Communication, Discourse and Symbolic Power


Habermas, Mead, Foucault, Luhmann, Lazarsfeld

Communication

Communication in sociology is a broad and dynamic concept that encompasses various forms of interaction between individuals and groups. It is a fundamental human activity that plays a crucial role in shaping social structures, cultural expressions, and individual experiences.

Here are some key ideas about communication in sociology:

  • Communication is a fundamental human activity: Communication is essential for building relationships,resolving conflicts, and coordinating collective action. It facilitates the exchange of ideas, the coordination of efforts, and the creation of shared understandings.
  • Communication is a dynamic and interactive process: Meaning is not inherent in symbols or messages themselves but is rather constructed through the interaction of individuals and groups. Communication is a two-way street, with both senders and receivers actively shaping the meaning of messages.
  • Communication shapes social structures and power dynamics: Communication is not a neutral process; it reflects and reinforces existing social hierarchies and power structures. Language, in particular, can be used to perpetuate inequality and marginalize certain groups.
  • Communication is essential for social cohesion and collective action: Effective communication is crucial for building relationships, resolving conflicts, and mobilizing collective action. It facilitates the exchange of ideas, the coordination of efforts, and the creation of shared understandings.
  • Communication is constantly evolving in the digital age: The advent of new communication technologies has transformed the way we communicate, with far-reaching implications for social interactions, cultural practices, and political discourse.

Examples of how communication shapes social structures in sociology:

  • The use of language to define social categories: The words we use to describe ourselves and others can shape our understanding of those categories and the power relations associated with them. For example,the term “minority” can be used to reinforce the idea that certain groups are less powerful or less worthy of respect.
  • The use of communication to control and regulate social behavior: Communication can be used to establish norms, enforce rules, and maintain social order. For example, the use of “scolding” or “punishment” can be used to control children’s behavior.
  • The use of communication to promote social change: Communication can be used to challenge existing power structures and promote social change. For example, the use of social media has been used to mobilize people around social justice issues.

Examples of how communication can be used in sociology research:

  • Qualitative research: Qualitative research methods such as interviews, observation, and focus groups can be used to gather data on how people communicate and how communication shapes their experiences.
  • Quantitative research: Quantitative research methods such as surveys and experiments can be used to test hypotheses about how communication affects social behavior.
  • Content analysis: Content analysis can be used to analyze the content of communication to identify patterns and themes.

These are just a few examples of how communication is conceptualized and studied in sociology. Communication is a complex and multifaceted concept that plays a central role in understanding social life. By understanding how communication shapes social structures, power relations, and individual experiences, sociologists can better understand the world around them and work to create a more just and equitable society.

Discourse

The term “discourse” is a central concept in sociology, referring to a system of communication that produces and reproduces meaning within a social context. It encompasses not just the words we use, but also the broader social and cultural context in which those words are spoken or written.

Here is a definition of discourse in sociology:

Discourse is a system of language use that shapes the ways we think about and understand the world around us. It is not just a matter of individual communication, but also a broader social phenomenon that reflects and reinforces existing power structures and social hierarchies.

Key characteristics of discourse in sociology:

  • Discourse is socially constructed: Discourse is not a natural or neutral phenomenon; it is created and shaped by social and cultural forces.
  • Discourse is power-laden: Discourse can be used to maintain or challenge power structures.
  • Discourse is not static: Discourse is constantly evolving and contested.
  • Discourse is both constraining and enabling: Discourse can both limit our understanding of the world and provide us with tools for social change.

Examples of how discourse shapes social reality:

  • The language of medicine: The language of medicine can be used to define and categorize illness, which can have a significant impact on how people experience and understand their health.
  • The language of law: The language of law can be used to define and punish crime, which can shape how we think about and respond to criminal behavior.
  • The language of politics: The language of politics can be used to frame political issues and shape public opinion.

Examples of how discourse can be used for social change:

  • The feminist movement: The feminist movement has used discourse to challenge traditional gender roles and promote gender equality.
  • The environmental movement: The environmental movement has used discourse to raise awareness of environmental issues and advocate for change.
  • The civil rights movement: The civil rights movement used discourse to challenge racial discrimination and promote racial equality.

By understanding how discourse works, sociologists can better understand how social reality is constructed and how power is exercised in society. This can help them to identify and challenge harmful discourses and promote more just and equitable social structures.

