{meta} discourses: Traditions of Communication Theory: An Introduction to the Constitutive Metamodel

Above is a slide prepared for a lecture about the traditions of communication theory. It tries to encapsulate seven complex traditions of thought in just a few words. I've been using versions of this slide for many years, but it never looks quite right to me, so I tweak it for every new presentation. This is the latest version as of this writing, but I doubt it will be the last.

The traditions of communication theory represent some basic options for framing communication problems. They first appeared in my 1999 article, "Communication Theory as a Field," as elements of the Constitutive Metamodel of communication theory. As I mentioned in an earlier post, much of my subsequent writing, including this blog, has grown out of ideas in that article. (For my current thinking on and "beyond" the seven traditions, check out this interview.)

Readers wanting to learn in depth about the Constitutive Metamodel and the traditions can use the sources listed below under Further Reading, some of which are available on my website. Descriptions of the metamodel that you'll find in popular communication theory textbooks are helpful but often a little misleading in my opinion, and free materials that people have posted online, almost always based on those second-hand textbook accounts, are usually worse. Except for a decent Wikipedia article that currently needs editing and updating, I haven't found an introduction to the metamodel free on the Web that I can strongly recommend.

So, this post provides a free-online, accurate, and I hope fairly readable introduction to the Constitutive Metamodel and the traditions of communication theory. Borrowing some material from previous encyclopedia articles (Craig, 2009a, 2016), I'll start off by explaining the metamodel in general, then say more about the seven traditions, and I'll conclude by discussing criticisms of the metamodel and recent work that expands the traditions and suggests different applications.

The Constitutive Metamodel

A model is a representation of something from some point of view. A metamodel is a model of models. It's a framework for describing and comparing different models of something. Every theory of communication is also a model of communication insofar as it represents the communication process from some point of view. The Constitutive Metamodel is a framework for describing and comparing different models of communication from the point of view of how they are relevant to practical problems.

The metamodel is useful theoretically because it shows how diverse ideas about communication relate to each other, and it is useful practically because it gives us a wide range of perspectives on communication problems. It's called the "constitutive" metamodel because it is based on a constitutive model of communication--the idea that communication is a social process that constitutes, or produces, shared meaning. The Constitutive Metamodel is a model of communication in the field of communication theory. As such, it represents models of communication as ways of communicating about communication that constitute, or produce, alternative meanings of communication as a concept and a practice.

We need a metamodel because communication theory is a wonderfully rich field of thought but also a very fragmented one. There has never been a single, generally accepted overall theory or core set of theories of communication. In fact, there are hundreds of theories, and not only are they about different aspects of communication (such as media technologies or personal relationships), they often come from such different intellectual backgrounds that they can seem entirely unrelated to each other. How does a psychological theory of media effects relate to a critical theory of decolonizing communication, and what difference does it make for communication in practice? The metamodel gives us a way of thinking about questions like that.

From the early decades of the 20th century, theories of communication sprang up in philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech, and many other fields of thought. Philosophers analyzed problems of language and meaning, sociologists looked at problems of urban community, psychologists studied problems of persuasion and group dynamics, and so on. I suspect that the topic of communication attracted such widespread intellectual attention because communication was increasingly felt to be an important problem in society. Each discipline developed theories by extending its own traditional ways of thinking to address some communication problems, but until the late 1940s there was still no awareness of "communication theory" as an overarching topic that included all of those theories.

The term "communication theory" first appeared in the field of electrical engineering, where by the 1930s and '40s it referred to theories of signal coding and transmission--the origins of what I call the cybernetic tradition. As the academic discipline of communication began to be organized in the 1950s and '60s (a long story that can't be told here), the term "communication theory" was borrowed from the electrical engineers and became an umbrella term covering all theories of communication in all fields of thought. Although much has changed through the following decades, communication theorists continue to work in a variety of different intellectual traditions, so the field continues to be rich with ideas but also very fragmented. Yet, all of those disconnected theories have relevant things to say about communication problems in society, so there is common ground among them and a potential for productive dialogue about their practical differences.

The Constitutive Metamodel tries to bring the field of communication theory together in a unified conversation without diminishing its rich diversity. The trick is to see how all communication theories are relevant to practical problems. In that pragmatic capacity, not only do most theories contribute something useful, they all have something in common to discuss and debate when we treat them as alternative models for framing practical problems.

