Communication Theory
Communication Theory
Communication Theory
by Wikibooks contributors
From Wikibooks,
the open-content textbooks collection
© Copyright 2004–2006, Wikibooks contributors. This book is published by Wikibooks
contributors. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover
Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
"GNU Free Documentation License". Image licenses are listed in the section entitled
"Image Credits." Quotations: All rights reserved to their respetive authors. Principal
authors: Halavais · Joe Petrick · Ashley Anker · Carolyn Hurley · Albertin · Derek ·
Kyounghee · Youling Liu · Ryankozey The current version of this Wikibook may be
found at: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Communication_Theory
Contents
What is
Communication?....................................................................................................................
.. 6
PERSPECTIVES ON
THEORY....................................................................................................... 7
Introduction............................................................................................................................
............... 7
ABOUT THE
BOOK................................................................................................................. 89
History & Document
Notes.................................................................................................................89 Authors
& Image Credits....................................................................................................................
90
References..............................................................................................................................
............. 91 GNU Free Documentation
License................................................................................................... 114
Chapter 1
1 WHAT
IS
COMMUNICATION?
Some have suggested that the very common practice of beginning a communication
theory class with an attempt to define communication and theory is flawed pedagogy.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to begin a study of the theories of communication without first
having some grasp, however temporary and tenuous, of what sorts of phenomena "count"
as communication, and what kinds of ideas about those phenomena constitute "theory,"
or, more specifically, good theory. Communication is a slippery concept, and while we
may casually use the word with some frequency, it is difficult to arrive at a precise
definition that is agreeable to most of those who consider themselves communication
scholars. Communication is so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of
society that it is difficult to think of social or behavioral events that are absent
communication. We might say that communication consists of transmitting information
from one person to another. In fact, many scholars of communication take this as a
working definition, and use Lasswell's maxim ("who says what to whom to what effect")
as a means of circumscribing the field of communication. Others suggest that there is a
ritual process of communication that cannot be artificially abstracted from a particular
historical and social context. As a relatively young field of inquiry, it is probably
premature to expect a conceptualization of communication that is shared among all or
most of those who work in the area. Furthermore, communication theory itself is, in
many ways, an attempt to describe and explain precisely what communication is. Indeed,
a theory is some form of explanation of a class of observed phenomena. Karl Popper
colorfully described theory as "the net which we throw out in order to catch the world--to
rationalize, explain, and dominate it." The idea of a theory lies at the heart of any
scholarly process, and while those in the social sciences tend to adopt the tests of a good
theory from the natural sciences, many who study communication adhere to an idea of
communication theory that is akin to that found in other academic fields. This book
approaches communication theory from a biographical perspective, in an attempt to show
theory development within a social context. Many of these theorists would not actually
consider themselves "communication" researchers. The field of communication study is
remarkably inclusionary, and integrates theoretical perspectives originially developed in a
range of other disciplines.
4 | Communication Theory
Introduction
2 INTRODUCTION
Evaluating theory
What makes a theory "good"? Six criteria might be said to be properties of a strong
theory. (The terminology presented here is drawn from Littlejohn, Theories of Human
Communication, but a similar set of criteria are widely accepted both within and outside
the field of communication.) Theoretical Scope How general is the theory? That is, how
widely applicable is it? In most cases, a theory that may only be applied within a fairly
narrow set of circumstances is not considered as useful as a theory that encompasses a
very wide range of communicative interactions. The ideal, of course, is a theory that
succinctly explains the nature of human communication as a whole. Appropriateness
Theories are often evaluated based upon how well their epistemological, ontological, and
axiological assumptions relate to the issue or question being explained. If a theory
recapitulates its assumptions (if it is tautological), it is not an effective theory. Heuristic
value Some theories suggest the ways in which further research may be conducted. By
presenting an explanatory model, the theory generates questions or hypotheses that can
be operationalized relatively easily. In practical terms, the success of a theory may rest on
how readily other researchers may continue to do fruitful work in reaction or support.
Validity It may seem obvious that for a theory to be good, it must also be valid. Validity
refers to the degree to which the theory accurately represents the true state of the world.
Are the arguments internally consistent and are its predictions and claims derived
logically from its assumptions? Many also require that theories be falsifiable; that is,
theories that present predictions that--if they prove to be incorrect--invalidate the theory.
The absence of such questions significantly reduces the value of the theory, since a theory
that cannot be proven false (perhaps) cannot be shown to be accurate, either. Parsimony
The law of parsimony (Occam's razor) dictates that a theory should provide the simplest
possible (viable) explanation for a phenomenon. Others suggest that good theory exhibits
an aesthetic quality, that a good theory is beautiful or natural. That it leads to an "Aha!"
moment in which an explanation feels as if it fits. Openness Theories, perhaps
paradoxically, should not exist to the absolute exclusion of other theories. Theory should
not be dogma: it should encourage and provide both for skepticism and should--to
whatever degree possible--be compatible with other accepted theory. It is important to
note that a theory is not "true," or "false" (despite the above discussion of Wikibooks | 5
Chapter 2 falsifiability), but rather better or worse at explaining the causes of a particular
event. Especially within the social sciences, we may find several different theories that
each explain a phenomenon in useful ways. There is value in being able to use theories as
"lenses" through which you can understand communication, and through which you can
understand the world together with other scholars.
Many suggest that there is no such thing as a successful body of communication theory,
but that we have been relatively more successful in generating models of communication.
A model, according to a seminal 1952 article by Karl Deutsch ("On Communication
Models in the Social Sciences"), is "a structure of symbols and operating rules which is
supposed to match a set of relevant points in an existing structure or process." In other
words, it is a simplified representation or template of a process that can be used to help
understand the nature of communication in a social setting. Such models are necessarily
not one-to-one maps of the real world, but they are successful only insofar as they
accurately represent the most important elements of the real world, and the dynamics of
their relationship to one another. Deutsch suggests that a model should provide four
functions. It should organize a complex system (while being as general as possible), and
should provide an heuristic function. Both these functions are similar to those listed
above for theories. He goes on to suggest models should be as original as possible, that
they should not be obvious enough that they fail to shed light on the existing system.
They should also provide some form of measurement of the system that will work
analogously within the model and within the actual system being observed. Models are
tools of inquiry in a way that theories may not be. By representing the system being
observed, they provide a way of working through the problems of a "real world" system
in a more abstract way. As such, they lend themselves to the eventual construction of
theory, though it may be that theory of the sort found in the natural sciences is something
that cannot be achieved in the social sciences. Unfortunately, while models provide the
"what" and the "how," they are not as suited to explaining "why," and therefore are rarely
as satisfying as strong theory.
6 | Communication Theory
Introduction
8 | Communication Theory
Uncertainty Reduction
3 UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION
Charles Berger, Richard Calabrese
Defining Uncertainty
Since uncertainty has been identified as an important construct, necessary to the study of
communication, it would be beneficial to know when the concept originated, and how it
has been defined and studied. One way to consider uncertainty is through the theoretical
framework of information theory. Shannon and Weaver (1949) proposed that uncertainty
existed in a given situation when there was a high amount of possible alternatives and the
probability of their event was relatively equal. Shannon and Weaver related this view of
uncertainty to the transmission of messages, but their work also contributed to the
development of URT. Berger and Calabrese (1975) adopted concepts from the
information theorists as well as Heider's (1958) research in attribution. Berger and
Calabrese (1975) expanded the concept of uncertainty to fit interpersonal communication
by defining uncertainty as the “number of alternative ways in which each interactant
might behave” (p. 100). The greater the level of uncertainty that exists in a situation, the
smaller the chance individuals will be able to predict behaviors and occurrences. During
interactions individuals are not only faced with problems of predicting present and past
behaviors, but also explaining why partners behave or believe in the way that they do.
Berger and Bradac’s (1982) definition of uncertainty highlighted the complexity of this
process when they stated: “Uncertainty, then, can stem from the large number of
alternative things that a stranger can believe or potentially say” (p. 7). Uncertainty plays a
significant role when examining relationships. High levels of uncertainty can severely
inhibit relational development. Uncertainty can cause stress and anxiety which can lead
to low levels of communicator competence (West & Turner, 2000). Incompetent
communicators may not be 10 | Communication Theory
Uncertainty Reduction able to develop relationships or may be too anxious to engage in
initial interactions. West and Turner (2000) note that lower levels of uncertainty caused
increased verbal and nonverbal behavior, increased levels of intimacy, and increased
liking. In interactions individuals are expected to increase predictability with the goal that
this will lead to the ability to predict and explain what will occur in future interactions.
When high uncertainty exists it is often difficult to reach this goal. Although individuals
seek to reduce uncertainty, high levels of certainty and predictability can also inhibit a
relationship. Heath and Bryant (2000) state: “Too much certainty and predictability can
deaden a relationship; too much uncertainty raises its costs to an unacceptable level.
Relationship building is a dialectic of stability and change, certainty and uncertainty” (p.
271). Therefore uncertainty is a concept that plays a significant role in interpersonal
communication. The following theorists explore how communication can be a vehicle
individuals utilize to reduce uncertainty.
Early Influences
The following theorists significantly contributed to the examination of uncertainty in
communication. The influence of their work can be seen reflected in the assumptions of
Berger and Calabrese (1975).
12 | Communication Theory
Uncertainty Reduction
18 | Communication Theory
Uncertainty Reduction
20 | Communication Theory
Propaganda and the Public
4 PROPAGANDA
AND THE
PUBLIC
Public Opinion
Public Opinion (1922) is perhaps Lippmann’s most well-known work. It was in this piece
that Lippmann first began to develop and explain his theories on the formation of public
opinion. Lippmann (1922) begins this book by describing a situation in 1914, where a
number of Germans, Frenchmen, and Englishmen were trapped on an island. They have
no access to media of any kind, except for once every sixty days when the mail comes,
alerting them to situations in the real world. Lippmann explains that these people lived in
peace on the island, treating each other as friends, when in actuality the war had broken
out and they were enemies (Lippmann, 1922). The purpose of the above anecdote is to
develop the idea of "The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads" (Lippmann, 1922,
p. 3). Throughout Public Opinion, Lippmann (1922) explains the way that our individual
opinions can differ from those that are expressed in the outside world. He develops the
idea of propaganda, claiming that "In order to conduct propaganda, there must be some
barrier between the public and the event" (Lippmann, 1922, p. 28). With this separation,
there is the ability of the media to manipulate events or present limited information to the
public. This information may not match the public’s perception of the event. In this way,
Lippmann was essentially presenting some of the first views on the mass communication
concepts of gatekeeping and agenda-setting, by showing the Wikibooks | 25
Chapter 4 media’s power to limit public access to information. Lippmann (1922) showed
how individuals use tools such as stereotypes to form their opinions. “In putting together
our public opinions, not only do we have to picture more space than we can see with our
eyes, and more time than we can feel, but we have to describe and judge more people,
more actions, more things than we can ever count, or vividly imagine…We have to pick
our samples, and treat them as typical” (Lippmann, 1922, p. 95). Lippmann shows that
the public is left with these stereotypical judgments until the media presents limited
information to change their perception of an event. Rogers (1994) claims that in this way,
Lippmann was showing us that "...the pseudoenvironment that is conveyed to us by the
media is the result of a high degree of gatekeeping in the news process" (p. 237).
Lippmann recognized that the media was altering the flow of information, by limiting the
media content that was presented to the public. Furthermore, Lippmann presents the idea
of agenda-setting, as he recognizes that the mass media is the link between individual
perceptions of a world, and the world that actually exists (Rogers, 1994).
Phantom Public
Phantom Public (1925) focused on describing the characteristics of the public itself.
Lippmann (1925) used this book to show the public’s inability to have vast knowledge
about their environment, and therefore, to show their failure to truly support a position.
Lippmann (1925) gives a harsh view of the general public, stating, "The individual man
does not have opinions on public affairs... I cannot imagine how he could know, and there
is not the least reason for thinking, as mystical democrats have thought, that the
compounding of individual ignorances in masses of people can produce a continuous
directing force in public affairs" (p. 39). This book seemed to show that democracy was
not truly run by the public, but rather, was being controlled by an educated elite. The
public could not be truly well informed, so they were easily convinced to side with an
educated minority, while convincing themselves that they were actually in a system of
majority rule. Lippmann (1925) claims that the book aimed to "...bring the theory of
democracy into somewhat truer alignment with the nature of public opinion... It has
seemed to me that the public had a function and must have methods of its own in
controversies, qualitatively different from those of the executive men" (p. 197).
Other Writings
Lippmann also published a number of other books that dealt primarily with his political
thoughts regarding the public. These included A Preface to Politics (1913) and Good
Society (1936). While these works are important toward understanding Lippmann’s
thoughts on the relation of the public to their government, Public Opinion and Phantom
Public held most of Lippmann’s theories that were relevant to mass communication
research.
