Understanding The Eight Traditions of Communication Theory

by Leoncio Olobia

Rhetorical Tradition. This communication theory stipulates communication as an art of

discourse. It implies that mastering the skill of communication requires practice and education
just like any craft. Rhetorical prowess signifies power just like a public speech where good
communication skills of a person creates an impact to listeners. Because of the diversity of how
persons communicate, the theory suggests further research on methods, theories and practices
that will hone the craft, among others. However, rhetoric does not necessarily translate validity
or truth of what is being communicated. Just like a political speech of certain candidates vying
for a position, the notion of ‘pure rhetorical exercise’ can have connotations of annoyance or
meaningless rhetoric when words do not mean action, or when it is basically neutral and
without emotions. Nevertheless, rhetorical tradition elevates good communication skills as
something to be learned and studied critically as an artful, methodical discourse imbued with
logical reasoning.

Semiotic Tradition. As a communication theory, semiotics emphasizes intersubjective meanings

mediated by signs. What this means is that individual interpretations, subjective reading of
reality through signs, symbols and language account for meaningful understanding. Problems of
communication in commonplace practices can include diversity of meanings, multiple
perspectives of truth that can hide essential elements of what is real in the real sense.
Language, for instance, shares commonness of meanings when it is located in a shared
community so that meanings can be objectified but there still remains a subtextual meaning, or
meaning within a word that can be relatively understood by some and not by others. The
audacity of the theory rests on its artful display of individual construction of meanings that
signify creative thinking, active interpretation more than a passive reader of reality that
commonplace thinkers can learn from not as radical difference of interpretations or
miscommunications but rather as an aesthetic process of intersubjective understanding.

Phenomenological Tradition. This communication theory emphasizes the existence of dialogue

and otherness. This simply means that communication with the other justifies the purpose of
authentic communication within lived practice. Sharing of insightful experience, learning from
other stories, interacting from other people provide authentic solutions for problems. What it
implies is that sustained dialogue must be practiced as it produces good results viable for
solving communication problems in many forms. In this regard, phenomenology emphasizes
respect for others’ thoughts and expressions in the same way as relationships emphasize the
need for each other.

Cybernetics Tradition. As a theory of information processing, cybernetic tradition in

communication emphasizes communication as a system with parts networked together to
perform function which can be broken down and analyzed as units of information. It also deals
with input-output relationship while recognizing the importance of feedback and control, cause
and effect and dualistic analyses of various phenomena. As a complex system, communication
practice identifies various perspectives in communication processes beyond causality and
recognizes uncertainty of results even in controlled situations. As such, the theory looks
beyond linear perspective of understanding why events happen as they are and instead it looks
at larger connections employing systems thinking in its analysis.

Sociopsychological Tradition. Expression, interaction and influence ground sociopsychological

communication theory. It puts emphasis on how humans express themselves to other people
through social interaction which influences their behavior or how they impact to others. This
requires attention to the causes and effects of behavior as an interplay of individual and social
factors that need to be manipulated and moderated to fit in various situations. Its importance
lies in the fact that communication in sociopsychological tradition moves with practical reality
as it affects the individual imbued with conscientious decisions in behavioral manipulations as
previously mentioned. In here, communication plays a vital role in its mediational capacity to
fathom depths of human relationship, in understanding the nature of human beings as more
than rational individuals, that there is the capacity to connect through dialogic interactions.
Finally, theoretical emphasis on social context of meanings and expressions can influence
individual’s personality and communication practice as well. It is a confluence of these factors
that define sociopsychological tradition in communication theory.

Sociocultural Tradition. Briefly, this communication theory signifies communication process

that produces and reproduces shared sociocultural patterns. What this means is that societal
values, norms, rituals and other patterns of behavior that are socially practiced are produced
and reproduced in the individual level, meaning to say human behavior is a product of shared
cultural values and the role of communication is to maintain and enhance communication
codes that address these cultural symbols and patterns. There is a high degree of cultural
awareness the theory purports in understanding various cultural misunderstandings, conflicts
that require conscientious look in the inner symbols of culture such as norms, mores, among
others. The theory, further, speaks of a voice that transcends individualism to one that
solidifies cultural identity that is preserved, transferred and reproduced in various
communication practices.

Critical Tradition. In this theory, communication is perceived as discursive, reactionary to

power structures that result in discrimination, oppression and similar modes of degenerative
situations. Communication practices center on rallying for a cause, for emancipation of certain
inequities brought about by progress, capitalism and power that require critical reflection in
order to affect change within the system. Communication is a catalyst for emancipatory feeling
as freedom, justice and hope.

Pragmatist Tradition.Pragmatist communication theory arises as a response to

incommensurability that pervades in democratic society. As part of Dewey’s “Triple
Contingency”, the interaction between conversing individuals and the public resolves societal
problems through the intervention of communication. Its framework is largely rooted on the
constitutive model of communication theory that purports reflexivity as communication
problems and practices are culturally grounded and the model creates a coherent
understanding of the agreements, tensions, issues raised against the foregoing traditions,
exemplified in the dialogic-dialectical coherence. What this means is that communication, as it
relates to practical reality, will have points of contention and adherence to specific
communication theory as it applies to practical situation. For instance, phenomenological
tradition will have its incapacity to dwell on deep issues of social injustice as it is not enough
that people listen to others’ perspectives. A more robust critical tradition that dwells on
discursive criticism and reflection will be more potent in delivering change.

