Dr. Preston Coleman's Communication Web Page

Below are some key terms used by critics in various media. Below this section are more thorough definitions and discussions of relevant concepts including "culture," "society," "mass," "communication," and "medium of communication."

___________________________________________________________

Key Terms in Media Criticism

Medium---in communication, anything that channels or contains a message as it is sent from one entity to another. For instance, when we speak, our voices are "contained" by the air as they pass from our vocal cords to another person's eardrums; when we paint, a canvas and water colors or acrylics or charcoal "contain" our art; radio and television use the electromagnetic spectrum (usually radio waves) to "channel" a message from a transmitter to individual receivers.

Media---plural form of "medium"; more than one medium

Mass---in communication, any communication that attempts to reach a large, undifferentiated audience, using technologies that separate the production and reception of messages. Mass communication is generally addressed to the public at large, not to any specific person, though mass communication often addresses a specific demographic group of people.

Mass media---all of the means that humans use to communicate with large numbers of people, or "mass audiences," usually but not always simultaneously. Generally includes these major media, in chronological order of appearance: books, magazines, newspapers, recordings, cinema, radio, television, the Internet. May also include things like architecture, fashions, billboards, cell phones, and the like, which can be used to communicate messages to mass audiences.

Text---in media criticism, any media product that is being analyzed and evaluated. Can be a traditional text, like a book, poem, or pamphlet. Can also be a film, a web site, an album, a photograph, a light show, a concert, a broadcast, or any other media product, including multimedia productions that combine more than one medium (for example, a movie about a concert that included a light show.) Contemporary cultural critics sometimes critique more unusual "texts," like television ads, magazine ads, consumer products, sporting events, etc... A football game or a can of soup can be treated as if it were a "text."

Context---1. within a text, the parts that precede and follow a word, phrase, scene, riff, etc... and help to determine its meaning. Some small part of a text may not have a discernible meaning until analyzed within the broader context of the entire work. For example, a single passage in a novel, or a single scene in a movie, creates meaning not in isolation, but in the context of the entire novel or film. Taking something "out of context" means attempting to interpret it without considering the entire work of which it is a part; great misunderstanding can take place when elements of a text aren't analyzed within the broader context of the entire work.

Context---2. outside of a text, the overall social, cultural, and historic circumstances in which the text was produced and distributed. The context in which a text was created and received play a crucial role in interpreting its meaning. Regardless of the meaning(s) intended by the creator of a text, the text can have different meanings for different people in different social, cultural, and historical conditions. For example, Americans often "miss" the humor in British television comedies, because what makes something funny or not funny is different in the two "contexts" of American and British television. Similarly, the meanings that modern people make from ancient texts are probably not exactly the same as the meanings made by people living in the same era as the creator of the text.

Criticism---the practice of analyzing and evaluating something. A social critic takes a society or some aspect or part of a society as the object of analysis and evaluation; a cultural critic takes a culture or some aspect or part of a culture as the object of analysis and evaluation. Used more precisely in various fields, one can analyze and evaluate works of art, works of literature, or works created in any other medium or media. Some common examples of criticism include: art criticism, literary criticism, film criticism, television criticism, music criticism, food criticism, and so on. Critics generally become experts in the histories and practices of some field (art, film, music, food,) and use that expertise to produce articles, essays, reviews, books, lectures, and the like criticizing particular works, artists, genres, movements, and the like.

Analysis---the division of something into its constituent parts for study of the parts and the whole. Biologists "analyze" organisms by dissecting them, by taking them apart, and studying the functions of the parts and the ways the parts inter-relate, to better understand both the discrete parts and the whole organism. Psychiatrists "analyze" people's minds by separating them into particular aspects---like Freud's id, ego, and superego, or a person's family, work, and sexual histories---to better understand the whole mind. Critics divide texts into component parts---like the setting, characters, plot, and tone of a novel---and study the individual parts and how they inter-relate to create meaning.

Interpretation---the determination of the meaning and significance of something, especially a work of art

Evaluation---the determination of the value or quality of something

Aesthetics---the branch of philosophy concerned with beauty and taste, especially in the fine arts. Aesthetics involves understanding the history and practices of an art form in order to knowledgeably analyze, interpret, and/or evaluate specific works of art.

Semiotics---the study of signs and symbols in communication systems

Literacy---the ability to communicate using written language. Sometimes used more broadly to describe a level of knowledge and ability in areas other than written language. For example, one could speak of various degrees of "cultural literacy" within a specific culture; how skilled a person is at understanding French or Chinese or hippie culture.

Media literacy---the ability to find, use, understand, and produce communications using a variety of mediated forms and technologies. A commonly accepted definition for media literacy often found online: "a series of communication competencies, including the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information in a variety of forms, including print and non-print messages."

For hundreds more specific terms and concepts used in various kinds of criticism, especially literary and film criticism, see "Some Helpful Links".

_____________________________________________________

A Fuzzy, but Useful, Distinction: "Culture" vs. "Society"

What is "culture"? How is it different from "society"? This distinction involves quite a bit of grey area---there is no set, distinct, accepted line dividing one from the other, like black from white.

In general, we should start with "society," which is an organized group of people sharing a common area and working together for a common purpose. We can think on the grand scale of something like American society, or on a more limited scale, as in the Society of Professional Journalists. For the purposes of this class, we'll stick mostly to the grander scale, where "society" is used similarly to "nation" or "state." In essence, a society is comprised of specific individuals who live and work together in space and in time.