Wikibooks | 29
Chapter 4 Both Ellul and Lippmann recognize the inability of the public to form educated
opinions as a whole. However, while Lippmann chose to focus on the idea that we should
accept the fact that it is truly an educated elite that is controlling our opinions, Ellul chose
to focus on the fact that the public actually has a need for propaganda. Ellul contests the
idea that the public is merely a victim of propaganda. Rather, he states that, "The
propagandee is by no means just an innocent victim. He provokes the psychological
action of propaganda, and not merely lends himself to it, but even derives satisfaction
from it. Without this previous, implicit consent, without this need for propaganda
experienced by practically every citizen of the technological age, propaganda could not
spread" (Ellul, 1965, p. 121). Through his theories in The Technological Society and
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Ellul tends to give the media and
society’s elite (the creators of propaganda) a lot of power in shaping public opinion.
While Bernays recognized the importance of making propaganda appeal to the needs of
the public, Ellul claims that the public's need is simply for propaganda in the first place.
Wikibooks | 31
Chapter 5
5 USES
Introduction
AND
GRATIFICATIONS
Uses and gratifications approach is an influential tradition in media research. The original
conception of the approach was based on the research for explaining the great appeal of
certain media contents. The core question of such research is: Why do people use media
and what do they use them for? (MacQuail, 1983). There exists a basic idea in this
approach: audience members know media content, and which media they can use to meet
their needs. In the mass communication process, uses and gratifications approach puts the
function of linking need gratifications and media choice clearly on the side of audience
members. It suggests that people’s needs influence what media they would choose, how
they use certain media and what gratifications the media give them. This approach differs
from other theoretical perspectives in that it regards audiences as active media users as
opposed to passive receivers of information. In contrast to traditional media effects
theories which focus on “what media do to people” and assume audiences are
homogeneous, uses and gratifications approach is more concerned with “what people do
with media” (Katz, 1959). It allows audiences personal needs to use media and responds
to the media, which determined by their social and psychological background. Uses and
gratifications approach also postulates that the media compete with other information
sources for audience’s need satisfaction (Katz et al., 1974a). As traditional mass media
and new media continue to provide people with a wide range of media platforms and
content, it is considered one of the most appropriate perspectives for investigating why
audiences choose to be exposed to different media channels (LaRose el al., 2001). The
approach emphasizes audiences’ choice by assessing their reasons for using a certain
media to the disregard of others, as well as the various gratifications obtained from the
media, based on individual social and psychological requirements (Severin & Tankard,
1997). As a broader perspective among communication researches, it provides a
framework for understanding the processes by which media participants seek information
or content selectively, commensurate with their needs and interests (Katz et al., 1974a).
Audience members then incorporate the content to fulfill their needs or to satisfy their
interests (Lowery & DeFleur, 1983).
In addition, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch also commented that, although previous
researches on gratifications detected diverse gratifications that attract people on the
media, they did not address the connections between these gratifications (Katz et al.,
1974a). They suggested that uses and gratifications research concern with following
aspects: “(1) the social and the psychological origins of (2) needs which generate (3)
expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources which lead to (5) differential
exposure (or engaging in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratification and (7) other
consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones” (Katz et al., 1974b, p. 20). The studies of
Katz and his colleagues laid a theoretical foundation of building the uses and
gratifications approach. Since then, the research on this subject has been strengthened and
extended. The current status of uses and gratifications is still based on Katz’s first
analysis, particularly as new media forms have emerged in such an electronic information
age when people have more options of media use.
34 | Communication Theory
Uses and Gratifications Another subdivided version of the audience’s motivation was
suggested by McGuire (1974), based on a general theory of human needs. He
distinguished between two types of needs: cognitive and affective. Then he added three
dimensions: “active” versus “passive” initiation, “external” versus “internal” goal
orientation, and emotion stability of “growth” and “preservation.” When charted, these
factors yield 16 different types of motivations which apply to media use. Katz, Gurevitch
and Haas (1973) developed 35 needs taken from the social and psychological functions of
the mass media and put them into five categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Cognitive needs, including
acquiring information, knowledge and understanding; Affective needs, including
emotion, pleasure, feelings; Personal integrative needs, including credibility, stability,
status; Social integrative needs, including interacting with family and friends; and
Tension release needs, including escape and diversion.
Personal Identity
••••
finding reinforcement for personal values finding models of behavior identifying with
valued others (in the media) gaining insight into oneself
gaining insight into the circumstances of others; social empathy identifying with others
and gaining a sense of belonging finding a basis for conversation and social interaction
having a substitute for real-life companionship helping to carry out social roles enabling
one to connect with family, friends and society
Entertainment
•••••
escaping, or being diverted, from problems relaxing getting intrinsic cultural or aesthetic
enjoyment filling time emotional release Wikibooks | 35
Chapter 5
•
These dimensions of uses and gratifications assume an active audience making motivated
choices. McQuail (1994) added another dimension to this definition. He states:
Personal social circumstances and psychological dispositions together influence both …
general habits of media use and also … beliefs and expectations about the benefits
offered by the media, which shape ... specific acts of media choice and consumption,
followed by ... assessments of the value of the experience (with consequences for further
media use) and, possibly ... applications of benefits acquired in other areas of experience
and social activity (p. 235).
This expanded explanation accounts for a variety of individual needs, and helps to
explain variations in media sought for different gratifications.
Wikibooks | 39
Chapter 6
Return to Germany
Dialectic of Enlightenment was published in Amsterdam in German in 1947 with a
number of variants, excluding words and phrases in the published edition that could be
construed as being Marxist (Morris, 2001, p. 48). Their apparent intent was to not attract
the attention of the American occupation authorities in Germany. One of the main reasons
for this is that Horkheimer wanted to return the Institute for Social Research to Germany,
not only because of the desire to return to Frankfurt but also because a committee at
Columbia University had evaluated the work of the Institute and recommended that the
Institute become a department of Paul Lazarsfeld’s Bureau of Applied Social Research at
Columbia (Jäger, 2004, p. 149). Marcuse, who had been producing propaganda for the
OSS during the war based on his expert knowledge of Germany, published revolutionary
theses in a journal in 1947, and these theses could not be reconciled with the direction of
the Institute due to an apparent change in Horkheimer’s attitude towards Marxism. Thus,
when excerpts from Dialectic of Enlightenment were published without their permission
in 1949, Horkheimer and Adorno protested, distancing themselves from their own work,
in order not to jeopardize their return to Germany. In the late 1940s the Institute relocated
to Frankfurt, and opened in its new premises in 1951. Horkheimer became the
ViceChancellor of the University of Frankfurt. In 1954 Adorno published an essay
entitled “How to Look at Television” that was the result of a study that had been done for
the Hacker Foundation, with the involvement of George Gerbner and others. In this essay
Adorno warned, “rigid institutionalization transforms modern mass culture into a medium
of undreamed of psychological control” (Adorno, 2001a, p. 160). It was one of the few
occasions in the 1950s that Adorno would discuss the implications of mass culture. At
least one observer found it strange that “the leading cultural theorist of his day” did not
take part in cultural 44 | Communication Theory
The Frankfurt School developments of the fifties (Jäger, 2004, p. 191). Adorno would
nonetheless on occasion attempt to reshape his thought on the culture industry. For
example, in 1959 he wrote of a “universal pseudoculture” in the United States (Adorno,
1993, p. 21), and gave a radio talk in Germany in 1963 on “The Culture Industry
Reconsidered.” In 1966, when writing the essay “Transparencies on Film,” Adorno
conceded that film-making might be an acceptable cultural practice in opposition to the
culture industry, within the context of modernism (Hohendahl, 1995, p. 131).
Wikibooks | 47
Chapter 7
7 SEMIOTICS
AND
MYTH
Roland Barthes
Focusing on the systematic level, Sausurre distinguishes the language system into two
parts, the signified and the signifier. The signified is a concept or meaning which is
expressed through the form. The form is called the signifier, which is the external part of
language. For example, both the word 'dog' in English or 'gae' in Korean are the external
forms expressing the actual animal dog. Here, the actual animal, the concept in question,
becomes the signified. "I propose to retain the word sign (signe) to designate the whole
and to replace concept and sound-image respectively by signified (signifié) and signifier
(significant); the last two terms have the advantage of indicating the opposition that
separates them from each other and from the whole of which they are parts" (Saussure,
1959, in R. Innis (ed.), p. 37). The correspondence of the concept/meaning to the external
form is not in the destined relation, but rather, in the arbitrary relation. It is not the
inevitable internal relation but the difference between the signs that operates the
signifying system. Saussure (1960) argues that "language does not reflect a preexistent
and external reality of independent objects, but constructs meaning from within itself
through a series of conceptual and phonic differences" (Barker, 2000. p. 67). According
to Saussure, "meaning is produced through a process of selection and combination of
signs along two axes, the syntagmatic (e.g. a sentence) and the paradigmatic (e.g.
synonyms), organized into a signifying system" (Barker, 2002, p. 29). As a grammatical
set of signs or the underlying systematic order, the syntagmatic comprises a sentence, and
the paradigmatic means a field of possible signs that can be replaced with one another.
Despite various possibilities in selecting the signs within the same paradigmatic, the
selection is also regulated by the consensus of linguistic community members. For an
example of the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic, let's consider the following sentence: "I
went to a theater with my girlfriend." This sentence is established through the linear
combination of signs. The signs within the example, such as I theater, my, and girlfriend
can be substituted for by other signs in the paradigmatic, such as "She went to a
restaurant with her mother." Through the syntagmatic and the paradigmatic, Saussure
tells us that signs are operated only when they are related to each other. "Crucially, signs
do not make sense by virtue of reference to entities in an independent object world;
rather, they generate meaning by reference to each other. Thus, meaning is understood as
a social convention organized through the relations between signs" (Barker, C., 2002, p.
29). "It is central to Saussure's argument that red is meaningful in relation to the
difference between red, green, amber, etc. These signs are then organized into a sequence
which generates meaning through the cultural conventions of their usage within a
particular context. Thus, traffic lights deploy 'red' to signify 'stop,' and 'green' to signify
'go.' This is the cultural code of traffic systems which temporally fixes the relationship
between colours and meanings. Signs become naturalized codes. The apparent
transparency of meaning (we know when to stop or go) is an outcome of cultural
habituation, the effect of which is to conceal the practices of cultural coding" (Barker, C.,
2000. p. 68). As Barker explains, even though there might be infinte possibilities to
change the relation between the signified and the signifier due to its arbitrariness, this
relationship is limited and stabilized through consensus within the particular social and
historical contexts. Even though Saussure's study itself is limited to linguistics, it
suggests the possibility of the study of culture as signs. Barthes is one of the most popular
scholars who expanded Saussure's concepts to interpreting cultural phenomenon as
"codes."
50 | Communication Theory
Semiotics and Myth
Lévi-Strauss
Lévi-Strauss is another structuralist who influenced Barthes. Lévi-Strauss was an
anthropologist who applied Saussure's theory to anthropological areas of study, such as
kinship. "Although they belong to another order of reality, kinship phenomena are of the
same type as linguistic phenomena" (Lévi-Struass, 1963, in R. Innis, p.113). Lévi-Strauss
accepted Saussure's idea that "Language (langue), on the contrary to speech (langage), is
a self-contained whole and a principle of classification. As soon as we give language first
place among the facts of speech, we introduce a natural order into a mass that lends itself
to no other classification the norm of all other manifestations of speech" (Saussure, 1959,
in R. Innis (ed.), p.29). He went further, however, by conceptualizing language itself as
the production of its society. Like Saussure, Lévi-Strauss focused on the structure of
language, and sought to find the hidden structures that he believed to exist in archetypes.
Based on the laws of language underlying speech, he specifically tried to uncover the
underlying substructure of various cultural phenomena such as customs, rites, habits, and
gestures - "phenomena which themselves said to be intrinsic to the creation of language"
(Kurzweil, 1982, p. 64). He also examined the underlying structure of the myth. "Its
substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax, but in the story which it
tells. Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds
practically at 'taking off' from the linguistic ground on which it keeps on rolling" (Lévi-
Strauss, 1955, in H. Adams & L. Searle (Eds.), p. 811). Kurzweil (1982) indicates that
Barthes questioned why the dimensions of time often become irrelevant for creative
writers. This question is very similar to that of Lévi-Strauss, who wrote, "With myth,
everything becomes possible. But on the other hand, this apparent arbitrariness is belied
by the astounding similarity between myths collected in widely different regions." Lévi-
Strauss (1955) explains this problem, "Therefore the problem: If the content of a myth is
contingent, how are we going to explain the fact that myths throughout the world are so
similar?" (p. 810). It seems natural that Barthes was attracted to Lévi-Strauss's findings of
the similarities between tribal myths in discrete cultures, as well as between structural
elements in the lives and tales of diverse tribes. Through his work, Lévi-Strauss believed
that there would be one universal system connecting all myths and all societies. Barthes,
despite not being a Marxist, but working as a scholar who wanted to reveal the false
notions in petite-bourgeois ideology, adopted Levi-Strauss's systemic approach
(Kurzweil, E., 1982, p. 64-69). He expected to analyze all past and future creative acts
and works through the language their authors used, and argued that these authors were no
more than expressions of their times and societies (Kurzweil, E., 1982, pp. 64-69).
