Communication Theory for Humans

Neil O'Boyle
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/communication-theory-for-humans-neil-oboyle/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

ESP32 Formats and Communication: Application of

Communication Protocols with ESP32 Microcontroller Neil
Cameron

https://ebookmass.com/product/esp32-formats-and-communication-
application-of-communication-protocols-with-
esp32-microcontroller-neil-cameron/

ESP32 Formats and Communication: Application of

Communication Protocols with ESP32 Microcontroller 1st
Edition Neil Cameron

https://ebookmass.com/product/esp32-formats-and-communication-
application-of-communication-protocols-with-
esp32-microcontroller-1st-edition-neil-cameron/

New Urban Spaces: Urban Theory and the Scale Question

Neil Brenner

https://ebookmass.com/product/new-urban-spaces-urban-theory-and-
the-scale-question-neil-brenner/

From Perception to Communication: A Theory of Types for

Action and Meaning Robin Cooper

https://ebookmass.com/product/from-perception-to-communication-a-
theory-of-types-for-action-and-meaning-robin-cooper/
Why Delegate? Neil J. Mitchell [Neil J. Mitchell]

https://ebookmass.com/product/why-delegate-neil-j-mitchell-neil-
j-mitchell/

Bird’s Electrical Circuit Theory and Technology, 7th

Edition John O. Bird

https://ebookmass.com/product/birds-electrical-circuit-theory-
and-technology-7th-edition-john-o-bird/

Black/Africana Communication Theory 1st ed. Edition

Kehbuma Langmia

https://ebookmass.com/product/black-africana-communication-
theory-1st-ed-edition-kehbuma-langmia/

Media and Communication Theory in Africa Moses Ofome

Asak

https://ebookmass.com/product/media-and-communication-theory-in-
africa-moses-ofome-asak/

A First Look at Communication Theory 10th Edition,

(Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-first-look-at-communication-
theory-10th-edition-ebook-pdf/
 Communication
Theory for Humans
COMMUNICATORS IN
A MEDIATED WORLD

NEIL O’BOYLE
 Communication Theory for Humans

“Showcasing Neil O’Boyle’s real enthusiasm for teaching theory, Communication

Theory for Humans offers an enjoyable, student-centred approach that doesn’t over-
simplify the ideas it introduces. The book makes classic theory relevant through recent
applications, makes difficult theory clear through relatable examples, and shines a spot-
light on the humans without whom communication would have no purpose or mean-
ing. If you’re not lucky enough to join O’Boyle in his classroom, this is the next
best thing.”
—Bethany Klein, Professor of Media and Communication, University of Leeds, UK

“In contrast to most academic work, which is a pain to read, Neil O’Boyle’s book is
clear, engaging, lucid and quite often funny. It deals with complex topics in a thoughtful
manner but, at the same time, doesn’t take itself or its subject matter too seriously.
Perhaps most importantly of all, it may actually get undergraduates to read something!”
—Dr Michael Skey, Senior Lecturer in Communication and Media, School of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Loughborough University, UK

“This book provides students with an introduction to the foundational texts in com-
munication theory and human interaction. While many textbooks exist on this subject,
what distinguishes Neil O’Boyle’s book is its innovative structure with chapters organ-
ised around six core concepts, including ‘authors’, ‘influencers’, and ‘produsers’. With
an emphasis on real life examples, O’Boyle helps theory come alive, aided by his deeply
engaging and personal writing style. This will be a valuable text for students and teach-
ers alike.”
—Dr Anamik Saha, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications,
Goldsmiths University, UK
 Neil O’Boyle

Communication Theory
for Humans
Communicators in a Mediated World
Neil O’Boyle
Dublin City University
Dublin, Ireland

ISBN 978-3-031-02449-8    ISBN 978-3-031-02450-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02450-4
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor
the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover image by Matthias Ripp under a CC BY 2.0 license

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For my mother and father
 Preface

This is a book about communication theory that is aimed primarily at students

taking media and communication studies programmes. As readers are aware,
there are already many excellent textbooks on communication theory available,
some of which have multiple editions. My own personal favourites include
Littlejohn and Foss’s Theories of Human Communication, Griffin’s A First Look
at Communication Theory, McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, Fiske’s
Introduction to Communication Studies, Hodkinson’s Media, Culture and
Society, and Sullivan’s Media Audiences. These books describe a wide range of
theories, models, and approaches and have helped enormously in ‘mapping
out’ the field for students as well as helping them to ‘locate’ (and differentiate)
theories in terms of how each approaches the study of communication. The
aforementioned books also do an excellent job of explaining what ‘communi-
cation’ is, what a ‘theory’ is, and how one might go about assessing the relative
‘merits’ and ‘shortcomings’ of theories.
This book is somewhat different. In the course of writing it, I regularly
imagined myself in conversation with an undergraduate student, posing ques-
tions and answering them, and engaging in a sort of open-ended, probing
dialogue about communication. For years, students have complained to me
that some theories are overloaded with conceptual baggage and tortuous jar-
gon and would be considerably easier to understand if they were explained in
everyday terms. Students have also repeatedly made the point that while there
are many books on communication available, the majority prioritise discussions
of media rather than human communicators per se. This book is my (decidedly
partial) response to that critical feedback. It is not intended as a stand-alone
text but rather as a companion reader—as a resource that can be read alongside
the many excellent books already available. Hence, I do not attempt to ‘re-­
cover’ ground that is already well-covered elsewhere. Naturally, there will be
points of overlap; however, my aims here are broader. This book aims to foster
an appreciation of theory in readers, to cultivate theoretical sensitivity in them,
and to provide them with lots of ‘real world’ examples to help them better

vii
viii PREFACE

understand how theories apply to everyday life. My overarching aim is to

broaden and deepen the reader’s thinking about communication in the fullest
possible sense, in the knowledge that communicative practices (and communi-
cation theories) are always evolving—or ‘always “emerging”’, as John Liep
(2001: 6) has said about culture.
Liep’s words offer an important reminder that cultural production (which
includes knowledge and ideas) is ongoing and unfinished. This applies equally
to academic disciplines such as communication studies, which is currently
undergoing a long overdue process of ‘de-Westernisation’. As welcome as it is
that the contributions of non-Western scholars are finally beginning to receive
the recognition they deserve, it needs to be stated at the outset that the core
concepts and ideas described in this book derive chiefly from Western theoreti-
cal frameworks. (Indeed, my own particular orientation probably falls some-
where between North American communication studies and British cultural
studies, though I have also long appreciated James Carey’s particular variant of
American cultural studies.) That said, throughout the book I offer numerous
examples of studies carried out across the world that demonstrate the broad (if
not perhaps universal) relevance of the theories described. Furthermore, it is
necessary to highlight that the source material used in this book is mainly social
scientific. This is important to mention because any comprehensive analysis of
human communication clearly requires input from neuroscientists, psycholo-
gists, biologists, and other specialists. Indeed, this is a point of criticism that
has been directed at communication studies as a discipline. For example, Kory
Floyd (2014: 4) argues that ‘until recently, no communication theories have
directly posited either biological or evolutionary causes for communication
behaviour or physiological, health-related outcomes of communication
behaviour’.
Liep’s suggestion that culture is always ‘emerging’ also intimates that you,
the reader, are part of this process. More directly, Berger (1991) argues that
theory development should be part of the training of all communication
researchers. In other words, he argues that students should not simply read and
study theories but should be encouraged to critique them, unpack them, and
imagine their own alternatives. I wholeheartedly agree with him—as readers
will discover when they come to the ‘learning activities’ section at the end of
each chapter. These activities have been designed to help students better under-
stand concepts and tease out arguments but also to encourage them to think
more critically about theory construction. Doing so will remind them that
communication theory is itself unfinished and that they too can contribute to
its development. More broadly, it will remind them that they too have a voice,
that they too have power, that they too are civic agents capable of changing the
world (Jenkins, Peters-Lazaro, and Shresthova 2020).
In recent decades, cinema audiences have been subjected to a series of ‘not
another’ movies, my favourite being the brilliantly named Not Another Not
Another Movie (2011). It occurred to me in writing this book that something
similar might be said of my own efforts here—that students might groan at the
 PREFACE ix

appearance of yet another communication theory book. If that is indeed the

case and you opened this book with a deep sigh, then one of my lesser tasks is
to turn that readerly frown upside down. However, beyond that, my greater
hope is that you will find the work informative and interesting in equal mea-
sure, that it will stimulate your imagination and speak to your social realities,
and that it will present enough ideas and raise enough questions to motivate
the curious among you to seek out more. Who knows, perhaps it might even
ignite wanderlust of a theoretical kind. As I write these words on a dark
February morning in 2022 with the global COVID-19 pandemic raging on
outside, it occurs to me that wanderlust ‘of a theoretical kind’ may be the only
kind possible for some time to come.

