Communication Power

I've been meditating on a clumsy analysis of communication channels that I stumbled across, fairly certain that its creator was close to getting it right, his analysis was attempting to tackle too many factors all at once, which was leading him to the wrong conclusion. It's going to take some work to untangle it and sort it all out, but I think I've made a little progress in accurately simplifying communication power to a two-factor analysis.

"Accurately" is of importance: far too many theorists inaccurately simplify - and I realize by using two-factor analysis, a clumsy tool that has led to innumerable bad conclusions, I may be doing the same, but my sense is this is about right:

In its most fundamental sense, communication power can be distilled to the ability to send or receive information. The two are not necessarily related, and by comparing them in a binary sense (you either can or cannot communicate - though these are extremes on a spectrum in which communication is possible, but constrained - though I'm avoiding that level of complexity at this time), four categories of communication power are defined:

Interactive Communication

A fully interactive communication, in which a person is able to communicate to others and receive communication from others, is widely considered to be the "gold standard" of communication, to which technology should always aspire.

However, I disagree: from the perspective of both the sender and the receiver, there are instances in which interactive communication is not effective, efficient, or even desirable: there is an appropriate place for the other three categories of communication empowerment.

Neither is interactivity particularly high-tech. The most primitive form of communication, face-to-face discourse, is the most highly interactive form of communication that exists, and for all the effort that has been placed on research and development, technology is laughably impotent at achieving the same richness of interaction as a simple conversation.

Indifferent Broadcast

Indifferent broadcast pertains to a situation in which one party is fully capable of transmitting information, but incapable of receiving any information in return from the receiver. This is the mode of communication of most mass-media: newspapers, television, film, radio, billboards, and the like are all methods of broadcasting a message to an audience.

I've appended "indifferent" because, frankly, it applies to most individuals who seek to communicate in this manner. It is a highly egocentric method of communication chosen by those who are indifferent to their audience - in effect, it is the mind-set of an individual who declares "I will speak, and you will keep your mouth shut and listen to me." Such people are considered boorish in interpersonal communications, and it is no less so when a politician delivers a speech or an advertiser delivers a commercial message: they don't want to have a conversation, but to inflict their ideas upon a captive audience, and expect only their reception and obedience.

"Indifferent" not the same as "undifferentiated," though mass-media may give that perception. A letter written from one person to another is a one-way communication to a single recipient, and segmented marketing seeks to communicate to very specific audiences, but in a mode that is still broadcast communication.

Passive Reception

Passive reception is a mode in which a person is able to receive information but not send any information in return. Most generally, this is done when one is a compliant recipient of an indifferent broadcast - which may be done willingly (a person chooses to read a book or watch a television program) or unwillingly (a person cannot avoid a roadside billboard or an announcement made over a loudspeaker).

As with indifferent broadcast, passive reception may be a matter of ability or a matter of choice. A person can choose to be passively receptive to information that another party may be unintentionally broadcasting. This is common practice when interpreting nonverbal communication: in most instances, the transmitter is not aware of the information he is sending, and the recipient remains observant but not responsive to it to avoid calling attention to the fact that he is gathering information.

It is (wrongly) assumed that passive reception indicates agreement with and agreeableness to the information they are receiving, and that they will choose to act upon the information in the way that the transmitter intends: the interaction of indifferent broadcaster and passive receiver is inherent in most approaches to advertising and marketing.

Absence of Communication

In this situation, the individual can neither send nor receive information. The most extreme example of such a situation is that of a hermit, living alone and apart from other people in a remote location, who hasn't the ability to communicate at all.

However, it's not only at the extremes that absence of communication exists. Driving a car through a long tunnel, with no cell phone signal, puts a person in a situation where they are unable to communicate. Riding in an airplane also prevents communication - you may chat with fellow passengers, but can't have meaningful conversation with people in other locations.

Neither ins absence of communication entirely undesirable. There are times when a person simply wants to be left alone for a while: few people cared to be bothered by anyone in the workplace while on vacation, and virtually no-one cares to be interrupted when engrossed in a book.

Caveats

Primarily, I must concede that this analysis is highly simplistic, and as such may not be entirely accurate (though at this time, I have a sense it is so), nor of much use in and of itself. It's not so much a discovery as the exploration of a common premise that is very often overlooked.

Another drawback is that I have not made much distinction between the ability and willingness of the parties involved. I have referred to it in some instances, but have not fully considered the differentiation between a person who is utterly unable to send or receive information and one who simply chooses not to do so.

A third note is that this has been a binary analysis, which assumes that a party is either fully able or fully unable (or willing) to send or receive information. I have a sense that it is common for a person to be able/willing to communicate to a degree, rather than all-or-noting, that bears further consideration.