Onderzoeksartikel

Massacommunicatie en andere paradoxen

---

Abstract

Mass communication research is sometimes said to have no face. Three reasons for such an impression are explored. 1 ‘Communication’ is an ambiguous term. The word became enormously popular in Europe only after World War Two, through the American use of it. Now it means many things: related, but quite different. Thus, the word became unsuitable for scientific (and professional) use. Usually it refers to a process of transmission, less often to a process of community building and creating reality. (Carey calls this the ‘ritual’ vision.) 2 ‘Mass communication’ was never properly defined by American authors; they tend to use it as a synonym for public communication. The part ‘mass’ brings a lot of confusion. Thus this word also is not very well suited. 3 In 1958 Schramm defended communication research, saying it was a field, not a discipline. Once something is defined as a field, one will see all kinds of disciplines busy in that field. Nevertheless it is possible that one specific discipline calls itself-for whatever reason -‘Communication Science’: other disciplines also do not have necessary or logically inevitable names. Such a discipline cannot pretend to be the only discipline in communications, nor to study all that is called communication. Several disciplines look at communication. Mostly, they adhere to the transmission view and they generate conclusions that belittle media effects. A general feeling is that they are both correct and wrong-because incomplete. Communication Science, looking more at the ‘ritual’ vision, should endeavor to explain this paradox.

How to Cite:

Stappers, J., (1996) “Massacommunicatie en andere paradoxen”, Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 24(1), 3–28.