What that society produces, and what it passes down through time to future generations, we call "culture." An anthropologist, for example, can study the culture of a long-gone society by finding and examining artifacts that individuals within that society produced. But artifacts are only the surface of culture. Studying an existing culture means not simply studying what they produce, but also their social patterns, their rituals and ceremonies, their habits and common behaviors, their ways of thinking, their belief systems, their political and religious institutions---all the more abstract and behavioral aspects that won't be left in the ground for future anthropologists to dig up and analyze. Consider, for example, the different rites of passage practiced by different societies, from Native American Vision Quests, or the aboriginal Australian Walkabout, or a Jewish Bar or Bat mitzvah, or the Latino Quinceanera, or the Catholic Confirmation. Each involves ceremonies, which may include certain artifacts, but which are primarily common behaviors passed down over the centuries.

To further clarify this distinction, you might consider "society" as something distinct from "community," and "culture" as something distinct from "nature."

A community is small and self-contained, and features plentiful opportunities for face-to-face communication. Watkinsville is a community. A society is larger and more spread out, and therefore fosters more mass communication due to practical difficulties that limit face-to-face communication. The USA is a society. The German sociologist Ferdinand Toennies used the terms "Gemeinschaft" (community) and "Gesellschaft" (society) to highlight the distinction between the close personal ties and shared values and meanings that characterize a community and the distance and impersonal nature of a society where diversity and factionalism restrict the sharing of values and meaning.

Most all life on earth exists within the bounds of nature. While some animals may alter their environment, the way a beaver creates a pond ecosystem by building a dam, they don't go beyond such simple and primitive changes to that environment. Humans, on the other hand, literally create their environment, both physically (roads, buildings, houses, and the like) and mentally (language, belief systems, perceptions of time and the like.) What humans create, both physical and mental, we can call "culture." A person could live in America their whole lives without their feet ever touching the ground, for example; also, someone from a more primitive culture would be completely lost (at first, anyway) trying to understand the complexities of English, the profound integration of technology into our lives, or our use of the clock to strictly structure and regiment most aspects of our existence.

One last way to understand the distinction between culture and society is to use an analogy. The Internet is a complex of wires, computers, microwave towers, fiber optics, etc... that creates a physical communication system. The World Wide Web is the content that the Internet contains---the emails, web sites, videos, etc... Society is like the Internet; culture is like the WWW.

For more discussion of this distinction between culture and society, see these interesting approaches taken by three different scholars:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~jmahoney/culture.html
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/010/culture.html

___________________________________________________

More Than Size Matters: Putting the "Mass" in Mass Communication/Media/Culture/Mass Society

"Mass" refers to more than mere size, though it generally assumes large numbers or amounts of something, as in "consuming mass quantities" of beer, burgers, or whatever. In this class, we'll be using "mass" in a more focused way to refer to communications that share the following qualities:

1. Size of audience---generally large, much larger than in interpersonal or group communication
2. Nature of audience---undifferentiated and anonymous; in other words, in mass communication, we don't know exactly who will receive a message, and we can't control who will do so. A reporter doesn't know who will read his or her article, nor can he or she control which groups or individuals will read it.
3. Nature of address---not knowing exactly who will attend to a message means that the message must be addressed to a very broad, undifferentiated, anonymous audience. Mass communication, for instance, is aimed at the public at large, not at a specific group or individual.
4. Separation of production and reception---unlike a simple face-to-face conversation, mass communication is usually produced by many people working with technology within an institutional context, and then, at another time and or place, received by a mass audience.

While the size of the audience matters, it isn't the defining characteristic of mass communication. A radio broadcast from a rural station at 3am may have a tiny audience, but it's still mass communication.

Mass media, then, are comprised of all the institutions and technologies that produce and distribute messages to large, mass audiences. The most common are radio, television, film, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, though billboards, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and even those flowers placed by the highway as memorials to people killed in accidents, are also forms of mass media. Going back in history, architecture and coinage were early forms of mass media.

Mass society refers to the large, relatively anonymous, highly technological organizations of humans that characterize the modern era. Unlike ancient times, when most people seldom left their small, tightly-knit communities, people today travel much more widely and are exposed to a wide variety of people and places via the mass media. The mass production and consumption of consumer goods and the mass media are fundamental aspects of mass society.

Mass culture refers to the kinds of cultural forms fostered by mass society and mass media. A locally produced play isn't mass culture, but a movie is. A single painting isn't mass culture, but the same painting reproduced and sold widely is. Your evening hamburger cooked on the grill isn't mass culture, but the Big Mac is.

Mass communication can be distinguished from 1.) interpersonal and 2.) group/organizational communication as follows:

Interpersonal 2 people known audience, ample feedback

Group/Org 3 or more people known audience, some feedback

Mass large groups of people unknown, undifferentiated audience, little to no feedback

For more discussion of mass communication, go here:

http://museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=masscommunic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication

__________________________________________________________

Overlooking the Basics--Defining Communication

So just what is communication? Few texts on the subject bother to define it, assuming, I suppose, that we already know what it is. In two decades of studying the topic, including ten years at major research universities, I've never once heard communication defined--quite an oversight for an academic field trying hard to establish an identity and to win respect and credibility.

Most dictionaries at least provide definitions, which may generally ring true, but whose depth and perspective are not adequate for theorizing--like this one from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Communication (n)--a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior

Or this one from dictionary.com:

The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior

Communication scholars, naturally, define communication in ways that are more sophisticated and precise, but which, I believe, overlook some fundamental aspects of communication. O'Hair and Weimann (2004), in The Essential Guide to Group Communication, describe it as

A process that is defined by six characteristics: Communication is 1.) symbolic; 2.) a shared code; 3.) linked to culture; 4.) intentional; 5.) mediated; and 6.) transactional (ellipses omitted for clarity.)

Wood (2006), in Communication Mosaics, defines communication as

A systemic process in which people interact with and through symbols to create and interpret meanings.

The first two definitions place too much emphasis on the "exchange" of "information"--a perspective that privileges the kinds of language-based communication that have evolved relatively late in human history, like speaking and writing. Both definitions bypass more primitive forms, like gestures, facial expressions, sculpture, dance, and music--all of which are demonstrably communicative, but in ways profoundly different from linguistic forms like speaking and writing.

