also departing from that tradition to traced back to Plato and Aristotle, and within it contribute something new and different. Even a communication is conceptualized as the art of theory that rebels against its tradition and rejects discourse. The semiotic tradition conceptualizes major parts of it can still belong to the tradition communication as intersubjectivity mediated by in significant ways. The feminist rhetorical signs and also has a lengthy history beginning theory of Foss and Griffin (reading 9) is a good here with Locke’s notion of the imperfection of example. While rejecting the idea that words. The other five traditions have more mod- is the purpose of rhetoric—an idea deeply ern origins of theorization, as will be discussed in embedded in the tradition of rhetorical theory— the introductions to each unit; they arise as schol- Foss and Griffin continue to assume that the ars theorize around problems in their socio- basic format of communication is that of a historical contexts. Husserl laid the initial theoriz- speaker and of an audience. As a feminist critical ing foundation for the phenomenological tradition theorist, Jansen (reading 35) shares parts of the in which communication is conceptualized as feminist tradition with Foss and Griffin, yet she the experience of the other. Hermenuetics and writes about communication from a very differ- dialogue are key ideas within this tradition. ent point of view, reflecting essential differences , traced back to Wiener and including between the tradition of critical communication a of intersecting approaches and ideas, theory in which she primarily writes and the conceptualizes communication as information rhetorical tradition of Foss and Griffin. processing. The sociopsychological approach The field of communication theory, con- conceptualizes communication as social interac- sidered as a tradition in its own right, is both tion. Chosen as a first reading here is a piece by quite new and very old. The term communication Hovland in which he sets out a framework for theory was not widely used until the 1940s, when the empirical study of communication by social it primarily referred to certain fields of electrical scientists. The sociocultural tradition conceptual- engineering that included and izes communication as a symbolic process that cybernetics (and it still has that meaning for engi- produces and reproduces shared sociocultural neers). courses in communication patterns. Mead was one of the first scholars to theory, which began to be taught around 1950, theorize how communication forms, reflects, and brought together an eclectic set of ideas from maintains the structure of society. The critical tra- existing traditions such as semiotics, social psy- dition conceptualizes communication as discur- chology, and cybernetics. The field of communi- sive reflection overcoming the distortion of truth cation theory, in a very real sense, grew backward by power. Within this volume, this tradition is in time as it grew forward in time. Over time, sev- traced back to Marx and Engels. eral traditions of thought, such as rhetoric, which When looking at each of these traditions within existed long before there was ever a field called a historical progression of theorizing, interesting FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xv

Introduction • xv

differences are seen in the development of approach allows one to take a multi-perspective thought. Differences in trajectory, pace, exploration into understanding a communication in voices, and coherence speak to the idea that practice. these traditions are alive, that in the ongoing proj- ect of theorizing there have been different paths, and that these pathways have distinct shapes and QUESTIONING AND routes that differently map out the changing ideas RETHINKING THE TRADITIONS about the nature of communication. Although each tradition provides communica- How well do the seven traditions work as a tion theorists with a particular discourse within framework for organizing the various concep- which to think, talk, and write about communi- tions of communication theory? Why did we cation phenomena, it is important to note that select these particular readings? What has been these traditions are not like distinct canal chan- left out? Are there some readings that must be nels levied off from each other. Rather, they are included if one is to understand a specific tradi- more like free-flowing rivers on relatively level tion? Are there just seven main traditions, or there bottomlands where the main course is usually are others? Should there be a separate feminist distinguishable, but the braided channels often tradition? Should Asian or other non-Western intersect and it takes relatively little environmen- writings on communication be included as one or tal change to bring about a mixture of the waters more separate traditions? If the goal of communi- and even reconfiguration of the channels. This cation theorizing is to lead to better communica- intermingling of ideas is ever present and is tion practices, is it likely that what are considered especially palpable in some of the contemporary to be good communication practices today will be readings in which, as one reads, it becomes clear considered good communication in a decade or a that, although the piece adds something to its century? Similarly, does the nature of what are primary tradition, it also seems to connect to experienced as communication problems change ideas from one or more other traditions as well. across time? Does communication itself change For instance, the reading by Poster in unit VIII over time? These are all great questions that may has been included in the sociocultural unit, but as come into varying degrees of focus as one reads a post-structuralist piece might it not also have a this book and that hopefully will enliven the home in the semiotic or critical tradition? Some ongoing communication theory conversation. of the interwoven nature of readings will be Within this volume, questions such as these that addressed in the introductory sections to several seem especially relevant to a particular tradition units and in some of the suggested projects for are posed at the end of the introduction to that additional theorizing. unit. Questions for further exploration are also A straightforward benefit of the traditions raised in the suggested projects at the end of each approach is that by being able to follow the unit. The conclusion of the volume returns to development of a line of thinking, one can more address some areas of concern and inquiry sur- deeply understand that perspective by placing rounding the idea of traditions. it within its sociohistorical and intellectual While it is important to understand and use . Additionally, through reading conceptu- the traditions of communication theory in the alizations from different eras, one can get a project of theorizing, it is equally important to glimpse into the aspects of interaction that were understand that the seven traditions presented in experienced as problematic at that time. There this book have been constructed through acts of are also nonhistorical benefits of a traditions interpretation and are not cast in stone. Some approach. One is that each tradition provides a theorists may interpret the traditions differently different lens through which to examine a com- than we do. Some may prefer to cut the theoreti- munication practice. In essence, the traditions cal pie differently, producing fewer, or more, or FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xvi