Dublin, Ireland Neil O’Boyle

February 2022

References
Berger, C. R. (1991) ‘Communication Theories and Other Curios’, Communication
Monographs 58(1): 101–113.
Floyd, K. (2014) ‘Humans Are People, Too: Nurturing an Appreciation for Nature in
Communication Research’, Review of Communication Research 2(1): 1–29.
Jenkins, H., Peters-Lazaro, G. and Shresthova, S. (eds) (2020) Popular Culture and the
Civic Imagination. New York: New York University Press.
Liep, J. (2001) Locating Cultural Creativity. London: Pluto Press.
 Acknowledgements

Every book is a collective endeavour and this one is no different. First off, my
sincere thanks to Lauriane Piette at Palgrave and Immy Higgins at Springer
Nature for their incredible patience, guidance, and support throughout the
entire process. I also wish to sincerely thank the reviewers of the book for their
encouragement and invaluable suggestions, and for very generously providing
endorsements. They are (in alphabetical order!): Anamik Saha, Bethany Klein,
and Michael Skey. Special thanks also to Jeff Pooley for his very kind
endorsement.
I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues at the School of
Communications, Dublin City University, for their friendship and intellectual
hospitality over the past thirteen years. My sincere thanks also to my students
for their passion, wisdom, and attendance. (Most pedagogical discussion nowa-
days centres on ‘in-class engagement’ but such discussion is rather moot if
nobody turns up in the first place).
Finally, sincere thanks to my family. I am eternally grateful to my amazing
wife Miriam and to my wonderful sons Ronan and Eoin for their love, support,
and incredible patience. I also apologise profusely to them for my incessant
tapping on the keyboard at all hours, for my mood swings and pacing, and for
my irritatingly loud ‘self-talk’. Thanks also to my brothers Will, Frank, Rob,
and Eamonn for their constant support. Lastly, my heartfelt thanks to my
mother and father for always being there for me and for helping me in more
ways than they will ever know. This book is dedicated with love to them.

xi
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 Actors: An Introduction to Symbolic Interactionism 27

3 Narrators: A Narrative Approach to Human Communication 51

4 Members: Communication in Human Groups 77

5 Performers: Goffman’s Dramaturgical Perspective103

6 Influencers: Person-to-Person Influence in the Networked Era127

7 Produsers:
 New Media Audiences and the Paradoxes of
Participatory Culture153

8 Concluding Thoughts183

Index205

xiii
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Rational-world and narrative paradigms. (Adapted from Fisher,

W. (1984) ‘Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm’,
Communication Monographs 51: 1–22) 58
Fig. 4.1 A Fantasy Theme Analysis of a Trump Speech 95

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Communication is a—perhaps the—fundamental social process. Without

communication, human groups and societies would not exist.
—Schramm (1963: 1)

Introduction: Human Wildlife

A student of mine once said, exasperatedly, that communication theories are
like ‘mown lawns’. ‘They’re too neat and tidy’, he said, ‘nobody’s got grass like
that!’ I remember being deeply impressed by the young man’s insightful and
richly descriptive remarks—and pleased to see he wasn’t scrolling his phone
when he made them. His words contain more than a little truth: communica-
tion theories, like all theories, invariably attempt to put a degree of order on
processes and experiences that are often complex and sometimes chaotic. And
yet, as I hope to demonstrate in this short book, theories are also fascinating,
thought-provoking, and incredibly useful things. As readers are aware, human
communication is a terribly complicated business and with each passing year,
new tools, technologies, and countless new studies emerge, all of which add
even more complexity. However, it is equally true that our reasons and motiva-
tions for communicating have not changed all that much over time. As Wilbur
Schramm notes in the epigraph of this chapter, human communication is fun-
damentally a social process: we communicate to share experiences and pass on
information, to explain events and alert others, to justify our actions, boast,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
N. O’Boyle, Communication Theory for Humans,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02450-4_1
2 N. O’BOYLE

complain, influence, bully, flirt, and much more.1 Sometimes we communicate

simply to keep in touch, such as sending a Snapchat ‘streak’ to someone (what
scholars call ‘phatic communication’). Nowadays, we live in a world preoccu-
pied with new technologies—a world seemingly obsessed with big data and
algorithms, bots and apps, responsive media and smart devices, platforms and
programmatic advertising, fake news, artificial intelligence, machine learning,
and the ‘metaverse’, and yet all of this can sometimes make us forget that
human interactions are the lifeblood of our world, regardless of how datafied
and technology-dependent that world has become.
This book prioritises the human in human communication and is aimed
primarily at students taking media and communication studies programmes. As
already highlighted, these students sometimes complain about the ‘theory’
modules they are obliged to take. Adjectives such as ‘dull’ and ‘unhelpfully
abstract’ are known to appear in their feedback and it is not uncommon to hear
theory modules described as ‘detached from everyday life’. However, in my
experience, negative appraisals of this sort usually come from students who
have not made an effort to read theory, who have not properly engaged with
it, and in some cases have not even come to class—in person, Zoom, or other-
wise! Of course, theory can sometimes be boring, and sometimes its relevance
to everyday life can be difficult to discern. But to dismiss ‘theory’ out of hand
is to miss out on a fascinating and colourful world of concepts and ideas that
can enrich our thinking and help us make sense of our lives and the societies in
which we live; it is to disregard the analytical footing theories give us, the con-
fidence they inspire in us, and how they work as catalysts for our imagination.2
Students also sometimes forget that theorising is something all of us do, even
if we don’t label it such. As Joas and Knobl (2009: 5) observe, without theoris-
ing ‘it would be impossible to learn or to act in consistent fashion; without
generalisations and abstractions, the world would exist for us only as a chaotic
patchwork of discrete, disconnected experiences and sensory impressions’.
That said, Ernest Bormann (1990: 3) cautions that we must avoid confusing
‘hunches’ and ‘opinions’ with scholarly theories, the crucial difference being

1
Relatedly, in their recent book Changing News Use: Unchanged News Experiences? (2021),
Irene Costera Meijer and Tim Groot Kormelink argue that while practices around news consump-
tion are evolving and diversifying—for example, in addition to reading, watching, and listening, we
now also scroll, tag, check, and sometimes actively avoid news—‘many underlying patterns of news
experience—how people appreciate news—are surprisingly durable’ (p.2). Indeed, James Carey
(2009: 17) similarly observes that ‘news changes little and yet is intrinsically satisfying; it performs
few functions yet is habitually consumed’.
2
The first academic paper I always assign my theory classes to read is Howard Becker’s ‘Becoming
a Marijuana User’. This paper was published way back in 1953 and yet it remains one of the best
examples of ‘applied’ symbolic interactionism. We will briefly examine this paper in Chapter 2;
however, I mention it here simply because it offers an excellent example of how scholarly works can
act as catalysts for our imagination. For example, Carter and Fuller (2016: 938) observe that ‘to
this day, when students read ‘Becoming a Marijuana User’ they realise how creative one can be as
a researcher; Becker was instrumental in inspiring scholars to dare to examine unique, taboo, and
esoteric phenomena not studied by others’.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

that scholarly theories consist of rules and principles that have been tested by
experience. Of course, this should not be taken to suggest that they are always
correct. Likewise, it is important to remember that every theory is partial,
which is to say that in focusing on some things it invariably overlooks or disre-
gards others.
A number of metaphors and analogies have been put forward to explain
how theories work. They are ‘tools’ to help us build explanations; they are
‘bridges’ that lead to fuller understandings of phenomena. Littlejohn and Foss
(2011) liken theories to guidebooks, which is a particularly helpful way of
thinking about them. Guidebooks, such as those published by Lonely Planet or
Rough Guides, are valuable sources of information and can tell us much about
the interesting things to see and do when visiting particular places. But guide-
books also leave out a great deal about the culture and history of places, and
they generally contain little or no information about regions or locales that are
unpopular with tourists. Theories can be thought about in much the same way:
they will be of considerable use to us so long as we don’t fool ourselves into
thinking that they describe and explain everything.

