Introduction
Communication is the act of transferring information from one place, person, or group to another. The transmission of the message from sender to recipient can be affected by a vast range of things (emotions, the cultural situation, location). Communication is quite a complicated process with many particles, variables, and aspects that should be considered. Robert Craig’s approach to communication traditions is one of the most basic. He starts with the notion that many definitions of communication exist. Craig divides seven communication traditions: cybernetic, socio-psychological, socio-cultural, critical, rhetorical, phenomenological, and semiotic. Communication theory is enormously rich in the range of ideas that fall within its scope (Craig, 1999, 119). Communication scholars approach this issue from different angles of perception. Likewise, Craig’s theories differ in many critical respects; they aspire to no general idea. However, Craig was one of the first to describe these conflicting approaches and bring them together.
The Semiotic Tradition
Semiotics, or semiology, is an interdisciplinary field of research that studies signs and sign systems that store and transmit information. In the field of view of semiotics are various sign systems, in particular: natural (spoken) and artificial (formal) languages, sentence systems of scientific theories, signaling systems in society and nature, systems of states, input and output signals of various machines and automata, programs and algorithms for them and intermediary languages for “communication” with them of a person and many others. As sign systems, one can also consider artificial languages: the “language” of scientific theory, “languages” “languages” of fine arts, cinema, theater, music, various types of visual sign systems – from road signs to painting –, as well as any complex control systems considered from the standpoint of cybernetics: machines, devices, and their circuits, living organisms, their subsystems, for example, the central nervous system; industrial and social associations and society as a whole. Within the framework of semiotics as a single complex direction, it is possible to interpret these complex systems as systems of signs that can, in principle, serve to express some content, and analogies in their structure justify the joint consideration of extremely diverse sign systems.
The semiotic tradition is one of the concepts that points out the importance of signs and symbols and how they represent ideas and concepts through our own experience and perception. Thanks to the peculiarities of perception, people interpret the meanings of objects present in reality and endow them with a symbolic meaning. The main concepts of this theory are signs and symbols. The sign is “a stimulus denoting or pointing to some other state,” and a symbol is “denoting a complex sign with many meanings, including highly personal ones” (Littlejoh et al., 2016, 91). Signs are more related to objects present in reality, and symbols are associated with their subjective perception. Thus, meaning is made up of the relationship between the object, the sign, and the person who perceives them. From a semiotic perspective, the problems or insecurities that communicators typically face are related to misinterpretation and subsequent misunderstanding of shared ideas, thoughts, and feelings through sign systems.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Semiotic Tradition
According to the semiotic tradition, communication is the mediator of socially shared sign meanings necessary for common understanding and effective social interaction. Signs and symbols are productive agents of thought in society and are used to convey meaning during the interaction. The meanings of signs and symbols must be communicated and interpreted socially during interaction to avoid misinterpretation and ensure effective social interaction.
The semiotic approach is one of the most important in modern communication theory. The undoubted advantages of the semiotic tradition include the fact that it considers differences in the possibilities of perceiving information of people belonging to different cultures. So, for example, from the point of view of the semiotic tradition, a possible misunderstanding in the communication of people who perceive signs subjectively in different ways becomes obvious. A person who knows that red can mean danger will not be able to adequately interact with a person from Central Africa, where red is the color of life, without knowing and taking into account this factor that distinguishes them from each other.
The semiotic tradition is suitable for an approach to communication that pays attention to whether the message’s addressee can adequately perceive it. In addition to semiotics and linguistics, the semiotic tradition also contains the influence of the theoretical perspectives of rhetoric and philosophy in the ability to convey information correctly, the difference in the interpretation of messages due to differences in thinking The semiotic paradigm of communication has good explanatory potential since it relies on a practical metadiscourse related to the fact that communication is accessible when we speak a common language. It relies on the fact that words can mean different things to different people, so there is always a danger of communication failures; meanings are often conveyed indirectly or in subtle nuances of behavior that may go unnoticed; specific ideas are easier to express in certain means. Understanding communication as a sign-mediated interaction makes it possible to explain and improve the use of language and other sign systems as intermediaries to achieve mutual understanding between subjects.