There are other limitations in these definitions. For example, don't we humans exchange more than "information," more than "thoughts" and "messages," when we communicate? Don't we exchange more primitive things like emotions, moods, intentions, reactions, and the like? And don't other creatures besides people ("individuals") communicate? Can't we communicate effectively communicate with our pets, and our pets with us?

And what about the words "exchange," "interact" and "transactional"--do we always receive something in return when we communicate? Don't we often communicate, yet receive nothing in return? Don't we often consume recorded or broadcast communications that allow no mechanism for feedback?

Then there are the difficulties with the assumption that communication inherently involves symbols or codes/systems of symbols. If symbols are inherently involved, or if a code is inherently involved, how do we communicate with infants and other people who don't share our language and symbolic systems? Or with animals, even wild animals? How do we communicate in ways that require neither symbols nor a code, like facial expressions, body language, music, mime and dance?

Another difficulty involves assuming that communication is always mediated. What about communication that occurs through direct physical contact: kissing, caressing, tapping on the shoulder, patting on the back? What medium is containing the meaning evoked through these behaviors?

I'm also not convinced that communication must be intentional. What about instinctive behaviors like a dog wagging its tail or a human blushing? Some behaviors might have a purpose, but not one the communicator is conscious of. This is a crucial question: can an involuntary, or subconscious behavior be considered communication? If so, communication pervades the natural world and might even be said to extend into the plant kingdom. If not, it is a behavior exclusive to animals with a conscious will.

One more problem--isn't communication always a behavior but not always a process? A "process" implies some degree of planning, design, and/or systemization, and many of the ways modern humans communicate involve complex and sophisticated processes; but isn't some communication quite direct, straightforward, spontaneous? Some human communication arises out of systems--symbolic systems, social systems, technological systems--and some animals even communicate in ways "linked to (their) culture." But I argue that communication occurs much more commonly in a natural, biological way that isn't "linked to culture," human or otherwise.

If these definitions tend to limit the concept, others, I think, go in the opposite direction and make of communication an overly broad,  nearly universal phenomenon.

In The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949), physicist Warren Weaver proposed a definition that not only expands "communication" to a universal phenomenon of the mind--one that includes all human behavior--but beyond that, to a universal phenomenon that could involve any mechanism (to include, I suppose, biological ones):

The word "communication" will be used here in a very broad sense to include all the procedures by which one mind may affect another. This, of course, involves not only written and oral speech, but also music, the pictorial arts, the theatre, the ballet, and in fact all human behavior. In some connections it may be desirable to use a still broader definition of communication, namely, one which would include the procedures by means of which one mechanism (say automatic equipment to track an airplane and compute its probable future positions) affects another mechanism (say a guided missile chasing this airplane).

Weaver, to be fair, is interested in using communication as a concept useful in the utilitarian worlds like physics, computer science, and electrical engineering. But can machines really communicate? Or is it humans who are communicating, using the machines as media? The fact that a robot (like a talking cash register or gas pump, or your ATM) can play a recorded message doesn't mean it is "speaking" to you. The human who programmed the device is the one doing the communicating. And is all human behavior communication? If so, every sneeze, sigh, blink and heartbeat is communication.

In a similar vein, John Peters (2007, personal correspondence), an old professor of mine and one of the top minds in the field, defines the concept for his undergraduates this way:

Symbolic connectors of subjects and objects over space and time.

Peters' is an elegant and thought-provoking conceptualization, but one whose breadth and open-endedness to some degree fail to anchor the term sufficiently. Professor Peters envisions the broadest, most universal sense of "communication" when he suggests in "Space, Time and Communication Theory" (Canadian Journal of Communication, 2003) that communication might occur absent life, as in communication coming from the dead, or coming across from the outer limits of space and time, in the form of information captured in the medium of a telescope, from inanimate phenomenon like the ghostly remnants of the Big Bang. From this perspective, "...communication studies goes beyond the human scale and potentially encompasses any inquiry into time and space" (p. 397). Peters doesn't assume that the dead can communicate or that the Universe communicates to us from deep space and deep time; his point is to stretch our conception of communication as far as we can, theoretically.

Weaver suggests that all human behavior, and even some mechanical processes, are communication. As a thought experiment, Peters suggests that all inquiry--all mind, if you will--may be communication, and that any phenomenon, once interpreted by a mind, can be thought of as symbolic. Both definitions, or conceptualizations, of communication have value; Weaver's a utilitarian value, and Peters' a philosophical one. But both, I think, lack sufficient precision, lack sufficient grounding in the biological world, and fail to distinguish communication from other natural phenomenon that belong in clear and distinct, mutually exclusive categories.

What follows is an attempt to define communication more distinctly and more usefully. The definition posited attempts to situate communication more precisely within the natural world by approaching it as a phenomenon that has evolved in the biological world and by suggesting a clear line delineating communication from other biological behaviors.

But let's beware--sometimes, in order to understand something that we experience every day, we have to forget our assumptions and approach the object of our inquiry with a fresh perspective. In fact, because we're all social creatures, part of being a student of any social subject is learning to make the ordinary seem strange, even wondrous.

So here's my attempt at defining communicaion in biological and evolutionary terms, in a way that evokes its strangeness, its wonder, with an eye towards a more heuristic understanding:

Communication (n)--any purposive behavior intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being by engaging the senses, either through physical contact or through the manipulation of an intervening medium

Let's dissect this definition and see if it makes sense...then we can decide if it might be theoretically useful, if it might be heuristic.

The definition has three basic parts: 1.) any purposive behavior, 2.) intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being, 3.)by engaging the senses, either through physical contact or through the manipulation of an intervening medium.