Communication Studies
Communication studies as an academic discipline or field originated in the
United States in the mid-twentieth century, which makes it relatively ‘young’
in historical terms. In fact, Pooley (2021: 143) points out that ‘until the
1940s, no such thing as communication research’ even existed. Moreover, at
that time and for a number of years after, the term ‘communication theory’
was mostly used in the context of electrical engineering (Craig and Muller
2007: xiv). Like other academic disciplines, communication studies has a
number of founding myths and origin stories, however, Pooley and Park
(2008: 1) argue in their landmark volume, The History of Media and
Communication Research: Contested Memories, that on the whole ‘there is very
little history of mass communication research’. Wilbur Schramm (mentioned
above) was one of the first to self-identify as a communications scholar and in
the post-World War II era he helped to establish a number of important com-
munication institutes, such as those at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and Stanford University. During those early years and for much of
the twentieth century, mediated communication—or more precisely, mass-
mediated communication (e.g., newspapers, radio, television, etc.)—was the
primary ‘stuff’ of communication studies, though research on interpersonal
communication was also carried out by scholars specialising in linguistics and
social psychology. In fact, Berger argues that from the start, communication
studies was really a ‘melange of disciplines’ (1991: 103). He points out, for
example, that the nascent field was shaped initially by social behaviourism and
sociology (discussed in Chap. 2), but also by political science and psychology,
and later by British cultural studies. Like Berger, Silvio Waisbord argues that
communication studies has always been an eclectic and fragmented patchwork
4 N. O’BOYLE

of different intellectual traditions and research approaches. ‘Communication

studies’, he insists, ‘is versatile, vibrant, and messy’; it has no ‘ontological cen-
ter’ (2019: 9). For these reasons, Waisbord argues that it is not so much a
discipline as a ‘post-­discipline’. However, this does not trouble him; on the
contrary, he considers it the main strength of the field. These diverse origins
reveal themselves in the present day in the range of specialisms or sub-disci-
plines within communication studies, many of which have their own research
networks, conferences, academic journals, and so on. Even umbrella associa-
tions, such as the International Association for Media and Communication
Research (IAMCR), which is the largest of its kind worldwide, are made up of
a number of distinct sections and working groups, including communication
policy and technology, journalism research and education, audience studies,
and political communication (https://iamcr.org/s-­wg).
Of course, so much internal diversity can also be problematic in a number of
ways. For one thing, depending on their particular orientation and interests,
communication scholars will sometimes define communication in different
ways. For instance, Carey (2009) famously distinguishes between a ‘transmis-
sion’ view of communication (sending or imparting information) and a ‘ritual’
view of communication (maintaining meaningful social bonds). Consequently,
Robert Craig (1999) argues that any attempt to find a ‘unified’ theory of com-
munication—one that everyone everywhere agrees upon—is both futile and
likely impossible. Instead, he argues that we need ‘a way of seeing how differ-
ent traditions of communication theory are relevant to each other and have
interesting issues to debate in common’ (Craig and Muller 2007: 60). Another
difficulty with being ‘everything and nothing’ so to speak is that the particular
expertise of communication scholars is sometimes hard to define, which also
helps to explain why the legitimacy of the discipline is sometimes called into
question.3 Part of the problem, as Wolfgang Donsbach once observed in a
speech, is that every human being is a communicator on some level and every-
one therefore has some knowledge of what it is that communication schol-
ars study:

Communication has a very simple problem: The closeness of its object to every-
body’s reality and experience makes everybody a self-proclaimed “expert.” People
say, “Because I watch a lot of television (be it as a politician, a spokesperson,
spindoctor, or just a parent), I have at least as much to say as a researcher in this
field.” This problem does not apply to a physicist or a neurologist. But it happens
to us, and it sometimes makes it hard to defend research against common wisdom
or claims from interested parties. (Donsbach 2006: 445)

As already noted, communication studies originated in the Western world

(the US to be specific); however, since the late twentieth century there have

3
As Pooley (2016: xii) humorously puts it, ‘“communication”, as an organized academic enter-
prise, was jerrybuilt atop a motley cluster of barely compatible, legitimacy-starved skills-training
traditions’.
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

been calls to ‘de-Westernise’ the field—calls that increased considerably with

the publication of Curran and Park’s De-Westernizing Media Studies in 2000.
Curran and Park, along with many others, argue that communication studies is
rooted in Western philosophical and cultural assumptions and is dominated by
Western theoretical and methodological frameworks. In De-Westernizing
Communication Research (2011), Georgette Wang clarifies that such argu-
ments are not aimed at rejecting Western models but at enriching and broaden-
ing the field—or encouraging ‘a plurality of global voices’, as Waisbord (2016:
868) puts it. However, this is easier said than done. For example, Waisbord
argues that while the field is experiencing some positive effects associated with
globalisation, internationalisation, and multiculturalism—for example,
increased interaction and collaboration between researchers from various parts
of the world—strong differences in academic cultures remain and English still
dominates. Moreover, he argues that while it is welcome that academic works
are increasingly being translated into different languages, most of the founda-
tional or canonical works in the field are underpinned by Western epistemolo-
gies (knowledge, understanding, and ways of knowing). In other words, he
suggests that translation alone can hardly be expected to bring an end to ‘aca-
demic imperialism’ (ibid. 872). Linked to this more general call to de-­
Westernise communication studies has been a growing demand by non-White
scholars for more professional recognition and greater inclusion ‘on the
ground’ as it were (i.e. in communication schools and departments, conference
panels, etc.). In their important paper ‘#CommunicationSoWhite’, Chakravartty
et al. (2018) compare White and non-White scholars in terms of publication
and citation rates in twelve peer-reviewed communication journals, finding
that non-White scholars authored only 14 per cent of all papers (on racial top-
ics) published between 1990 and 2016 and were cited significantly fewer times.
However, the motivation for their research goes far beyond a desire to track
publication and citation rates:

We undertook this study because we observed the absence of non-White scholars

from the canon of communication across all subfields; the marginal position of
non-White scholars in key institutional spaces; the persistent ghettoization of
race-related panels and discussions on conference program agendas; and the
greater visibility of White scholars’ work on race and inequality. (Chakravartty
et al. 2018: 255)

Chakravartty et al.’s findings point to significant exclusions, biases, and

power imbalances within the field of communication studies; however, the pic-
ture is far bleaker outside it. First and foremost, it is vital to remember that not
everyone everywhere enjoys the same freedoms to communicate. Nowadays,
technology-free ‘retreats’ are becoming increasingly popular for the well-­
heeled, with many deciding to temporarily unplug their various devices and
voluntarily go ‘off grid’ or indulge in a ‘digital detox’. However, ‘being incom-
municado’ is not a choice for everyone; for many refugees, migrant workers,
6 N. O’BOYLE