Elements of Semiology
Elements of Semiology does not analyze popular culture directly. Rather, Barthes shows
his critical interest in mass culture, writing about the value of semiological analyses of
mass cultural products in an era of mass communication. "The development of mass
communications confers particular relevance today upon the vast field of signifying
media, just when the success of disciplines such as linguistics, information theory, formal
logic and structural anthropology provide semantic analysis with new instruments"
(Barthes, 1964, p. 9). With Elements of Semiology, Barthes introduced four
classifications of the elements that create the process of semiological analysis. These
classifications are borrowed from structural linguistics, and consist of the categories of
language and speech, signified and signifier, syntagm and system, and denotation and
connotation (Barthes, 1964). Language and Speech Barthes (1964) applied the concepts
of language, or the part of the semiological system which is agreed upon by society, and
speech, or the individual selection of symbols, to semiological systems. The application
of these concepts can be applied to the semiological study of the food system. According
to Barthes (1964), a person is free to create their own menu, using personal variations in
food combinations, and this will become their speech or message. This is done with the
overall national, regional, and social structures of the language of food in mind (Barthes,
1964). Barthes (1964) then expanded on Saussure’s terms, by explaining that language is
not really socially determined by the masses, but is sometimes determined by a small
group of individuals, somewhat changing the relationship of language and speech.
Barthes (1964) claims that a semiological system can essentially exist in which there is
language, but little or no speech. In this case, Barthes (1964) believes that a third element
called matter, which would provide signification, would need to be added to the
language/speech system. Signifier and Signified For Saussure (1959), the signified was a
representation of a concept, while the signifier was used to represent the sound-image of
that concept. Barthes (1964) points out that the importance of 52 | Communication
Theory
Semiotics and Myth both the signified and the signifier is the relationship between them;
it is within this relationship that meaning is created. “…that the words in the field derive
their meaning only from their opposition to one another (usually in pairs), and that if
these oppositions are preserved, the meaning is unambiguous” (Barthes, 1964, p. 38). Out
of this relationship, the sign is created. Saussure (1959) considered the sign to be
arbitrary in nature, based primarily on the relationship between the signified and the
signifier. Barthes (1964) explained that the sign can no longer be arbitrary when
semiological systems are considered. Instead, Barthes shows that once a sign takes on a
function or use, it will gain its own meaning in the process. “…as soon as there is a
society, every usage is converted into a sign of itself” (Barthes, 1964, p. 41). The sign can
actually lose its arbitrary nature and become motivated (Barthes, 1964). Syntagm and
System Barthes (1964) defines the syntagm as a linear combination of signs. Within
semantic analyses, this would be something like a sentence, where each term is related to
the other terms within the phrase (Barthes, 1964). The syntagm is compared to the
system, which explains associations on the same level, such as how certain words relate
to the meaning of other words within our minds, as in the case of the relations between
“education” and “training” (Barthes, 1964, p. 58). Barthes expands upon these ideas by
applying them semiologically to various systems, including food. With food, the
systematic level becomes the various dishes within a particular category (i.e. types of
desserts), whereas the syntagmatic level becomes the menu choices selected for a full
meal (Barthes, 1964). Denotation and Connotation The terms denotation and connotation
were used by Barthes for examining the relationships between systems. Each
semiological system can be thought of as consisting of an expression, a plane of content,
and a relation between the two (Barthes, 1964). A connotation then examines how one
system can act as a signifier of this first relation, specifically how it represents the
expression within the first system (Barthes, 1964). These elements were particularly
useful for examining relations between systems of symbols, rather than just relations
between elements. Despite the theoretical discussion, Elements of Semiology offers
Barthes's own interpretation about the political or existential conditions. He recommends
a "total ideological description" (Barthes, 1964, p. 46) of the culture to "rediscover the
articulations which men impose on reality" (Barthes, 1964, p.57). "Semiology will
describe how reality is divided up, given meaning and then 'naturalized' (Barthes, pp. 63-
4), as if culture were nature itself." (Rylance, 1994, p. 38)
Mythologies
Mythologies is a compilation of a series of articles, which were originally published in
the magazine Les Lettre Nouvelles between 1953 and 1956. Even if it is not a theoretical
work, it is perhaps the most influential of all Barthes's writings, particularly in relation to
Communication Studies. Barthes's biographer even suggests that in France, Mythologies
influenced not just journalists and critics, but novelists and the film-makers of the "New
Wave," especially Godard (Rylance, R., 1994, p.43). In Mythologies, inconsistent
subjects, such as wrestling, photographs, film or wine are all treated as myth. These
diverse subjects can be bound together, as Barthes did not intend to talk about the
subjects themselves, but to show how their underlying messages can be circulated and
naturalized. The subjects treated in Mythologies share a similar circulation process within
mass culture. For example, professional wrestling carries two messages, "wrestling as
sport" and "wrestling as spectacle"(Thody, P., 1997). Barthes compares professional
wrestling with Greek theater to demonstrate that audiences are not so much interested in
athletic contests as they are in a cathartic, Manichean performance. These double
messages are shared by the audience as well. Audiences are not only accustomed to the
conventions of wrestling but also take pleasure out of the double nature of wrestling.
Barthes reflects that a wrestling match is not merely an aesthetic act but has ideological
significance as well, just as is the case with the realistic art enjoyed by the petit-
bourgeois. In the case of wine, he argues that the wine is signified as of Frenchness or of
virility in French culture but in fact, the image of wine is a mystification. Knowledge
about types of wine obscures the fact that wine is not so different from other commodities
produced under capitalism, and lands in North Africa and Muslim laborers, neither of
which are of Frenchness, are exploited in its production. Barthes (1972) also examplified
the advertisement of soap in order to show such mystification The advertisement
compares two brands with each other and sheds light on the issue of selection between
two brands as a matter of importance. It blurs the fact that both brands are actually
produced by the same multinational company. Through these examples in mass culture,
he suggests the consistent argument that "a message is read into some substance, custom
or attitude that seemed to carry its own justification in terms purely of practical use. The
message thus revealed turns out to be concealing the operation of socio-economic
structures that require to be denounced, both because they are concealing their identity
and because that identity is inherently exploitative" (Mortiary, 1991, p. 21).
Camera Lucida
The pleasure of interpretation by the interplay between langue and parole or the history
and the individual creation is also applied to his speculation about photography. Camera
Lucida a meditation on the photographic, was to be his last work. In this Barthes
examined two elements that for him comprised the meaning of image, the stadium and
the punctum. The studium of a photograph presents meanings which are culturally coded,
and corresponds to the photograph's symbolic meaning. The punctum, on the other hand,
disturbs the obvious meaning in photographs. It "puntuates" the meaning of the
photograph. For example, in a Lewis Hine photo, Barthes points to a girl's bandaged
finger, and a boy's collar. The problem, as Barthes was aware, is that when Barthes points
out these details, they move from the status of punctum to that of studium (Allen, 203,
pp. 126-27). As the writerly reading touches the creative participation of readers in
interpreting the text, the image also can be the writerly text which arouses the pleasure of
interpretation of appreciator thanks to puctum. According to Barthes, studium is always
coded, while punctum is not. Wikibooks | 57
Chapter 7 Even though they retain their heterogeneity to each other, they are not opposed
to each other. The "subtle beyond" of the punctum, the uncoded beyond, exists with the
"always coded" of the stadium. (Derrida, 1981, in Knight, 2000, pp. 130-131)
Conclusion
Roland Barthes had lived with his mother for much of his life. After her death in 1977 he
reflected, "From now on I could do no more than await my total, undialectical death"
(cited in Allen, 2003, 134). In March of 1980 he was struck by a laundry truck, and died
after a month in hospital. Barthes's thought is inter-related with the arguments of other
post-structuralists. Later in his career Barthes sought to define langue and parole as
discrete but intermingled entities. The interplay of the contradictory elements happens
between writer and history, text and audience, or the structured and the abrupt widens the
horizon of meaning. Barthes is enigmatic in that both the focus of his work and writing
style are hard to concretely define. He "lived in the plural" (Derrida, 1981, in D. Knight,
(ed.), p. 132) As Todorov (1981) commented, "No one would ever again think of Barthes
as a semiologist, a sociologist, a linguist, even though he might have lent his voice to
each of those figures in succession; nor would they think of him as philosopher or a
'theorist'" (in D. Knight (ed.) p. 125). Barthes nonetheless was a semiologist, sociologist,
linguist and a theorist. Barthes is important to the field of Critical Communication in that
he applied a semiological approach to media culture. His thought can also be regarded as
a foundation for empirical research about the relationship between messages and
audiences, in that he argued for the plurality of the message meaning produced through
the interwork of structure and agency.
58 | Communication Theory
Orality and Literacy
8 ORALITY
AND
LITERACY
Walter Ong
This paper serves as an analysis of the contribution of Walter J. Ong, S. J. It serves as an
overview of his work as it relates to the discipline of Communication. The chapter draws
heavily from the work of Soukup (2004) and Farrell (2000) as their contribution to the
scholar is impressive and thorough. Specifically, the chapter draws from the framework
of contribution from Soukup’s (2004) article, which identifies Ong’s contribution in five
specific ways throughout a 60 year academic career. In addition to Ong’s contribution to
the discipline, the paper also serves to examine the influence wielded by Ong over his
career on other scholars. It also serves to examine the influence peers on Ong’s career.
Wikibooks | 59
Chapter 8
Ramus was a part of something that Ong found interesting. Western thought was making
a transition away from rhetoric that could be seen in terms of logical probability in
discussion, to logic that was grounded more in seeking concrete truth and proof for
reasoning. A good resource concerning the history of rhetoric and Western thinking
comes from the work of the editors Golden, Berquist, Coleman & Sproule (2004). The
text maps the development of rhetoric within a western context of thinking, providing a
great overview of the history of rhetoric in the west. Further, the idea of written
demonstration as opposed to spoken argumentation was in some ways a shift of
preference. A review of Ramist Rhetoric from Ong (1958a) demonstrated a sort of
mapped explanation of the transition of rhetoric (specifically, Ramist Rhetoric is Chapter
Twelve). Soukup (2004) mentioned it extensively. The transitional development of
rhetoric in comparison to logic was anything but a source of absolute clarity. Farrell
(2000) further noted that such an analysis from Ong was focused on the contrast of
expression that dealt with both sound and sight. It would be foolish to consider the
transition smooth and marked. The shift in cultural learning is one that mapped over time.
It was more a process than a marked chasm or divide. Ong (1971a) stated that, “there is
no total theoretical statement of the nature of either rhetoric or logic, much less their
interrelation. Conceivably such a statement might finally be achieved at the end of
history, when rhetoric and logic would be outmoded” (p. 7). Ong’s comment seemed
more in line with the idea that hindsight and retrospect will have the final say when either
of the approaches to knowledge and learning would seem obsolete. Historically, Ramus
derived a good deal of thought strongly relative to the transitional shift from that of logic
to proof. In some respects, Ong saw Ramus as a product of the times in which he lived.
Soukup (2004) commented:
Ramus was above all a teacher and that shaped his approach to developing both his
dialectic and his rhetoric in an age when printing changed the school environment. He
lived at a time when science also changed the learning environment. (p.6)
60 | Communication Theory
Orality and Literacy Ong (1958a, 1958b) noted the transition of Ramus away from
knowledge through the traditional form of instructional teaching to that of objects and
diagrams. The thought of knowledge derived through diagrams and objects is the
direction that Ramus seemed headed toward. Inclusive within this shift is the awareness
of how we arrive at knowledge. The pedagogical shift here is important. In the transition,
knowledge can be derived from the visual perspective as well as that of the oral
perspective. Seeing diagrams, objects, and symbols in print to arrive at knowledge is
what ultimately what Ong focused in on. Much of this can be attributed to the
development an invention that rocked society in its ability to learn, distribute, and store
knowledge in Ramus’s lifetime—the printing press. Printing was changing how people
learned, and it was happening in Ramus’s lifetime. In terms of why Ong focused in on
this particular aspect, something from his cultural/spiritual background began to emerge.