xvi • THEORIZING COMMUNICATION

just a different set of traditions. These differ- to organize their own understandings and may ences should be acknowledged and discussed as allow thinkers who work primarily in different they emerge, but this is not a reason to reject the traditions a way to communicate with each other. idea of theoretical traditions. As we have noted, all theories respond to problems and reflect biases specific to particular , social groups, and times in history. Our SUMMARY AND own scheme of communication theory as a field OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK is no exception. Although it is not possible to escape our own sociohistorical context or to One way to become a reflective, engaged, and eliminate all biases, an awareness of history at active participant in the conversation about com- least sensitizes us to the possibility of discover- munication theory is to approach this volume as ing and revising our biases through dialogue a part of an ongoing project of theorizing one’s with others and in response to changing cir- own sociohistorical context. One key to doing so cumstances. This is an advantage of taking a is to understand the close connection between historical approach to theory. Traditions are theoretical ways of thinking and talking about characterized by change as well as continuity. communication and our everyday ways of think- Full engagement in the project of theorizing ing and talking. It is also important to understand requires reflexive questioning and a willingness the logic of practical theory and what it means to to revise our understanding of the field. reflexively link theory and practical problems of The communication theory course still is communication. Finally, it is important to under- not yet highly standardized. It varies quite a bit standing the traditions of communication theory between and media-oriented communica- and their potential usefulness as an integrative tion programs, between programs with an empir- framework without reifying them. Rather, one ical social science orientation those more must engage the traditions of communication oriented to interpretive social science or human- theory as a critical inquirer seeking to further ities approaches, and between institutions where one’s theoretical scholarship and improve one’s communication is now established as an aca- ability to observe, analyze, and participate as an demic discipline versus universities around the informed communicator. To facilitate engage- world where its institutional identity is more ment in the project of theorizing, this volume has variable or unclear. This is one of the problems been structured in the following way. to which our approach to the field is a practical Unit I traces the history of the idea of com- response. The widespread interest in Craig’s munication, emphasizing the ’s historic- (1999) integrative model seems to reflect an ity and cultural embeddedness. It contextualizes impulse toward standardization, but the continu- the volume by addressing the historical origins ing diversity of the field guarantees that not of the very idea of communication. These everyone will find the model equally suitable. It selections show that what is understood as may not appeal to those who follow a strictly communication is not static. Rather, the idea of empirical social science approach, or to those communication is interwoven with the socio- who view communication theory primarily as historical context of the time; as the context media theory or critical , or from changes, so does the idea of communication. within a particular tradition such as semiotics, These four readings highlight four different con- rhetoric, or . Because it tries to ceptions of communication in their specific socio- construct a center to the field that connects all of historical contexts. This historical perspective those different approaches, it necessarily seems embraces a fluidity that is consistent with the biased and unbalanced from a standpoint within identifiably different and yet permeable seven any one of them. However, for those wanting a traditions; it is also consistent with the idea catholic approach to the field, it provides a way that what is gained through each tradition is a FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xvii