and impoverished people around the world, ‘it remains an everyday experience,
indirectly, directly or structurally’ (Constantinou et al. 2008: 5/6). Equally, it
is important to acknowledge that the pace and nature of technological change
depend entirely on the geographical context (Curran et al. 2016) and that
despite significant progress, a ‘digital divide’ remains globally. This term high-
lights that although the internet is technically available worldwide, there remain
significant differences both between and within countries in respect of access,
skills, and levels of usage. At a minimum, we can think of a first- and second-
level digital divide: the first comes down to material access, while the second
concerns the extent to which individuals are equipped to use digital technolo-
gies (Hargittai 2002). Such debates also bring to light differences in media
ecosystems. For example, in some countries, indigenous language media and
older, more traditional forms, such as community radio and newspapers, con-
tinue to play a vital role in information-sharing and bottom-up participation,
though their future survival is far from guaranteed. For instance, Salawu (2015)
highlights that the future remains precarious for many local language newspa-
pers in sub-Saharan Africa.
It is important to note that something of a digital divide can be found in all
countries, including wealthy ones. Even in the United States—the birthplace of
Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook—internet connectivity
remains an issue for many people. For example, in his recent book Farm Fresh
Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity (2021), Christopher Ali describes
the persistence of a rural-urban digital divide and the widespread lack of broad-
band in rural America. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, 10 per cent of the
adult population (5.3 million people) were classified as ‘internet non-­users’ in
2018 (Office for National Statistics 2019). That said, the digital divide is much
more pronounced in poorer countries, which again reminds us that physical
places continue to matter in our increasingly mediated world. Couldry and
Hepp (2017: 78) argue that ‘locations of high media connectivity’ are privi-
leged in the present day, while Florida (2002) similarly argues that places with
advanced technological infrastructures and skilled, diverse workforces tend to
be the most economically successful. Unfortunately, many people across the
globe do not live in such places. As United Nations Deputy Secretary-­General
Amina Mohammed starkly put it in April 2021, ‘Almost half the world’s popu-
lation, 3.7 billion people, the majority of them women, and most in developing
countries, are still offline’ (United Nations 2021). Indeed, even though it is
sometimes framed as a great ‘leveller’, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has
in fact deepened the isolation and inequality experienced by some people
(Sobande 2020).4
4
Relatedly, activists sometimes suffer the delusion that everyone is equally attentive to their
cause—or at least should be. But of course some people, such as those facing starvation, have little
concern for causes other than how to obtain food. As the humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow
once famously put it: ‘For the man who is extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interests
exist but food. He dreams food, he remembers food, he thinks about food, he emotes only about
food, he perceives only food and he wants only food’ (Maslow 1943: 374).
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

Communicators
As the title suggests, our focus in this book is on embodied, symbol-using,
socially situated human communicators. Readers will appreciate (in being one
of them!) that humans communicate in numerous ways—with their words and
language, their posture, their tone of voice, their facial expressions, their move-
ment or stillness, their eye contact or avoidance, their silences, their clothes,
their hobbies and interests, and much more. Human bodies differ, personalities
differ, and moods differ from situation to situation. We are sometimes discern-
ing, sceptical, critical; at other times gullible, impressionable, manipulable.
Most of us are consumers, viewers, readers, listeners, lurkers, and users; many
of us are also fans, hobbyists, and creators. Some of us are influencers and some
are trolls; a few are media moguls and a few are changemakers. Some, such as
the climate activist Greta Thunberg, have become famous ‘global communica-
tors’ (Hautea et al. 2021: 2) while the majority of us live out our lives known
mainly to family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. And yet all human
communicators, no matter how lowly—no matter if they spend their days beg-
ging, picking fruit, washing dishes, breaking stones, or sweeping floors—have
some communicative power, and in this book we will explore some of the
diverse forms this can take. Each chapter uses a single concept—actors, narra-
tors, members, performers, influencers, and produsers—to explore key ideas,
theories, and thinkers. Altering our vantage point in this way enables us to
think about communicators (including ourselves) through different conceptual
prisms. Each concept offers a unique, though related, way of thinking about
interacting selves and the wider groups and networks to which they belong,
and each chapter deliberately includes a mix of early and recent studies to
enable readers to historically locate concepts and trace their evolution.5 Media
are central to this discussion, but it is important to reiterate that human com-
municators—and how they communicate, relate, and make meaning in their
lives—are our primary concern.
This book weaves together a number of different theories and perspectives
on communication; however, it advances from a view of human beings as inter-
active and reflexive meaning-makers. Though commonplace nowadays, such a
view is still relatively recent when considered in terms of the long history of
humankind, and its wide endorsement owes much to a theoretical perspective
associated mainly with sociology but which has also had a profound influence
on the field of communication studies generally: symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic interactionism, which we examine in the next chapter, emerged in
the early to mid-twentieth century in the writings of scholars such as George
Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer and was largely a response to what were
perceived as serious shortcomings in the dominant theoretical perspectives of

5
Rob Stones (2008: 5) rightly argues that older theories ‘can be very helpful in the analysis of
new societal features, just as new ways of seeing things can provide fresh insights not only into new
societal features but also into long-standing and/or historical societal features’.
8 N. O’BOYLE

the day. In particular, these scholars took issue with psychology’s tendency to
explain human behaviour in terms of attitudes, drives, and conscious and
unconscious motives, and sociology’s tendency to explain it in terms of social
position, social status, and social roles. In both cases, argued symbolic interac-
tionists, ‘the meanings of things for the human beings who are acting are either
bypassed or swallowed up in the factors used to account for their behaviour’
(Blumer, 1998[1969]: 3). Consequently, scholars working in this tradition
espouse a view of human beings as first and foremost social animals and argue
that meanings arise primarily through their communicative interactions. As
already noted, this view has gained considerable ground and over the course of
the twentieth century the formerly sharp demarcations between traditional
sociology, psychology, and interactionist perspectives softened considerably. Of
course, this is not to suggest that disciplinary boundaries have evaporated but
rather simply that many contemporary scholars are reluctant to narrowly label
their work.
In this book readers will encounter a range of theories about, and approaches
to, the study of communication, but at all times the primary focus will be on
human communicators. It is fitting therefore that we begin with symbolic
interactionism. Nevertheless, it is equally important to emphasise that none of
the theories described in the chapters that follow are simple ‘offshoots’ of this
general perspective; indeed, few of the thinkers we will encounter can be
labelled narrowly as symbolic interactionists. (This includes Erving Goffman,
whom we will meet in Chap. 5 and whose work has long been associated with
the perspective.) Likewise, as described in the next chapter, symbolic interac-
tionism has also been challenged and critiqued in various ways. Despite all of
this, we can say with confidence that many of the thinkers we encounter in this
book have at one point or another acknowledged an intellectual and theoretical
debt to scholars such as George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, and there-
fore it is perhaps reasonable to suggest that something of a symbolic interac-
tionist thread weaves its way through all of the chapters that follow.6

How to Read this Book

Textbooks are generally not designed to be read cover to cover but rather with
the assumption that readers will pick and choose chapters based on what their
instructors are covering in class. To some extent that holds true for this book.
However, because it is shorter than most textbooks and the six core concepts
interlink and overlap, I prefer to think of it as a play of several acts. You will of
course ‘get’ something from it if you only stay for an act or two, but if you stick
around for the whole show, I promise you’ll get a lot more! Again, it is

6
Though we give his work scant attention in this book, it is important to add that James Carey’s
(2009) ‘cultural approach’ to communication was also heavily inspired by the Chicago School of
symbolic interactionism. For Carey, ‘the most viable though still inadequate tradition of social
thought on communication comes from those colleagues and descendants of Dewey in the
Chicago School: from Mead and Cooley through Robert Park and on to Erving Goffman’
(2009: 19).
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

important to reiterate for readers that this book is not intended as a standalone
text but rather has been designed to be read alongside other books and articles.
One of my goals has been to make it as accessible, free-flowing, and engaging as
possible; however, I have also tried to ensure that the theoretical scaffolding is
built clearly and consistently, and that the core concepts are thoroughly
explained. Where necessary for explanatory purposes—and in the interests of
faithfully representing their ideas—I cite the actual words of key thinkers
(though I have also been careful not to clutter the text with endless quotes and
citations).
While we are on the subject of language, it is important to draw the reader’s
attention to the gendered nature of some of the words and terms used in earlier
chapters, especially in scholarly works dating from the early and mid-twentieth
century—a time when male/masculine pronouns were the default. For exam-
ple, in the following passage, in which he describes the inseparability of indi-
vidual and collective selves, Mead writes, ‘The individual possesses a self only
in relation to the selves of the other members of his social group; and the
structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behaviour pattern of this
social group to which he belongs, just as does the structure of the self of every
other individual belonging to this social group’ (2015[1934]: 164, my empha-
sis). Some readers may be uncomfortable with these pronouns, but it is impor-
tant to remember that their use does not invalidate the arguments being made
but simply reflects the historical context in which they were written. That said,
it is vital that we pay attention to language. Indeed, Jeff Pooley (2021: 139)
sensibly suggests that historians of communication should ‘linger more delib-
erately, more patiently, on the words that past scholars actually used’—advice
that should also be heeded by students of communication, in my opinion.
As already explained, this book charts a communicator-centred course
through human communication and draws mainly on the work of media and
communication scholars as well as other social scientists. However, some read-
ers may wish to ‘read around’ the subject and perhaps look more closely at the
contributions of psychologists, linguists, biologists, and other specialists. For
example, in the Preface I noted that Kory Floyd (2014) has criticised the com-
munication studies field for ignoring the contributions of biologists. Floyd also
argues that much communication theory is ‘needlessly anthropocentric’ (p.1)
in the sense that it gives human explanations for behaviours (e.g., aggression,
fear, and arousal) that are not uniquely human. Indeed, it is worth noting, as
the naturalist Simon Barnes (2018) points out, that humans and animals com-
municate in lots of similar ways (e.g., by using sounds, gestures, movements,
etc.) and that they also communicate with each other. For example, dogs will
bark, scratch doors, and run around in circles when they need to ‘relieve’ them-
selves. A more celebrated example involved a chimpanzee named Washoe who
famously learned American sign language in the 1960s.7 We do not have space