Ong had a background in biblical studies (he was a Roman Catholic priest). He was
interested with the difference in learning attributed to Hebrew culture and to Greek and
Latin culture (P. Soukup, personal communication, September 16, 2005). Soukup
commented on the idea that Hebrew culture was much more focused on sound and the
spoken word. He further mentioned that the Greek and Latin culture of learning was more
visual, focused on image. Ong focused in on how Ramus analyzed the transition away
from oral as a primary form of comprehension to literate and the incorporation of visual
images. Ramus became entrenched with the aspect of printing and was widely seen as a
publishing and pedagogical guru (Soukup, 2004). This focus of transformation of
knowledge became a continued theme that he would work closely with and develop
further throughout his career. A brief quote from Ong (1968) made this apparent:
We have reached a period today when the accumulation of knowledge has made possible
insights of new clarity and depth into the history of knowledge itself. Growth of
knowledge soon produces growth in knowledge about knowledge, its constitution, and its
history, for knowledge is of itself reflective. Given time, it will try to explain not only the
world but itself more and more. (p. 8)
Learning in the Western tradition shifted from being centered on discourse to observation
and sight, bringing rhetoric and logic together. Rhetorical pedogogy relied on discourse
and apprenticeship with a master teacher. The shift to observational approaches allowed
for collective growth of knowledge, rather than reliance on a group of earlier "masters."
As the process of learning develops, the ability for those to not simply learn from a
master, but to learn from observation and drawing conclusions promotes logic rather than
discourse. Likewise, there evolves a shift in focus from the guiding teacher to the
autonomous learner. This analysis was only one of a number of reformist critiques of
education; such reforms are common throughout history. As Ong (1962b) pointed out:
Everybody today, it seems, wants to reform education. It would be interesting if this
ambition were a mark of our times. But it is not, for an ambition to reform education is
found in most of the ages known to civilization. (p. 149)
When Ong analyzed Ramus in terms of the transition of knowledge from that of rhetoric
to logic, there is a sense of understanding that knowledge framed in rhetoric must cause
the learning culture to remember words. In other words, when cultures are primarily
learning through words, the importance of holding to words is imperative. Havelock
(1963), a contemporary of Ong, commented on repetition as of extreme importance in
oral culture. Ong would agree with Havelock’s assessment (Soukup, 2004). When
cultures emphasize rhetoric as the primary form of learning, it is of absolute importance
that the words of importance be seized upon and remembered, for that is where learning
takes place. An analysis of where Ong draws this transition of learning seems most
prominent in the Renaissance (That this is a commentary on Western learning. The writer
acknowledges a variety of other types of learning, but Ong’s commentary on the
Renaissance focuses on Western learning). The main transition of learning that takes
place here is one from the emphasis of recall to the ability to refer to text (Soukup, 2004).
The emphasis on text as opposed to oral recall could serve to expand the base of
knowledge in an exponential way. The process of communicating and retaining
information was not about what one might be able to store within the individual mind, but
the idea of referring to text as a source of information and knowledge truly served to
change a culture making such a transition. This was the case of the Renaissance. Learning
took on new forms of visual recognition and recall which Ong (1977a) elaborated on
further and termed as being a sort of visual retrieval. As the ability to obtain knowledge
and to learn changed in such a way as mentioned above the base rate at which knowledge
was obtained changed. The approach to obtaining information was 62 | Communication
Theory
Orality and Literacy different. No longer did pressure reside within individual recall, but
the ability to recall text became more of a focus. In essence, the Renaissance made a
significant change in the approach to learning and the dissemination of knowledge. In a
rather interesting sort of commentary, Ong (1977b) wrote about how our expression of
words has changed to indicate that we are more of a visual culture. Soukup (2004) stated:
Ong summarizes the effects of visualism on thinking, going so far as to show its history
in the vocabularies we use. As with rhetoric, the way we talk reveals, in some ways the
way we think. His list of visual words ‘used in thinking of intellect and its work’ includes
‘insight, intuition, theory, idea, evidence, species, speculation, suspicion, clear, make out,
observe, represent, show, explicate, analyze, discern, distinct, form, outline, plan, field of
knowledge, object’ and many others. (p. 8)
The use of such words reflects the visual and logical frame of learning in Western society.
The words are marked with visual representation of obtaining knowledge. They reflect a
sort of mapping out that takes place in providing a framework of learning and
comprehension. Realizing the thought process that goes into mapping this sort of
differentiation in learning and fostering knowledge causes one to appreciate the mind that
Ong possessed in coming to such a conclusion. Faigley (1998) mentioned Ong and the
works of others mapped to the development of visual thought and the dichotomy of oral
versus visual. Within the article, Faigley cited the works of other scholars linked to Ong
and this particular subject matter worth noting. The work of Goody (1977), Goody &
Watt (1963), Innis (1951), and Havelock (1982) are worth noting. When it comes to idea
of the communication and learning (particularly the development of the visual), Goody,
Innis, and Havelock come up as well and could be seen as peers working in and around
the same time as one another in these particular areas. The work attributed to the scholars
above syncs well with the development of culture from oral (learning through sound) to
literate (learning through sight and print), which is at the heart of Ong’s (1982) text.
The Word
While much of the focus in the first couple of sections of this chapter focuses in on a sort
of transformation from oral to visual, Ong maintained a steadfast appreciation for the
importance of the word and what surrounds it. The sound associated with our use of
words is still a focal point of scholarship. Ong was quite particular in focusing on words,
their sound, and what they in fact seemed to reveal about the interior condition of the
individual (Soukup, 2004). Ong (1962c) stated:
There is, indeed, no way for a cry to completely exteriorize itself. A mark made by our
hand will remain when we are gone. But when the interior—even the physical, corporeal
interior, as well as the spiritual interior of consciousness—from which a cry is emitted
ceases to function as an interior, the cry itself has perished. To apprehend what a person
has produced in space—a bit of writing, a picture—is not at all to be sure that he is alive.
To hear his voice (provided it is not reproduced from a frozen spatial design on a
phonograph disc or tape) is to be sure. (p. 28)
Soukup (2004) pointed out the significance of the interior as it related to Ong. Essentially,
the interior refers to what is happening within the individual. A glimpse of the interior can
be revealed to us as a society through the words and sounds coming up from out of the
individual. It may not completely reflect the condition within the individual, but it serves
to give us insight. Ong’s commentary of the word is occurred during a period of time
when other scholars were touching on similar ideas. Lord (1960) and Havelock (1963)
were mentioned in Farrell’s (2000) commentary of Ong, seeing him as a sort of cultural
relativist. Lord (1960) visited the issue of performance relative to Wikibooks | 63
Chapter 8 storytelling in an oral tradition. Havelock’s (1963) work dealt with issues very
similar to Ong and the word, but more applied to the area of poetics. Heavily entrenched
in the work is an emphasis on the oral, which relates to Ong’s commentary about the
word. Soukup (2004) mentioned that Ong (1962a) produced striking commentary on the
human voice as being one of an invasion into the atmosphere. The thought of the voice
and word through this line of thinking is one that is rather self-revealing. Essentially, the
voice coming from out of the interior of the individual reveals something of that person.
It is through such revealing that individuals connect with one another. This is an
important aspect that Ong would not have us miss. This commentary of interiority and
sound of the word probes the issue of authenticity. How something comes out is telling of
the feeling or mood associated with the word. When considering prior Ong commentary
relative to Ramus and the development of learning from sound to visual, it is interesting
to see that Ong went back to the perspective of language and sound and stressed the
importance of investigating sound associated with the word. This is a good reminder of
the idea that sound is still a relevant and important point of study. While stressing that
such focus is not semantics or wordplay, Ong acknowledged that while one can draw out
a lot from the process and experience of communication through investigating sound,
voice, word, and interiority, the fact that there could be more going on than what he could
conclude is something that he sensed (Soukup, 2004). This area of focus for Ong revealed
his linguistic side of scholarship. Given discipline cross-over in communication, it still
serves as a relevant piece of discussion and contribution. Further advancing the concept
of word and sound, Ong began to draw from a couple of scholars (some already
mentioned above) who would prove to be peers. The work of Havelock (1963) and Lord
(1960) was mentioned earlier, but it is also worth noting Ong’s draw from McLuhan
(1962) and Parry (1928). Soukup (2004) identified the contribution of such scholars to
Ong’s work. Havelock (1963) reinforced Ong’s assessment of the development of
learning in his analysis of Ramus. The idea that the transition of learning went from that
of oral to written is something that Havelock noticed. From that, he commented on how
that essentially changed the pattern of thought process. This idea ties back into Ong’s
(1958a) assessment of the transitional development of rhetoric to logic. While the shift
seemed to be a gradual one without an absolute mark of distinction, it still impacted the
process of thought. Parry (1928) and Lord (1960) studied the process of thought and
recall in poetics, the way in which Ong studied rhetoric (Soukup, 2004). Finally, as a
testament to Ong earning the respect of fellow scholars, McLuhan (1964) drew heavily
from Ong’s (1958a) work on Ramus. Mentioned briefly earlier in the chapter, McLuhan
is widely seen as an influential scholar in the discipline of Communication. McLuhan, in
some respects, was an influential factor in pushing Ong forward in his research
endeavors. In tracing the scholarship of Ong, his input on the work of McLuhan (Ong,
1952) was substantial. McLuhan saw a good deal of potential in the work of Ong. He
supervised Ong’s thesis and at the beginning of Ong’s (1958b) close follow-up to his
dissertation, he pays tribute to McLuhan by writing, “For Herbert Marshall McLuhan
who started all this” (dedication). While they were similar in age, McLuhan was seen as
an influential factor in encouraging Ong in the direction that he did (P. Soukup, personal
communication, September 16, 2005). Ong continued further in his commentary on the
word. As he probed the word and investigated further, Soukup (2004) pointed out that he
introduced the concept of “the sensorium.” Essentially, this dealt with using human
senses and experience to communicate. This was introduced by Ong (1967a) in what was
known as his Terry Lectures at Yale University. The lectures (oral) were bound and put
into print. In some respects, that statement is a humorous sort of irony. The focus of Ong
(1967b) was to set apart the oral when considering human senses and communication.
Ong further exercised a commentary about cultural awareness. He acknowledged the idea
that when it comes to expression, specifically with the oral, it looks different within other
cultures:
64 | Communication Theory
Orality and Literacy
Cultures vary greatly in their exploitation of the various senses and in the way in which
they relate to their conceptual apparatus to the various senses. It has been a commonplace
that the ancient Hebrews and the ancient Greeks differed in the value they set on the
auditory. The Hebrews tended to think of understanding as a kind of hearing, whereas the
Greeks thought of it more as a kind of seeing, although far less exclusively as seeing than
post-Cartesian Western man generally has tended to do. (pp. 3-4)
While this was the case for Ong in assessing Western culture, he clearly pointed out that
not all cultures adhere to an oral standard of such importance. Continuing with the word,
there are two other aspects to touch on relative to Ong—the use of words and stages of
communication consciousness. Ong’s focus on the use of words for debate and
argumentation are worth noting. In some respects, an investigation of Ong and pedagogy
reveals the setup of the education system with regard to debate and argumentation as
being structured more for men than for women. Such an analysis makes sense when one
considers the history of the system of Western education. As touched upon in Soukup
(2004), Ong’s (1967a) work on the word revealed that people within oral cultures use
words as a potential alternative to calling up arms against one another. In essence, words
insert themselves into a sort of combat. One could draw from this the study of
argumentation and debate. In many respects, this could be seen as and advantage to
developing as an oral culture. For more commentary relative to this particular area, see
Soukup (2004). Communication and consciousness is the last area to touch upon in
dealing with Ong and the word. In many respects, this is where one of Ong’s most
famous works, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982) is
considered. Ong noted the development of consciousness through stages within culture.
Inclusive within this consciousness is the idea of knowledge and learning. How cultures
develop in the area of consciousness is what Ong sought to provide commentary on in the
text. Ultimately, Ong sees communication gradually developing from an oral stage into a
stage of print. In his thought on Western society, Ong noted the development of a third
stage of communication consciousness known as electronic communication (Soukup,
2004). Ong’s (1982) book is certainly popular, but does not provide an accurate picture of
the vast amount of work covered over his career. Farrell (2000) noted that it does not
serve to provide a general overview of the scholar. There is much more to his line of
thought than simply this one text. While there are many to applaud the commentary of
Ong in this particular text, there are also those who see it as lacking. Montenyohl (1995)
took Ong to task, citing a sort of generalization about orality that was not comfortable to
him as a scholar. Farrell (2000) defended Ong from Montenyohl’s criticism, citing that he
was not sure that Montenyohl had done enough background research on Ong to provide
just criticism of his work. With such a successful text as Ong’s (1982) was, it is hard for
many not to simply read the text and see it as a fair representation of all of Ong’s work.