1.) First, and most fundamentally, communication is a behavior--that is, the action or reaction of a person or thing to internal or external stimuli. But that definition of behavior could apply to a cell, molecule, or atom; or to a hurricane, or a Buick. Doesn't communication require some purpose on the part of the communicator? I might influence another being purely by accident and even without my knowledge, for example by frightening a deer as I walk through the woods or angering a neighbor by mowing the lawn too early in the morning--but have I communicated with the deer or the neighbor? Or have they simply had a reaction to my behavior that was unintended?

Here are some examples that illustrate this part of the definition:

Geologists can interpret the layers of sediment in the walls of the Grand Canyon and determine many facts, such as the age of a certain layer, the climate at the time that layer was laid down, the origin and makeup of the materials in the layer, the kinds of life forms that lived there, and even the kinds of human activity that took place there. The geologists discern information in the sediments, and that information is transmitted to the geologist, but inanimate sediments can't reasonably be said to have communicated to the geologist. The transfer of information isn't sufficient for communication to take place; there must be a purpose, an intent, that is expressed by a living being through some kind of behavior.

When a coconut falls out of a tree and plunks you on the head, the coconut tree has exhibited a behavior. Like most plants, it has dropped its seed, and it did so, though not intentionally, with a specific purpose--in order to procreate. In addition, you've been influenced, but only to the extent that you feel surprise and pain, and maybe some anger at your bad luck. Has the coconut tree communicated anything? Of course not. The behavior wasn't intended to influence you; that was mere coincidence. On the other hand, if a boy throws a coconut at his sister, he has also exhibited a behavior--like most boys, he has voluntarily chosen to aggravate a sibling. He has communicated (without benefit of a system of signs or signals, by the way) an intention; he first formed the will to aggravate his sister, and then engaged voluntarily in a behavior calculated to do just that.

And another, sexier example: organisms ranging from insects to humans secrete substances called pheromones that, among other things, attract the opposite sex and help instigate sexual behavior. The secretion of pheromones is an involuntary behavior that clearly influences these organisms, but, like the coconut tree dropping its seed, without any conscious intent. Let's take a look (or, more precisely, a sniff) at our friend the skunk. Skunks involuntarily secrete pheromones, which have a specific purpose--to instigate sexual behavior. When a skunk voluntarily secretes its malodorous musk, however, it is behaving in a way consciously intended to influence other creatures to leave it alone. Skunks don't spray their musk at each other or at animals that pose no threat to them. Note also that while some "information" is "exchanged" (the skunk has alerted another animal capable of smelling the musk of its presence,) that the skunk does this without using any symbols or code.

Lastly, let's consider acts of violence. A violent act is certainly a purposive behavior, and it is intended to influence another creature through physical contact. But not all purposive behavior is communication. There are any number of behaviors that have a purpose, like sleeping, eating, defecating and urinating, engaging in sexual acts, and committing acts of violence. Communication can be understood most fundamentally and axiomatically as one category of behavior distinct from other such categories, though these categories may overlap in some very interesting ways. Many animals urinate and/or defecate in ways purposefully intended to mark their territory; urinating and defecating are not always communicative, but depending on the intention, they may be so. Some sexual acts are profoundly and intimately communicative, but sex per se is not necessarily so. Plants can reproduce sexually; this does not mean they are communicating. Humans generally augment and enhance the physical act of intercourse with purposive caresses, kisses, and the like; these are communicative in a way that the mere physical act of intercourse is not. Like humans, Bonobo monkeys communicate very expressively through sexual acts.

Acts of violence, too, can be communicative, but they are not "communication" per se. To use an especially distasteful example, when a sexual act is forced on a person--when rape is committed--the sex act in and of itself is not communicative. If the rape is intended to "send a message," as when one tribe rapes the women of another tribe in order to intimidate and humiliate that tribe, communication has taken place. When a mobster has another mobster "whacked," nothing has been communicated to the murdered victim. The killer has, however, sent a message to other mobsters that "this is what will happen if you cross me." When Usama bin Laden had two airliners flown into the World Trade Center towers, he was not communicating with the victims; he was killing and maiming them. At the same time, he clearly communicated a message, one full of hatred, anger, and intimidation, to his enemies in the West.

Communication is a behavior peculiar to beings that have an intention, a will. Rocks don't communicate; communication is peculiar to living things and to the animal kingdom in particular, and it is distinct from other behaviors like sex and violence, though it may overlap with them in certain instances.

2.) Second, communication is intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being; that is, to have a particular kind of effect on a conscious being that has the capacity to perceive things in its environment. We can communicate with infants, with our pets, or with wild animals, but not with a rock or a car. This distinction can be illustrated with a series of examples.

When someone talks to a loved one who has fallen into a vegetative state, the hope is that the loved one can, at some level and to some degree, "hear," or perceive. The hope is that a familiar voice, a familiar language, might eventually touch something in the loved one's mind, might even help the loved one to escape the vegetative state he or she is in. A substantial body of anecdotal evidence suggests that some people in comas may very well be able to perceive their surroundings--in other words, they may be conscious and sentient, if only to a very slight degree. But when someone talks to a loved one who is in a profound vegetative state, one marked by a complete lack of consciousness and sentience, no communication can take place. Similarly, when a person talks to the deceased, there is no realistic hope of reaching, of influencing, the deceased.

Interestingly, when people talk to loved ones who are neither conscious nor sentient, they may still be communicating with themselves. Their words may not soothe a vegetable or a corpse, but they can certainly soothe the self emotionally. Humans are capable of communicating with themselves to influence cognition and behavior as well, as when they write themselves notes to prompt thoughts or as reminders to perform some future action/behavior. Prayer may or may not be influencing a sentient being other than the one praying, depending on whether God exists and if so, on the nature of God. But prayer clearly has an influence on the one praying and is therefore, I suggest, definitely a form of intrapersonal communication.