On My Research Rationale

I am presently the musical director of MUZIK Harmonie, a singing group based in Leyte Normal
University where I am tasked to arrange, conduct and accompany the group in various
performances. In all of these tasks mentioned, my communicative practice rests on my training
activities during rehearsals where I communicate to the singers in terms of giving the right tune,
correcting some errors, improving upon vocal technique by giving tips verbally, among others. It
is in this daily practice of communication that I intend to ground this research undertaking on
phenomenological tradition of communication theory that emphasizes the importance of
otherness, authentic group experience, where I, as the mentor, should focus on. Dialogue, as an
important dictum in phenomenology will provide me insights on how to deal with the group
during rehearsals, their behavioral patterns as responses will guide me in nurturing functional
relationship through shared interaction. Over the years of my experience with the group, I
noticed a great deal of communication gap especially felt during rehearsals due to many
reasons such as diversity of musical attributes, lack of focus, etc. These problems have been the
result of bad singing of MUZIK Harmonie in some instances.

As such, my research problem asks the question: How do I improve my coaching technique
during rehearsals of MUZIK Harmonie so that their singing will improve? This question, as
previously stated has phenomenological grounding as dialogue is construed as an important
part of the coaching technique. Moreover, authentic lived experiences of the members will give
cues as to how I will react, change, enhance my communicative practice through conscientious,
sensitive talk. The process is done through interaction between me and the members, how they
manage to receive instructions and modify their singing based on what they think is right. It will
be noticed that certain behavioral issues (lack of focus, etc.) have been reported over the years
so that improvement on singing is not just some technical problem but has something to do
with poor communication between members and with me that has resulted in overall bad
experience. The insistence of dialogue resolves the issue of communication gap that should
bring light to my coaching technique.

The problem in using rhetorical tradition for this research is its tendency to focus on my didactic
coaching through instruction that emphasizes me excluding the members. My own rhetoric as
coach and mentor does not necessarily answer the question of its improvement because
members might not really believe what I tell them even if I am imbued with logical reasoning.
For semiotioc tradition, the difficulty lies in the intersubjective interpretations that I would
indulge which might not really agree to what the singers experience. Such discrepancy of
meanings will not also render positive coaching technique. For example, I might interpret a
frowning face of one singer as a difficult musical passage when its meaning is different from his
point of view. In the case of sociopsychological tradition, its tendency to influence behavior
among members can have negative impact on my coaching because if those influences on
attitudes, mindsets, are not helpful to singing, my coaching fails. In sociocultucultural theory,
clearly it defines that bad singing, for instance, is a result of shared experience of bad singing as
a group, something of a nurtured tradition that will put me in a dangerous challenge to
intervene because of its being part of a social order. Cybernetics tradition, as it addresses
complex communication issues will not pave the way for corrective coaching technique on my
end because concrete solutions are not really offered. Cybernetics has the ability to nurture
dualistic thinking that may abstract certain emotions and its information processing role
deciphers information but its impact to the singers are unlikely determined, hence, its
unimportance. Next, critical tradition does not offer a viable answer to improvement of my
coaching technique as its radical implications to effect change does not bring a harmonious
relationship between me and the singers. I might be able to respond to their stimuli and create
positive steps to change something in my coaching abilities, but the dialogical aspect might be
affected negatively following the theory’s tendency to question existing order, that includes
relationship as well. Finally, pragmatist theory fails to address total authenticity of the
members’ experience because it focuses on consequences of actions. For example, it
admonishes rather than provides insights as to why bad singing occurs and focuses on
consequences rather than in understanding
the nature of such behavior.

The importance of using phenomenology in this research accounts for my conscious experience
during training rehearsals that combine the singers’ conscious experience intertwined with my
own. The cycle of interaction is grounded in hermeneutic circle signifying interpretation as
going back and forth from me unto the singers then back to me. This process instigates
communication cues where language plays an important role. This is because the way I teach
affects the way they process their own experience such that we will learn from each other. Such
experience through dialogic interaction will close the gap that has persisted due to non-
communication in dealing with issues. This is how hermeneutic phenomenology according to
Heidegger plays its active role in meanings accentuated in communicative experience. In other
words, I, together with the singers, will consciously learn from mistakes uttered during
rehearsal to improve singing at the same time in enhancing our relationships. Even more,
language, the spoken communication, signals how singers behave so there is a call for me to
develop rapport, interaction that is sensitive to their current situation so as to achieve balance
in the overall process.

In view of all the theoretical traditions mentioned, phenomenology brings out an authentic
communication that is direct and unmediated (Craig, 2007) which altogether will guide me
through dialogic interaction, in nurturing some techniques for good coaching that should
answer my research question.