To back Farrell, simply reading Ong (1982) does an injustice to the vast amount of work
that he had contributed over a long career. While it is an excellent book and provides
substantial commentary for discussion, Ong did much more as a scholar years before
penning that text in the later part of his academic career. An examination of the word
relative to Ong deserves even further investigation. However, the goal of the chapter is to
consider the impact of a particular scholar in communication, in terms of both scholarship
and in influencing scholars. If the interest in Ong is peaked at this point, it is strongly
encouraged that the reader investigates the work of Farrell (2000), Soukup (2004) for
commentary.
Wikibooks | 65
Chapter 8
Soukup (2004) further noted that understanding code and speed of transmission helps us
to understand how communication works in a digital realm. Many shy away from
understanding transmission, which, ironically touches on the issue of consciousness (or
lack of). Welch (1999) wrote about electronic rhetoric and new literacy as it specifically
to computers and their implementation into 66 | Communication Theory
Orality and Literacy society and looked at understanding their impact. Most important
within this final section is the issue of interpretation and comprehension. As we continue
to emerge in an age of digital transmission of information, the word hermeneutics comes
up continuously within Ong’s work. We have technologies growing at rather quick rates
that transmit data digitally. While we understand much of what we see on the front end of
a technology, the ability to understand how we arrive at transmitting such information is
of importance for Ong. It is a challenge, but the process of encoding and decoding
information is something to be interpreted and understood. Capurro (2000) focused on
the subject of hermeneutics and the process of storage and retrieval of information. While
understanding that a technological structure emerges in the subject of digital
communication, Ong also noted that there is still a need to deal with social structure as
well (Soukup, 2004). Essentially, understand the technology and understand social
structure. The requirement to do so is interpretation. Soukup (2004) noted that the
process of interpretation summarized much of Ong’s thoughts about communication. This
has to do with everything, particularly in dealing with orality, literacy, secondary orality,
and digital communication.
Conclusion
The impact of Walter Ong is significant. Not only did he produce excellent scholarship in
the areas mentioned above, he made a significant impact on scholars. From his early
research of the history of rhetoric to his analysis of digital hermeneutics, his thoughts
provoked further scholarship from those mentioned above. It is worth noting that many
others have been influenced by the contribution of Ong. For the purpose of this chapter,
the selection of scholars touched by his scholarship had to be limited. Refer to the
references list below for further inquiry into the above concepts. With all that had been
accomplished in his career, it is clear that Ong was clearly an influential scholar in the
twentieth century. Further research continues in many areas relative to the trail paved by
scholars like Ong.
Wikibooks | 67
Chapter 9
9 DIFFUSION
OF
INNOVATIONS
Everett M. Rogers
Rogers was born in Carroll, Iowa in 1931. He earned his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees
from Iowa State University. For two years during the Korean War, he served in the U.S.
Air Force. Interestingly, in 1966, he worked on some family planning communication
projects in Korea. One interesting thing worthy mentioning is that Rogers’ father was a
farmer who resisted adopting the hybrid seed corn (ASinghal, 2005, p.287). Due to the
drought in Iowa in 1936, the Rogers’ farm withered, which made Rogers personally
involved in the diffusion research. In the 1950's, Iowa State University was a perfect
place for studying the diffusion of innovations, as the school's program focused on a rural
sociology, agriculture, and statistics. The experience there led Rogers to dive into the
research about why some innovations are adopted while others are ignored. Employed by
Michigan State University in 1962, Rogers obtained opportunity to study diffusion in
developing nations such as Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Meanwhile, he published the
book, Diffusion of Innovations, which earned him his academic reputation. Rogers’
comprehensive insights in the book helped to expand diffusion theory. The book has
become the standard textbook on diffusion theory and it creats applications of diffusion
theory in such fields as geography, economics, psychology, political science, and, as
previously mentioned, communication. Rogers retired from University of New Mexico in
2004 because he was suffering from kidney disease. He died on October 21, 2005.
Wikibooks | 71
Chapter 9
Wikibooks | 73
Chapter 10
10 SOCIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Niklas Luhmann
When the second World War ended in Europe, seventeen-year-old Niklas Luhmann had
been serving as an anti-aircraft auxillary in the German army. He was briefly detained by
the Americans. When asked in 1987 to describe this experience, he replied:
Before 1945, the hope was that after the defeat of the compulsory apparatus everything
would be right by itself. Yet the first thing I experienced in American captivity was that
my watch was taken off my arm and that I was beaten up. So it was not at all as I had
thought it would be. Soon you could see that one could not compare political regimes
according to a scheme of `good' versus `bad', but that you had to judge the figures
according to a bounded reality. Of course I don't want to say that the time of the Nazi-
regime and the time after 1945 are to be judged on equal terms. Yet I was simply
disappointed in 1945. Yet is that really important? In any case the experience of the Nazi-
regime for me has not been a moral one, but an experience of the arbitrary, of power, of
the tactics to avoid the regime used by the man of the people. (Luhmann qtd. in Baecker,
2005)
The realization that human realities were subjective appears to have influenced the
famous sociologist throughout the rest of his life. This chapter will introduce Luhmann
and a few remarkable aspects of his theory.
Introduction
The type of communication theory I am trying to advise therefore starts from the premise
that communication is improbable, despite the fact that we experience and practice it
every day of our lives and would not exist without it. This improbability of which we
have become unaware must first be understood, and to do so requires what might be
described as a contra-phenomenological effort, viewing communication not as a
phenomenon but as a problem; thus, instead of looking for the most appropriate concept
to cover the facts, we must first ask how communication is possible at all. (Luhmann
1990, p. 87)
The body of work produced by German sociologist Niklas Luhmann probably represents
history’s most comprehensive attempt by one man to explain the whole of social
existence. The above quotation hints at the essential nature of Luhmann’s thought – no
“accepted wisdom” of the social science tradition could be left unexamined. Through
more than 50 books and 400 articles, Luhmann applied his sociological systems theory to
areas including law, science, religion, economics, politics, love, and art. Sociological
systems have become one of the most popular theoretical models in contemporary
German sociology, and are also widely applied in fields such as psychology, management
science, and literary studies. A primary distinction of Luhmann’s social systems theory is
that its focus of analysis is not individuals, groups, behaviors, or institutions, but the
communication that occurs within systems. Dirk Baecker, a student of Luhmann’s
explains that the systems theory “does away with the notion of system in all its traditional
wording” and can carefully examine “every possible assumption of organism,
mechanism, and information” – even, recursively, its own structure (Baecker 2001, p.
72). This realignment towards communication represents a significant break with social
science tradition. Although Luhmann’s theory (or for that matter, most systems theories)
do not lend themselves well to reduction, this chapter will attempt to present an overview
of the subject.
74 | Communication Theory
Sociological Systems
Life in Brief
Niklas Luhmann was born in 1927. Following his teenage stint in the army, he went on to
study law at the Universität Freiburg from 1946-1949 (Müller 2005). He trained as a
lawyer, but found the intellectual constraints of practicing law not to his liking. He
decided to go into public administration, as it promised him more freedom to pursue his
own ideas (Hornung 1998). Luhmann became a civil servant for the town of Lüneburg in
1954. Although he enjoyed his work, he accepted the opportunity to take a sabbatical
leave to study administrative science at Harvard University in 1960. Here Luhmann
became a student of systems theorist Talcott Parsons, a thinker who would have a great
impact on the development of Luhmann’s theories. After returning to Germany in 1961,
Luhmann transferred to a research institute at the Hochschule für
Verwaltungswissenschaften (School of Public Administration) in Speyer. Here he was
afforded the freedom to pursue his scientific interests, and began his research of social
structure. In 1965, Luhmann studied Sociology for a single semester at the Universität
Münster. He was awarded a PhD and Habilitation (a postdoctoral qualification enabling
one to teach at the university level) for two books previously published. After briefly
occupying Theodor Adorno’s former chair at the Universität Frankfurt, (where he taught a
poorly-attended seminar on the sociology of love), he accepted a position at the newly-
founded Reformuniversität Bielefeld (Baecker, 2005). In 1973 he engaged in a debate
with theorist Jürgen Habermas about the role of social theory. This debate was later
published as a series of essays in Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was
leistet die Systemforschung? (Theory of Society or Social Technology: What can Systems
Research Accomplish?) (1973). The debate with Habermas (whose theory receives a
much wider acceptance outside of Germany) served as the Anglophonic world’s major
introduction to Luhmann’s thought. Luhmann published profusely throughout his career,
with each book and essay building a foundation for his final theory of society. He retired
from this position in 1993, but continued to publish. His magnum opus, Die Gesellschaft
der Gesellschaft (The Society of the Society) was published a year before his death in
1997.
Early Influences
By the end of the 19th century, industrialization had profoundly changed the Western
world. Sociology had come into its own as a science: Karl Marx published profusely
throughout the mid1800s. Ferdinand Tönnies (1887) described social flows from
Gemeinschaft (community, relationship oriented association) toward Gesellschaft (self
interest oriented society) in 1887. Emile Durkheim (1893) explored the division of labor
a few years later, and opened the first European sociology department in 1896. Max
Weber developed new methodological approaches and also founded a sociology
department by 1920. While these fathers of the discipline differed greatly in their
research and philosophy of society, they all recognized that the function and dysfunction
of society is linked to the function and dysfunction of different social components such as
classes, institutions, technologies, or individuals.
Wikibooks | 75
Chapter 10
Durkheim’s Functionalism
Durkheim’s theory of functionalism, in particular, had a lasting impact upon the social
sciences. Durkheim argued that “social facts” existed independent of individuals and
institutions, and that these facts were the most productive subject for empirical
sociological research. Social facts (such as suicide rates (Durkheim 1951), policies, or
church attendance) can be measured, interpreted, and tested. Social theories derived from
these analyses can then be used to explain social functioning.
The determination of function is . . . necessary for the complete explanation of the
phenomena. . . .To explain a social fact it is not enough to show the cause on which it
depends; we must also, at least in most cases, show its function in the establishment of
social order. (1950, p. 97)
Durkheim’s functionalism measured social effects within the context of a larger social
environment. Durkheim’s 1893 book The Division of Labor in Society focused on labor
division in an attempt to describe and explain social order. He elaborated on the manner
in which increasing labor division affects the evolution of societies.
Luhmann criticized the sociology of his time as being irredeemably subjective and unable
to usefully describe reality. “Action theory is reconstructed as structural theory, structural
theory as linguistic theory, linguistic theory as textual theory, and textual theory as action
theory” (Luhmann, 1995, p. xlvi). The acquisition of new knowledge, Luhmann argued,
was derived from some recombination of the work of classical theorists. Social theory
spiraled into higher and higher levels of complexity, each refocusing and realignment of
classical theory laying the foundation for ever more complex theoretical iterations.
Luhmann set his personal task as no less than the complete theoretical
reconceptualization of the discipline within a wholly consistent framework. Luhmann’s
sociological systems theory makes only two fundamental assumptions: that reality exists,
and that systems exist (Luhmann, 1995, p. 12). The theory contains a constructivist
epistimology, as it claims that knowledge can only exist as a construction of human
consciousness. Luhmann does not claim that there is no external reality, but that our
knowledge of it will always be subject to the symbolic system we use to represent it.
From these simple assumptions, Luhmann attempts to build a universal social theory:
Theory… claims neither to reflect the complete reality of its object, nor to exhaust all the
possibilities of
Wikibooks | 77
Chapter 10
knowing its object. Therefore it does not demand exclusivity for its truth claims in
relation to other, competing endeavors. But it does claim universality for its grasp of its
object in the sense that it deals with everything social and not just sections. (Luhmann,
1995, p. xlv)
The theory is universal because it seeks to describe and explain itself, along with all other
social phenomena. The theory is self-referential. Luhmann proceeds to clarify three
fundamental differences between his theory and previous social theories. First, his theory
is universal and can be applied to all social phenomena. Second, his theory is self-
referential, and capable of examining itself in its own terms. Third, his theory is both
complex and abstract enough to accomplish the previous two goals (Luhmann, 1995,
xlviii). There is no default entry point to Luhmann’s sociological systems theory. The
structure of the theory is systemic. This means that the integration of its components is
not linear and additive, but circular. The components of the theory do not build upon each
other but produce each other. This introduction will attempt to show some of Luhmann’s
most innovative developments, including his break from previous social systems theory.