Introduction • xvii

particular discourse for understanding communi- exercise designed as a way to experientially cation phenomena and a particular set of concep- explore key ideas, ways of thinking, and/or ways tual tools for tackling communication problems. of talking within the tradition. These are intended Unit II introduces the metatheoretical per- as introductory exercises that could be used by a spective of the book and invites debate on its or an individual to initially engage in prac- assumptions. The section contains Craig’s ticing communication in a particular traditional (1999) piece in which the idea of communication fashion. The final segment of each of these theory as a field including the seven traditions sections consists of projects. These are provided as was introduced. ideas for theoretically informed research projects Units III through IX focus on the seven tra- that, if actualized, would extend, mix with other ditions. The core of each of the seven units on traditions, or critique a tradition. We intend these specific traditions of communication theory is a projects to be more advanced than the questions in set of four or five readings. The readings are the introductions or the application exercises, and full or excerpted original texts, each holding a yet they are constructed often through laying out a place of importance in its respective tradition. series of questions that could again be fodder for The progression of readings in each unit is sim- discussion, projects, or papers at various levels. ilar. The first one or two are early texts repre- There are five of these projects in each unit. These senting “classic” statements of the tradition’s projects are often linked directly to readings in the distinctive way of conceptualizing communica- unit and also include ideas for related additional tion. The next one or two readings present some reading. specific concepts or approaches that are linch- While the progression of readings is similar pins in defining the tradition and are integral to across the units on the seven traditions, they theorizing within it. The last one or two read- were not designed to mimic or mirror each other. ings represent current statements of the tradi- Rather, they were designed to illustrate the tion, in some cases radical new departures from progression of thought in each tradition—to the tradition or hybrids incorporating ideas highlight developing strands of thought while from other traditions. allowing some insight into the diversity of each Also, each unit begins with a unit introduction tradition. Scholars who are experts in a particu- and ends with a section on projects for theorizing. lar tradition can readily point out other readings Although the introductions to units I and II are that could or even must be included in order to somewhat different in that they are not centered fully understand the historical heritage and/or on one of the seven traditions, they are the same current thinking of that tradition. We hope, how- in spirit as those for units III through IX. In each ever, each reading we have selected provides a introduction the background, central assumptions, piece—a particular conceptualization that is and range of perspectives of the relevant field of linked and yet different from those in the other theory are discussed. These introductions contex- included pieces—of the conceptual puzzle that tualize the readings and, especially for some of the makes up a tradition. In keeping with the idea longer or more difficult readings, provide access of conversation, each piece should allow some by highlighting some of the key ideas in each insight into a tradition but should also raise some reading. The questions included in the introduc- questions about the tradition; in fact, while the tions to each unit certainly might be used for class readings are intended to provide grounding in discussion, class projects, or papers. The projects key concepts necessary to the exploration of par- for additional theorizing at the end of each unit ticular traditions, they have also been chosen to contain three segments. The first is a set of stimulate discussion about the very idea of theo- additional readings broken down by the subsec- retical traditions. The readings in each unit are tion of the tradition, which should enable further not meant to be exhaustive, nor are they meant to exploration into existing theory within the tradi- be uniquely definitive. They are meant to intro- tion. The second component is an application duce readers to significant lines of thought that FM-Craig-45179.qxd 3/9/2007 12:07 PM Page xviii

xviii • THEORIZING COMMUNICATION

contribute to the scholarship of communication Gadamer, H.-G. (1984). Truth and method (2nd ed.; theory. The discussions that emerge from this G. Barden & J. Comming, Trans.). New York: encounter with the traditions of communication Crossroad. theory will participate in the construction of the MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral idea of communication in our contemporary theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. sociohistorical context. And as readers propose Muller, H. L. (2002). Navigating the dilemmas of alternative texts that could or should have been collegiate classroom discussion. Unpublished included in each unit, the discourse of each tra- doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at dition will be continued. Boulder. In our Concluding Reflections, we step back Tracy, K., & Muller, H. (2001). Diagnosing a school and reflect on the state of the field of communi- board’s interactional trouble: Theorizing problem cation theory and address some problems that formulating. Communication Theory, 11, 84–104. seem to hold the potential for fruitful theorizing, especially at the metatheoretical level. We also reexamine the seven traditions framework and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS highlight some critiques of this framework. The essay ends with thoughts about the future of the The editors would like to thank a wide range of field of communication theory. people who were involved in bringing this book This book provides a foundation for ongoing to completion. We are grateful to the authors and work in the field of communication theory. As publishers who granted permission for their readers work to understand, discuss, apply, readings to be included. We would like to recog- and critique these texts, their engagement in nize the efforts of Todd Armstrong, Sarah the practical discipline of communication, the Quesenberry, Camille Herrera, Deya Saoud, and project of theorizing communication, and the Astrid Virding at SAGE Publications. We appre- cultivation of communication practices in society ciate the insightful and rigorous feedback from will continue. reviewers of both the proposal and manuscript phases of this project: Kenneth N. Cissna, University of South Florida; Marianne Dainton, REFERENCES La Salle University; Stephen W. Littlejohn, Domenici Littlejohn, Inc.; Robert D. McPhee, Ashcraft, K. L. (2001). Feminist organizing and Arizona State University; Peter Oehlkers, Salem the construction of “alternative” community. In State College; Gerry Philipsen, University of G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Washington; Rodney A. Reynolds, Pepperdine Communication and community (pp. 79–110). University; and Wallace V. Schmidt, Rollins Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. College. Craig, R. T. (1989). Communication as a practical dis- We thank the Department of Communication, cipline. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. University of Colorado at Boulder, and the depart- O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking com- ment staff for support and for assisting in various munication: Vol. 1. Paradigm issues (pp. ways. We also thank Maria Hegbloom and 97–122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Michael Vicaro for assistance in selecting, scan- Communication Theory, 9, 119–161. ning, and editing the readings; librarian Deborah Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical Creamer for assistance in locating and obtaining theory: The case of intellectual discussion. permissions; and Priscilla Brown for assistance in Communication Theory, 5, 248–272. formatting and proofreading the scanned readings.