I consider that the article “A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas” (Corman, Trethewey, Goodall) is successful showing that the message influenced model is simplistic. However, in spite of the fact that the pragmatic complexity model is better, it is not good enough to explain the complexities in the effort of an effective communication.
Taking into account the characteristics of this blog and the fact that its goal is to discuss about the paper we read for our classes, I just would like call the attention to the fact that the pragmatic complexity model minimize the importance of the message and the way is elaborated and sent, as well as the sender, in favor of the reality that the listener and/or decoder is very important and “create meanings from messages based on factors like autobiography, history, local context, culture, language/symbol systems, power relations, and immediate personal needs.”
Probably one of the reasons of such a mistake is the wrong assumption that “As several decades of communication research has shown, the message received is the one that really counts.” (page 7). Certainly we will be in disagreement with such statement if we think in people like Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Luther and their messages. They obtained changes in basis of their ideas and believes and their capacities to transmit them. In other words, in order to be 'well received' the message must be 'well elaborated', meaning -among others- using the 'right' words; establishing the necessary rapport; addressing the 'right' issues; been the 'right' person to address them; directed to 'right' segment of public opinion; using the 'right' language according with receiver (metaphors, rhetoric, etc.); using the right channel of communication; having good enough doses of visual, kinesthetic or auditory language; taking into account the values and believes of the receiver, as well as the uses, custums and traditions; the timing, etc.
Agustin Fornell
Your point is relevant but what the authors of this article argue is that Shannon and Weaver's Model makes communication a linear process. There are complexities and nuances in any communication process.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that communications starts at one point and ends at another; it is a continuous process that at times becomes circular. The article makes a point that communication basically is a meaning-making complex process (p.7).
In any communication, it is only message, not meaning, that moves from one point to another. A meaning cannot simply be transfered; instead listeners create meanings from the message that they receive.
There are chances that the meaning a listener creates from the message is in direct contrast with the meaning the source intends to communicate. Here communication per se fails to take place.
How we create meaning by receiving a message and what meaning the sender intends to communicate in his/her message is dependent on their respective cultures. Cultures provide filters and mean-making frameworks.
Therefore the authors have a valid point that we have to disrupt the existing system to make our communication successful, and that there should be contingency plans for failure in such endeavors.
Agustin, I do not disagree with your understanding of the reading, but I'm not sure if your application works.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we would not be in disagreement when we look at Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Luther and how they carefully crafted their message for their audience.
The authors do not want to change the message its self-the core value of the message- but they believe that in order for the audience to receive it, they have to feel it in some sort of way. I wrote about this similarly in my blog, because we do not always understand each other literally, our words, and the way we transmit information needs to be compatible. Its just like marketing. A product can be a great product, but as long as no one internalizes the message of the necessity of the product then its still useless.
The speakers that you've listed did not have a swift start. They were no overnight sensations. They needed to assess their audience, their target market, and carefully craft how they were going to deliver the message to be received best.