 

Symbolic Power

Symbolic Power refers to the ability to shape social reality through the use of symbols, language, and other forms of communication. Symbolic power is a form of power that is not based on force or coercion, but rather on persuasion and the ability to shape the way people think and understand the world around them.

Here are some examples of how symbolic power can be used to shape social reality:

  • The use of language to define reality: The words we use to describe the world around us can shape our understanding of that world. For example, the use of the term “illegal immigrant” to describe undocumented immigrants can have the effect of demonizing them and making them seem less deserving of rights and protections.
  • The use of symbols to represent power: Symbols, such as flags, national anthems, and religious icons, can be used to reinforce the power of those in authority. For example, the American flag is a powerful symbol of national identity and pride, and it can be used to rally people to support the government or military.
  • The use of stories and narratives to shape values: Stories and narratives can be used to promote particular values and beliefs, and they can shape how we understand ourselves and others. For example,the story of the American Dream is a powerful narrative that has been used to justify inequality and discrimination.

Symbolic power is a complex and multifaceted concept that is often used to maintain social hierarchies and perpetuate inequality. However, it can also be used to challenge power structures and promote social change. By understanding how symbolic power works, we can better understand the dynamics of social change and how to create a more just and equitable society.

Here are some additional thoughts on symbolic power in sociology:

  • Symbolic power is not a static force; it is constantly evolving and being contested.
  • Symbolic power can be used for both good and evil.
  • Symbolic power is often invisible and taken for granted.
  • Symbolic power can be a powerful tool for social change.

In conclusion, symbolic power is a crucial concept in sociology for understanding how social reality is constructed and how power is exercised in society. By understanding symbolic power, we can better understand the challenges we face and the potential for social change.

Jurgen Habermaas

  • His thoughts about communication are based on Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
  • Communication is not the same as discourse
  • The result of discourse should be a universal agreement between all the attendees of the discussion
  • The praxis which can be accepted as universal has to be accepted on the best arguments which are acceptable for everyone

Communication and discourse

  • He created a Theory of Communicative Action
  • Habermas’s theory of communicative action rests on the idea that social order ultimately depends on the capacity of actors to recognize the intersubjective validity of the different claims on which social cooperation depends
  • His theory is rooted in Kant’s categorical imperative
    • Only the idea which can be accepted by everyone should be
      performed
  • He impeaches measures of instrumental sense: effectivity and usebility
  • “Social processes can not be objectivised if it is condition or understanding and explaining all human behavior.”
  • He proposed two-stage model of lifeworld to make the world managable
  • Organisations are neutral to symbolic structures of lifeworld – and it is not an effective communicative model in the society
  • He claims that the higher degree of communication based on “discourse” is required in order to provide an universal consensus.
  • The critics are usually pointed at the utopic character of his theory.

 

Symbolic Interactionism

  • The main idea of SI is that human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful communication or symbols.
  • The main part of human behaviour is not determined by objectives of a situation but more by meaning which people insert to the situation.
  • What we name “reality” is a social construct – we invest our attention in it – other things we see as irrelevant

Georg Herbert Mead

  • Interaction of individuals is analyzed afterward. The individual assigns meanings to interactions. These meanings are shared and transformed to symbols regulating behaviour.
  • Personality is not an indivisible part of our biological basis and it is not a result of development of the human brain
  • He shows that studying of individual personality can not be divided from studying of society
  •  Human action is based on symbols
  •  The individual recognize the meaning of the symbols during the process of socialization
  • Understanding two parts of the personality
    • I: active part of self
    • Me: the part of self which is seen by others
  • Both parts of SELF are developing by two types of activity:
    • Play – The first phase of socialization
      • The “I” self is presented in the activity “play” – does not include other people – “play on something”
    • Game – The second phase of socialization
      • The “Me” self is presented in the activity “game” which includes rules and roles – other people are part of this

 

Michel Foucault

  • Theory of Power – does not accept the society as a whole. Only as an aim to be destroyed
  • Power is a series of networks which affects individuals in all aspects of their life.
  • Originally, the power was performed by three possible ways – torture, manipulation of imagination, training
    Training of a body establishes itself as remaining.
  • This was a foothold for seeding “micro-power” in networks without attendance of any monarch
  • Coordination of it was aquired by many institutions
  • There is an option to decipher the mechanisms of power on the basis of the strategy by immanent relationships of forces
  •  