Based on the definition proposed here, plants could potentially be said to communicate. Flowers release odors and display colors that have a specific, intended purpose--to cause insects and birds to pollinate them; in other words, to influence the behavior of conscious, sentient, living beings. The purpose, however, is neither conscious nor voluntary. Similarly, certain fish and butterflies have evolved markings that mimic a large eye or mouth. These markings have a purpose--to deceive a potential predator--but that purpose is neither conscious nor voluntary. To look at it from another angle, can we, or any other being, communicate with plants? Probably not. Plants are neither conscious nor sentient. While some claim that playing certain kinds of music encourages plants to grow, this has not been demonstrated with any scientific certainty. This is a crucial (and, I expect, contentious) distinction: a being must be conscious and sentient to be communicated with, and to communicate. The intention to influence is necessary for communication, but not sufficient.

To me, this distinction cuts right to the heart of precisely what communication is and how it evolved. Just where do we draw the line between the mere transmission of information, as by strata of sediments, or strands of DNA, and actual communication? A hunter wearing camouflage is intentionally deceiving (a form of influencing) his or her prey and is therefore, I think, communicating. A bug that has evolved to resemble a twig may be deceiving predators, but without any conscious intent.

My answer to that, and I admit that that my thinking is still a bit fuzzy here, is that what we call "communication" is limited to a higher order of behaviors that require that both the sender and receiver of the communication to be sentient. While there is clearly something akin to communication going on in a wide range of natural phenomena, what we humans do that is clearly communication is shared only with others in the animal kingdom; and even within the animal kingdom, the participants in communicative behavior cannot be simple single-celled organisms--they must be conscious and able to perceive things in their environment. In addition, they must be able to manipulate something in the environment (a medium), which requires some degree of cognition.

Attempting to locate the precise moment when communication first took place in the animal kingdom is probably impossible; theorizing about when that may have happened, however, can illuminate just what this category of behavior actually is. Some fascinating work has been done on this question (summarized quite nicely by Dr. Alexie Sharov) that makes a fine distinction between biosemiotics, which is concerned with all that is communicative in living things, and zoosemiotics, which restricts communication to the animal kingdom. It is clear that what we humans experience as communication has its roots in more primitive forms shared by numerous animals; moreover, it is, I think, likely that those more primitive forms of communication evolved from yet more primal and basic communicative processes and behaviors exhibited in the plant kingdom; and, I suspect, it is likely that there are very fundamental communicative processes peculiar to life itself, like the transmitting capacity of neurons or the coded information contained in DNA, that gave rise to both the communicative capabilities of plants and to the animal behaviors that are, undeniably, "communication."

I'm not a biologist and won't presume to have any special insight into the murky origins of communication or its evolution out of the most fundamental chemical processes we call "life." What I can do, however, is to suggest that there is a point where behavior becomes clearly and undeniably "communication," and that is what the definition proposed here aims to do. Perhaps it would be useful, then, to draw a distinction between what is clearly "communication" and what is merely "communicative" (an admittedly semantic distinction that, I hope, nonetheless holds some usefulness for communication theory.)

Looking through the lens of natural selection, I suspect that early in the development of life on the earth certain organisms evolved survival mechanisms like visual deception and camouflage that proved successful and therefore became widespread. These survival mechanisms exerted an influence on other organisms in the environment. As organisms evolved higher and higher orders of cognition, they began to exert more sophisticated forms of influence on others, both of their own species as well as on predators and prey. From primitive and "accidental" forms of influence that were rewarded through natural selection, one can imagine more sophisticated forms of influence that we would now categorize as instinctual. The release of pheromones provides a good example. Finally, in certain organisms cognition evolved to the point where organisms began exerting influence over other organisms consciously, intentionally, voluntarily. It is at this point in the evolution of life that, I suggest, communication first happened. While there is much that we recognize as "communicative" in the behaviors of plants and lower forms of animal life, the category of behavior we call "communication" is unique to animals with some degree of voluntarism.

This brings me back to the dictionary definitions critiqued above, which emphasize the exchange of information through systems of signs and symbols. While language dominates human communication, we continue to influence other beings in much more primitive ways. Some of these ways are involuntary and are shared with other species, such as the release of pheromones that we share with most all mammals. Others are involuntary but are peculiar to humans, like the microexpressions of the human face that subconsciously signal deception. As involuntary, instinctive behaviors, these do not fit within the definition of communication posited here. Still other behaviors are voluntary and are shared with other animals, like body language, which can be "read" across species; we know what our dogs are thinking and feeling, and vice versa. We influence the dogs, and they influence us, voluntarily. This, I believe, is what is meant by "communication."

There are many and diverse ways that we humans influence other creatures, some of which do involve symbols and codes, and some of which do not. For example, we elicit various moods and emotions, and can even tell stories, through mime and dance. That intention is generally affective, or emotional, rather than cognitive. Who hasn't expressed great joy, or sexual desire, by dancing? And who can't be moved to pathos by the downcast visage and ponderous motions of a talented clown or mime? These forms of human communication are fundamentally mimetic. The hula dance takes an extra step in that it is narrative in form and function. The communication that occurs through hula dancing depends on visual perception of its unique grammar and syntax--in other words, on symbols operating within a code. Mime and dance surely preceded, and probably led ultimately to, human language. One can imagine humans telling stories of a successful hunt by miming the actions of the hunt; and later, humans developing gestures and movements that added a layer of symbolic meaning to the mimicry; and finally, the bifurcation of the mimetic aspect of dance from the symbolic aspect of first signed, and later spoken, and later still, written language.