7
It is worth adding here that in 2021 the Swedish scholars Susanne Schotz, Joost van de Weijer,
and Robert Eklund were awarded the prestigious Ig-Nobel prize for biology for their research on
‘cat-human communication’.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
pleasant stir, and the insects began to chirp in low tones as if not
quite sure the night was coming.
“What a delightful day! Though I have not done half the things that
I meant to,” said Miss Lucy as they were nearing home. “We were to
look over those Russian views this afternoon, and I was to show you
my sketches. It is all Winthrop’s fault. We shall have to take the day
over again, Fanny.”
“I cannot say that I am sorry I came, having a high regard for the
truth. But then I am going; and the world will still last;” he returned.
“That must be our comfort.”
“I wish you and your sister would come over soon, not merely to
tea, but to spend a good long afternoon;” said Miss Churchill. “And I
have a basket of flowers to send home with you.”
“Does Miss Endicott go alone?” Winthrop asked.
“In the carriage—unless you should have the politeness to
accompany her,” answered Miss Churchill rather inconsequently.
“With pleasure—if Aunt Lucy can spare me.”
“I shall march straight to bed, you saucy boy.”
The ladies were helped out. Fanny thought she had better keep
right on. Miss Churchill brought a great basket of fragrance and
beauty, and said she would send the parcel over the next morning,
“that is if you are quite sure that you will not feel patronized,” she
whispered.
“No,” returned Fan frankly. “Rose and I will be most grateful.”
Lucy kissed her good by. Miss Churchill’s farewell was a little more
formal, but full of sweet cordiality. The coachman sprang up in his
seat and turned the horses slowly.
Mr. Churchill assisted Lucy up the steps. “What a pretty behaved
girl,” he said. “She is bright and pleasant without being bold or
underbred. And she enjoys everything so thoroughly.”
 “She makes one feel young again. She fairly gives of her own
abundant youth.”
In the meanwhile the two rode home together. There was no
moon, but the stars were out by thousands, shining in all their glory.
They talked of the beauty of the night, of the improvements in the
town, and he asked what was going on in the way of entertainment.
This was how Fan came to mention the picnic, and Mr. Ogden was
interested in it immediately.
Nelly and the elders were sitting in the wide, airy hall with the lamp
in the back part, making a golden twilight within. Fan set her flowers
in the midst, and all the air was sweet.
Such a lovely day as it had been! The talk and visiting, the dinner
and tea, the two rides,—Miss Churchill and Miss Lucy—the kindly
messages to mamma,—the invitation to tea, and best of all, the
thought about papa’s sermon. Fan had a way of bringing something
home from every place for every body. It was as good as going
yourself.
“So papa, dear, it wasn’t my fascination altogether, but a little
pinch of your good seed. It springs up occasionally where you do not
expect it. And now tell me what you have been doing?”
Our day had proved one of the unsatisfactory days.
Mamma had gone out in the morning to make some calls, and
found Mrs. Day’s baby very sick. Edith started from her nap in
affright, and while I went down to soothe her, Stuart had tormented
my patient into a fit of passion, so that he had a headache and could
eat no dinner. Then there had been a steady stream of visitors all the
afternoon.
“I didn’t get much of your trimming done,” I said to Fan, “but the
picnic is not until Tuesday.”
“And I can work like a Trojan to-morrow. Oh! mamma and Rose,
there is something else—I hope you will think I have acted rightly
about it.”
Then followed an account of the gift.
 “I do not see how you could well have done differently. Miss
Churchill was very kind and delicate.”
“Fan,” exclaimed papa as if waking out of a dream—“I think I do
see the good seed. But some things are best to let grow by
themselves. If you poke about the roots and snip off and tie up, you
don’t get half the bloom and beauty. People like the Churchills might
bring forth so much fruit. Perhaps it will come. The same God who
made the gourd, made the century plant. Mother, couldn’t we have a
quiet little hymn?”
It was a trick he had when there was any special thing on his
mind. Mamma’s soft playing seemed to smooth out the tangles.
We sang with her, and then kissed each other good night.
The next day was ever so much better. Mamma had talked to both
of the boys, and I think Louis did try to be patient and pleasant. Fan
came in and helped entertain him while we both sewed. The dresses
were sent with a note from Miss Churchill, and mamma thought them
extremely pretty. We finished Fan’s pique all but the button holes, by
night.
Just after tea Mrs. Day sent over. Mamma answered the summons
and staid until ten, then she came home to tell us that the poor little
life had gone out here, to blossom brighter elsewhere. She had
washed it and dressed it for the last time, with her tender hands.
Mrs. Downs had come to stay all night, for Mrs. Day was in violent
hysterics.
Early Sunday morning the baby was buried. Three little graves in a
row, and only Betty and Jem left. I stopped in Church just a moment
to give thanks on my knees that our little flock were all alive and well.
“I wonder how you can take such an interest in everybody?” Louis
said as I sat with him awhile that evening. “In one way your father
and mother have a duty towards all in the parish, but—I don’t know
as I can quite explain,—you seem to make their troubles and their
pleasures your very own. And some of the people must be—very
common, and quite ignorant—excuse me, but it is so all over the
world.”
 “Isn’t that the secret of true sympathy? If you were in great sorrow
and went to a friend, would you not like to have the comfort adapted
to your nature, and wants? The other would be asking for bread and
receiving a stone.”
“It is very good of course, really noble. But it would fret me to do
favors for people who did not interest me one bit. Now I can
understand your sister’s enjoying her day at the Churchills, even if
she was asked partly to entertain an invalid. They were refined,
agreeable people. But that she should give up going to ride with Miss
Fairlie yesterday afternoon, to make a bonnet for that woman who
lost her baby, and who wasn’t a bit thankful—”
“She was thankful,” I interposed.
“Stuart went with your sister, and he said she found fault because
it wasn’t the right shape, and because there was ribbon used instead
of crape. I should have smashed up the thing and thrown it into the
fire, and told her to suit herself.”
I laughed a little, the remark was so characteristic.
“We get used to people’s ways after a while,” I said. “Mrs. Day
never is quite satisfied. If a thing had only been a little different. And
very likely next week she will show the bonnet to some neighbor and
praise Fanny’s thoughtfulness and taste. You see no one happened
to think of a bonnet until it was pretty late.”
“But why could she not have been thankful on the spot? It was
ungracious, to say the least.”
“That is her way.”
“I’d get her out of it, or I wouldn’t do any favors for her.”
“I wonder if we are always thankful on the spot, and when the
favor doesn’t quite suit us?”
There was a silence of some moments, then he said in a low tone:
“Do you mean me, Miss Endicott?”
“No, I am not quite as impolite as that. I made my remark in a
general sense.”
 “Suppose some one gave you an article that you did not want?”
“If it was from an equal, and I could decline it, granting that it was
perfectly useless, I should do so. But an inferior, or a poorer person,
who might have taken a great deal of pains, deserves more
consideration.”
“Is it not deceitful to allow them to think they have conferred a
benefit upon you?”
“I do not look at it in that light. This person intended a kindness,
and I take it at his or her appraisal. I am obliged for the labor and
love that went into it, the thought prompting it.”
“Oh,” after a silence.
“And doesn’t that make the good fellowship of the world? When
equals exchange small courtesies there is no special merit in it. No
self-sacrifice is required, no lifting up of any one, or no going down.
The world at large is no better or stronger for the example. It is when
we go out of ourselves, make our own patience and generosity and
sympathy larger, that we begin to enjoy the giving and doing.”
“But you can not really like poor, ignorant people?”
“Better sometimes than I can like rich, ignorant people. When you
walk along the roadside you enjoy the clover blooms, the common
daisies and mallows, and every flowering weed. The way gives you
its very best. These blossoms laugh and nod and twinkle in the glad
sunshine, and you are joyous with them. But if a friend who had a
large garden and gardeners in abundance asked you to come, and
took you through weedy grass-grown paths, and gathered for you a
bunch of field flowers, you would not feel so much obliged.”
“Why no.”
“It is the giving of one’s best. It may also mean the ability to
appreciate, when another gives of the best he has.”
“But can you like the work? Pardon me, but it has always seemed
to me a hint of a second or third rate mind when one can be happy
with such common pleasures. There, no doubt I have offended you.”
 “If we were always looking for our own perfect satisfaction, it would
not be. But, ‘No man liveth to himself,’ only.”
“Miss Endicott, I don’t wonder you like my brother Stephen. After
all,” rather doubtfully, “isn’t there a good deal of cant preached?”
“Only believe. All the rest will be added,” I said hurriedly.
The church bell was ringing its middle peal. There was a long
pause then it took up a sweet and rather rapid jangle, subsiding into
the slow swells of tender melody. We always called it the middle peal
and began to get ready, as that gave us just time to go to church. I
rose now, and uttered a pleasant good night.
“Say a little prayer for me, if you don’t think I am too wicked;” he
murmured faintly, turning his face away.
How peculiar he was! When I thought him softening, he was
always sure to draw back into his shell again, and his confidences
invariably came unexpectedly. Then too, they puzzled me, I was not
fit to cope with them. They seemed to jar and jangle with the every
day smoothness of my own life.
Mr. Ogden was at church alone that evening, and though the
Maynard girls were there, walked home in our circle. I was going to
stay with Fannie, but Dick Fairlie was on the other side of her, and
George and Allie West swallowed me up in the narrow path.
“I am coming in to-morrow morning to tell you of the picnic plans,”
said Allie as we were about to separate.
“Can’t I come in the evening and hear?” asked Mr. Ogden. “Or am
I the man on the other side?”
“No indeed,” spoke up Allie, “we shall be glad to have you. I will
leave a special message.”
They were a little acquainted with him, having met him at the
Maynards the summer before. The young ladies of that family had
declined participating in the affair.
We heard all the plans on Monday morn. They were to go out to
Longmeadow in wagons and carriages, taking refreshments and
conveniences. There was just a nice party. “The kind of people who
harmonize,” said Miss West. “I never can endure Tom, Dick and
Harry—everybody and his wife.”
“Of course you wouldn’t want everybody in a small party,” I
returned.
“I wish you were going, Rose.”
“The Sunday School picnic comes the week after. I could not go to
both.”
“This will be ever so much nicer.”
“O, I am not sure. There will be more enjoyment at that, because
there will be so many more to enjoy everything.”
“Your way of thinking! Well, if I was a clergyman’s daughter I
should have to go I suppose. I am glad that I can choose my
pleasures. Fanny Endicott, if Mr. Ogden calls this evening give him
my compliments and a special invitation.”
Fan colored and made some laughing retort.
He did come over with a message from his aunts, asking us to tea
on Thursday evening if it was convenient. Then he wanted to know
about the picnic, and said that he might be expected, sure.
Dick and Kate came over for Fanny. Mrs. Fairlie was in the wagon
and leaned out to make some inquiries about Mr. Duncan. Stuart had
taken a knapsack and started on foot.
I went a few steps further on to fasten up a spray of clematis. Dick
followed.
“I don’t see why you couldn’t have gone too;” he said rather
crossly.
“Should I have added so very much?”
“I suppose that grand chap of the Churchills’ will be there?” he
went on without noticing my remark.
“Yes. He was invited by Allie West, you know.”
 He snapped off a piece of honeysuckle. What was the matter with
him this morning?
Fan came down in her new pique dress, her broad sun hat
trimmed with light blue, and her white parasol lined with the same
tint. She was pretty and stylish enough for any lady’s daughter. Kate
was in a silvery, much be-ruffled poplin, and a jaunty round hat that
scarcely shaded her eyes.
Louis was considerably improved that day. He walked into the next
room, arranged some flowers that I brought him, and was quite
cheerful. He wanted very much to go down stairs, but mamma
thought he had better not, so he acquiesced pleasantly.
“If you are no worse to-morrow you may try it,” she promised.
Fan had a royal time, though she declared she was half tired to
death.
Up in our room she told me all the particulars.
“Everything was just lovely! Servants to do the work, make fires
and coffee, and spread tables, while we sat, or walked in the shade,
or rambled through the woods. We had the violins and quadrilles and
gallops and laughing, and may be a little flirting. It was absolutely
funny to see young Ogden.”
“Oh, Fan, I hope you didn’t—”
“My dear little grandmother, I am afraid I did, just the least bit. You
see Kate and Allie West tried so hard for Mr. Ogden, and he kept by
my side so easily. I had only to look. And Dick Fairlie was like a bear.
Something has vexed him.”
“I thought he was cross this morning. But, oh, Fan, I wouldn’t have
you do any thing to—to displease the Churchills.”
“And I wouldn’t, honestly Rose. This is nothing beyond summer
pastime. Why can’t we all be bright and nice and social? It is a
humbug to think of everybody’s falling in love. I don’t believe young
people would think of it, only some one is afraid and speaks before
the time, making a tangle of it all. I do not expect any one to fall in
love with me—at present.”
 CHAPTER IX.

