Conditions for communication theory or not knowing when to leave the party

In an article in 2001 (Myers 2001), David Myers comments Robert T. Craig’s influential Communication Theory as a field (Craig 1999).

Myers finds that subsuming all seven traditions under one metamodel as “a coherent field of metadiscursive practice, a field of discourse about discourse with implications for the practice of communication” (Craig 1999, 120) is problematic because it privileges a constructivist view of communication theory and thereby reduces non-constructivist traditions to second-rate theories. Myers claims that Craig’s model “[…] imports reconstructed versions of its alternatives, animating the hollow bodies of those theories while depriving them of the paradigmatic souls” (Myers 2001, 221).

Myers’ criticism takes as its point of departure the differences in the various traditions’ ontological and epistemological stances, and he claims that the metamodel does not consider the epistemology and ontology of all the traditions, thereby privileging a constructivist position.

In my view Myers misses some important points in his criticism:

Using a metamodel does not reduce anything and does not change the paradigms of non-constructivist traditions
The metamodel (like anything constructivist) is not the truth and changes nothing in the relations between different theoretical approaches (traditions)
Any model is a theoretical construct and can therefore be not only criticised but altered and amended

Myers says that: “Though a constitutive metamodel well may allow all to participate in this party of discourse, it seems particularly ill suited to inform any of the participants when it is time to leave” (Myers 2001, 226). But this criticism, in my view, is a very good example of how we actually can discuss the foundations of communication theory without finding ourselves at a party where the guests have to be told by the host when to leave; they know that themselves.

Myers seems to take epistemological and ontological boundaries as a given, rather than flexible constructs that can be amended when needed. This latter point is highlighted by Griffin when he discusses the possibility of climbing the fences separating the traditions (Griffin 2012, 47)

Perhaps the metamodel is not at all necessary and I will discuss that in my paper. But that does not mean that the identification of the traditions is rendered obsolete. The traditions and the relations between the traditions (Griffin 2012, 47) can be very helpful in the discussion of communication theory as illustrated by Cooren, Rusill, Bergman, Graves, Vlăduţescu, Craig & Xiong, and Pedersen (Cooren 2012; Russill 2007; Bergman 2008; 2012; Graves 2019; Craig and Xiong 2022; Vlăduţescu 2013; Pedersen 2022, 9–18, 103–8). Even Myers’ own article is very useful in the understanding and discussion of the seven traditions.

In my paper I will discuss the conditions for talking about communication theory taking my point of departure in Myers’ criticism of Craig’s 1999 paper. My aim is to show how theoretical discussions can be fruitful even when they seem at odds with some of the traditions under scrutiny. And it will be central to me to point out that the paradigms that come with each of the traditions are no more set in stone than the traditions or the metamodel.

Literature:

Bergman, Mats. 2008. ‘The New Wave of Pragmatism in Communication Studies’. Nordicom Review 29 (2): 132–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0182.

———. 2012. ‘Pragmatism as a Communication-Theoretical Tradition: An Assessment of Craig’s Proposal’. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy IV (1). https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.785.

Cooren, François. 2012. ‘Communication Theory at the Center: Ventriloquism and the Communicative Constitution of Reality.’ Journal of Communication 62 (1): 1–20.

Craig, Robert T. 1999. ‘Communication Theory as a Field’. Communication Theory 9 (2): 119–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00166.x.

Craig, Robert T, and Bingjuan Xiong. 2022. ‘Traditions of Communication Theory and the Potential for Multicultural Dialogue’. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 17 (1): 1–25.

Graves, Clint G. 2019. ‘Dialogic Inquiry as a Mechanism of the Constitutive Metamodel’. Annals of the International Communication Association 43 (3): 240–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1647444.

Griffin, Emory A. 2012. A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Myers, David. 2001. ‘A Pox on All Compromises: Reply to Craig’. Communication Theory 11 (2): 218–30.

Pedersen, Karsten. 2022. Analysing Communication. Djøf Forlag.

Russill, Chris. 2007. ‘Communication Problems in a Pragmatist Perspective’. Communication Monographs 74 (1): 125–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196854.

Vlăduţescu, Ştefan. 2013. ‘A Completion to the Traditions Matrix-Standard - R. T. Craig, Induced By the Transformation of Communication-As-A-Field Membrane in Communication-As-A-Universe Membrane’. American International Journal of Contemporary Research 3 (10). https://doi.org/10.30845/aijcr.