Search

In the extant literature, there is no shortage of different appreciations of what communication ‘is’ and what communication ‘does’. From a functionalistic perspective, we have the transmission model of communication (e.g., Shannon & Weaver, 1949), from a hermeneutical perspective, we have the interaction model of communication (e.g., Schramm, 1954), and from a social constructivist / social constructionist perspective we have different versions of the transactional model of communication (e.g., Barnlund, 1970; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981). The most recent offspring of the social constructivist / social constructionist take on communication is to view “communication-as-constitutive” (Cooren et al., 2011: 1149). Typically, communication-as-constitutive it is epitomized in the so-called CCO principle. The CCO principle stands for “communication constitutes organization” (e.g. Putnam et al. 2009; Schöneborn, Blaschke 2014). Without delving deeper into the matter at this point, let it suffice to say that – for various reasons – for the CCO principle, ‘social reality’ is subsumed under “organization”. In my paper, I will take my point of departure in the CCO principle, as it is undoubtedly the current capstone of communication theory, I will, however, do so from a critical perspective. My point of departure will be a critical reading of formative papers from within the three schools of thought that currently dominate the CCO conversation. That is, the school of thought that propagates elements of speech act theory, primarily of a Searlean persuasion (e.g., Coreen, 2000), the school that builds on Giddens’ structuration theory (e.g., McPhee & Zaug, 2000), and the school that adheres to a Luhmannian legacy (e.g., Blaschke et al., 2012). Using my critical remarks as stepping stones, I will go on to present a radical constructivist (von Glasersfeld, 2015[1995]) view on communication that takes into consideration what communication ‘is’ and what it ‘does´ as seen from the perspective of Knowledge Communication. The paper ends with this appreciation of communication being modelled under the caption of co-actional communication. Barnlund DC 1970. A transactional model of communication. In: Sereno KK and Mortensen, CD (eds.) Foundations of Communication Theory. New York: Harper, 83-102.Blaschke, S.; Schöneborn, D.; Seid, D. 2012. Organizations as networks of communication episodes: Turning the network perspective inside out. Organization Studies, 33, 879-906.Coreen, Francois 2000. The Organizing Property of Communication. John Benjamins. Coreen, Francois; Kuhn, Timothy; Cornelissen, Joep P.; Clark, Timothy 2011. Communicating, Organizing and Organization: An Overview and Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149-1170.McPhee, Robert D.; Zaug, Pamela 2000. The Communicative Constitution of Organizations: A Framework for Explanation. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1 and 2), 1-13.Rogers, Everett M.; Kincaid, Lawrence D. 1981. Communication networks: toward a new paradigm for research. University of Michigan: Free Press. Shannon, Claude; Weaver, Warren 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Schramm, Wilbur L. 1954. The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Putnam, Linda L.; Nicotera, Anne M.; McPhee, Robert D. 2009. Communication Constitutes Organizations. In: Putnam, L. L. & Nicotera, Anne M. (eds.) Building Theories of Organizations: The Constitutive Role of Communication. New York: Routledge, 1-20.Schöneborn, Dennis; Blaschke, Steffen 2014. The Three schools of CCO thinking: interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly 28(2): 285-316.von Glasersfeld, Ernst 2015[1995]. Radikaler Konstruktivismus : Ideen, Ergebnisse, Probleme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.