What's in a name? Defining communication and communication theory

Abstract

Communication is among the most used and least theorized concepts across various disciplines, including communication studies. There are many communication theories and models, most of which take communication for granted, only as a name and an unproblematic/self-evident concept. The concept’s ambiguity relates to the definition of borders and the discipline’s content. In ‘Communication theory and the disciplines’, Jefferson D. Pooley (2016a) presents an exhaustive list of disciplines that relate or are sensitive to communication theory, including sociology, psychology, political science, geography, economics, philosophy, history, literary studies, and cognate fields such as cultural studies, visual studies, game studies, popular music studies, gender studies, and LGBT studies. Located at the intersection of various disciplines, communication studies host a plethora of analytical frameworks, epistemological paradigms, and research interests. However, ‘what it gained in intellectual richness . . . it lacked in disciplinary focus and shared identity’ (Waisbord, 2019). Labeling communication studies as a post-discipline, Waisbord points to ontological plurality, theoretical heteroglossia, hyper-specialization of contemporary scholarship, and the overall decline of grand theories as the main reasons for the identity crisis. Communication is defined as connection, dialogue, expression, information, persuasion, and symbolic interaction (Waisbord, 2019). However, the ontological status of communication as such has not been adequately elaborated. What defines communication scholarship? What is the object and subject of communication? Most important of all, what is communication? These questions are and seem to remain valid in the foreseeable future. Two brilliant contributions discussed in this review article address this plurality and identity crisis in their ways: Igor E. Klyukanov’s Communication: A House Seen from Review Essay