Communication Theory

Communication as a field of the social sciences has become of great interest in the last two centuries, because it is well linked to the development of areas as sociology, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, economy, technologies, politics, anthropology and anything concern with human relations. It is of course because any human interaction is actually communication. The fact of communication can be found in the most simple elements of our daily life. The act of reading this lesson on the Internet is an event of communication and it produces a net of reactions.

What I call "acts of communication" are located at the center of complex social relations and, therefore, they produce infinite reactions at the same way a drop falls on a quite tank of water. Waves are generated at the center and as soon as they reach the border of the thank, they return. In returning, they collapse with other waves, generating more and more reactions.

It is possible to predict reactions and master the initial communication event. But there is a point where the sender lost control on the infinite reactions. 

Communication as a social process has the following characteristics: dynamism, inevitable, irreversible, bidirectional, verbal and non verbal.

Communication as science studies principles, concepts and rules of communication in societies. The field is necessary within an interdisciplinary context. It is not possible to follow a study on communication out of sociology, psychology and other related areas. This particularity makes that communication can have a wide group of definitions and aspects that not necessary match each other. As a science, communication studies is not concluded and it has an infinite of possibilities.

"Who says what to whom in what channel with what effect," as the definition of communication provided by political scientist Harold Dwight Lasswell[1]is so far one of the most objective definition of communication, but not the only one. I will review some of the most traditional models and I will center in the Latin American ones.

Models of Communication

Greeks | Socrates - Aristotle

See also Maieutic and Socratic Method in communication (coming soon).

The models of communication were already defined by ancient Greeks. Although we use to say that studies on communication are rather new, evidences show us that in the ancient world the subject was already known and it is also related with philosophy. The dialogues of Plato  mention the Maieutic telling us that truth or truths are latent in mind in what is called "innate reason" and it can be reach by answering questions. At the same time, the Socratic Method demonstrate the errors of concepts hold as common truths.

Communication is an interchange of reasons if we follow the way of Maieutic. In such case, the communication should be seen as an interchange between intelligent beings. Any message puts a question (a problem) to be answer.

Aristotle built the classical scheme of communication with the three main elements: Speaker, Message and Listener.

Speaker --> Message --> Listener

No further Model of Communication can omit this simple scheme of communication inspired in philosophy where the Speaker is mainly the Orator as this one was popular in the Greek forums. It is in Ancient Greece where we have the first steps of development of Oratory, the art of speaking. When journalism was not developed in the way we know it today, philosophers, politicians, warriors and artists where the masters of communication.

The Message then was the content of the first steps of human thinking in the form of philosophy, politic, history and poetry. But the role of the Listener was not less important. They were the members of the Polis, the City, the citizens and free men of the democratic Greek society. Although Aristotle did not mention the Answer (Feedback) as we do today, the Greek communication was dynamic, because it was thought in the way of dialogue, as I mentioned up through Maieutic and Socratic Method. Listeners not were expected to be passive, but rather active in the process of dialogue, able to answer to the proposals, challenges and ideas of any orator. Only free men could do so.

United States | Laswel - Shannon - Weaver - Schramm

The models of communication developed by Laswel, Shannon and Weaver, were rather created as consequence of the studies of other disciplines and science. Even if they are very important for the comprehension of communication theory, it is necessary to have in mind that they were not developed directly from a purpose dedicated to communication. These models were developed especially after the Second World War, that I suggest to call the "Golden Age in the communication studies."

The Model of Harold Laswell (1902 - 1978) comes from his studies on political science where impact in communication is very important. His thought was developed within the context of the Second World War where political oratory became a main feature in diplomacy with figures like Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and the formation of ideological propaganda and radio. Laswell wrote a book on the matter, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, with his colleague Warren Weaver (1894 - 1978).[3]

Communicator + Message + Medium + Audience = IMPACT!

The Model of Claude Elwood Shannon (1916 - 2001) is settled in the Information Theory. He was a mathematician and electric engineer and is known as the "Father of Information Theory." This model understand communication as a technical process and for this reason the elements keep relation with technological terms:

Information Source --> Message --> Transmitter --> Sent Signal --> Source of Noise --> Received Signal --> Receiver --> Message --> Destination

There are some novelties in this model: Transmitter, Receiver and Source of Noise. Evidently the model is inspired in technology, but made a great contribution. A most humanistic view of the model will change terms, but in principle they remain what Shannon and Weaver were proposing.

The Model of Wilbur Schramm (1907 - 1987) gave another perspective to the studies. He was dedicated only to the area, different to Laswell (politic) and Shannon and Weaver (information technology). For this reason he is known as the "Father of Communication Studies." He would focus on the experience of the sender and receiver (listener). He worked in the Office of War Information during the Second World War and there he contributed in the investigation of the nature of propaganda.

In this model, communication is possible only upon a common language between sender and reciver. The sender encodes the message upon the experience of the receiver. If the most expert scientist gives a lecture about his studies, he must compose his exposition according to his audience: if he gives it to a group of colleagues, surely he can use all the specific terms of his discipline; but if he does the same before a group of children of 6th grade, the message will not reach the listeners in its real meaning. In such case, the scholar must compose the message according to the level of knowledge of the children. The receiver must have the correct elements in order to decode the message at the same way a person must know the Morse Code to be able to understand a message in Morse Code.

It makes that Schramm talked about encoding and decoding.

Sender (Encoding the Message) --> Signal --> Receiver (Decoding the Message)

The Model of David K. Berlo[4] is the creation of a more elaborated constructionist model under four main elements: Source, Message, Channel and Receiver.[5]

Under Source

Creating...