XCITEMENTS and engagements multiplied with us.

One and another had visitors from the city and we were
sent for to tea or to spend the evening. Stuart was
asked every where as well. Louis came down the next
day and sat in the hall with us, where we were sewing
as usual. Then on Thursday we went to the Churchills. They sent the
carriage over early, before we were ready, indeed. Louis eyed the
soft cushions wistfully.
“Oh,” I spoke out before I thought, but I was glad an instant after,
—“if you would spare a few moments,—if you would take an invalid a
short drive—”
“With pleasure Miss. The sick young man, I suppose?”
“Yes,” and I ran to beg papa to help him out. Louis was delighted, I
could see.
They drove down the quiet street, where the trees met overhead.
Quaint and old fashioned, with great gardens, many of the houses
being owned by widows, or elderly people whose children were
married and gone. Less than a quarter of a mile away the road
curved, and in this little three-cornered space stood our pretty gray
stone church, the shady side covered with ivy.
“It was delightful;” said Louis on his return. “But I never thought of
the great liberty we were taking.”
“Do not fret about that,” I made answer gaily. “Be just as good as
you can, while I am gone.”
I was glad they had asked no one else at the Churchills. The
Maynards had been over the day before. Miss Churchill received us
very cordially. I explained what I had done, and made a small
apology.
 “My dear child, I am pleased that you thought of it,” returned Miss
Churchill. “Why, we might send over almost every day. I am glad he
is improving so nicely.”
“It would be a charitable work for me, Aunt Esther. Such a little
satisfies Aunt Lu that I do not keep half busy,” said Mr. Ogden.
“I never knew you to have such an industrious fit;” replied his aunt.
“But I have been in business for a year you see, and have ceased
to be an idler;” and he made a comical face.
Miss Lucy came down soon after. Then we had a nice cordial time
talking about books and looking over pictures.
Sometimes two or three voices sounded at once, not from any ill
breeding, but because we all had so much to say. Then we would
laugh and subside, and begin again. I almost wondered how we
dared feel so much at home, and utter our every day thoughts
unreservedly.
Mr. Churchill joined us, and the conversation, asking about church
matters, and if we were going to take the Sunday School to the
cascade again? Were there many sick in the parish?
“Not very many for this season of the year,” I made answer.
“Our town is about as healthy as any location I know. Why people
must be running off to watering places and leaving comfortable
houses, I can not understand.”
“The grand thing is change. Most of us do get tired of running
along in one groove.”
“Why Esther! I thought you considered the doctrine of change a
great heresy!” and Mr. Churchill looked surprised.
“I have been thinking lately that we might make our lives too
narrow, too self-satisfying. So if we get outside we may have our
ideas broadened, and find something new to do, or if we are
dissatisfied with our surroundings, we may come back quite content.”
“Do you want to go any where?”
 “Not just now.”
Fan and Lucy had been talking over the picnic.
“Can’t we drive there in the afternoon?” she asked of her brother,
“I should like to see a crowd of happy children.”
“Are you going, Winthrop?”
“I expect to be field marshal. Miss Endicott has engaged my
services at an enormous salary. You will be able to tell me by a blue
ribbon around my left arm, and a primrose in the lappel of my coat. I
am to see that the rear guard is prompt at dinner.”
He looked at me very soberly, and the others glanced in the same
direction. I could not help blushing to the roots of my hair, and
exclaiming:
“Why Mr. Ogden!”
“Aunt Lucy will tell you that I have a great deal of executive ability.”
They all laughed.
The tea-table was exquisite as usual. Afterward we had music,
Fan and I singing duets, or Mr. Ogden joining us with a very
promising tenor voice.
“Can we not all sing?” asked Fanny presently. “Let me play some
familiar hymns.”
Mr. Churchill came and stood behind her watching the graceful
fingers that dropped such soft, sweet notes. As if he could not resist
he added his bass voice, and then we had quite a choir.
“Young ladies, you have given me an exceedingly pleasant
evening;” he said as we were preparing to leave. “I hope it may soon
be repeated.”
Winthrop and Fanny laughed at each other all the way home. They
were not a bit sentimental, and I felt quite relieved. Since the
Churchills were so cordial about it, why should I worry?
He came over the next morning with the barouche and two horses
to take out Mr. Duncan.
 “You didn’t ask such a favor for me?” and Louis’ eyes almost
flashed.
“I did not ask anything, or even hint. Why can you not go and
enjoy it?”
“I don’t choose to be patronized.”
“I think this was Mr. Ogden’s own planning. You will like him I am
sure. Oh please go,” I entreated.
In the meanwhile Winthrop had been admiring the baby and
bantering some one else to fill up the carriage. Oddly enough
mamma consented to take Edith. When Louis heard that he made no
further objection.
The result of this was that Winthrop came back and staid to dinner.
We were all going to the Fairlie’s to tea and croquet. And Fan
absolutely sent him home or I believe he would have staid until we
started.
Mamma liked him. Stuart pronounced him jolly, but Louis withheld
his verdict. I must confess that I admired him ever so much. You
could get on with him so nicely.
I was very glad that Fan did not monopolize him during the
evening. Dick appeared quite elated with her notice of him. It was
moonlight and we walked home together, but somehow then Dick fell
to my share.
The next week we hardly had a moment to breathe. What with our
engagements and getting everything in train for the picnic we were
as busy as bees. The aristocratic part seldom joined us, but papa
always obeyed the scriptural injunction. The lame, and the halt, and
the blind were hunted up, the whimsical old people who would not go
without a special invitation, the poor who were sure they had nothing
to wear, and the children who were always ready, but needed getting
in order.
Mamma remained behind with baby and Louis. I was to act for her
as well as I could. The stronger portion of the community were to
meet on the church green and march in regular order. Fan had
beguiled Dick Fairlie into taking Jennie Ryder and her mother, who
was quite disabled from a stroke of paralysis two years before. All
the others were to go in wagons or stages or wheel-barrows, she
said.
Winthrop came over and helped us manage the children. At nine
we took up our line of march under the shady trees. There was a
shorter way in the sun, but we had time enough. This road wound
round the hilly district, crossed the river once, and then seemed to
lose itself in the woods. At least there was the hill and the trees on
one side. Here a craggy declivity stood out bold and brown amid the
waving green, ferns and wild flowers grew in the clefts, or shrubs
with precarious footing. A spur of the creek ran along the height, and
presently began to find its way down through a sort of sloping river,
purling over rocks and stones and fallen trees, and in two places
pouring down a precipitous pathway, making very pretty falls, the
larger one at least ten feet high. Then it ran off and joined the river.
There was one lovely nook, though art had assisted nature here. A
clearing had been made years ago, and now the turf of clover and
grass was like velvet.
It was a small basin between the mountains. Down one side of it
came the cascade, wandering off through the woods in curves that
made a picturesque way. The place was used considerably for
pleasure parties, and kept in tolerable order. The committee had
been down the day before, put up swings, made some long tables
and seats, and given the place quite a homelike air.
The walk was beautiful with varied scenery, fresh, crisp air, and
clearest of skies. Mr. Ogden made acquaintance with Mr. Trafton, our
superintendent, in about five minutes, and they marshalled the
children in a jolly fashion. All heavy baskets and bundles were put in
a great farm wagon, and we had nothing to do but march along
triumphantly to the carol of the birds.
The youngsters were wild, of course. They shouted at a little gray
squirrel which ran along the path, they gave sundry shrill whistles
that exceeded the birds, they laughed and chattered, stepped out of
line to gather wild flowers or pick up some uncommon pebble,
beginning their day’s pleasure at the very outset. But papa did not
care. Indeed he was as merry as any of them.
I thought several times how Stephen Duncan would have liked it. I
wondered what should have brought him so plainly before my mind
on this particular day!
Through winding ways we trooped. Over beyond there were broad
meadows and waving corn-fields, scattered farm buildings and
cottages, with a bit of road, gleaming dusty white in the sunshine, the
river broadening into lakes or bending abruptly; and nearer, the
changing glooms and shadows, the points of the hills in blue and
purple and bronze. All the air was so clear and sweet, it sent the
rushes of warm blood to heart and brain, and then to very finger