The main ideas of the Constitutive Metamodel can be summarized in a few bullet points:

Communication is a culturally shaped concept and social practice, constituted in the ordinary metadiscourse (practical discourse about communication) that circulates in a society. In other words, how we understand and practice communication is shaped by common ways of talking about communication in our culture.
Communication theory is a technical practice of metadiscourse that interprets, critiques, and reconstructs ordinary metadiscourse to develop useful new ways of talking about (and thereby constituting) the practice of communication. Communication theory contributes to society by creating and disseminating practically relevant forms of metadiscourse that can be used to frame problems and discuss practices of communication in everyday situations.
Theories that are practically relevant are both plausible (consistent with some commonly held beliefs about communication) and interesting (challenge other common beliefs). For example, cybernetic theories are plausible because they build on certain commonplace ideas (e.g., that communication depends on information transfer) while also challenging other commonplace ideas (e.g., that humans are essentially different from machines). As such, cybernetic theories give us a unique perspective for framing and discussing a range of communication problems.
A basis for debate between different theories is that they often disagree about the validity of some commonplace metadiscourse. For example, theories of genuine dialogue (in what I call the phenomenological tradition), contrary to cybernetic theories, generally challenge the idea that communication depends on information transfer while affirming that humans are essentially different from machines. This difference gives us two alternative perspectives on communication problems, one focused on information processing and the other on authentic human relationships. In this way, the diversity of communication theory can be a strength when it enables us to reflect on problems from different viewpoints.
Theories of communication are both numerous and intellectually diverse, partly because they have developed independently in several different thought traditions, each with its own vocabulary, core assumptions, and relevance to ordinary metadiscourse. The Constitutive Metamodel argues that many ideas in communication theory are based on a smaller number of fundamentally different conceptions of communication, first presented in my 1999 article as the seven traditions of communication theory. It's important to emphasize that these traditions are not uniform or unchanging. Each tradition includes many contending theories and they all continue to evolve over time through ongoing innovation and debate. It's also important to emphasize that the metamodel is open-ended in principle and not limited to the original seven traditions. In fact several more traditions have already been recognized in the literature since 1999. Finally, theories often blend ideas from different traditions, so we can't expect every theory to fit neatly in one tradition.

Traditions of Communication Theory

In the original article on the Constitutive Metamodel (Craig, 1999) the seven traditions were represented in the form of two tables, reproduced below. Feel free to skip over the tables. They may be hard to read on your device, and they refer to a lot of complex ideas that I can't explain in this short introduction to the metamodel. Instead, I'll say a few words about the overall structure of the tables and then return to the simplified version at the top of this post to say more about each tradition.

Table 1. Seven Traditions of Communication Theory (from Craig, 1999, p. 133)

The purpose of Table 1 is to display the seven traditions of communication theory as forms of metadiscourse based on different fundamental conceptions of communication. Each tradition is summarized with regard to:

Its typical definition of communication,
Its general way of framing communication problems,
Some of its core vocabulary,
Some commonplace ideas about communication that it affirms, and
Some commonplace ideas about communication that it challenges.

Table 2. Topoi for Argumentation Across Traditions (from Craig, 1999, p. 134)

Table 2 illustrates points of disagreement among the traditions as a basis for theoretical debate across the field. In the column under each tradition, the table lists "topoi" or lines of argument from that tradition against each tradition. Because theoretical debate goes on within as well as between traditions, the diagonal cells of the table present lines of argument against each tradition from within the same tradition: rhetoric against rhetoric, semiotics against semiotics, and so on. As I've mentioned, this table alludes to a lot of complex ideas and it may be hard to make much sense of it until you have studied the traditions more deeply.

With that in mind, let's return to the simplified picture at the top of this post and consider a brief sketch of each tradition (adapted from Craig, 2016).

Rhetorical Tradition

Communication is the practical art of discourse.
Problems of communication involve choices about what to say and how in particular situations, depending on such factors as audience, purpose, and the available means of persuasion (reasons, emotions, stylistic devices).

Rhetorical theory originated in ancient Greek city-states where citizens participated in public juries and deliberative assemblies, and public speaking skills were highly valued. Popular teachers known as sophists wrote handbooks on techniques of effective speaking. Aristotle, in the first systematic philosophical treatise on rhetoric, defined it as the art of discovering the available means of persuasion and codified fundamental rhetorical concepts that continue to be used today. Through the Roman and medieval periods in the West, rhetoric was a standard school subject (part of the trivium), and a complex tradition of theoretical writings on rhetoric can be traced from ancient times down to the present. As the idea of communication gained currency in the 20th century, rhetorical theory also flourished and the scope of rhetoric was broadened from its roots in public speaking and written composition so that any communication could now be thought of as a form of rhetoric. In the rhetorical tradition, communication is a practical art of discourse, concerned with mastering techniques of communication, developing a critical awareness of techniques, and making wise choices about what and how to communicate in practical situations.