A similar evolution probably took place with communication through sounds and music. One can imagine primitive peoples mimicking the sounds of animals during the hunt, just as hunters today use various calls and sounds, to attract prey. In retelling the story of the hunt, those sounds could then come to represent the animals that made them. Such a sound might later become associated with an individual, could become a sort of name, or symbol, for that person, just like a totem of an animal came to represent a clan or tribe. Or, one can imagine people imitating the songs of birds, which have their own syntax, their own phrasing, and developing from that mimicry a uniquely human kind of song, which expressed various emotions and desires. Over time, the mimetic aspect of music, and of vocalized sounds in general, probably gave way to the symbolic aspect, until today we have sophisticated systems of melody, rhythm, and tone (music) as well as a language composed of over a million words, only a handful of which are mimetic in nature (onomatopoeia.)

Both dance and music effectively express and elicit emotions and desires. They have an influence not only on our and others' emotions, but on our and others' behavior as well; who hasn't been grabbed by a song and catapulted onto their feet to dance? Who hasn't seen and perhaps been influenced by a dance of seduction? And the more sophisticated forms of dance and music--the hula dance with its narrative, or the modern symphony with its elegant mathematical relationships--can profoundly affect cognition. Music not only has an impact on people, but also, some believe, on other animals. According to William Congreve, "music has charms to soothe the savage beast, to soften rocks or bend a knotted oak." Well, he's half right: music may soothe the beast, but can it really affect rocks or oak trees? Of course not. Music influences humans and, perhaps, other animals precisely because humans and other animals are conscious, perceiving, sentient beings.

And so we have the first two parts of our definition: communication is purposive behavior that is intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being.

3.) Which leads us to the third part of this definition, which deals with how communication exerts its influence. Communication intends to influence a sentient being in a particular way, which always involves engaging the senses, either directly through nonviolent physical contact, or indirectly through the manipulation of some intervening medium.

This point is crucial: communication cannot occur without the intervention of a.) direct, nonviolent physical contact, or tactile perception; or b.) a perceptible medium--something tangible, something material; an object, substance, or force. We can begin by looking at how communication engages the senses, beginning with the sense of touch and moving on to the other senses; then we can do some thought experiments involving the removal of certain senses; and finally, we can use the example of the blind and deaf Helen Keller, who despite her disabilities became a highly successful and influential communicator.

We humans communicate through touching in a variety of ways: by kissing, hugging, or caressing to show affection; by tapping on the shoulder to gain attention; by patting the back or the bottom to show appreciation and encouragement; by mussing up a child's hair to gently display dominance. As long as the physical contact isn't utilitarian, as is the case in violent and sexual acts, it can be thought of as a very direct and primal form of communication. Punching, kicking, or pushing another has a utilitarian intent--to harm or move the other. Holding another in a headlock is utilitarian in that the other is under one's control; but giving the other a "noogie" is a playful gesture. Engaging in sexual intercourse has a utilitarian intent--to procreate. Kissing, caressing, or giving a "hickey" are more playful gestures meant to enhance the utilitarian aspect of sexual contact. When there is no intent to procreate, all sexual acts can be thought of as communication, except in the case of rape, because rape is an act of violence and therefore utilitarian in its intent.

When communication occurs without direct physical contact, the communicator must engage the senses of a sentient being through the manipulation of something in the environment, which we'll call a medium of communication. This medium must in some way intervene between the communicator and the sentient being he or she (or they or it) intends to influence, as the following examples demonstrate:

When we speak, we manipulate the air around us by sending out coded vibrations modulated as air passes through our larynx and past our tongue, palette, and lips. When we write, we manipulate a piece of paper (or parchment, or papyrus) by imprinting it with signs and symbols. When we send smoke signals, we manipulate the smoke; when we broadcast radio messages, we manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum; when we transmit over the Internet, we manipulate a series of interconnected computers. In each case, the medium is obvious, if not always visible; and it is plain to see that a medium can be as simple as puffs of smoke, or as complex as the many parts of the Internet.

The least obvious medium, ironically, is the most visible--namely, light. A painter or sculptor is obviously manipulating a tangible medium, specifically, a canvas or a block of wood or stone; but what he or she is fundamentally doing, in terms of communication, is manipulating the light that reflects off the work of art, with the intention of influencing the people who will later view it. A sculptor may sculpt primarily to influence the sighted, but he or she knows that a blind person, or a sighted person in the dark, could feel the sculpture and get a good idea of the sculptor's intentions; the exception proves the rule.

Though it may not be as obvious as when speaking or writing, even the most fundamental communicative behaviors, like gestures and facial expressions, manipulate a medium--again, the medium of light. In essence, we use the most fundamental medium--our own body--to reflect light in a particular way. A smile, a grimace, a clenched fist--these mean nothing unless some being can sense them, presumably through the sense of sight.

To illustrate this point, think of a blind person who perceives and "reads" faces and facial expressions, or the body and body language, with his or her hands. Unable to sense light, a blind person goes straight to the source and touches the face or body directly. This is again the exception that proves the rule; facial expressions, body language, and gestures in general exist primarily to reflect light off the face or body to others in a meaningful way.

Light is the predominant way we perceive the world, which, ironically, makes it nearly invisible to us as a medium of communication. But can't we communicate using nothing but light, for example, using a flashlight, or a mirror in the sun, to flash signals in Morse code? Television aptly illustrates the manipulation of light--the TV set literally bathes us in a spray of light. The same thing is true of the cinema and the Internet--light is manipulated with the intention of influencing viewers.

To a blind person, dance is communicative only insofar as it can be heard or felt--the sounds of a tap dancer, for example, or feeling the body of a dance partner might have an influence on a blind person, but the totality of the dance's intention requires both hearing and vision. To a deaf person, music is communicative only insofar as it can be felt--the booming bass riff of a reggae song, for example, or the bone-rattling rhythm of a bass drum. Blind people can read the written word by using Braille, which substitutes the sense of touch for the sense of sight. Deaf people can interpret the spoken word by using sign language, which substitutes the sense of sight for the sense of hearing.