ends.
The infantry, as Winthrop called it, reached the ground a long
while first. We had to disband and the children ran around as if they
had never seen a bit of country before. Shawls and baskets were
stowed in out-of-the-way corners or suspended from trees. Some of
the hardier boys pulled off shoes and stockings, preparatory to
having a good time. As for us elders, we began to straighten out our
affairs and set up for house-keeping. There were so many lovely
people. Miss Oldways,—who taught the bible-class of larger girls,—
in her soft, pearl gray dress, and ribbon of the same shade on her
bonnet, with a bit of pale blue inside. She was always so sweet and
lady-like. She and her widowed sister, Mrs. Bromley, kept a little
thread and needle store in the village, and, though they were
business women, I did not see that it detracted in the least from their
refinement.
Annie and Chris Fellows were with us, and Mrs. Elsden, though
she had four children in the Sunday School, but I think she would
have enjoyed herself any way. Mrs. Fairlie and Kate had gone to the
sea-shore the day before, with the Wests and some others. Then
there were Mothers and Aunts of the children, and several of the
farmer families near by.
We had stowed our luggage in a cool, shady place and sent the
wagon home when the caravan arrived. Old ladies who could not
have walked, but were in holiday white apron and kerchief, or best
gingham dress, and some with their knitting. We placed shawls on
the mossy rocks or benches, and seated them.
“Here is your precious cargo,” said Dick to Fannie. “Come and
welcome them.”
“Oh, Mrs. Ryder, I am so glad you could come.”
“I couldn’t if it had not been for you, dear. You are always thinking
of something pleasant. I was so surprised when Dick told me—”
He was Dick to almost everybody, for his father was a plain,
sociable farmer, and the son had grown up with the village boys. It
was a great mortification to Mrs. Fairlie that he did not want to go to
college and liked farming. But then Kate kindly took “cultivation”
enough for two.
“What will you do with her?” asked Dick, lifting her out in his strong
arms.
“Right here. O Jennie!” and she went on making a soft corner.
Dick put Mrs. Ryder in it. The neighbors crowded round, glad to
see her out. A pale, sweet, motherly looking woman, who had been
very handsome in her day, and now her cordial thankfulness was
good to behold.
“You are just splendid;” Fan whispered to Dick.
We all liked Jennie Ryder ever so much, and felt a peculiar
interest in her, beside. Two years ago,—or it would be in September,
—after Jennie had graduated with honors she obtained a situation in
an excellent school some twenty miles away, where she could only
come home every Friday, but then the salary was too good to be
declined. Just after she had taught two months, the stroke had fallen
upon her mother. A cousin who had always lived with them was
taken ill with a fever and died. For weeks Mrs. Ryder lay between life
and death. Jennie was compelled to relinquish her school. It was a
sore disappointment, for she loved teaching. But by spring Mrs.
Ryder had partially recovered her health, yet her limbs were well
nigh useless. She would hobble around a little with crutches, but
Jennie knew that it would never do to leave her alone.
They owned a small cottage and garden, but the sickness had
made sad inroads in the little fortune. Jennie felt compelled to earn
something at home, so she bought a sewing machine and did fine
work. I suppose every town or village thinks it must draw a line
somewhere. There were the exclusive West Side people, who only
expected to exchange calls with each other, there were the rich
people who had been poor thirty or forty years ago, and then there
was the circle who wanted to get on and up, by pushing others down
and clinging to the skirts of those just above them. Somehow Jennie
Ryder was pushed down. The richer girls who were at the Academy
with her dropped her by degrees when she sewed for their mothers.
One and another left off inviting her out to little sociables, or croquet.
I think she felt it keenly, but she made no complaint.
She had so many pretty refined ways and accomplishments. If she
had been in a city she could have made them useful, but here all the
places were filled. She painted in water colors, drew in crayons, that
were almost equal to chromos, made moss baskets and ferneries
and picture scrap-books, and had their house looking like a little fairy
nest. And she was so sunny and cheery, and really charming when
her true self had a chance to peep out from the fence that
circumstances and ignorant people built about her.
“Oh,” she said glancing around; “it is like a bit of heaven framed in,
isn’t it? just look at the sky over head and the tree tops and mountain
tops holding it up, as it were. And a whole long, lovely day! I did not
expect on Sunday that I could come.”
“It’s the daily bread for this day;” said papa softly, as he was
shaking hands with her mother.
“And cake and cream and fruit off of the twelve trees. And the
seventy palms with their shade and beauty.”
“You have brought some sunshine,—you seldom go empty-
handed, Jennie,” said papa.
 Dick turned and looked at her just then. She had such a clear,
sweet, tender expression, the nameless something better than
beauty. A slender, graceful figure, white and peachy-pink tints with
brown hair and eyes. Her dress was white and a marvel of
workmanship, with its bias tucking and straight tucking and bands of
embroidery that she had done herself. Fan once quoted her, but
mamma reminded her that there were seven of us, and that tucks
must be divided by that number.
“And I am going to have a splendid time. Mother, here is your
book. Are you quite comfortable? If you don’t mind, I will take a
ramble with the girls. You and Mrs. Conklin can have a nice talk.”
“No dear, go on.”
Mrs. Conklin had taken out her knitting. She was from one of the
farms over the river, a healthy, happy, rosy-cheeked grandmother,
her fingers flying fondly in and out of the tiny red clouded stocking.
“Where will you go first?” asked Dick of the group of girls.
“To the Cascade,” replied Mr. Ogden.
“You are not girls,” said Fan saucily.
“But you know you wouldn’t that one of us were left behind;” he
quoted sentimentally.
“Don’t flatter yourself too much. Modesty is becoming to young
people.”
“Do you expect to find the old ones sitting on the steps of time,
with faces grimly uncovered?”
They all laughed. Fan took Jennie Ryder’s arm, and Dick filled up
the path beside them, so Winthrop fell back with me. Stuart was right
behind with the prettiest girl he could find, as usual. On we started,
but ere we had reached the first ascent we saw numerous followers
in our wake.
“It is like a picture,” exclaimed Winthrop. “Or better still, a series of
pictures. Oh, look at this moss! and these tiny ferns!”
 They all stopped. How beautiful it was in this wide, glowing,
redundant life, the trailing riotous vines, the long streamers of last
year’s Aaron’s beard, the rustling of the leaves and the rippling,
tinkling sound of the water.
“How curious;” said Jennie. “That is a walking fern.”
“Ah, you know it?” and Winthrop glanced up in a pleased fashion.
“I have a fern bed at home. I like them so much. And these grow in
such a peculiar manner.”
“And she has the cunningest winter ferneries that you ever saw,
Mr. Ogden,” declared Fan.
“I like them too. They always give me a peculiar sensation of the
quiet and shade in which they grew. They are like the Quakers,
never surprising you by any gaudy freaks of blossoming. Oh, were
any of you here a month ago?”
“I came for rhododendrons one day;” Jennie answered.
“That was what entered my mind. What crowds and crowds of
trees! I am generally here in August, so I miss that. How perfectly
glorious they must be. What colors?”
“Pure white and pale, blossomy pink.”
“Those are my favorites. I sometimes think I was meant for a
country life. I like the growing and blossoming, the ripening and the
fruit. Autumn rounds everything so perfectly.”
“Yes,” said Dick, “there is always a great richness in Autumn. The
smells of the drying fields, of the stacked corn, the apples and pears
and grapes. And the leaves all aglow, the chestnuts full of yellow
burrs. You ought to come then, Mr. Ogden!”
“I believe I will. Can we all go nutting? That is after the frosts,
though.”
“Yes, late in October.”
“Oh, look!”
 We had been going on for a few moments, now we paused again.
It was so all the way up. Something to see and to feel, to pause and
drink in with all one’s soul. Here a rock sculptured and set as if by an
artist hand. Richest moss, great, feathery fronds, pellucid waters,
breaks of sunshine, and haunts of deep gloom. Now we were
serious, then we laughed gaily at some quick jest. It takes so little to
amuse when one is young and happy.
We passed the stream at length and went on to the mountain-top.
What a fair outlying prospect! There was the village below, the
church spires, some tall factory chimneys, and beyond it all
mountains again. I thought of the hills standing about Jerusalem, and
the Lord everywhere, standing about his people.
“O,” exclaimed Fan at length, “we must go back, who will get our
dinner?”
“Who will eat it? is a subject for our more serious consideration;”
said Winthrop.
“And if—