The semiotic tradition perceives the language as a sign system; it believes that there are subtleties and various interpretations in sign systems. The disadvantage of the semiotic tradition is the perception of language from only one point of view. The semiotic approach does not adequately consider the relationship between language and speech, which are complex and contradictory. There is no definition of the general structural characteristics that utterances used as a unit of communication are subject to in the semiotic tradition. The semiotic approach does not consider language as a set of interrelated systems and their equivalents and oppositions. On the other hand, semiotics can seem attractive, insightful, or even absurd to the average person when it questions other conventional wisdom, such as that ideas exist in people’s heads, that words have precise meanings; that meanings can be articulated, that communication is a voluntary act, and that we use signs and means of communication as tools for presenting and exchanging thoughts.
The Semiotic Tradition in a Communication Field: Marketing
One of the most widespread examples of the semiotic approach to communication can be found in marketing. Whatever concept a brand seeks to convey, it must consider the cultural paradigm in which it is created and appeal with signs that are understandable to representatives of this culture. Any relevant visual components that can evoke association – statues, photographs, record covers, movie posters, etc. – should be analyzed. Learning the connections that occur in people’s minds when recognizing signs can be a successful concept for business development.
“Apple” is a typical example of a brand intertwined with an identity. People do not queue for hours to buy smartphones or laptops; they stand in line to purchase status and a particular lifestyle. “Apple’s” messaging had to pass through filters in the subconscious of its consumers, one of which is the perception of sings. The creators of the brads encode values and meaning into the brand message, both implicitly and explicitly. “Apple” cultivated a culture of knowledge, creativity, and innovation back in 1984 when they introduced their new Macintosh computer to the world. Associations about success and comfort are associated with the excellent work of people who instilled in people’s minds strong associations that appear when looking at the icon of a bitten apple. We are constantly surrounded by symbols that brands use to convey the message they need in everyday life.
The Cybernetic Tradition
Cybernetics is an interdisciplinary science about the general patterns of obtaining, storing, transforming, and transmitting information in complex control systems, whether they are machines, living organisms, or society. This is an attempt by scientists to create a general mathematical theory of control of complex systems, combine seemingly incompatible, and find commonality where it cannot be. Like any science, cybernetics has its own laws and principles. The main ones are the “black box” principle and the law of feedback. Social cybernetics is a branch of sociology based on general systems theory and cybernetics. Its task is to study the patterns of a self-organizing social system and create an optimal model for managing social processes.
The principle of the “black box” allows to study the behavior of the system, how it reacts to external influences, and at the same time abstract from its internal structure. The feedback law lies in a simple fact: if there is a control object and a control subject, then in order to develop adequate control actions, having information about the state of the object, the subject can make an adequate decision on its control.
Historically, the cybernetic or process-informational approach was the first from which the modern science of communication began. Communication in the cybernetic tradition is viewed as an act of information processing, which makes it possible to explain how all kinds of complex systems, living or non-living, macro or micro, can function and why functional impairments often occur. To summarize the essence of the transmission model, cybernetics represents communication problems as failures in the flow of information resulting from noise, information overloads, or inconsistencies in structure and function. As resources for solving communication problems, it offers various information processing technologies and appropriate system design and analysis methods, management, and therapeutic intervention in a “softer” version.
The cybernetic tradition explores the general workings of communication concerning systems. A system can be described as “a system of parts or variables that influence each other and shape and control the character of the whole system” (Littlejohn et al, 2021, 55). The cybernetic tradition can be seen in the example of a classroom with students. Relationships between students and teacher, students and each other, subject matter, classroom environment, student cultural diversity, and homework come together to form a cycle of networks and connections.
From the point of view of the cybernetic tradition, communication is a vital process that allows information to flow between parts of a system, allowing the system to function effectively with little or no interference. Systems are social structures made up of interdependent components that work together to create a function worth more than the sum of the different parts. Systems interact with their environment to regulate themselves and maintain order and balance with their environment through feedback. Communication influences, shapes, and controls the character of the entire system and helps the system achieve balance. The whole system can fail if there are communication problems. Systems occur in various contexts, including sign, language, cognitive, and social relationships.