Semiotic Tradition

Communication is the sharing of meaning through signs and symbols.
Problems of communication involve the use of signs and symbols (words, gestures, images, etc.) to express meaning, achieve understanding, and bridge gaps between different subjective viewpoints. Problems can arise from unfamiliarity, language differences, too much abstraction, or unintended meanings that might be confusing or offensive.

Semiotics, the theory of signs, sprang in its modern form from the 17th-century empiricist philosopher John Locke, who theorized that words stand for ideas in each person’s mind and that communication fails when people use words with different or unclear meanings. Under the influence of seminal thinkers such as Charles S. Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure, sophisticated theories were developed in the 20th century to explain types and systems of signs and how signs function in the mind and in society. For example, natural signs (e.g., smoke is a sign of fire) can be distinguished from symbolic signs (e.g., the word “fire” used in a speech about fire prevention) in that symbolic signs have shared meaning only as a matter of social convention. In the semiotic tradition, communication depends entirely on the production and interpretation of signs to share meaning or convey information. The practical concerns of rhetoric and semiotics overlap, but rhetoric has traditionally focused on persuasion while semiotics has focused on intersubjective understanding as the fundamental problem of communication.

Phenomenological Tradition

Communication is the experience of self and other in dialogue.
Problems of communication involve inauthentic ways of being and relating to others, such as one-way monologue, rejection of different views, or focus on an instrumental goal like persuading the other or projecting a certain image of oneself.

Phenomenological theory is concerned with communication as a subjective experience. In contrast to cybernetics, human consciousness and intentionality are essential to communication as theorized in this tradition. Phenomenological theory describes the forms of conscious experience through which we interpret and make sense of the world around us, including other people. Several contending schools of phenomenology developed in the 20th century from the work of major Continental philosophers such as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. An important concept first theorized by the philosopher Martin Buber is that of genuine dialogue—an event of communion between people who experience each other as full persons with their own subjectivity (I–you) rather than as instrumental objects (I–it). The phenomenological tradition thus offers an ethical view of communication that values openness and authenticity and is critical of strategic (rhetorical) as well as mechanistic (cybernetic or sociopsychological) views. Phenomenology’s focus on our direct experience of others can be contrasted to the semiotic assumption that meaning can only be shared through signs, but current philosophers of communication often blend the two traditions, weaving signs and discourse into the fabric of conscious experience.

Cybernetic Tradition

Communication is information processing in systems at all levels of complexity (machines, organisms, groups, organizations, societies).
Problems of communication involve malfunctions in the flow of information such as too little or too much information, lack of feedback, runaway processes such as escalating conflict, or system breakdown.

In the late 1940s, formal theories of communication developed by mathematicians and electrical engineers, especially Claude Shannon’s theory of information and Norbert Wiener’s theory of cybernetic feedback-control systems, attracted widespread attention in disciplines ranging from biology to psychology and the social sciences. At the dawn of the Information Age, these theories seemed to point the way to a rigorous science of communication that would explain how information functions in all complex systems including machines, biological organisms, and human society. Although the formal mathematics of these theories were not easily applied to human interaction, Shannon’s diagram of the linear model of communication (showing the flow of information from a source through a channel to a destination) became a staple of communication theory courses, and key terms such as information, redundancy, noise, and feedback were absorbed into ordinary language as a somewhat technical-sounding vocabulary for discussing communication. In the cybernetic tradition, communication is information processing in systems at all levels from machines to human societies, and problems of communication have to do with system malfunctions (such as information blockage in organizations or escalating conflict in interpersonal relations) rather than persuasion (contrary to the rhetorical tradition) or shared meaning (contrary to the semiotic tradition). In a cybernetic view, contrary to the phenomenological tradition, communication is a functional process that does not rely on conscious intentionality. Human consciousness itself is a form of information processing that is not different in its essential functioning from that of computing machines or other nonconscious systems.

Sociopsychological Tradition

Communication is a process of social behavior, interaction and influence, the causes and effects of which are determined by psychological variables such as personality, cognition, and emotion.
Problems of communication involve the use of psychological variables to affect behavior and interaction and to achieve desired outcomes, such as sales from advertising, public health, team motivation, or interpersonal closeness.