This leads me to the fascinating case of Helen Keller, who was both blind and deaf, and yet was taught by Anne Sullivan to share in human language through the sense of touch. The story is familiar to every schoolchild: Sullivan held Keller's hand under running well water and repeatedly traced a symbol for "water" in the young girl's hand. At the moment Keller understood the connection between the substance, water, and the symbol for water, she had access to the code of language. The point is this: communication comes to us through the senses; unless one believes in telepathy, there is no other way.

Over time, we humans have created increasingly complex systems of signs and symbols, and increasingly complex media to transmit them--but throughout human history, even as our communicative behaviors have evolved, we continue to share our experience of the world through primitive forms such as the release of pheromones, the human touch, facial expressions, and body language. Whether we're caressing a cooing to a child, or sending audio/video files around the world via the Internet, communication remains a purposive behavior intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being by engaging the senses, either through physical contact or through the manipulation of an intervening medium.

The closer I look at it, the more all communication--from the most atavistic to the most advanced, from the simplest to the most complex--seems pretty wondrous to me. It is so much more than the mere exchange of information; it is a profound and powerful behavior that owes at least as much to biology as to culture.

_________________________________________________________

Medium in the Middle--Defining Media

We often refer to "the media" as if that were a clearly defined and unambiguous term. In order to define a medium of communication, we must first deal with a common misconception. "The media" is generally used incorrectly  to refer to journalism disseminated through newspapers, television, radio, and the like. When "the media" are referred to in this way, the term "press" would be more appropriate; the press has a liberal bias, not the media; the press pays too much attention to violent crime or too little attention to good news. In truth, "media" is a much broader concept than "press."

What do we mean by "the press" in the first place? The word refers to the printing press, an invention that profoundly influenced the direction of the Church and the state. The printing press was the first medium to be used on a mass scale, allowing, for example, for the mass production and distribution of the Bible. In contemporary English-speaking societies, this (printing) press is used as shorthand for all the forms of mass communication, especially those that transmit news and commentary to a mass audience: journalists get their "press credentials," and every Sunday on NBC we "Meet the Press."

In order to understand precisely what a medium is ("media" being the plural form of "medium",) we must discard the imprecise and misleading use of "the media" when we really mean "the press." Also, it would be helpful to step back a bit from our contemporary experience of mass media and focus instead on a more basic, more theoretical sense of the word.

Dictionaries define "medium" in several senses. For example, it can be any substance that holds or contains something, the way soil is a medium for seeds and plants. But we're concerned here with a particular kind of medium, a medium of communication.

Even with this focus, "medium" has several meanings. It can be a.) something in the middle; or, b.) something that can store information; or, c.) a means of conveying something; or, d.) a channel of communication; or, e.) a mode of artistic expression. Each of these senses of the word is related to communication, but their diversity suggests some fuzziness in our understanding of just what a medium really is.

We've defined communication as any purposive behavior intended to influence the emotion, cognition, and/or behavior of a sentient being by engaging the senses, either through physical contact or through the manipulation of an intervening medium. Let's focus on the last part of this definition, "the manipulation of an intervening medium," to elaborate on what a medium of communication is.

Here's a definition of medium of communication that might allow us to grasp the concept in a more heuristic way:

Medium of communication (n)--any object, substance, or force that is being willfully manipulated in order to influence a sentient being

We've already established that in order to communicate, there must be a will to influence, and a sentient being to be influenced. Two things follow from this: 1.) the medium must be perceptible in order to influence a sentient (conscious and perceiving) being; and 2.) the medium must in some way intervene, or come between, the influencer and the influenced.

Now let's think about the very beginnings of human communication, starting with some basic survival behaviors engaged in by mammals. In order to survive and procreate, mammals must defend their own bodies and must take sustenance from some piece of territory, and must attract and couple with members of the opposite sex.

It's worth asking, how do mammals perform these functions? One way is by engaging in voluntary behaviors that tend to influence other animals that threaten them. For instance, when a predator approaches a group of mammals, some signal is generally sent to warn the group. This is usually a vocal utterance--a manipulation of the surrounding atmosphere effected by modulating the larynx and mouth as air passes out of the lungs.

Similarly, vocal utterances can influence members of the opposite sex. The songs of male whales, for example, alert females to the location of the male.

How and why mammals developed this behavior is debatable; what's important to this discussion is that our mammalian ancestors learned to manipulate the atmosphere in ways that influence other sentient creatures. Such vocal behaviors are common among mammals; anecdotal evidence even suggests that most animals, mammalian and non-mammalian, interpret the higher registers of the voice as signs of distress (think of crying or whining) and lower registers of the voice as threats (think of growling.)

So we can already see three kinds of influence associated with three kinds of vocal utterance: warning, distress, and threats. Any dog owner can verify this--barking signals a warning, whining signals distress, and growling signals a threat.

Mammals also engage in voluntary behaviors intended to be visible. When a bear charges aggressively, it is usually bluffing; it feigns an attack in order to influence another animal to leave its territory. In other words, it uses its body as a medium to reflect light at the interloper; the interloper, in turn, sees in its field of vision a growing (approaching) object, which it interprets as a threat. Similarly, animals will often make their bodies appear larger by standing tall and spreading their limbs in order to ward off interlopers. There are even fish and butterflies that have evolved markings that look like large eyes or mouths, which are probably intended to ward off predators.

Humans and other primates use their faces and limbs in similar ways to ward off other animals visually. Baring the teeth, sticking the chest out, flailing the arms, clenching the fist--each is a behavior intended to be perceived visually by a sentient being. In effect, the visual field of the creature being influenced receives light manipulated by the influencer. Similarly, the mating behaviors of mammals involve various movements intended to attract members of the opposite sex. Mating dances have been observed and documented in mammalian species including guinea pigs, Eastern cottontail rabbits, and college freshmen. Fireflies even use bioluminescence to attract mates visually.

