Communication (action theory)

The action-theoretical approach to the phenomenon of communication consists of a number of basic assumptions that relate to the communicator and on which a corresponding action-theoretical description and modeling of the phenomenon is based. The main assumption is that those who communicate are seen as doers. This means that elements such as problem definition, planning, goals, purposes, ideas, opinions are included in the description of communication.

If it is assumed that people generally see and describe themselves as agents, the action-theoretical approach can also be viewed as the everyday approach to the phenomenon of communication. The fact that this approach is viewed as action “theoretical” does not mean that it is not used in “practice”. Rather, it can also be assumed that everyone has formed an individualized communication theory, which he or she applies partially unconsciously.

The action theory approach is sharply demarcated from the systems theory approach according to Niklas Luhmann . The system-theoretical basic assumptions are largely incompatible with the approach described here.

Characteristics of action that are important for a communication theory

The following can apply as general characteristics of action: Action is connected with meaning or the creation of meaning, that is, action is oriented towards a connection of purposes that is culture-dependent. In other words: A certain state, certain situations are generally seen as worth striving for and are therefore also referred to as "meaningful", e.g. E.g. to achieve an educational qualification. In this context, certain actions or omissions are requested, and this is done and that is not done. The latter also means: action can be carried out or omitted. To perform or to refrain from an action can also be the subject of a request. The agent himself determines whether an action is carried out or not. Action is therefore intentional or deliberate, is thus motivated and can be attributed to the agent himself. These characteristics distinguish the concept of action from that of behavior.

The execution of the action and the action result and the action consequences can be viewed separately. With regard to the execution, one can speak of success and failure. With regard to the outcome of the action, one can speak of success or failure. With the help of this distinction, it is also possible to describe those situations in which a successful performance of the actual action fails to achieve its purpose and is therefore unsuccessful. This becomes particularly clear in communication: the successful completion of a communicative understanding (e.g. the presentation and justification of a request that is also correctly understood by the recipient) does not mean that this communication act will be successful (that the request will also be fulfilled ). Successful communication does not necessarily mean that the purpose of the communication is achieved. The inclusion of the consequences of an action presents the observer with considerable difficulties, because neither the material nor the social conditions of the action are exclusively in the power of one and the same acting person.

Action can be observed. If the observation is based on the distinction between behavior and action, then an “externally” observed behavior can be ascribed to the observed as its action. For example, body movements and utterances can be attributed to someone as communicative action. It is assumed that the observed person is pursuing his own communication purposes. This assumption usually happens quickly and without problems, because purposes and contexts are of great importance for everyday problem solving. A prerequisite for this is a supra-individual relationship to the world in which purposes and contexts of meaning arise. The assumption that there are purposes is not always easy, but sometimes problematic. It is not always clear to the observer which communication purposes are being pursued. Because every observer differentiates, describes and assesses depending on the location and time. This can be a cause for misunderstanding.

Using these characteristics, listening and speaking, reading and writing (in communication theory terminology: receiving and producing) are viewed as action. The processing of drawing processes, classifying what has been heard, thinking about a topic is also part of communicative action.

Communication as a social act

Communication is viewed as a social act in the context of action theory. This means that the phenomenon cannot be described by specifying individual actions for individuals who exist in themselves. A description of communication as the sum or totality of individual actions is also not sufficient. Viewing communication as a social act means describing the actions of those communicating only in relation to one another and in the form of participation. Receiving - perceiving and drawing conclusions with the help of sign processes - only happens in the communication process in relation to the producer (s). Producing - representing and arguing with the help of drawing processes - happens in the communication process only in relation to the recipient (s). Both actions are inconceivable without the action of the other.

In this perspective, communication is the essential act in which community arises and is constantly renewed.

Communication as problem solving

An important element of action is problem definition and problem solving. In the action theory approach, it can accordingly be said that communication serves to solve problems jointly. Two levels (perspectives) can be distinguished on which this problem solution can be described.

Solving a problem that currently does not seem possible on its own or should not be managed on its own.
Understanding as a problem solution: All participants must first recognize a situation as a problematic situation (they must pose a joint problem). To do this, they have to communicate. They also have to agree on possible solutions. This understanding can in turn be seen as a process of problem solving.