Scientific social psychology developed in the 20th century, roughly in parallel with phenomenology and in response to some related practical concerns about human relations, but it theorized communication, quite differently, as a process of behavioral interaction with psychological causes and effects. Leading social psychologists such as Kurt Lewin, Carl Hovland, and Gordon Allport developed theories of group dynamics, persuasion and social influence, rumor transmission, cognitive information processing, interpersonal attraction, and other communication-related phenomena that have been extensively applied and further developed in communication research to explain media effects and interpersonal interaction. This is the dominant theoretical tradition in current conceptions of communication research as a science. As a tradition focused on explaining the causes and effects of communication, sociopsychologcal theory appeals to a practical interest in diagnosing the causes of communication problems and finding effective solutions to control outcomes. Although both rhetoric and social psychology are concerned with communication techniques, rhetoric theorizes communication as an art adapted to each situation while social psychology pursues scientific generalizations. Although cybernetics and social psychology share a scientific orientation, sociopsychological theory does not equate machine and human communication but rather emphasizes the importance of distinctly human factors such as personality, emotion, and motivated cognition.

Sociocultural Tradition

Communication is participation in society and culture.
Problems of communication involve barriers to community and social cooperation, and can arise from factors such as cultural differences, social and cultural change, and community conflict.

The sociocultural tradition of communication theory emerged under the influence of 19th and early 20th-century social theorists such as Emile Durkheim, Charles H. Cooley, John Dewey, and George H. Mead. In this tradition, communication is viewed as an essential process of human society. On the macro level of society as a whole, communication functions to integrate and coordinate the various institutions of a society. On the micro level of social interaction, our successful communication with one another depends on a shared context of social institutions and cultural patterns, which we both reproduce and flexibly adapt as we interact, thus contributing both to the maintenance of society and to the possibility of social change on the macro level. A problem for sociocultural theories is to explain how local interactions, in the aggregate, produce social and cultural patterns even while they depend on and reproduce existing patterns. The sociocultural tradition is concerned with practical communication problems such as collaboration and organization, social conflict and change, communication across cultural differences, and the quest for community in diverse, multicultural societies. Sociocultural theory criticizes the overemphasis on individual agency and the lack of attention to the macro level of society and culture in traditions such as rhetoric, phenomenology, and social psychology. It criticizes the tendency in traditions such as semiotics and cybernetics to abstract communication codes or functions from the rich context of social life in which they necessarily occur.

Critical Tradition

Communication is discursive reflection, meaning that genuine communication requires free and open questioning of the social forces that condition and often distort communication.
Problems of communication involve hegemonic ideologies and unjust power relations that go unquestioned (with respect to social class, ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, disability, age, etc.) and that systematically distort the communication process to privilege certain views while excluding or marginalizing other views.

The modern critical tradition of communication theory began in the mid-19th century with the Marxist critique of capitalist ideology and has evolved through the Frankfurt School critical theorists of the mid-20th century, and later Frankfurt School theorists such as Jurgen Habermas, to contemporary poststructuralism and identity-based critical movements that challenge oppressive ideologies of race, gender, sexuality, ability, and other dimensions of difference marked by unjust privilege and domination. For theorists in the critical tradition, most communication is distorted by ingrained ideological assumptions and power structures that perpetuate social injustice, and a practical purpose of communication theory is to cultivate forms of discursive reflection or communication that exposes oppressive ideology, freely questions the status quo, and promotes progressive social change. Turning this critique on the field of communication theory itself, critical-cultural theorists have centered the theoretical contributions of women and LGBTQ+ theorists, theorists of color, and non-Western indigenous thought traditions. If some other communication theorists criticize the critical tradition for politicizing science and scholarship, critical theorists criticize other traditions for upholding a sham political neutrality that implicitly serves dominant interests.

Criticisms, Applications, and Extensions

The Constitutive Metamodel has been mentioned thousands of times in the academic literature, most often simply as a way of nodding toward communication theory in general or toward the traditions or some other idea in the metamodel. Substantial criticisms, applications, and extensions of the metamodel have also been published, and several traditions of communication theory have been introduced in addition to the original seven. Listed below under Further Reading are good sources for learning more about these developments: Craig (2009b), Craig (2015), Craig & Xiong (2022), and Rich & Robles (2021). I'll just quickly mention some criticisms and applications of the metamodel, and will conclude with brief summaries of four newly-proposed traditions.

