It's All Connected (As Are We): Communication Theory and the Internet

 
Lately, I've been doing some reading on communication theory and how the various traditions within the field help to explain the nature of human interaction.  Also striking is that some of the theories, at times, seem to contradict each other, at least at at first glance.

One such theory, sometimes referred to as the cybernetic tradition, postulates that communication is really a form of information processing.  Specifically, it explains "how all kinds of complex systems, whether living or nonliving, macro or micro, are able to function and why they often malfunction" (Craig 141).

Does this description remind you of computer systems in any way?  I know it does for me.  There's a good reason for this: the scholars in the cybernetic tradition draw a direct parallel between the way humans communicate and how computers transmit messages:

"For cybernetics, the distinction between mind and matter is only a functional distinction like that between software and hardware...Cybernetics...is also interesting and sometimes implausible for a commonsense view because it points out surprising analogies between living and nonliving systems, challenges commonplace beliefs about the significance of consciousness and emotion, and questions our usual distinctions between mind and matter, form and content, the real and the artificial" (Craig 141).

It would seem, then, that there are uncanny similarities between humans and computers.  Are these commonalities due to humans being the "Creator" of computers, thus making them in their own image, or are they due to there being no other efficient ways to transmit messages?  I'm not sure there's any definitive answer here.

(photo: found here and used in accordance with a Creative Commons license)

Just as the Internet creates a network of computers and, by association, humans, we're also connected in our communications can be broken down into the same basic elements.  However, scholars in the field of communication theory disagree on exactly what those fundamental parts are.

Competing with the cybernetic tradition is the phenomenological tradition, which describes communication as "the experience of otherness" (Craig 138).

Specifically, "Communication theorized in this way explains the interplay of identity and difference in authentic human relationships and cultivates communication practices that enable and sustain authentic relationships...In thus experiencing the other's expression toward me, I directly experience our commonality and also our difference, not only the other as other to me but myself as other to the other...It problematizes such commonsense distinctions as those between mind and body, facts and values, words and things...Only dialogue satisfies the basic human needs for 'companionship, friendship, and love,' but mass communication expresses an 'equally noble impulse' toward normative universality that often conflicts with the demands of intimacy" (Craig 138-140).

So, what are we to believe: that we're like computers or that humans are wholly separate from machines in their functioning?

I tend to believe that the answer lies somewhere in the middle.  In other words, these two traditions, in my view, should not necessarily be seen as competing views but, instead, complementary schools of thought that help to explain the complexities of human interactions.  The rise of the Internet and our relationship with it causes us to question whether we are, or are becoming, posthuman, forcing us to re-evaluate how we relate to ourselves, each other, and the world.  I'm certain that new communication theories will be postulated and tested as a result, which may consist of hybrids of previously presented traditions.

Feel free to communicate any thoughts you may have on this subject by leaving a comment below. 

Works Cited:

Craig, Robert T. “Communication Theory as a Field.” Communication Theory 9.2 (1999): 119-161.