Message society, de Stefan Vladutescu. Din cărțile profesorilor

Message society

de Stefan Vladutescu (trad. de Mirela Teodorescu)

„Message society”. Beyond of denomination „Information Age” suggested by Manuel Castells, for actual period  it was suggested also designation „message society” (R. Capurro, 2003) or „message societies”: „We live in message societies”, shows  R. Capurro, T. Takenouchi, L. M. Kawasaki, T. Itaka (Capurro R., Takenouchi T., Kawasaki L. M., Itaka T., 2010, p. 233).

On the other hand, Rafael Capurro (the author of message theory entitled „Angelitics”) shows that the message represents “a central role in communication processes” and the message is „one of the more relevant elements of communication” (Capurro R., 2010). Indeed in center of Variable Geometry-Constructive-Transactional Paradigm, P3, is the message. It gives the principal characteristics of paradigm: the message is with variable geometry, is constructive and transactional.

10.2.2. From the fix message, P1, to message-centered approach, P3. In definition of Paradigms 1 and 2 Linear-Transmissive-Actional Paradigm, P1, and Circular-Interactional Paradigm, P2), the message was seen as a block of meanings. Also at Claude E. Shannon and  Warren Weaver, the message was fix; it is selected from a set of messages. The action message is, in addition, unidirectional.  In Linear-Transmissive-Actional Paradigm, P1, attention was not to message, but to channel efficiency. In Circular-Exchange-Interactional Paradigm, P2, the message becomes object of change, thus it receives importance. It pulls also the feedback. In paradigm 2, the message is creation of communicators agents, it is unique and adapted to receiver agent. Its content is not anymore fix, but remains modulated by block idea. Interactional message is mobile, it is block type and it is clearly assignable to interactants. In P2, interaction takes place to change messages and feedback. Uma Narula shows that Wilbur L. Schramm, notable representative of P2, is that one who „realized the importance of message” (Narula U., 2006, p. 31). In Linear-Transmissive-Action Paradigm, P1,  there is only one message which it was implanted in receptor mind. The message was as a „bullet” shot and which touched always and totally  the goal. In Circular-Interactional Paradigm, P2, it is not anymore talking about only one block message, but of a change of messages as „stimulus-response” form. In addition, in P2, the messages of the same communication unit, are linked through feedback. In G. Gerbner’s opinion, communication is „interaction” that takes place through messages. It is not talking about only one message, but more, George Gerbner just defines communication as „social interaction through messages”  (Gerbner G., 1967, p. 430). John Fiske will think , later, similarly communication as „social interaction through messages’ ” (Fiske J., 1990, p. 2). This assured definition through 4 previous assumptions that begin with „I assume that”; „communication involves signs and codes (…) these signs and codes are transmitted or made available to others; and that transmitting or receiving signs/codes/communication is the practice of social relationships. (…) communication is central to the life of our culture” (Fiske J., 1990, pp. 1-2).

Lasă un răspuns