Though rooted in technological functionalist scientific thought, cybernetics emphasizes the problems of technological control, the complexity and unpredictability of feedback processes, and the ever-present possibility that acts of communication, despite our good intentions, will have unexpected consequences. The tremendous practical lesson that cybernetics teaches is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Hence, we as communicators need to transcend individual boundaries, look at the communication process from a broader, systemic point of view, and not hold individuals responsible for systemic outcomes that none of us can control. In general, cybernetics, in contrast to other traditions of communication theory, cultivates a practical approach that takes into account the complexity of communication problems and challenges many conventional assumptions about the differences between human and nonhuman information processing systems (Craig, 1999, 141). The cybernetic tradition, in a sense, simplifies communication theory, reducing it to a production scheme that applies more to the realm of programming than to human interaction.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cybernetic Tradition
Cybernetics as a method of theoretical analysis of communication is credible partly because it refers rhetorically to the usual provisions of everyday materialism, functionalism, and rationalism. For cybernetics, the difference between thought and matter is only functional, like the difference between software and hardware. Thought is nothing more than an act of processing information; therefore, it is pretty logical to say that individual thought acts as “intrapersonal” communication, that groups and organizations also think, entire communities believe, and eventually robots and artificial organisms will understand.
The cybernetic tradition is interesting, but sometimes it can seem unsustainable from a common-sense point of view. It draws surprising analogies between living and non-living systems, questions established ideas about the meaning of consciousness and emotions, and challenges our usual distinctions between thought and matter, form and content, real and artificial. Cybernetics challenges the simplistic notions of a linear relationship of cause and effect by appealing to the more familiar idea that communication processes can be incredibly complex and subtle.
The Cybernetic Tradition in a Communication Field: Family
The system results from the contributions of many other parts, which together form something more than the sum total of the original parts. A good example of the functioning of the cybernetic tradition in everyday communication is a family. The family is not just a collection of people related by blood; the family has an organized system of relationships with each other. There are ways in which they interact with each other and influence each other in making certain decisions. From a family communication perspective, we view communication not just as one aspect of a family, but as the central process by which families are literally talked into being, that is, how families are co-constructed, negotiated, and legitimated in discourse (Braithwaite et al., 2017, 25). The family has a hierarchical system relationship; each member has a special role; every family has a built-in hierarchy. Each family has a way to communicate with family members to convey a particular message in a certain way. Some changes take place within and within the family after a while. The family system as a whole is more than just the sum of its individual members, the family is capable of self-regulation, and family members also communicate in specific established ways. In the same way, cybernetics operates as a tradition of complex systems in which complex elements influence each other.
The Critical Tradition
For critical communication tradition, the main communication problem in society is caused by material and ideological forces that hinder or distort discursive reflection. This approach to communication, according to Craig, makes it possible to explain how ideological attitudes support social injustice and how justice can potentially be restored by communicative practices that make critical reflection possible (Craig, 1999, 144). For a critical theorist, an activity that reproduces the existing social order and even creates a new social order is not yet true communication. For the social order to be based on genuine mutual understanding, communicators need to articulate, question, and openly discuss differences in their judgments of the objective world, moral standards, and personal experience from time to time. Thus, communication is a critical discourse that allows discursive reflection on recognized social distortions and injustices.
Discursive reflection refers to honest communication that reflects freely and critically examines habits, beliefs, and power structures in society that are not ordinarily objectionable. Critical theorists cannot take local practices and empirical communication results at face value. Conflict, distortion, injustice, and domination are an integral part of human society. Communication can also cause social inequality when social discourse promotes dominance, exclusion, segregation, or marginalization. Easily recognizable examples of critical approaches are Marxism, postmodernism, and feminism.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Critical Tradition
Strictly speaking, the critical tradition associated with the Frankfurt School and, above all, with the work of Jurgen Habermas does not pretend to give an exhaustive definition of communication and build universal explanatory models based on this category. Instead, it tries to formulate some of the requirements that proper communication must meet in human society for this society to become better. Habermas believes that communication, which involves only transmission – obtaining information or reaching a formal agreement on meanings, is imperfect, distorted, incomplete. Proper communication takes place only in the process of discursive reflection, which strives for ideal completeness that can never be fully achieved, but the reflective process itself is liberating. Discursive reflection here is a way of forming communicative practices, tuned to the search for true understanding, asking questions about seemingly obvious things, and rejecting dictatorship and dominance in interaction both between individuals and between institutions and individuals.