A theory of communication
Luhmann found Parsons’ systems approach inspiring, but noticed several inconsistencies
and problems. Stichweh (2000), a student of Luhmann’s, explains that there are two
major strands of reasoning that led Luhmann to base his theory on communication rather
than action. The first issue was that the actions of psychic systems (minds) and of social
systems is difficult to distinguish using action theory. The interaction of the actor and his
environment can only be described when the actor and environment are placed on the
same analytic level. In Luhmann’s theory, the social system emerges from the
communication between psychic systems (minds), and cannot be understood as a separate
system “acting” on the individual. The second issue is that action theory cannot
differentiate between action and experience. Selection (one of the components of
Luhmann’s definition of communication, to be outlined below) can be viewed as either an
action on the part of the selecting system, or as information about the state of the
selecting system’s environment. The classification of information, Luhmann reasons, is
not causally related to actors, and should be classified as experience, not action.
Autopoietic systems
We will return to the issue of the individual within the social system after further
discussion of 78 | Communication Theory
Sociological Systems Luhmann’s notion of “system”. A system is emergent, in that it
comes into existence as soon as a border can be drawn between a set of communications
and the context of the communication, or the systems environment. A system is always
less complex than its environment – if a system does not reduce the complexity in its
environment, then it cannot perform any function. A system effectively defines itself by
creating and maintaining a border between itself and the environment. In the case of
biological systems, this concept of systemic self-generation was first identified and
examined by Maturana and Varela (1980). They termed the self-generation of biological
systems “autopoietic”. Luhmann believed that autopoiesis could be usefully applied to
social systems as well. Luhmann’s autopoietic systems do more than just define their own
borders. They also produce their own components and organizational structures. The
major benefit of the autopoietic perspective on social systems is that it presents them
without ambiguity, and not as something that can be reduced to anything other than itself,
such as “consciousness” or a sum of actions (Anderson, 2003). Returning to the issue of
the individual, it is again possible to see why individuals cannot be components of social
systems – social systems are comprised of communications and therefore produce
communications, not people (“Niklas Luhmann,” 2005).
Communication as selection
Another Luhmannian conception that might seem counterintuitive is his subjectless,
actionless definition of communication. “Communication is coordinated selectivity. It
comes about only if ego fixes his own state on the basis of uttered information”
(Luhmann, 1995, p. 154). Luhmann criticizes the “transmission” metaphor of
communication because “it implies too much ontology” and that “the entire metaphor or
possessing, having, giving, and receiving” is unsuitable (1995, p. 139). For Luhmann,
communication is not an “action” performed by an “actor” but a selection performed by a
system. This "selection" that results in communication is more similar to Darwin’s
“natural selection” than to the everyday usage of the term. A social system generates
communication much as a natural environment generates biological traits. The selection
process that Luhmann terms communication is actually a synthesis of three separate
selections: the selection of information, the selection of a form, and the selection of an
understanding (Anderson, 2003). Following Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) theory of
information, Luhmann identifies information as a selection from a “repertoire of
possibilities” (1995, p.140). The form of a communication is how the message is
communicated. The selection of understanding refers to what should be understood about
the message. A critical note here is that understanding does not refer to the message’s
reception by a psychic system, but rather the linkage of the message to subsequent
communications (Anderson, 2003). The result of this selection process is the creation of
meaning, which is the medium of communication in social systems (Luhmann, 1995, p.
140). Social (and psychic) systems construct and sustain themselves in this way through
communication. Communications can only exist as a product of social (and psychic)
systems. Society is then a selfdescriptive system that contains its own description.
Luhmann recognizes that this definition is recursive and antithetical to classical scientific
theory (“Soziologische Systemtheorie”, 2005).
Conclusion
The preceding can only serve as the briefest of introductions to an enormous body of
original thought. A lifetime’s work of thousands of pages of published text cannot be
condensed into a few thousand words. This chapter has attempted to trace some of the
major theoretical threads which led to the development of Luhmann’s universal theory of
sociological systems. It presents some of Luhmann’s most engaging and innovative
conceptual formulations. Because Luhmann’s theory represents a major break from the
classical social sciences in structure and content, its comprehension requires a significant
investment of intellectual effort. This effort is worthwhile, as Luhmann’s meticulous
theoretical paradigm provides a useful alternative to other social science traditions.
80 | Communication Theory
Network Society
11 NETWORK SOCIETY
Manuel Castells
live version • discussion • edit lesson • comment • report an error • ask a question
New Economy
New forms of time and space
The concept of an information economy or network economy is undoubtedly related to
new information technologies. According to economists, the definition of an information
economy can mean not only an abundant use of information technologies, but also a new
something that affects the way individuals work, produce, and consume. Human
processes are changed by these technologies. Thus, to understand the information
economy, one should first understand the characteristics of new information technologies,
and then study the paradigm shift into the network society. Castells (1996, 1997a, 2000)
defined the network society as a social structure which is characterized by networked
communications technologies and information processing. This includes such social
phenomena as economic interdependence among nations as well as globalization and
social movements related to individual identity. Based on this definition, Castells (2000)
hypothesized that the network society is organized around two new forms of time and
space: timeless time and the space of flows. In terms of timeless time, new technologies,
such as biotechnologies and communication networks, are breaking down the biological
sense of time as well as logical sequences of time. Castells’ (1997b) example of new
biological reproductive technologies blur life cycle patterns in conditions of parenting by
either slowing down or speeding up the life cycle. Space of flow infers that physical
distances are closer among organizations in the society, and information can be easily
transmitted from one point to another point by new communication technologies. This
means the annihilation of logical concept of space. For example, the hyperlink on
webpage collapses succession of things in time and space span, because it brings one
from one location to another location in an instant. Castells (2000) stated: “Space and
Time, the material foundations of human experience, have been transformed, as the space
of flows dominates the space of places, and timeless time supersedes clock time of the
industrial era” (p. 1).
Global Economy
Since the modern digital networks that the new paradigm emphasizes have no
geographical limitation, the information economy is largely characteristic of global
economy. The global economy can be defined as “a network of financial transactions,
production sites, markets, and labor pools on a planetary scale” (Castells, 2000b, p.695).
This definition places emphasis on the “linkages between economic agents,” which are
essentially horizontal and flexible relationships in which the operating economic agents,
as nodes in networks, enact a project (Fields, 2002, p.56). Thus, these linkages are not
really firms, but instead can be seen as networking nodes. The nature of technologies and
networks generally affects the structure of the economy. The flexibility of modern
business organizations reflects the flexible nature of new networks, so that the linkages
are occasionally transformed and reconstructed for its profitability. Since current
networks have few physical limitations and open systems, they can “increase their value
exponentially as they add nodes” (Castells, 2000c, p.698) and can create infinite linkages
among other agents for their goals. Thus, the structure of information economy is not
constrained by geographical restrictions. At the definition of the global economy, the
planetary scale does not require highly internationalized organizations or wide
geographical ranges. Rather, in terms of the space of flows made of bits and pieces of
places, global economy exists in the reconstructed time and space. Gupta (2003) uses the
example of NASDAQ, an electronically wired stock market, for the case of global
economy. The global economy is a concept that values the speed with which knowledge,
goods, and people are transacted. Spatial distance is no longer significant. On the
contrary, rails and telegraph have also influenced the structure of the past industrial
economy. Richard R. Jone (2000) estimated that new digital revolution in the past half
century is comparable to the role of railroads and telegraphy in the 19th century, in terms
of “information infrastructure” (pp. 68-86). In the case of the 19th century, the railroad
and telegraph, as new networks, contributed to compress geographical distance, which
accelerated industrial development. However, since the networks were less flexible under
their physical limitations, the industrial structure, based on the networks, was less flexible
than today. In the 19th century, the structure of business was generally vertically
integrated, relying on mass-production systems, and mass-distribution networks. In sum,
new technology alters the structure of society and industry by its inherent nature, so that
the structure in the new economy is flexible and horizontal with production and
consumption relying on the new global and digital networks.
Wikibooks | 83
Chapter 11
84 | Communication Theory
Network Society
Skepticism
Castells’ theory revisits Marxist skepticism regarding industrialism. The theory of the
netwprl society uses many concepts and viewpoints traditionally held by Marxists.
Castells replaces the position of capital in industrialism by the concept of information. In
his analysis, Castells recognizes that the rise of informationalism and the nature of
networks has led global societies toward inequality and social exclusion, widening the
cleavage between "generic labour" and "self-reprogrammable labour," global city and
local city, information-rich and information-poor. Thus, Tony Giddens, Alain Touraine,
Peter Hall, and Chris Freeman compare Castells to such sociologists of importance as
Marx and Weber (Cabot, 2003). During the 1970s, Castells exhibited a Marxist
intellectual trajectory, and he confessed that he felt the need of Marxism for probing
political change in information age.
Legacy
Castell's most important contribution was that he attempted to build a grand theory of the
information age in macro-perspective. Even though his work is still progressing, his wide
arrange analysis has provided an in-depth, yet macro understanding about the information
society. The majority of his approach has been empirical in an attempt to diagnose the
contemporary problems in the information society. Castells states his high dissatisfaction
with the superficiality of the prophet that futurists such as Toffler and Gilder had
announced. Although there are some criticisms that Castells overemphasized the negative
effects of the information economy, his analysis for each case, such as the collapse of
Soviet Union, was empirical and very accurate. In addition, Castells analysis is
globalized, even if he warns of the dark side of globalization. As most information
infrastructures are centralized on U.S. or Western European nations, most of the academic
analysis on information economy concerns those countries. However, Castells’ empirical
studies range from the fourth-world countries to the European Union.
86 | Communication Theory
History & Document Notes
Document Information
••••
Wikibooks | 87
Chapter 13
Halavais Joe Petrick Ashley Anker Carolyn Hurley Albertin Derek Kyounghee Youling
Liu Ryankozey
Uses and Gratifications: Halavais,3 · Hagindaz,1 The Frankfurt School: Youling Liu,20 ·
Joe Petrick,11 · Ashley Anker,7 ·
Hagindaz,1
Image Credits
Introduction:
•
88 | Communication Theory
References
14 REFERENCES
Uncertainty Reduction
Ash, M.G. (2000). Heider, Fritz. American National Biography Online. Retrieved
October 10, 2005 from http://www.anb.org/articles/14/14-00910.html Berger, C.R.
(1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of
interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (eds.), Language and social
psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford: Blackwell. Berger, C.R. (1986). Uncertain outcome
values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty reduction theory then and now. Human
Communication Research, 13, 34-38. Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under
uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New
directions in communication research (p. 39-62). Newbury Park, C.A.: Sage. Berger, C.R.
(2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal
of Communication, 55, 415-447. Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Language and
social knowledge. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd. Berger, C.R., & Calabrese,
R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental
theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
Blalock, H.M. (1969). Theory construction: From verbal to mathematical formulations.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Canary, D., & Dainton, M. (Eds.). (2003).
Maintaining relationships through communication. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Charles R. Berger. Contemporary Authors Online. The Gale Group, 2001.
Retrieved October 5, 2005 Wikibooks | 89
Chapter 14 from
http://galenet.galegroup.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains&lo
cID=sunybuf
f_main&srchtp=athr&ca=1&c=1&ste=6&tab=1&tbst=arp&ai=200111&n=10&docNum=
H100012747 9&ST=berger%2C+charles&bConts=141 Claude Elwood Shannon.
Contemporary Authors Online. The Gale Group, 2002. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from
http://galenet.galegroup.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains&lo
cID=sunybuf
f_main&srchtp=athr&ca=6&c=1&ste=6&tab=1&tbst=arp&ai=134449&n=10&docNum=
H100012538 5&ST=shannon&bConts=141 Dainton, M. & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational
uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus
geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 172-189.
Wikibooks | 91
Chapter 14 Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books. Ellul, J.
(1965). Propaganda: the formation of men's attitudes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the
"not-sominimal" consequences of television news programs. The American Political
Science Review, 76(4), 848-858. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. In G. Gunn (Ed.),
Pragmatism and other writings (pp. 1 - 132). New York: Penguin Books. Jowett, G.S., &
O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion (2nd Edition). Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications. Lasswell, H.D. (1938). Propaganda technique in the world
war. New York: Peter Smith. Lasswell, H.D. (1941). Democracy through public opinion.
USA: George Banta Publishing Company. Lasswell, H.D. (1946). Describing the contents
of communication. In B.L. Smith, H.D. Lasswell, and R.D. Casey (Eds.), Propaganda,
communication, and public opinion (pp. 74 – 94). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. Lasswell, H. D. (1953). The structure and function of communication in
society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Co. Levin,
G. (1975). Sigmund Freud. Boston, Massachusetts: Twayne Publishers. Lippmann, W.
(1922). Public opinion. New York: The Free Press. Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom
public. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc. Lippmann, W. (1936). The good
society. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Lippmann, W. (1914). A preface to politics. USA:
The University of Michigan Press. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-
setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. Munson, T.
(1962). The essential wisdom of George Santayana. New York: Columbia University
Press. 92 | Communication Theory
References Rogers, E.M. (1994). A history of communication study: a biographical
approach. New York: The Free Press. Steel, R. (1999). Walter Lippmann and the
American century. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Wallas, G.
