Thoughts on Theory

The purpose of this submission is to compare and contrast the theories of Barthes, Caputo, Hall and Deetz, offering a concomitant Griffinesque (2009) evaluation of each theory’s merit according to accepted standards of judging theory.  If we accept as part of Griffin’s (2009) definition of the objective approach to theory as “the assumption that truth is singular and is accessible through unbiased sensory observation” (p. 14), and also accept Griffin’s definition of the interpretive approach to theory as “the linguistic work of assigning meaning or value to communicative events [which] assumes that multiple meanings or truths are possible” (p. 15), then one can clearly deduce that all four of the theoreticians in question fall within the ranks of the interpretive approach.  A short explanation of each theory follows.

Barthes, building on the semiotic tradition of Ferdinand de Saussure, accepts Saussure’s and Richards’ assertion that “words have no inherent meaning” (Griffin, pp. 324-325), but also extends their assertion to include the locus of meaning within a relationship between a communication event’s sign, signifier, and signified (Griffin, p. 324). To use the American one-finger salute as an example, Barthes would claim the meaning of this nonverbal cue is dependent on an interrelationship between the signifier (the actual image of the middle finger perceived by our senses), the signified (the concept of being degraded) and the sign (the combination of the signifier and signified, in this case, an American degrading nonverbal cue). Barthes’ theory of semiotics classifies as acceptable in the Griffinesque framework for evaluating an interpretive theory (Griffin, pp. 34-39) because it helps us to come to an understanding of people (understanding the role of the gesture in human communication), it helps to clarify values (unmasking the hidden meanings underlying the gesture), it has aesthetic appeal, (easy to read), and it generates a community of agreement such as Caputo, Norton, Kellner, and others (Griffin, p. 331). The theory does not, however, attempt to reform society, as Griffin suggests good theory ought to do (p.37); however, four out five is not bad.

In McDonaldization Revisited:  Critical Essays on Consumer Culture (1998), Caputo bases a theoretical analysis of a popular McDonald’s commercial on Barthes’ semiotic tradition of evaluating meanings emerging through signs, and Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory which postulates that the “sharing of group fantasies creates symbolic convergence” (pp. 39-40). For Caputo, the images in the McDonald’s commercial create a story of American culture,  economics, equality, and family by presenting a “first-order syntagm” (p.45) of “food, folks, and fun”, and a “second-order syntagm” (p. 47) of a piece of Americana. For Caputo, the result is the creation of and perpetuation of the American experience—the chance to enjoy a “break” we deserve today in a fun environment that looks, sounds, smells, and tastes American. For Caputo, McDonalds sells Americana as a commodity, and because this myth shares in the intertextuality with other Americana myths, people who are fascinated with things American in other countries buy the commodity (p. 49).  Caputo’s theory classifies as acceptable in the Griffinesque framework for evaluating an interpretive theory (Griffin, pp. 34-39) because it helps us to come to an understanding of people (how we react to advertising), it helps to clarify values (our response to consumerism), it has aesthetic appeal, (very well-written and easy-to-read article), it generates a community of agreement (uncertain from the reading, but would not be a stretch to conclude), and it attempts to reform society (is critical of consumerism, and the commodification of Americana).

Hall joins forces with the likes of Deetz and Barthes who attack the objective tradition as focusing solely on gathering numbers and discovering cause-effect relationships (Griffin, p. 334). His thought is highly influenced by the economic determinism of the Marxist school of thought emanating from the Frankfurt School (Griffin, p. 336), and by the works of Michel Foucault (Griffin, p. 336).   In addition, Hall would not call himself a critical theorist because he rejects the idea that communication is a separate discipline. Instead, Hall refers to his work as “cultural studies” (Griffin, p. 335), the goal of which, in line with Marxist ideology,  is to change the power structures of societies that serve to marginalize people (Griffin, p. 324). Hall and Caputo share ideas on the mass media as having a powerful influence on the decisions people make. Hall, however argues for the existence of a media hegemony in which one nation dominates other nations (Griffin, p. 336). Hall’s major contribution is in his ideas on how people make meaning. For Hall, people make meaning through discourse (Griffin, p. 337), and this discourse produces myths that keep people powerless in a commodified world (Griffin, p. 338). Hall’s theory classifies as acceptable in the Griffinesque framework for evaluating an interpretive theory (Griffin, pp. 34-39) because it helps us to come to an understanding of people (how people become and remain powerless through hegemony), it helps to clarify values (our response to hegemony), it has aesthetic appeal, (once again, is easy to understand, as well as being people-centered), it generates a community of agreement such as Deetz, Kellner, and I would think Caputo and others. It also attempts to reform society (is critical of government power structures that serve to marginalize people).

Deetz falls in line with other critical theorists. Although the major influences on Deetz’ thought, other than I.A. Richards, are not directly stated in the reading, it is clear that he and Hall share similar ideas.  Deetz would agree with Marx, the scholars of the Frankfurt School, and Hall that power structures that serve to marginalize people need to be changed. Deetz, however, focuses less on the marginalization  by government structures and more on the marginalization by corporate structures (Griffin, p. 262).  In a paper presented as part of a panel at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, in Seattle in November, 2000, Deetz explains his practical theory as being concerned not so much with right or wrong, but rather with how to shape human thinking and talking in useful ways (Deetz, p. 5). Deetz contrasts theory in general and his practical theory in particular with empirical theories by describing it as providing a lens theorists use “in looking to and acting on the world” (Deetz, p. 10) rather than a “mirror of nature” (Deetz, p. 10). For Deetz, theory is practice, and is, therefore practical (Deetz, p. 13).  Deetz’ practical theory classifies as acceptable in the Griffinesque framework for evaluating an interpretive theory (Griffin, pp. 34-39) because it helps us to come to an understanding of people (how people are marginalized in the workplace), it helps to clarify values (our response to corporate marginalization), it has aesthetic appeal, (easy to read, and people centered), and it generates a community of agreement such as West, Hall, and others. It also attempts to reform society (is critical of corporate power structures that serve to marginalize people).

References

Caputo, J. S. (1998). The rhetoric of mcdonaldization: A social semiotic
            perspective. In M. Alfino, J. S. Caputo, & R. Wyngard (Eds.),
            McDonaldization revisited: Critical essays on consumer culture (pp.
             39-51). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Deetz, S. (2000). Theory as a way of seeing and thinking. Manuscript in
            preparation.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A First Look at Communication (7th ed.).
            Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1991).