Abstract
With so many excellent publications on offer, which book should a communication scholar buy next if he or she would like to own the one addressing the fundamental aspects of communication, as well as providing methodological, historical and cultural perspectives on the subject and proposing a renewed vision of established themes, and also touching on topics that have been overlooked? Presumably, this book would also have to be engaging, interesting and future-proof.
Communication Theory through the Ages, written by two professors of Communication (Eastern Washington University), could become a valuable addition to a communication theorist’s collection, without any doubt. I would also recommend this wide-reaching and well-researched book to students and scholars interested in linguistics, sociology, theology, semiotics, history and psychology and to even those who speculate about communicating with extra-terrestrial entities.
Besides, although Klyukanov and Sinekopova draw on multiple sources from a wide range of disciplines, those readers who hope to find a book on communication that has a strong philosophical component will not be disappointed either, and the authors’ recurrent usage of the term ‘wonder’ in the chapters’ titles is an indication of this. Indeed, investigating the ‘wonder of communication’ (p. 293) by connecting the idea of communication with 10 fundamental concepts – other ‘wonders’ – beginning with the notion of time and concluding with that of space, the authors seem to be alluding to Plato’s (2013) famous ‘Philosophy begins in wonder’ remark, to the point of upgrading it to a methodological tool that guides the exploration of the conceptual and historical aspects of communication as a specifically human phenomenon.
As mentioned above, the first philosophical category the authors negotiate is time, which they introduce following Kant’s interpretation of time as ‘an a priori intuition’ (p. 4). In Chapter 1, ‘The wonder of time’, the authors emphasise that communication is ‘an ever-changing process’ (p. 3) and propose to use the term ‘tale’ instead of the term ‘message’, habitually used in communication theory to denote the subject matter of the communication act. As Klyukanov and Sinekopova point out, ‘a “tale” means a narrative of real or imaginary events, a story’ (p. 6), and reflects the essentially dynamic character of what is being communicated. As such, ‘tale’ could therefore be a more suitable term when it is important to accentuate the evolving nature of the content of the communication act.
Furthermore, the character of practiced communication patterns depends on when in societal history the interlocutors’ communication culture is located. To give a concrete example, the authors note that Australian Aborigines’ storytelling, inasmuch as it belongs to the so-called tribal stage in the social evolution, can be characterised by the use of ‘simple and ephemeral mediums, and . . . a complex and lasting message’ (p. 13). The sand that Aborigines draw on and the dances and songs that they perform are examples of these ephemeral, short-lasting mediums, and the message (or a tale) that is being reiterated in communication acts is grounded in the Aborigines’ perception of time as ever-present, existing ‘everywhen’ (p. 10). This situation is different from ‘the cyclic view of time’ (p. 15) in Ancient Egypt, for example, which correlates with ‘orderly and thus predictable’ (p. 16) communication patterns in Egyptian society. On the contrary, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, ‘all the events that befell a chosen people were specific – a unique sequence not to be belittled by repetition’ (p. 24), and communication patterns, correlating with the view of the linearity of time, thus include the search for otherness, both literally (via travel) and conceptually, correlating with the assertion of a powerful human self.
Chapter 2, ‘The wonder of polis’, combines the concepts of space and time, exemplifying the interconnection of time and space in communication, as the authors explore the communicative spaces of a polis, city-state in ancient Greece. They point out that in a polis, ‘all physical structures existed to provide public space for people to come together toward certain ends’ (p. 43). Importantly, people coming together was essential for the existence of the polis, which was, ‘first and foremost, open space for communication and decision-making’ (p. 44). Moreover, since the polis’ open space (e.g. agora, ‘gathering place’) was auditory, it provided favourable conditions for democratic processes. As the authors explain, Oral speech is the most immediate medium and does not discriminate: it is ideal for democracy because no one can monopolize voice. It is no wonder that oral communication is viewed as the pre-requisite for the very possibility of public life. The ideal polis, therefore, is the space where everyone can hear everyone else’s voice. It is interesting to note that even ancient amphitheatres to this day are considered an acoustic marvel because they carry voices to everyone, all the way to the back row. (p. 44)
Also, the authors stress that although verbal communication was essential for the functioning of the polis, so was the action of public appearance, understood in a wider sense. Consequently, the authors maintain that the concept of the classic Greek polis provides both an origin and a model for ‘a more abstract public sphere where communication is mediated through various technologies, institutions and structures’ (p. 55), with the contemporary public sphere viewed as ‘an imagined community’ (p. 55).