(1981). Human nature in politics (Transaction Edition). New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Books. Weingast, D.E. (1949). Walter Lippmann: a study in personal
journalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. White, D.M. (1950).
The "gatekepper": a case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27 , 383-
390.
Wikibooks | 93
Chapter 14 DeFleur, M. L. & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Theories of mass
communication (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Blumler, J., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses
of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-
Rokeach, S. J. (1976). A dependency model of mass media effects. Communication
Research, 3, 3-21. Eighmey, J., & McCord L. (1998). Adding value in the information
age: Uses and gratifications of sites on the world-wide web. Journal of Business
Research, 41(3), 187-194. Ferguson, D. & Perse, E. (2000). The World Wide Web as a
functional alternative to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44 (2),
155-174. Foo, C., & Koivisto, E. (2004, December 7). Live from OP: Grief player
motivations. Paper presented to the Other Players Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Grant, A. E., Zhu, Y., Van Tuyll, D., Teeter, J., Molleda, J. C., Mohammad, Y., &
Bollinger, L. (1998, April). Dependency and control. Paper presented to the Annual
Convention of the Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications, Baltimore,
Maryland. Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In
P.F. Lazarsfeld (ed.), Radio Research 1942-3 (pp. 2-23). London: Sage. James, M. L.,
Wotring, C. E., & Forrest, E. J. (1995). An exploratory study of the perceived benefits of
electronic bulletin board use and their impact on other communication activities.
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(1), 30-50. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998).
The Internet: Vehicle for engagement or a haven for the disaffected? In T. J. Johnson, C.
E. Hays & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the public: how government and the media can
reinvigorate American democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Katz, E. (1959).
Mass communication research and the study of culture. Studies in Public 94 |
Communication Theory Journal of Association of
References Communication, 2, 1-6. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974).
Ulilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.),
The uses of mass communications: Current gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly
Hills: Sage. Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974a). Utilization of mass
communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E. Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass
Communications: Current Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills & London: Sage
Publications. Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974b). Uses of mass
communication by the individual. In W.P. Davison, & F.T.C. Yu (Eds.), Mass
communication research: Major issues and future directions (pp. 11-35). New York:
Praeger. Katz, E. (1987). Communication research since Lazarsfeld. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 51, 525–545. Ko, H. (2002, August). A structural equation model of the uses
and gratifications theory: Ritualized and instrumental Internet usage. Paper presented to
the Communication Theory and Methodology Division, Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Miami, FL. Korenman, J., & Wyatt, N. (1996).
Group dynamics in an e-mail forum. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated
Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 225-242).
Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kuehn, S. A. (1993).
Communication innovation on a BBS: A content analysis. Interpersonal Computing and
Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 1(2). Retrieved June 1st, 2005
from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1993/n2/kuehn.txt. LaRose, R., Mastro, D., &
Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social-cognitive approach to uses
and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19(4), 395-413. Lazarsfeld, P.F., &
Stanton, F. (1944). Radio Research 1942-3. NY: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Lazarsfeld, P.F.,
& Stanton, F. (1949). Communication Research 1948-9. NY: Harper and Row. Wikibooks
| 95 Perspectives on perspectives on
Chapter 14 Lillie, J. (1997). Empowerment potential of Internet use. Retrieved November
20, 2004 from http://www.unc.edu/~jlillie/340.html. Lin, C. A. (1996, August). Personal
computer adoption and Internet use. Paper presented to the annual convention of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA. Lin,
C. A. (1999). Online service adoption likelihood. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2),
79-89. Lin, C. A. (2001). Audience attributes, media supplementation, and likely online
service adoption. Mass Communication and Society, 4(1), 19-38. Littlejohn, S. (2002).
Theories of Human Communication (7th ed.). Albuquerque, NM: Wadsworth. Lowery, S.
A., & DeFleur, M. L. (1983). Milestones in Mass Communication Research. New York:
Longman. Luo, X. (2002). Uses and gratifications theory and e-consumer behaviors: A
structural equation modeling study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 2(2). Maddox, K.
(1998, October 26). E-commerce becomes reality. Advertising Age, pS1(1). McGuire, W.
J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J. G. Blumler & E.
Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
McKenna, A., & Bargh, A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4(1): 57-75. McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Browmn, J. (1972). The television
audience: A revised perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication
(pp. 135-65). Middlesex, England: McQuail, D. (1983). Mass Communication Theory
(1st ed.). London: Sage. McQuail, D. (1987). Mass Communication Theory (2nd ed.).
London: Sage. McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication: An Introduction (3rd ed.,).
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Nagel, K. S., Hudson, J. M., &
Abowd, G. D. (2004, November 6-10). Predictors of availability in home life context-
mediated communication. Paper presented to the 2004 ACM conference on 96 |
Communication Theory Penguin.
References Computer supported cooperative work, Chicago, IL. Nortey, G. (1998).
Benefits of on-line resources for sufferers of chronic illnesses. Master’s thesis, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa. Palmgreen, P., Wenner, L. A., & Rayburn II, J. D. (1980).
Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news.
Communication Research, 7(2), 161-192. Palmgreen, P., & Rayburn, J. D. (1985). An
expectancy-value approach to media gratifications. In K. E. Rosengren, P. Palmgreen &
L. A. Wenner (Eds.), Media Gratification Research: Perspectives (pp. 61-72). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage. Parker, B. J., & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications
perspective on the Internet as a new information source. American Business Review,
18(June), 43-49. Pavlik, J. V., & Everette, E. D. (1996). New Media Technology and the
Information Superhighway. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Piirto, R. A. (1993). Electronic
communities: Sex, law and politics online. Master’s thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY. Rafaeli, S. (1986). The electronic bulletin board: A computer-driven mass medium.
Computers and the Social Sciences, 2(3), 123-136 . Rossi, E. (2002). Uses &
gratifications/dependency theory. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/7-4-uses.htm. Rubin, A. M., & Windahl, S.
(1982). Mass media uses and dependency: A social systems approach to uses and
gratifications. Paper presented to the meeting of the International Communication
Current
Association, Boston, MA. Ruggiero, T. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st
century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3-37. Ryan, J. (1995). A uses and
gratifications study of the Internet social interaction site LambdaMOO: Talking with
“Dinos.” Master’s thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, IN. Schlinger, M. J. (1979). A
profile of responses to commercials. Journal of Advertising Research, 19(2), Wikibooks |
97
Chapter 14 37–46. Schumann, D. W., & Thorson, E. (Eds.) (1999). Advertising and the
World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Severin W. J., & Tankard,
J. W. (1997). Uses of Mass Media. In W. J. Severin, & J. W. Tankard (Eds.)
Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media (4th ed.).
Longman. Sun, T., Chang, T., & Yu, G. (1999, August). Social structure, media system
and audiences in China: Testing the uses and dependency model. Paper presented to the
annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, New Orleans, LA. Tossberg, A. (2000). Swingers, singers and born-
again Christians: An investigation of the uses and gratifications of Internet-relay chat.
Master’s thesis, Iowa State Univeristy, Ames, Iowa. UPENN.EDU. (2001). Notable
Teachers, World-Class Reputations. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/asc/Application/Faculty/Bios.asp Waner, W.L., & Henry, W.E.
(1948). The radio day-time serial: A symbolic analysis. In Psychological Monographs,
37(1), 7-13, 55-64. Watson, J. & Hill, A. (1997). A dictionary of communications studies.
NY: Arnold Publishing. Wenner, L. A. (1982). Gratifications sought and obtained in
program dependency: A study of network evening news programs and 60 Minutes.
Communication Research, 9, 539-560. Yankelovich Partners. (1995, October 10).
Cybercitizen: A profile of online users. The Yankelovich Cybercitizen Report,
Birmingham, AL. New York:
98 | Communication Theory
References Adorno, T. W. (2001b). On the fetish character in music and the regression of
listening. In J. M. Bernstein (Ed.), The culture industry (pp. 29-60). New York:
Routledge. Agger, B. (1995). Marcuse in postmodernity. In J. Bokina & T. J. Lukes
(Eds.), Marcuse: From the new left to the next left (pp. 27-40). Lawrence, KS: University
of Kansas Press. Alway, J. (1995). Critical theory and political possibilities: Conceptions
of emancipatory politics in the works of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Brunkhorst, H. (1999). Adorno and critical theory. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press. Chambers, S. (2004). Politics of critical theory. In F. L. Rush
(Ed.), Cambridge companion to critical theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, D. (1996). The culture industry revisited: Theodor W. Adorno on mass culture.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An
introduction. London: Verso. Friedman, G. (1981). The political philosophy of the
Frankfurt School. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hohendahl, P. U. (1995).
Prismatic thought: Theodor W. Adorno. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. W., & Schmid Noerr, G. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment:
Philosophical fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jäger, L. (2004).
Adorno: A political biography. New Haven, CT: London. Kellner, D. (1991).
Introduction. In H. Marcuse(Ed.), One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of
advanced industrial society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Marcuse, H. (1991). One-
dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press. Morris, M. (2001). Rethinking the communicative turn: Adorno,
Habermas, and the problem of communicative freedom. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press. Wikibooks | 99 Press.
Chapter 14 Morrison, D. E. (1978). Kultur and culture: The case of Theodor W. Adorno
and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Social Research (44), 331-355. Reitz, C. (2000). Art, alienation,
and the humanities: A critical engagement with Herbert Marcuse. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press. Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School: Its history,
theories, and political significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wikibooks | 101
Chapter 14 Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing 1998 conference, Technology and literacy
in a wired academy, Minneapolis, MN. Farrell, T. J. (1991). Secondary orality and
consciousness today. In B. E. Gronbeck, T. J. Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media,
consciousness, and culture: Explorations of Walter Ong's thought (pp. 194209). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. Farrell, T. J. (2000). Walter Ong's contributions to cultural studies: The
phenomenology of the word and I-thou communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., Coleman, W. E., & Sproule, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). The
rhetoric of western thought: From the Mediterranean world to the global setting (8th ed.).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of
the savage mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goody, J., & Watt, I. P.
(1963). The consequences of literacy. Comparitive Studies in Society and History, 5, 304-
345. Gronbeck, B. E. (1991). The rhetorical studies tradition and Walter J. Ong: Oral-
literacy theories of mediation, culture, and consciousness. In B. E. Gronbeck, T. J.
Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media, consciousness, and culture: Explorations of Walter
Ong’s thought (pp. 5-24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Havelock, E. A. (1963). Preface to
Plato. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press of Harvard University Press. Havelock, E. A.
(1982). The Literate Revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. Innis, H. A. (1951). The bias of communication. Toronto: The
University of Toronto Press. Kaufer, D. S., & Butler, B. S. (1996). Rhetoric and the arts
of design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Lord, A. B. (1960).
The singer of tales. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 102 | Communication
Theory
References McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic
man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media:
The extensions of man. New York: McGraw Hill. Montenyohl, E. L. (1995). Oralities
(and literacies): Comments on the relationship of contemporary folklorists and literary
studies. In C. L. Preston (Ed.), Folklore, literature, and cultural studies: Collected essays
(pp. 240-256). New York: Garland Publishing. Moss, J. D. (2004). Rhetoric, the measure
of all things. MLN, 119, 556-565. Neil, S. D. (1993). Clarifying McLuhan: An
assessment of process and product. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Ong, W. J. (1952).
The Mechanical Bride: Christen folklore of industrial man. Review article of The
Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man. By Herbert Marshall McLuhan. Social
Order 2 (Feb.), 79-85. Ong, W. J. (1958a). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue:
From the art of discourse to the art of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ong, W. J. (1958b). Ramus and Talon inventory: A short-title inventory of the published
works of Peter Ramus (1515-1572), and of Omer Talon (ca. 1510-1562) in their original
and in their variously altered forms. With related material: 1. The Ramist controversies: A
descriptive catalogue. 2. Agricola check list: A short-title inventory of some printed
editions and printed compendia of Rudolph Agricola’s Dialectical inventory (De
inventione dialectica). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ong, W. J. (1962a).
Five: System, space, and intellect in renaissance symbolism. In W. J. Ong, The barbarian
within: And other fugitive essays and studies (pp. 68-87). New York and London: The
Macmillan Company. Ong, W. J. (1962b). Eight: Educationists and the tradition of
learning. In W. J. Ong, The barbarian within: And other fugitive essays and studies (pp.
149-163). New York and London: The Wikibooks | 103
Chapter 14 Macmillan Company. Ong, W. J. (1962c). Two: A dialectic of aural and
objective correlatives. In W. J. Ong, The barbarian within: And other fugitive essays and
studies (pp. 26-40). New York and London: Company. Ong, W. J. (1967a). The presence
of the word: Some prolegomena for cultural and religious history. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press. Ong, W. J. (1967b). The word and the sensorium. In W. J.