‘When we get there

The cupboard is bare?’”

“That would be a dire misfortune. By the time we reach the bottom

again, we shall be as hungry as bears.”
“You might comfort yourself like the old man of Kilkenny.”
“How was that?” inquired Winthrop.
Stuart’s eyes twinkled with their fun-loving light as he began:

“There was an old man of Kilkenny.

Who never had more than a penny.
He spent all that money in onions and honey,
This wayward old man of Kilkenny.”

They all laughed heartily. We began our descent but were

changed about somehow. Every body helped the one who came to
hand. Now it was Dick, then Mr. Ogden or Stuart. We slipped and
scrambled and uttered small shrieks, making the way very lively.
“See here!” exclaimed Winthrop—“a wild rose and buds, I think
them so especially beautiful. Who is queen of the May to be
crowned?”
“You are too late;” laughed Fan, “May has gone.”
“Queen of Midsummer, then. Miss Endicott accept this late
treasure. Let it blossom and wither on your heart—sweets to the
sweet.”
This was to Fan. Her blue eyes laughed saucily.
“The sweet in both cases being about alike,” she made answer.
He gave it to her in a mock sentimental fashion just as his speech
had been. She fastened it in the bosom of her dress, making a
sweeping courtesy.
A strange flash glowed over Dick Fairlie’s face. I do not think any
one else observed it, but it sent my heart up to my throat in a
moment. I understood with a kind of secret sense that it was both
love and jealousy. Then I glanced at gay laughing Fan. Did she
mistrust?
I felt strangely, sadly wise, as if in five minutes I had grown years
older. A thing like this coming into our very midst! Well, among so
many girls there would probably be one or two marriages, and who
more likely than winsome, beguiling Fanny.
In the valley they were at work. A fire had been kindled and a
great tea kettle was swinging in the blaze. Baskets were being
unpacked. Table cloths and dishes laid out, and everybody talked at
once.
“Rose,” said papa, “I have been looking for you. Miss Oldways
wants you to help with the table. Where are Daisy, Lil and Tim?”
“Nelly promised to keep watch and ward to-day;” and with that I
shook out my large white kitchen apron which nearly covered the
skirt of my dress, and went to work in good earnest.