What distinguishes human communication from more primitive mammalian communication is the use of media outside our bodies as tools. Early man used media like wood and stone to create primitive works of art, the most common of which is probably the fertility symbol. A representation of procreation, these symbols, which often took the shape of a figurine with wide hips and large breasts, were probably meant to evoke sexuality and sexual behaviors.

Similarly, clans or tribes of early humans created totems that represented the clan or tribe itself. A totem pole, for example, might be carved with images of ancestors or of animals used to identify the clan or tribe. The totem pole probably had at least two functions, both of which involve intention and influence. One purpose was to evoke a feeling of common history and interest--a sort of solidarity--among the members. Another was to warn interlopers that the territory was inhabited by a cohesive social group.

Another example of using media as a warning is the display of the trophy head--the decapitated head of an enemy. Primitive tribes used such heads, sometimes shrunk through various processes, both to represent victory and to warn others that they might incur the same fate. Frightening masks, gargoyles, and warlike totems all served a similar purpose, which is roughly analogous to the feigned charge of an aggressive mammal. A contemporary example would be the "Keep Out" or "No Trespassing" sign.

Media are also commonly used to signal status. The headdress of a Native American chief, the amulets of a shaman, and the crown and scepter of a king or queen are all examples of objects intended to influence others to recognize a certain status. Contemporary examples would include the business suit, the doctor's lab coat and caduceus, the bishop's hat, the barber's pole, and the wedding ring.

Fertility symbols, totem poles, shrunken heads, scepters and the like illustrate the way media outside the human body can be manipulated in order to influence others.

A crucial distinction can be made between two kinds of meaning conveyed through such media. In some cases, the meaning is immediately obvious: the fertility figurine and shrunken head require little if any interpretation. In other cases, a code of sorts is required: the totem pole and headdress mean what they mean only because people have created a code whereby a certain animal represents a clan, or the display of a certain type and number of feathers represents a chief.

Perhaps the most consequential technology humans ever invented was language. Language is a complex code that requires agreement among individuals that certain sounds and symbols represent specific things in Nature. The difference between growling a warning and saying "back off, pal," between displaying a shrunken head on a spear and posting a "No Trespassing" sign, is vast.

Our definitions of communication and media too often overlook the primitive kinds of communication involving the body (like gesturing or dancing) and the direct, non-coded kinds of communication involving basic materials like wood, stone, or feathers in favor of the more advanced communication involving the code of language. This is perfectly understandable--we live in a mediated world that surrounds us with the spoken and written word; we literally think using language, a technology so ubiquitous that it actually structures our experiences and our minds.

In contemporary developed societies, the most primitive forms and media of communication exist alongside the most complex and advanced. We still grunt and groan, gesture and dance and sculpt. But we often do so via the printing press, broadcast network, or Internet. We grunt and groan, but we also write and recite poetry.

Regardless of how we communicate, an intervening medium transmits, or more and more often, stores then transmits our meaning. In fact, it is more and more common to use a series of intervening media that store and transmit messages. Printing, for example, involves some material objects--usually ink pressed on paper--in the actual process of printing documents. But prior to the printing, data has often been stored in some digital form and transmitted via the Internet. Messages are routinely written down by hand, then transmitted verbally via phone lines, only to be transcribed into digital form and sent via the Internet or an intranet. The stories broadcast on television and radio are handled by various reporters, photographers, videographers, and editors before being assembled into a finished product. The Internet itself involves at least two computers, a series of wires and cables, perhaps a satellite transponder or series of microwave towers, all before the message is beamed by a cathode ray tube onto a screen and then on to the eyes of the receiver, or through a set of speakers to the ears of the receiver, or both.

We're so immersed in technologically sophisticated mass media these days--like broadcasting, which manipulates the electromagnetic spectrum--that it's easy to overlook more primitive media like air, light, wood, clay, even our own hair, which we routinely manipulate to suit some fashion or to signal something about ourselves.

When we isolate media of communication, we can discern that there are three basic types of media. An object can be manipulated to contain a perceptible meaning, or intention--a statue, sign, shrunken head, painting, or cathedral, for example. A substance can be manipulated to contain a perceptible meaning, or intention--the air when we speak, or water when a whale sings (just think of how difficult it was to talk in the pool, underwater, when you were young; your vocal chords and ears evolved to work in the air, not underwater.) And, a force can be manipulated to contain a perceptible meaning, or intention--radio waves and microwaves when we broadcast, or x-rays when we take a picture of the inside of our bodies (radio waves, microwaves, and x-rays are all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.) Interestingly, despite its predominance in the human sensorium, the nature of light has yet to be identified. We don't know if light consists of waves, particles, or is perhaps a force of nature. The relevant fact is that we can meaningfully manipulate light in order to communicate.

In short, anything that can be manipulated in order to influence a sentient being can be thought of as a medium of communication. Conceptualized this way, we begin to see that almost anything that humans can manipulate can be used as a medium of communication, including something as mundane as our own hair or as mysterious as light or as magnificent as the electromagnetic spectrum. So in addition to communicating through physical contact, we humans communicate in various ways by manipulated things in our environment, which we call media of communication.

This brings us back to our definition: Medium of communication (n)--any object, substance, or force that is being willfully manipulated in order to influence a sentient being.

Here are two artists who use(d) very different media to express themselves:
Andy Goldsworthy http://www.rwc.uc.edu/artcomm/web/w2005_2006/maria_Goldsworthy/TEST/index.html
Andy Warhol http://www.warholstore.com/d/?utm_campaign=warhol-webhome

_________________________________________________________