|
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 199-161.
Discussion Questions:
1. What is the point of having a distinct field of communication theory. Why not just develop "theory," building on the trans-disciplinary contributions of Foucault, Bateson, Giddens, Habermas, and other such theorists? Can or should communication theory develop separately from social theory in general? From a postmodern point of view, isn't the whole idea of constructing a "discipline" of communication basically retrograde? Isn't it time to move beyond disciplines?
2. Craig proposes to construct a field of communication on the basis of a constitutive "metamodel" of communication. Does his distinction (pp. 126-128) between this so-called constitutive metamodel and a first-order constitutive model of communication hold water? In effect, does he not propose that the field adopt a constitutive model of communication as its one and only official model while pretending to remain theoretically open and pluralistic? (WE ARE THE META-MODEL. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!)
3. Is the seven-traditions model of the field too vague and simplistic to shed any significant light on current theoretical debates across the field? If a lot of current work is hard to classify within any one of these traditions (as Craig admits), then what is the actual relevance or usefulness of the model?
4. Craig claims to distinguish the seven traditions according to their underlying conceptions of communication rather than on the basis of epistemology (p. 135). Is this completely accurate? What, if anything, is really new here?
5. From a scientific point of view, Craig's attempt to de-emphasize epistemology is very problematic. Given the lack of criteria for accepting or rejecting theories, what basis would we have for knowledge claims? Is every theory just as good as every other theory, however outlandish? Does "anything go" in this field? What's the point of engaging in an endless "theoretical metadiscourse" that apparently leads nowhere?
6. From a critical point of view, isn't this all a little, well, uncritical? By conceptualizing theory as an open-ended "metadiscourse" among ideas (an approach that critical theorists call "idealism"), does this model tend to distract us from actual social problems, grounded in material conditions and power relations, that we ought to be addressing?
Table 1. Seven Traditions of Communication Theory