A simple example: someone is asked to close an open window. In the context of psychologizing representations, an indicative sentence such as: “It's cold” is also used for such examples. The request to close the window is assumed after a step of the conclusion: The request is inferred from what has been said and the knowledge of the other or cultural customs; this conclusion has the status of a presumption or an allegation. In both cases, in the case of the direct or indirect request, it must first be understood that it is about an open window, that this open window is a problem, and that this problem should be solved by closing the window. Only then can the overriding problem be solved. - The fact that communication via an open window can also become problematic becomes clear when this communication is to take place between people who do not speak the other's language or who belong to cultures in which sensitivities or requests are presented in very different ways.

Communication goals and purposes

One convention is to designate the achievement of understanding as the communication goal , and the joint problem solving to which the understanding relates as the communication goal.

Communication goals

The communication goal of understanding consists in a sufficient compatibility of experiences in the respective situation. Compatibility means “compatibility”, “fit together”. The assumption of compatibility is sufficient; in this way the very problematic concept of an identity in the area of experiencing, imagining, thinking and acting is avoided. For example, when a meeting point is identified, it does not matter that the experiences of that meeting point (appearance, history, meaning and other) are identical. The participants' experiences with regard to this meeting point only need to be sufficiently compatible to make a meeting possible. (“Compatibility of experiences” here also stands in contrast to the concept of “identity and transmission of signals”; the latter belongs to the description of artificial-technical processes and not to the action-theoretical description).

Communication purposes

Communicative problem solutions can be seen as communication purposes, which can only be achieved through communication with others. Communication purposes range from concrete, simple solutions (see example above) to complex relationships. Frequently pursued communication purposes can consist in forming and changing one's own convictions with the help of others or in convincing or persuading other people of one's own viewpoints. Communication purposes can also consist of exercising power, lying to and cheating. In this sense, lying to someone can be seen as very successful communication (see communication problems), because the requirements to communicate in a way and to argue in such a way that the other person believes the lie and adheres to it are sometimes very high. This claim is valid from an action theory perspective, and not necessarily from an ethical perspective.

The theory of communicative action by Jürgen Habermas

Main article: Theory of communicative action

In the sixties and seventies the philosopher Jürgen Habermas developed an action-theoretical approach to the subject of communication, which can be counted as one of his main works. This work is shaped by social developments in the first half of the twentieth century (up to the 1960s and 70s) (see: Frankfurter Schule ).

References and notes

↑ This refers to the widespread assumption of a dichotomy between theory and practice, which - like other basic dualistic theses - makes the formation and application of communication theory difficult.
↑ For the following cf. Hartmann, Dirk: "Kulturalistische Handlungstheorie", in: Hartmann, Dirk / Janich, Peter (ed.): Methodical culturalism: Between naturalism and postmodernism , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1996 (stw 1272), pp. 70–114, especially p. 72 ff. Continuing the article: Methodical culturalism
↑ For a brief summary of the following, see: Schmidt, Siegfried J. / Zurstiege, Guido (2000): Orientation Communication Science. What she can do, what she wants . Rowohlt: Reinbek near Hamburg, p. 147.
↑ Hartmann, Dirk: "Kulturalistische Handlungstheorie", in: Hartmann, Dirk / Janich, Peter (Ed.) (1996): Methodical Culturalism: Between Naturalism and Postmodernism , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, page 76 ff.
↑ This convention goes back to Gerold Ungeheuer .

literature

Dirk Hartmann: Culturalistic Action Theory. In: Dirk Hartmann / Peter Janich (eds.): Methodical culturalism. Between naturalism and postmodernism. Suhrkamp Verlag (stw 1272), Frankfurt am Main 1996, pp. 70-114.
Gerold Ungeheuer: Introduction to Communication Theory. Hagen: Fernuniversität , 1983. - Three course units; no longer available there.
Gerold Ungeheuer: Communication Theory Writings I: Speaking, Communicating, Understanding. Edited and introduced by Johann G. Juchem. Afterword by Hans-Georg Soeffner and Thomas Luckmann. With list of fonts. Alano, Rader Verlag, Aachen 1987 (Aachener Studien zur Semiotik und Kommunikationforschung, Vol. 14), ISBN 3-89399-062-3 brosch, ISBN 3-89399-063-1 geb.