Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

What if communication has been pursuing the wrong kind of science? This article argues that the physics-based or ‘transmission’ model derived from Claude Shannon and criticised by James Carey does not explain how communication works. We argue instead for a model derived from the evolutionary and complexity sciences. Here, communication is based on dynamic systems of meaning (not individual ‘particles’ of information), and relations among knowledge-producing agents in culture-made groups. We call this sign-based evolutionary and systems model of communication ‘cultural science’ (Hartley and Potts, 2014), and invite communication scholars to assist in its development as a ‘modern synthesis’ for communication, along the lines of Huxley’s synthesis of botany and zoology as evolutionary bioscience.

Keywords

Communication science cultural science dynamics evolution groups knowledge noösphere semiosphere systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Buchanan

(1965) An economic theory of clubs. Economica New Series 32(125): 1–14.

Campbell C (1986) The Tyranny of the Yale critics. New York Times Magazine, February 9. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/09/magazine/the-tyranny-of-the-yale-critics.html (accessed 7 June 2016).

Carey

(1989) Communication as Culture, Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

Carey

(2000) Some personal notes on US journalism education. Journalism 1(1): 12–23.

Hartley

(2003) A Short History of Cultural Studies, London: SAGE.

Hartley

Potts

(2014) Cultural Science: A Natural History of Stories, Demes, Knowledge and Innovation, London: Bloomsbury.

Hartley

Potts

(2015) How the social economy produces innovation. Review of Social Economy 73: 263–282.

Hartley

Wen

(2015) Creative Economy and Culture: Challenges, Changes and Futures for the Creative Industries, London: SAGE.

Hayek

(1945) The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 36: 519–536.

10.

Huxley

(1942) Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press(this edition 2009).

11.

Kull

(1998) On semiosis, Umwelt, and semiosphere. Semiotica 120(3/4): 299–310.

12.

Lee

(2015) Chapter 10: Local experiences, cosmopolitan theories: On cultural relevance in international communication research. In: Lee

(ed.) Internationalizing ‘International Communication’, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 201–224.

13.

Lotman

(2009) Culture and Explosion, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

14.

Lucy

(2016) A Dictionary of Postmodernism, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

15.

Luhmann

(1991) What is communication? Communication Theory X: 251–259.

16.

Luhmann

(2012) Theory of Society, Vol. 1, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

17.

Prince

(2010) Globalising the creative industries concept: Travelling policy and transnational policy communities. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 40: 119–139.

18.

Tomasello

(2014) A Natural History of Human Thinking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Veblen

(1898) Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Quarterly Journal of Economics 12(4): 373–397.

20.

Vernadsky V (1938) Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. [Translated and introduced by W Jones, 21st Century, Spring–Summer 2012] (extracts). Available at: www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2012/Spring-Summer_2012/04_Biospere_Noosphere.pdf (accessed 7 June 2016).

21.

Vernadsky VI (1943) Some words about the noösphere. 21st Century, Spring 2005, pp. 16–21. Available at: https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/translations/The_Noosphere.pdf (accessed 7 June 2016).

22.

Williams

(1962) Communications, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

23.

Williams

(1974) Communications as cultural science. Journal of Communication 24(3): 17–25.

‘Paris with snakes’? The future of communication is/as ‘Cultural Science’

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References