Niklas Luhmann

  • He created The Systems Theory
  • He does not see ability to explain our contemporary society by approaches of classical thinkers
  • His theory is based on the paradigm of autopoiets systems
  • Autopoietic system – characteristics
    • It develops regardless of the environment
    • It reacts to the environment and it’s own needs perpetually
    • It produces problems which solves by itself
    • It foists norms which regulates the self-development
    • Development goes forward by reduction in complexity
      Result:
    • An interest about an individual is weakened
    • Motivation of action, feelings, wishes
  • Communication creates social reality
    • It is the basic unit of all social systems
    • Social systems communicate – no individual actors
    • The main point is a communication on itself – not communicating people
  • Media is an invention of evolution
    • Transforms non-probability of communication to probability
  • System and its surrounding
  • Surrounding of a system includes elements which are not part of it but they influence it
  • Borders of systems – are given by the field where the system works
  • A system can react differently on any impulses from outside – because it needs to adjust its reaction according to the inner conditions.
  • Media is an invention of evolution
    Transforms non-probability of communication to probability
  • Reducing complexity
  • The condition of self-creating (autopoiecy) requires to surrender the right to manage all the cases
  • It selects only necessary cases to manage
  • Surrounding does not contribute to autopoiecy (can be only destructive)
  • Interpenetration of systems
  • The other system looks always as surrounding
    The order of the other system looks like disorder to the original one – different rules are defined – not compatible

Paul Felix Lazarsfeld

  • “Program analyser”was a device used for his first project “Princeton Radio Project”
    • The researchers were interested in what lured people to programs (Stanton + Cantril)
  • “People’s Choice”
    • Was the study conducted 1940-1944: how the voters make up their mind in a presidential campaign (Berelson, Gaudet)
  • “Decatur”
    • The study of two-step communication model of flow ideas to the audience
  • Princeton radio project was projected as an analysis of what people like in the radio broadcasting – which programmes
  • Research design was two stages:
    • They use the simple device “programm analyser” to record favourite programm by respondents
    • The second part was an interview which digged the details about the single records
  • This study was conducted in co-operation with Robert Merton – he improved the technique of interviews
  • The result was so-called “focused interview” explores
    • Important aspects of the situation when answer was given
    • Contradictions between expected and real effects
    • Answers deviant groups in the population
    • Processes which (are resulted by) concerns experimental effects of the situation
  • The Radio Project also conducted research on the Halloween broadcast of The War of the Worlds 1938
  • 25% of six million people who heard this broadcast accepted that the mass destruction is real
  • The majority of these did not think they were hearing a literal invasion from Mars but rather an attack by Germany
    • Lazarsfeld called it a “firehouse project”
  • The People’s Choice study focused on voters and their behaviour before the election
  • The researchers wanted to identify the impact of the pre-voting campaign
  • They watched a development of preferences for 6 months
  • People who changed their opinion became interesting for the researchers
  • Results:
  • They identified a process of “crystallisation” which means continuous development of opinions
  • People stay in agreement with their close people (family, close colleagues, friends) and they keep their opinion the same
  • The researchers also identified a function of so-called “OPINION LEADERS”
  • DECATUR
    The reserachers wanted to know more about the opinion leaders
  • That was the goal of this study which was oriented to interpersonal relationships and identification of opinion leaders

The researchers (Elihu Katz) asked people about four topics possibly influenced by mass media

  • Shopping,
  • fashion,
  • public affairs
    and cinema

They wanted to identify the opinion leaders so they asked

  • If someone asked the respondent about his or her opinion
  • This was the way how to identify potential opinion leaders
  • The result of this study (decatur) was re-discovering “primar groups” where is salient transfer of personal influence between members of the group.
  • Social relationships are a network of communication where “opinion leaders” are hubs or knots – simply key media of mass communication
  • The researchers found 3 perspectives for seeing leaders
    • A lifestage, social and economic status and wideness of social contacts of the leader
  • The imagination that the degree of personal influence is directly proportional to the position on the social ladder – is NOT TRUE
  • The influence of the leaders is not much vertical as horizontal
  • The economic status played a significant role only in the affairs of public interest
  • The network of contacts was not “surprisingly” so significant a factor for public affairs