Despite admitting that communication theory per se is essentially a secular pursuit, in Chapter 3, ‘The wonder of God’, the authors demonstrate that it is essential to investigate religious discourse and religious practices as communication practices that take place between worshippers and deities. The authors bring into discourse the idea of the negation of God alongside other religious positions, and this potentially allows them to account for the agnostic and atheistic positions as well as polytheistic and monotheistic views. Klyukanov and Sinekopova follow the development of the human-divine relation from polytheism to monotheism, characterising ‘the human-divine connection’ as ‘oriented towards the . . . realm of . . . elusive experience providing a perspective on issues of ultimate significance’ (p. 75). Apparently (and unexpectedly), digital communication can make sense of the idea of God better than the so-called ‘analogic communication’ (p. 68) where a supernatural being is represented as similar to something or someone else, for example, Greek gods and goddesses who ‘looked and acted like humans’ (p. 68). On the contrary, in the authors’ own words, ‘digital communication, with its high degree of complexity, versatility and abstraction, makes it possible to refer to something that is not: in this case, God’ (p. 73). The chapter’s final words ‘may the force be with us all!’ indicate that the concept of God, as discussed in this chapter, ought to be understood in the widest possible sense, accounting for the multiplicity of religious beliefs, positions and worldviews, as the reference to the famous Star Wars meme indicates. (To recall, ‘the Force’ is the term used in the fictional Star Wars universe that refers to a generalised concept of universal ubiquitous power.)
Chapter 4, ‘The wonder of the body’, explores the ways in which a human body contributes to a communicative act. In philosophy, our bodies are seen as obstacles to obtaining ‘pure knowledge’ (p. 97), following Plato, but as far as communication theory is concerned, having a body is an indispensable condition for interactions necessary for a communicative act to take place. Besides being a vehicle for transmitting a message, the body contributes to the formation of the message in a meaningful way, for example, via body language or socially meaningful gestures such as handshakes. The authors emphasise the importance of the human body for communication and stress that, regardless of the contemporary discourse that accommodates the idea of posthumanism, ‘we still live in the world where the body holds us together and connects us to the emerging world’ (p. 122). Even when machines become creative communicators themselves, ‘in all virtual communications, capable of producing certain effects maximally removed from the physical existence of the body, one can still discern the human presence’ (p. 121). Therefore, when in Chapter 5, ‘The wonder of the mind’, the authors touch on the increased presence of the big technology companies and the danger of contemplating ‘World without the Mind’ (p. 142), they suggest, following Foer, that developing an independent and critical mind is a sufficiently effective strategy that can safeguard humanity from allowing technology to dominate our world.
Conceivably, in addition to the body, it is the ambivalences involved in linguistic interactions and, more widely, conversational exchanges referred to in Chapter 6, ‘The wonder of language’, that contain the indestructible human character which artificial intelligence cannot undermine. Indeed, ‘[i]n every situation of communication, we enter the liminal space of language where meaning is constituted and participants are transformed’ (p. 176). Human communication is meaningful, but ‘once you think you’ve captured meaning, it is no longer enough’ (p. 178), and perhaps, our very inability to ‘solve the language problem’ (p. 178) is the source of the specific human capacity to conduct the incessant search for ways to connect and explore the world and to understand the complexity and dynamism of this connection.
In Chapter 7, ‘The wonder of culture’, the authors note that culture, considered in more abstract terms, ‘is a pattern that connects: it brings us together into conversation’ (p. 204) and into society, inasmuch as ‘while natural-born, humans are self-made’ (p. 207). Importantly, Humankind can continue only by cultivating itself, by paying homage to everything meaningful – publicly communicating special loyalty and respect to the patterns that connect. Whatever we make – discoveries, claims, sense, possibilities – we are making a reverential journey back home. And while we keep making this journey, we are home. (p. 207)
In Chapter 8, ‘The wonder of information’, the authors observe that ‘[i]nformation is everywhere’ (p. 208), and yet it is difficult to conceptualise the idea of information because it ‘evades understanding’. However, ‘if all the available choices for creating messages are given as data’ (p. 227), ‘communication can be conceptualized as information transfer’ (p. 227). Thus, drawing on the principles of Information Theory, communication is characterised as ‘a linear process of reducing uncertainty’ or, within Cybernetics, as ‘dynamics within an operationally closed system’ (p. 227). Notably, while information as data can be recorded, preserved and retrieved, such as using computer memory, the meaning of information is the matter of history ‘that can only be meaningful when lived’ (p. 228). Thus, ultimately, ‘while information is transmitted as signals, communication can only be experienced as meanings’ (p. 230), as the authors once again emphasise the irreducibility of humanity and human presence in genuine communication.
