Download 1 Lecture Two: Theorizing about Communication Philosophy 800

Lecture Two: Theorizing about Communication
Philosophy 800/880
9/13/16
O’Rourke
I.
Administration
A. PD topics and days
B. Collaborative writing project
C. Questions?
II.
Ideas from the reading journals
A. Is it possible to generate a comprehensive general theory or model of
communication? Or should we be happy with partial theories/models? Perhaps
communication is not a single natural kind. (Youjin)
B. To what extent are rationality considerations operative in constraining
communication? (Jared)
C. Does the Westley/MacLean model help us understand the interdisciplinary
environment? (Ayanna, Jared)
D. What are the axioms of relational communication (due to Watzlawick, Beavin, and
Jackson (1967))? (Jess)
E. What of animal-human communication? (Ayanna)
F. Is there a relationship between relational communication and work in social
epistemology on epistemic communities? (Think here about socio-political markers.)
(Ayanna)
G. Are nonpersonal factors and forces crucial to communicative relationships? (Suzanne)
III.
What can philosophers learn from communication theory?
A. Is there any methodological difference between the sort of theoretical work done by
communication scientists and what philosophers do?
1. Some of the theories are full-fledged philosophical theories
2. How might one describe the theoretical impulse as it is realized by these
theorists (e.g., Craig in his meta-modeling, Westley and MacLean)
1
B. Think about Craig’s approach – what can be said on its behalf?
1. Two principles:
a. The constitutive model of communication as metamodel
b. Communication theory as metadiscourse: “I envision communication
theory as an open field of discourse engaged with the problems of
communication as a social practice, a theoretical metadiscourse that
emerges from, extends, and informs practical metadiscourse” (129).
2. The idea behind this is that we should resist the temptation to look for one
theory to rule them all; rather, view the plurality as a virtue, and work to
create a theoretical account that accommodates it rather than explaining it
away
a. Fragmentation is a problem if we’re vying for unification, but if
allowed to operate unimpeded – “Let 100 flower blossom” – then
we might be able to get at the general phenomenon in collage
fashion
b. How does the “dialogical-dialectical” account function as a theory?
Or is it rather a way of delimiting the domain of investigation?
3. Is metadiscourse the only thing that should be data here?
C. What can communication do for us?
1. It is ubiquitous understood instrumentally – all human activities, including
all intellectual pursuits – can be understood as communicative by virtue of
supplying information about intentions
2. Does it make sense to understand it as constitutive? E.g., from Craig:
“communication itself is the primary, constitutive social process that explains
all these other factors” (126). To what extent does it constitute our conceptual
domains or our domains of practice?
a. How does it figure into the process of social construction?
b. How might this story go?
2