First, here in gist are some of the main criticisms of the metamodel and responses to those criticisms:

Epistemological bias: The metamodel represents the field of communication theory from a social constructionist stance as opposed to a naturalistic, scientific stance. In other words, the metamodel sees communication as a social practice that we can constitute in different forms depending on how we talk about it (metadiscourse) as opposed to a natural phenomenon that can be described and explained scientifically. One response to this criticism is to point out that the metamodel does include scientific theories (in the social psychological, cybernetic, and other traditions), but even though some aspects of communication may be naturally determined by biological or other factors that can be discovered scientifically, the practice of communication is still culturally shaped in many ways. Scientific theories can become part of the culture that shapes our understanding and practice of communication.
Western bias: The metamodel is entirely based on Western (chiefly European and North American) thought traditions, and therefore it may have limited relevance for communication theory and practice in Asian, African, and other non-Western cultures. In an article co-authored with Bingjuan Xiong (Craig & Xiong, 2022), we proposed to correct this bias by expanding the metamodel to include non-Western traditions of communication theory, starting with Confucian and Buddhist traditions.
Misalignment with current research areas: Communication scholars often complain that they can't really place themselves or their theories in any of the seven traditions as defined in the metamodel, even if they nominally work in one of them. For researchers at the forefront of fields like rhetoric, semiotics, or phenomenology, the definitions of those traditions may seem too simplistic and/or old-fashioned to capture current thinking. Other scholars often feel that the metamodel excludes, or at least underemphasizes, theories in their own field of expertise, whether it be media ecology, public relations, or communication biology. One way of responding to these criticisms has been to add new traditions to the metamodel to fill gaps, so far including a Pragmatist tradition and a Spiritual tradition, in addition to the Confucian and Buddhist traditions already mentioned. (See below for more on these four traditions.) Another way of responding to the criticisms is to point out that the traditions are intended to identify different fundamental conceptions of communication, which don't necessarily correspond to current sub-fields of communication. For example, there is no public relations tradition in the metamodel because that field does not have a fundamentally distinct conception of communication, but public relations theories use ideas from several of the traditions including rhetoric, semiotics, social psychology, and others.

Second, although the metamodel has been criticized for certain biases and limitations, it has nevertheless proven to be a useful way of representing the field of communication theory. Here in gist are two main ways of applying the metamodel:

Teaching communication theory: The metamodel is a useful tool for helping students to make sense of communication theory as a field and to apply communication theories to problems in everyday life, by showing how theories in the field are based on a smaller number of fundamentally different conceptions of communication (the traditions) that all have different practical implications. Most communication theory textbooks include the metamodel in some fashion, and many teachers have developed creative ways of presenting and using it in their courses. You'll find great examples of this in Practicing communication theory: Exploring, applying, and teaching the constitutive metamodel, a book edited by Marc H. Rich and Jessica S. Robles (see below under Further Reading).
Critically reflecting on theories and subfields: Scholars have used the metamodel to finds points of comparison for analyzing particular theories or entire subfields of communication in terms of how they relate to other theories or to practical problems. Some of these analyses have looked at which traditions are being applied to a problem or topic area and have pointed out gaps that could be filled by applying different traditions. For examples of this type of application in social thought, phenomenology, interpersonal communication, and even robot communication, see Craig (2015, pp. 359-360).

Third, the metamodel has been extended to include traditions beyond the original seven. (Adding traditions to the metamodel faces some challenges as discussed by Craig, 2015, and Craig & Xiong, 2022.) Here in gist are four traditions that have been proposed so far:

Pragmatist Tradition (Craig, 2007)

Communication is pluralistic community, the coordination of practical activities among diverse people and groups through discourse and reflective inquiry.
Problems of communication involve a "paradox of pluralism" because to fully embrace diversity in a community means taking a standpoint that takes no particular standpoint.

Building on previous work by Chris Russill, Craig (2007) explicated a pragmatist tradition of communication theory that began in the late 19th century in the work of American Pragmatist philosophers such as William James, C.S Pierce, and John Dewey. For theorists in this tradition, communication problems arise from the difficulty of achieving consensus on matters of common concern among the diverse interests and incommensurable worldviews in complex modern societies. Pragmatist communication theory is concerned with forms of discourse that enable the creation and maintenance of cooperative, pluralistic communities in response to such problems. This tradition not only exists in the field and offers a distinct conception of communication, it makes clear that the Constitutive Metamodel itself is a pragmatist theory of communication: a model in the field as well as of the field.