In Chapter 9, ‘The wonder of community’, the etymology of the eponymous concept plays an important part in the examination of communication as a social phenomenon. In the authors’ own words, Community is derived from the Latin munus, and retains three of that word’s possible meanings: debt, still visible in the English word ‘remuneration’; public office, still visible in the English word ‘municipal’; and ‘gift’, still visible in the English word ‘munificent’. (p. 239)
The authors then explore how these three meanings apply to the idea of community, with, for example, the idea of gift-giving (manifested as gratuity or graciousness) capable of ‘break[ing] the cyclicality of economic rationality’ (p. 239), following Derrida, as ‘[t]he pure gift defies exactness and is based on care’ (p. 239).
In the concluding Chapter 10, ‘The wonder of space’, the authors also say that ‘the study of space, even when it aims to be strictly scientific (objective), can’t but reveal its humanistic (subjective) side’ (p. 263), since space ‘is constituted in the dynamic relationships between people’ (p. 263), such as, say, physical space in geography or cyberspace as a new form of spatiality.
It is also worth mentioning that at the beginning of each chapter, Klyukanov and Sinekopova list a substantial number of key concepts. These concepts range between self-explanatory (such as ‘message’, ‘ritual’ and ‘media’) and those which some readers may have to find in a dictionary if they want to understand what these words mean as soon as they encounter them. Granted, concepts such as ‘ars memoriae’ or ‘simulacrum’ are explained further in the main text, but it would possibly be better to have a glossary preceding each chapter rather than clusters of some twenty or thirty key concepts. For example, learning that ‘eudaimonia’ loosely corresponds to the idea of harmony and happiness as soon as the word appears in the book could be more beneficial than just seeing it in the list together with other 24 words, of which at least half some readers may not understand without explanation.
Having said all that, given the wealth and diversity of information Klyukanov and Sinekopova’s book contains (42 pages of bibliographic references!), it would also be useful to consider finding a phrase that will serve as a suitable takeaway line duly reflecting the idea, which the authors find most important and which could orient the reader in his or her future intellectual search.
Accordingly, at the very beginning, the authors of Communication Theory through the Ages present communication as a factor that plays a crucial part in the fate of the planet, as ‘[a]ll global problems are the result of concrete human beings who can’t communicate successfully with one another and reach an agreement, be it in peace talks, political negotiations, or international treaties on climate change’ (p. 2). ‘It is only through communication that we can not only survive but live well with others – live for the common good’ (p. 65), the authors insist, as ‘at stake today is the entire globe, and we, as the citizens of the cosmopolis, must put everything into question, including our own assumptions, openly deliberate every issue of common concern and make prudent and ethical decisions together’ (p. 65).
Overall, Kluykanov and Sinekopova portray communication optimistically, confident that there is a potential for fruitful communication between the most dissimilar parties because even ‘humans and other animals can form a community based on shared patterns of signification’ (p. 246). And if interspecies communication is a reality, as, for example, in the authors’ account of communication between dogs and their owners, then the reader can conclude that satisfactory communication between humans – communication across communities and different cultures – is a realistic possibility.
Thus, after reading Kluykanov and Sinekopova’s book, the reader may feel inspired to believe that communication, as a specifically human phenomenon, has the potential to encourage people to be better humans and strive to become more humane as well.
However, would everyone agree with the underlying idea that understanding and improving communication is the answer to global and other significant problems? Political scientists who find themselves at the forefront of cross-cultural communication are convinced that communication, however advanced, has limited potential. For example, Armando Marques Guedes, Professor of Political Science, Law, and International Politics at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and a former diplomat with field experience in Central Africa, insists that satisfactory communication between representatives of different cultures can be rendered impossible if these cultures’ worldviews entail what he calls ‘irreducible differences’ (Marques Guedes, Personal Communication with Elena Fell, 25 February 2020: n.p.). In Marques Guedes’ own words, There is a limit of what is possible to achieve by any sort of dialogue or a dialogical transaction, contrary to what people like Jürgen Habermas with his dialogical theory of communicative action seem to believe possible. In many situations, the irreducible categorial differences will inevitably bring out radically unsolvable incongruences that, even if they reduce the distance between agents, never quite manage to annul it. Irreducible differences are obvious when we contrast very dissimilar cultures. To give an arcane but very real example, to use judgements condemning witches to death made by African so-called traditional authorities are incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy. Indeed, in a strong constitutional sense, most, say, African ‘traditional authorities’, are not amenable to reception by Constitutions and legal systems that in most cases have built-in principles of equality. The reason for this incongruity resides in the evidence that these ‘chiefs’ tend to almost in every case be male, members of particular clans and/or lineages, and have the personal discretionary power to condemn subjects to death. The incompatibilities between African and the Western worldviews bring out the irreducibility of positions, which percolates down to the irreducibility of statements exchanged in the context of communication processes. (n.p.)