Other theoretical traditions criticize the critical theory itself for politicizing science and education and upholding a universal normative standard of communication, a priori based on ideology. Some critics of the critical theory believe that science should say nothing about normative standards; others argue that normative standards should be based on objective empirical criteria or can only apply to local cultures and certain communicative practices (Craig, 1999, 145). In response, critical theory criticizes other theoretical traditions for their blindness to their own ideological attitudes and false claims of political neutrality. Local practices and empirical communication results cannot be taken at face value for critical theorists. Still, they must be evaluated in the light of a reflective analysis of the distorting effects of power and ideology in society.
As these discussions continue, the most helpful contribution of critical theory (other than its obvious connection to the discourse of social injustice) is perhaps the cultivation of a higher appreciation of discursive reflection as a practical possibility inherent in communication in general. Communication is not only something we do; it is something we talk about repeatedly in a way that is practically related to our actions. This practical metadiscourse can always develop into a genuinely reflective discourse that combines communication theory with practice. A critical tradition of communication theory thus confirms that reflective discourse and, therefore, communication theory itself, have important roles to play in our everyday understanding and practice of communication (Craig, 1999, 149). Thus, the importance of critical theory, despite its inconsistency, cannot be denied: this is another approach that allows us to analyze the impact of different methods of communication on the life of society.
The Critical Tradition in a Communication Field: Mass Media
The critical tradition is mainly applicable to the description of political, economic, or cultural phenomena. To talk about the mass influence on society through communication, a good example of the implementation of the critical tradition is the media. Critical media theories not only reveal the features of managing mass consciousness and behavior through modern media technologies but also destroy the illusion of the independent role of the media as the “fourth estate”: in the conditions of the most important socio-political processes and transformations, the media are not independent actors, but serve as an instrument in the hands of the political, economic and other elites in the management of the state and society. The media can act as an ideological force that influences discursive reflection. As a source of mass influence, the media can also influence social injustice by raising the level of public consciousness. No wonder the media often covers sensitive social topics sometimes, they become the only way to affect the situation and solve the problem of ordinary citizens.
Conclusion
Communication is a complex phenomenon, the scientific knowledge of which is the task of many disciplines. This is what determined such a characteristic of communication theory as multi-paradigm and interdisciplinarity. Within the framework of each paradigm, its own consistent understanding of the category of communication functions and its definition is formulated. Robert Craig did a great job of summarizing the theoretical traditions that had developed by the beginning of the 21st century in the study of communication. Craig’s metamodel of communication theory successfully organizes and unifies existing disparate theories, drawing on the historical roots of the field of communication theory to articulate seven traditions. Each of these traditions has a unique character and conceptualization of communication. Still, there are also common goals and contentious disagreements between traditions that create the possibility of a metatheoretical dialogue between communication researchers. The semiotic tradition considers communication as an intersubjective interaction that exists due to the signs and the participants in communication that these signs perceive. The cybernetic tradition considers communication as a mechanical act of information transfer and processing. The critical theory views communication as a process in which all assumptions can be challenged. These three concepts perceive communication differently and approach a complex issue from opposite angles. The existence of a complete description of conflicting approaches allows researchers to find new answers to questions of communication problems.
References
Braithwaite D.O., Suter E. A. & Floyd K. (2017). Engaging theories in family communication: multiple perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
Littlejohn S.W., Foss K.A., Oetzel J.G. (2021). Theories of human communication: twelfth edition. Waveland Press.
Robert T. C. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9 (2), 119-161. Web.