Main menu

Pages


Communicating is a fundamental action in humans, the Palo Alto school postulates that "we can not communicate" Indeed, everything is communication, whether verbally or non-verbally: silence, a gesture, posture, look, speech, facial expression, etc. In addition, this tool which allows interactivity can have manipulative or deceptive ambitions. Communication can have the objective of influencing the behavior of others.

There are three types of communication:
Interpersonal communication, which establishes a relationship between two people.
Group communication, which will establish a relationship between several people.
Mass communication, which will disseminate information to a large audience. The mass media are television, radio, press, posters, cinema, and the Internet.

Human communication includes a part of rhetoric, art of convincing or persuading, and discipline which studies the means of doing it, words, diction, gestures, attitudes. Rhetoric, whose teaching dates back to ancient Greece, involves a conscious intention. The interlocutor can also analyze with a certain distance the action of the interlocutor, the nature of the figures of style which he uses, his nonverbal communication. When this is not the case, and a relationship of domination is established, or one of the two people acts in a concealed way on the context (Gaslighting), communication can be qualified as mental manipulation [ref. desired].
In the middle of the XXth century, the school of Palo Alto, influenced by the cybernetic current of Norbert Wiener, generalized the contributions of the mathematical theory of communication to relationships between living beings: interpersonal communication is based there on the relationship of person to person, each being, in turn, the transmitter and/or the receiver in a face to face relationship: the feedback is supposed to be facilitated if not almost systematic [ref. desired]. The symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead, then the works of Erwin Goffman, then completes the analysis of the situations where the actors influence each other and coordinate their actions without prior reflection.
A French network of researchers in the anthropology of communication was formed in information and communication sciences (SIC), in France at the end of the XXth century. It is initiated from the analysis of the work of Palo Alto and in particular that of Erving Goffman and Gregory Bateson, from the publications of the Belgian Yves Winkin (1981). Stéphane Olivesi performs some critical variations around the Palo Alto School for some time in order to move from an "anthropology to an epistemology of communication" (1997). The Argentinian Eliseo Veron (1987), who met Lévi-Strauss and translated it, will develop a semi or-anthropological model, will teach it at Paris VIII university where he directed the department of information sciences and Communication. Noting that the actors involved in a face-to-face relationship do not have the distance and time to rationally "dissect" the complexity of what is happening here and now, Béatrice Galinon-Mélénec, performs the analysis of face-to-face relationships face to face from an analysis of the interaction flows that are established between “Men-traces” (“body-traces”) via a “signs-traces” interactions (2011). This anthropo-semiotics constitutes a criticism of the approaches of interpersonal communication-oriented only on argument rhetoric. In line with the anthropology of contemporary worlds, we find Pascal Lardellier whose research focuses on social rites. Paul Rasse, vice-president of the SFSIC, develops an “anthropology of communication technologies”. Joanna Nowicki, SIC researcher born in Poland, explores intercultural anthropology via L'Homme des confines (2008).
The cybernetic model, meanwhile, matches the message to a repertoire of meanings. This model is based on symbolic meanings. However, human perceptions are not limited to the latter, even if all perception involves some knowledge of symbols. The interpretation of messages like that of situations in which we find ourselves varies according to hypotheses ... which we can subsequently question. Admittedly, the ritual, customary, normal use of words or gestures guide the interpretative associations to which they give rise8 and frame the experience of communication, but the relationship between humans is not reduced to this socially constructed channel.
You are now in the first article
reactions