Those readers who agree that Communication Theory through the Ages overplays the potency of communication studies and are of the view that communication has its limitations, after reading Kluykanov and Sinekopova’s book, may decide to explore action-oriented studies that aim at exposing and confronting concrete problems and which test the limits of communication not as much as a theoretical field but as a source of practical methodologies. For this purpose, one may choose to read Silvio Waisbord’s The Communication Manifesto next.
While Klyukanov and Sinekopova’s ambition is to unpack the idea of communication and explore its numerous aspects, Waisbord lists concrete recommendations for improving communication as practice. In his compact and straight-to-the-point book, he ‘make[s] an argument for why communication studies needs to step up interventions with non-academic publics’ (p. vii). The Manifesto’s author insists that ‘[a]cademics should contribute to society in more ways that by producing knowledge and exchanging ideas with students and fellow scholars’ (p. 3). As far as Waisbord is concerned, academics should collaborate with practitioners ‘in an effort to improve public life and make societies more tolerant, informed, empathetic, egalitarian’ (p. 3) by ‘addressing real-world problems rather than only dealing with typical scholarly questions about theories, methodologies, arguments, and so on’ (p. 3).
In Chapter 1, ‘Public scholarship’, Waisbord explains that by public scholarship he means ‘scholars’ engagement with publics beyond academia’ (p. 9), whereby academics ‘participate in the public sphere as scientific experts and accomplished practitioners who do not take open political stands on public issues’ (p. 10).
While academic scholars, for example, ‘produce knowledge to test theories and arguments’ (p. 23), as well as for educating students and ‘upend[ing] conventional wisdom’ (p. 23), public scholarship should focus on dealing with concrete social and communication problems, broadly conceived. Crucially, making a transition from purely academic work to public scholarship requires liaising with many institutions, such as the media, government agencies, international bodies and activist groups, to name but a few, and engaging with the public.
Specific challenges that public scholarship in communication studies needs to address include ‘[c]ommunication rifts [that] breed the politics of exclusion, hatred, and distrust, which are contrary to democratic, collective understanding and reasoning’ (p. 27). Waisbord’s reader is told that communication scholars engaged in public scholarship should challenge censorship when it ‘suppresses dissident voices’ (p. 27), pervasive propaganda, disinformation and misinformation produced by ‘governments allied with corporations’ (p. 27), whereby ‘ordinary citizens willingly participate in daily, elaborate disinformation campaigns or unwillingly reproduce absolute falsehoods’ (p. 28), as explained in Chapter 2, ‘Purpose’. The author advocates the activity of academics in that respect, although he is aware that as far as universities are concerned, their employees’ public activity is ‘accepted within certain limits of desirable, approved ideas’ (p. 63), which means that ‘doing public scholarship is ostensibly a courageous act’, at least for some academics, as noted in Chapter 3, ‘Practice’.
Chapter 4, ‘Positions’, lists specific pathways that communication scholars can follow as public scholars: specifically, the roles include practitioners (e.g. journalists and writers); experts (such as policy briefs developers); activists (scholars ‘embedded in communities’ (p. 79) who ‘dismiss the positivist ambition of removing personal subjectivity and politics from knowledge production’ (p. 77)); advocates who ‘advocate for specific changes’ (p. 79) as far as possible within their academic roles; and commentators offering expert opinion on current affairs using various media platforms.
The author’s ideas for the future are outlined in Chapter 5, ‘Proposals’, where he advocates for integrating public scholarship into scholarship in a wider sense rather than considering it as an optional activity, supplementary to mainstream academic work.
Thus, having enjoyed Klyukanov and Sinekopova’s wonderful collection of academic essays, the reader is reminded in Waisbord’s Manifesto that communication scholars as well as academics from other fields have a responsibility to use their knowledge for the common good not only as researchers, writers and teachers but as practitioners too. In other words, Waisbord makes readers realise that exploring parrhesia as ‘the practice of speaking truthfully and boldly even in the face of danger of powerful people’ (Klyukanov and Sinekopova, p. 63) is not enough: parrhesia must also be practised.