Ong, The presence of the word: Some prolegomena for cultural and religious history.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Ong, W. J. (1968). Knowledge in time.
In W. J. Ong, Knowledge and the future of man: An international symposium (pp. 3-38).
New York, Chicago, and San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. Ong, W. J.
(1971). Rhetoric and the origins of consciousness. In W. J. Ong, Rhetoric, romance, and
technology (pp. 1-22). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Ong, W. J. (1977a).
Typographic rhapsody: Ravisius Textor, Zwinger, and Shakespeare. In W. J. Ong,
Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of consciousness and culture (pp. 146-
188). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Ong, W. J. (1977b). "I see what you
say": sense analogues for intellect. In W. J. Ong, Interfaces of the word: Studies in the
evolution of consciousness and culture (pp. 121-144). Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word.
London and New York: Methuen. Parry, M. (1928). L’Ephithete traditionelle dans
Homere. Paris: Societe Editrice Les Belles Lettres. Payne, D. (1991). Characterology,
media, and rhetoric. In B. E. Gronbeck, T. J. Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media,
consciousness, and culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s thought (pp. 223-236).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 104 | Communication Theory The Macmillan
References Poster, C. (2001). Being, time, and definition: Toward a semiotics of figural
rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 33, 116-136. Silverstone, R. (1991). Television, rhetoric,
and the return of the unconscious in secondary oral culture. In B. E. Gronbeck, T. J.
Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media, consciousness, and Explorations of Walter Ong's
thought (pp. 147-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Soukup, P. A. (2004). Walter J. Ong, S.
J.: A retrospective. Communication Research Trends, 23, 3-23. Sreberny-Mohammadi, A.
(1991) Media integration in the Third World: An Ongian look at Iran. In B. E. Gronbeck,
T. J. Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media, consciousness, and culture: Explorations of
Walter Ong’s thought (pp. 133-146). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Swearingen, C. J. (1991).
Discourse, difference, and gender: Walter J. Ong’s contributions to feminist language
studies. In B. E. Gronbeck, T. J. Farrell, & P. A. Soukup (Eds.), Media, consciousness,
and culture: Explorations of Walter Ong’s thought (pp. 210-222). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. culture:
Walter J. Ong (2005, September 30). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
September 30, 2005, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ong. Welch, K. E. (1999).
Electric rhetoric: Classical rhetoric, oralism, and a new literacy. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Press. Youngkin, B. R. (1995). The contribution of Walter J. Ong to the
study of rhetoric: History and metaphor. Lewiston, NY: Mellen University Press.
Diffusion of Innovations
Alexander, P. J. (1994). Entry barriers, release behavior, and multiproduct firms in the
music recording industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 9, 85-98. Allen, D. (1983).
New telecommunication services: Network externalities and critical mass.
Telecommunications Policy, 12, 57-271.
Wikibooks | 105
Chapter 14 Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Mentzel, H. (1966). Medical innovation: Diffusion of a
medical drug among doctors. Indianapolis, MN: Bobbs-Merrill. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R.
H. (1986). A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media
richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571. Deutschmann, P. J., &
Fals Borda, O. (1962). Communication and adoption patterns in an Andean villege. San
Jose, Costa Rice: Programa Intermericano de Information Popular. Chapin, F.S. (1928).
Cultural change. New York: Century Company. Lasswell, H. D. (1953). The structure and
function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas.
New York: Happer & Co. Lowery, S.A., & DeFleur, M.L. (1995). Milestones in Mass
Communication research. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA. Markus, M.L.
(1987). Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media: Universal access,
interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14, 491-511. Rogers, E.M.
(1976). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 290–301.
Rogers, E.M. (1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach. New
York: Free Press. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York:
Free Press. Rogers, E., & Singhal, A. (1996). Diffusion of innovations. In Salwen and
Stacks, op. cit., (pp. 409420). Ryan & Gross (1943), “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn
in Two Iowa Communities, ” Rural Sociology 8 (March): 15. Saga, V. L., & Zmud, R. W.
(1994). The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. In L.
Levine (Ed.), Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology (pp.
6786). Amsterdam: North-Holland. 106 | Communication Theory
References Singhal, A. (2005). Forum: the life and work of Everett Rogers- some
personal reflections. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 4. Tarde, G. (1903). The laws
of imitiation, (E. C. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Holt. Wildemuth, B. M. (1992). An
empirically grounded model of the adoption of intellectual technologies. Journal of the
American Society for Information Sciences, 43, 210-224. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., &
Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
Sociological Systems
Anderson, N. A. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault,
Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Bristol: Policy Press. Baecker, D. (2001). Why systems?.
Theory, Culture & Society. 18(1), 59-74. Baecker, D. (2005, 3 April). Niklas Luhmann.
International Society for the Systems Sciences: Project ISSS. Retrieved 27 October 2005,
from http://projects.isss.org/Main/NiklasLuhmannByDirkBaecker. Bardmann, T.M. &
Baecker, D. (Eds.). (1999). ‘Gibt es eigentlich den Berliner Zoo noch?’ Erinnerungen an
Niklas Luhmann. Konstaz: UVK Universitätsverlag. Durkheim, E. (1950). The rules of
sociological method (S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). New York: The Free Press.
(Original work published 1895) Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. (J.
A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work
published 1897) Habermas, J. & Luhmann, N. (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder
Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung?. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Hagen,
W. (Ed.). (2004). Warum haben Sie keinen Fernseher, Herr Luhmann? Berlin:
Kulturverlag Kadmos. Heyl, B. (1968). The Harvard “Pareto Circle”. Journal of The
History of the Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 316-34. Retrieved 27 October 2005, from
Wikibooks | 107
Chapter 14 http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/circle.html. Hornung, B.R.
(1998). Niklas Luhmann 1927-1998 [Obituary written for the ISA]. Retrieved 27 October
2005, from http://mgterp.freeyellow.com/academic/luh-obit_rc51.html. Leydesdorff, L.
(2002). The communication turn in the theory of social systems. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 19, 129-136. Luhmann, N. (1982). Differentiation of society (S.
Holmes & C. Larmore, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. Luhmann, N.
(1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Columbia University Press. Luhmann, N.
(1995). Social Systems (J. Bednarz, Jr. with D. Baecker, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford
University Press. (Original work published 1984) Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft
der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis
and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Müller,
M. (2005). Biographie Niklas Luhmann. 50 Klassiker der Soziologie. Retrieved 27
October 2005, from
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/sozwww/agsoe/lexikon/klassiker/luhmann/26bio.htm. Niklas
Luhmann. (2005, 26 October). Wikipedia: Die freie Enzyklopädie. Retrieved 27 October
2005, from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann. Parsons, T. (1951). The social
system. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical
theory of communication. Urbana, I.L.: University of Illinois Press. Soziologische
Systemtheorie. (2005, 15 October). Wikipedia: Die freie Enzyklopädie. Retrieved 27
October 2005, from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soziologische_Systemtheorie. Stichweh,
R. (2000). Systems theory as an alternative to action theory? The rise of 'communication'
as a theoretical option. Acta Sociologica, 43(1), 5-14. Trevino, A. J. (Ed.). Talcott Parsons
today. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. 108 | Communication Theory
References von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general systems theory. British
Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1, 139-164. von Bertalanffy, L. (1976). General
system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: Braziller. Wallace, R.
A. & Wolf, A, (1999). Contemporary sociological theory: Expanding the classical
tradition, fifth edition, Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Network Society
Alvarez, I., & Kilbourn, B. (2002). Mapping the information society literature: topics,
perspectives, and root metaphors. First Monday, 7. Retrieved from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_1/alvarez/index.html Arunachalam, S. (1999).
Information and knowledge in the age of electronic communication: A developing
country perspective. Journal of Information Science, 25, 465-177. Cabot, J.E. (2003). The
information age; Manuel Castells; the rise of the network society. Research Policy, 32,
1141. Carnoy, M. (1999). Sustaining flexibility: work, family, and community in the
Information Age. New York: Russell Sage. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network
society. New York: Blackwell. Castells, M. (1997a). The Power of Identity. Oxford:
Blackwell. Castells, M. (1997b). An introduction to the information age. City, 7, p. 6-16.
Castells, M. (1999). The Social Implications of Information & Communication
Technologies. UNESCO's World Social Science Report. Retrieved November 8. 2005
from http://www.chet.org.za/oldsite/castells/socialicts.html Castells, M. (2000a). End of
Millennium. Oxford: Blackwell. Castells, M. (2000b). Materials for an exploratory theory
of the network society. The British Journal of
Wikibooks | 109
Chapter 14 Sociology, 51, 5-24. Castells, M.(2000c). Toward a sociology of the network
society. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 693699. Castells, M.(2001, May 9). Conversation
with History[Webcast], UCTV. Retrieved November 8, 2005 from
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/7234.rm Castells, M.(2004).
Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: a Theoretical Blueprinting, The
network society: a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Duff, A. F. (1998). Daniel Bell's theory of the information society. Journal of Information
Science, 24, 373-393. Fields, G. (2002). From Communications and Innovation, to
Business Organization and Territory: The Production Networks of Swift Meat Packing
and Dell Computer, BRIE. Retrieved November 8, 2005 from
http://brie.berkeley.edu/~briewww/publications/149ch2.pdf Gerstner, J. (1999). The
Other Side of Cyberspace: An Interview with Manuel Castells, CyberScientist, IABC's
Communication World Magazine, March 1999. Retrieved November 8, 2005 from
http://www.interanetsider.com/interviews/cyberspace/index.html Gupta, D. (2003).
Meeting “Felt Aspirations”: Globalization and Equity from an Anthropological
Perspective, presented in the 4th Annual Global Development Conferences, Global
Development Conference, January 2003, Cairo, Egypt. Hutchins, B. (2004). Castells,
regional news media and the information age. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural
Studies, 18, 577–590. Jone, R. R. (2000). Recasting the Information Infrastructure for the
Industrial Age. A National Transformed by Information, Chandler, A. D. & Cortada, J.
W(ED.). Kaldor, M. (1998). End of millennium: The information age: Economy, society,
and culture. Regional Studies, 32, 899-900. Lucas, H. (1999). "Information technology
and the productivity paradox". New York: Oxford 110 | Communication Theory
References University Press. Winkel, O. (2001). The democratic potentials of interactive
information technologies under discussion. International Journal of Communications Law
and Policy.
Wikibooks | 111
Chapter 15
0. PREAMBLE
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful
document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to
copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or
noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way
to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications
made by others. This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works
of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU
General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software. We have
designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free
software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing
the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software
manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is
published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose
purpose is instruction or reference.
Wikibooks | 113
Chapter 15
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or
noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice
saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you
add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical
measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you
distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section
3. You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may
publicly display copies.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of
the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires
Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all
these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the
back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of
these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally
prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying
with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and
satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects. If the
required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first
ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto
adjacent pages. If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with
each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location
from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-
standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added
material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you
begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will
remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you
distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to
the public. It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document
well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide
you with an updated version of the Document.
4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of
sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely
this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing
distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it.
In addition, you must do these things in the 114 | Communication Theory
GNU Free Documentation License Modified Version: A. Use in the Title Page (and on
the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous
versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the
Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of
that version gives permission. B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons
or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version,
together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal
authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. C. State
on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher. D.
Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. E. Add an appropriate copyright
notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices. F. Include,
immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to
use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the
Addendum below. G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and
required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice. H. Include an unaltered
copy of this License. I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified
Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the
Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as
given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the
previous sentence. J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for
public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations
given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the
"History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least
four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers
to gives permission. K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications",
Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of
each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein. L. Preserve
all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles.
Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles. M. Delete
any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified
Version. N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to
conflict in title with any Invariant Section. O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers. If the
Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as
Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your
option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to
the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be
distinct from any other section titles. You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements",
provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various
parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an
organization as the authoritative definition of a standard. Wikibooks | 115
Chapter 15 You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a
passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in
the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text
may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document
already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by
arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add
another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous
publisher that added the old one. The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not
by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply
endorsement of any Modified Version.
5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under
the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in
the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified,
and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and
that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers. The combined work need only contain
one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with
a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different
contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in
parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else
a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant
Sections in the license notice of the combined work. In the combination, you must
combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one
section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements",
and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled
"Endorsements."
6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released
under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various
documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow
the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other
respects. You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it
individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the
extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim
copying of that document.
8. TRANSLATION
Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the
Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations
requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations
of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant
Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the
Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original
English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers.
In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License
or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail. If a section in the Document is
Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to
Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.
9. TERMINATION
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly
provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or
distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full
compliance.