Spiritual Tradition (Rich, 2014)

Communication is mimetic of the atemporal (non-material) plane of reality.
Problems of communication involve the ineffable nature of spiritual truth. "These problems include denial of the atemporal, discerning the mimetic of the atemporal, and failing to overcome the material nature of communication to grasp the inner atemporal purity of the message better" (Rich, 2014, p. 140).

"Rich ... has proposed a spiritual tradition of communication theory in which communication is conceived as mimetic of the atemporal. This tradition is based on a dualistic distinction between the temporal, material world in which we practice human communication and an atemporal, spiritual plane of truth that can influence our temporal beliefs and practices when we manage to connect with it, but that is not in any way influenced, much less socially constructed, through human interaction. Normative human communication can represent atemporal truth, but only imperfectly. Among many writings on communication in the spiritual tradition Rich cites classical works of Plato and Augustine, certain strains of American pragmatism, and contemporary works including those of several communication scholars. Having defined the spiritual tradition, Rich puts it in conversation with the eight previously defined traditions in the field, noting, for example, that genuine dialogue in the phenomenological tradition is an experience of meeting between individuals while in the spiritual tradition it emerges from a shared atemporal moment" (Craig, 2015, p. 361).

Buddhist Tradition (Craig & Xiong 2022)

Communication is the individual's attunement to enlightenment.
Problems of communication involve barriers to enlightenment such as self-centeredness and ego-attachment.

Buddhism, a long-standing religious and philosophical tradition that significantly influences Asian communication concepts and practices, developed from teachings of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who lived in ancient India during the 6th or 5th century BCE. While diverse Buddhist traditions exist (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana), they share core beliefs like the Four Noble Truths, enlightenment, and the interconnectedness of all living things. The Buddhist tradition conceptualizes communication as an individual's attunement to enlightenment, which encompasses both the communication process of becoming enlightened and an ultimate ideal state of communication. Individuals in this tradition are "conditioned" rather than self-contained agents, yet retain the capacity for "becoming" through Buddhist practices. Causality is a process of "interdependent co-arising" rather than linear cause and effect. "Attunement" highlights mindfulness, harmony, and interconnectedness, emphasizing both inner mind development and the outer world. Consciousness is central, with mind development crucial for enlightenment, achieved through practices like meditation. Enlightenment, similar to nirvana, is a practice-based experience, attainable gradually or suddenly, through the Eightfold Path. This path involves ethical thinking, living, and relating, beginning with understanding the Four Noble Truths. Buddhism challenges social hierarchies, emphasizing moral equality, and stresses individual experience over reliance on language or authority. Buddhism shares (Western) phenomenology's focus on individual consciousness but in a metaphysical context that shapes communication differently. And although it has much in common with the spiritual tradition, Buddhism embraces not a dualistic (temporal-atemporal) but rather a "tri-world" (human-natural-supernatural) conception of reality and regards the material world as an illusion to be overcome in enlightenment.

Confucian Tradition (Craig & Xiong 2022)

Communication is harmonious social interaction.
Problems of communication involve conditions that threaten social harmony, such as lack of personal cultivation or failure to perform traditional rituals and rites.

Confucianism, a prominent philosophical tradition derived from teachings of the Chinese scholar Confucius (551-549 BCE), has significantly influenced East Asian societies, shaping everything from governance to interpersonal relationships, particularly for Chinese and Koreans. Confucianism offers a coherent system of thinking about communication, emphasizing moral speech that reflects self-cultivation and fosters harmonious relationships. Key concepts like guanxi (social relations), mientzu (face), he (harmony), and uye-ri (reciprocity) are used to understand Asian communication. Chen's harmony theory highlights ren (humanism), yi (righteousness), and li (propriety) as guiding principles. Confucian communication is viewed as harmonious social interaction, prioritizing social harmony over individual enlightenment. This harmony stems from individual virtue and ethical communication, requiring constant attunement to ethical principles and the interplay of yin and yang. The five ethical principles (ren, yi, li, zhi, xin) are interdependent and crucial for moral self-cultivation. Confucianism emphasizes the individual's role in creating harmonious relationships, extending from family to the cosmos. While valuing harmony, it acknowledges conflict, advocating for its resolution towards greater harmony. It promotes individual moral cultivation as the basis of social order, but also acknowledges hierarchical social positions based on virtue. This creates a tension between dynamic adaptation and static rites, leading to both criticism and creative adaptations of the tradition.

*****

Questions? Comments? Please post a comment on this blog or email me (Robert.Craig@Colorado.edu).

{meta} discourses

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Traditions of Communication Theory: An Introduction to the Constitutive Metamodel