CC BY
56
использования модели: низкий, базовый, продвинутый, высокий.
Низкий уровень характеризуется низкой потребностно-мотивационной сферой, негативными эмоциями по отношению к учебному материалу, преобладанием вынужденных мотивов, отсутствием рефлексии, несформированностью всех критериев, несформированностью коммуникативных навыков, отсутствием навыков поисковой деятельности. Деятельность носит ярко выраженный приспособленческий характер. Полное отсутствие умений использования методов самостоятельной деятельности, умений, самоконтроля.
Базовый уровень отличается слабой познавательной активностью. Мотивация носит в основном утилитарный и частично познавательный характер. В основе учебнопознавательной деятельности находятся мотивы внешнего характера или узко личные. Студент осознает важность иностранного языка для личностного роста и профессиональной деятельности, но не испытывает желанию к изучению иностранного языка, плохо ориентируется в языке. Степень сформированности коммуникативных умений и навыков недостаточна для осуществления иноязычной речевой деятельности, наблюдаются трудности в выражении собственных мыслей. Умения самоконтроля развиты слабо. Интерес носит результативный характер (зачет, экзамен).
Продвинутый уровень отличается наличием познавательной потребности в изучении иностранного языка, развитостью и устойчивостью таких положительных мотивов как
осознание важности и необходимости приобретаемых знаний, умений и навыков для будущей профессиональной деятельности. Присутствует личностный смысл в овладении языком и уверенность в его применении. Характерные признаки этого уровня: устойчивость знаний, средняя степень овладения содержанием обучения, наличие умений оценивать собственную познавательную деятельность, активность и собранность на занятиях, инициативность слабо выражена. Данный уровень характеризуется достаточной степенью развития навыков иноязычной речевой деятельности.
Высокий уровень характеризуется прочной положительной мотивацией к изучению иностранного языка, ярко выраженной познавательной активностью и готовностью практического применения иностранного языка в профессиональной деятельности, твердой убежденности в необходимости знаний иностранного языка и его практическом применении в будущем. Навыки иноязычной речевой деятельности хорошо развиты. Студенты отличаются высокой степенью развития интеллектуальной активности и самостоятельности в изучении иностранного языка, любознательностью, познавательным интересом, умением систематизировать знания, умением работы с учебным материалом. Можно отметить стремление совершенствовать речевые навыки и речевые умения. Хорошо развито умение самоконтроля.
Все названные выше положения, компоненты, критерии, уровни можно представить в виде нижеследующей модели [рисунок 1].
Библиографический список
1. Якиманская, И.С. Личностно-ориентированное обучение в современной школе. - М.: Сентябрь, 1996.
2. Штофф, В. А. Моделирование и философия. - М.: Наука, 1966.
3 Леонтьев, А.А. Эмоционально-волевые процессы в овладении иностранным языком // Иностранные языки в школе. - 1975. - № 6.
4. Городецкая, Е.Я. Гуманитаризация как педагогическая проблема // Альма Матер. - 1993. - № 3.
5. Ильин, Е.П. Мотивация и мотивы - СПб.: Питер, 2003.
6. Метаева, В. А. Рефлексия как метакомпетентность // Педагогика. - 2006 - №3.
Статья поступила в редакцию 04.05.10
УДК 378
Jozef Podgorecki, Full Professor, Head of the Chair of Social Communication at Opole University, Poland, E-mail: podgorecki@uni.opole.pl
ATTEMPTS TO APPLY CONTEMPORARY COMMUNICATION THEORIES IN EDUCATION
New technologies made mankind enter the universal communication epoque. Neutralizing the distance, they contribute to the creation of the societies of the future, none of which, because of these technologies, had equivalent in the past. The most detailed and up-to-date information is quickly available to anybody in the entire world. Not only will interaction enable societies to receive information but it will also allow them to conduct a dialogue, discussion, information & knowledge transfer with no time or space limitations. Yet, one cannot forget that the evolution shall not include the unprivileged population of the less developed areas, still quite numerous, particularly inhabitants of the regions lacking electricity. It needs to be reminded that yet half of the world population does not have access to various services provided by telephone network.
Being the portent of the future world, this unconstrained world’s flow of images and words, including its inconveniences has changed both international relations and also the individual understanding of the world. What is more, this flow is one of the key factors accelerating the globalization process. Nonetheless, it also has its negative aspects. Information systems are still relatively expensive and inaccessible to many countries. Access to highly complex technologies gives the superpowers and individuals real advantage in cultural and political terms, particularly over the people, who lacking education are not capable of analysis, interpretation and validation of the acquired data. Cultural industry monopoly, restricted to a few countries, allows them to distribute their products in the entire world for the widest audiences and is a
significant factor of cultural specificity erosion. That false “world culture”, weakly uniformed and often content-poor, is yet a carrier of hidden norms and may evoke the feeling of identity-loss and being deprived of population specific values.
If education is to be controlled, it should, by no means play a crucial role in the communication network development. Making the world capable of listening to itself, communication network actually creates one, enormous neighborhood.
Communication Theories Guide
Theories are the maps of reality. The truth that is presented in their form may constitute of objective facts that are embedded in the reality or, subjective meanings created in people’s minds. In both cases, a theory is needed to enable to maneuver in the unknown territory. Based on that, the article reviewing the communication theories resembles an illustrated atlas listing the venues that should necessarily be visited. The atlas becomes a traveling guidebook presenting images of each destination. Once the guidebook is used, there may appear a desire for further acquaintance with a particular theory. First step, however, always means looking around and appreciating the view.
Our theories’ atlas depicts the key characteristics of the communication process. It is composed of texts resembling the satellite Earth photographs, giving panoramic view of communication process.
The theories are grouped on the basis of their application. Theories are attempts to find answers to questions posed by people wondering about particular communication situations. Because of
that, it appears to be reasonable to group theories into various categories depending on distinct communication circumstances in which basic questions occur.
Not only do the theories, I decided to discuss, differ in approaches to how communication in various circumstances should be conducted, but they also deal with miscellaneous reasons for behaving according to certain rules.
Communication theories must have some common features; however their main differences cannot be neglected. Understanding the theories will enable the reader to find their similarities and differences. It should not be assumed that one of the approaches is true while others false. All of them help explain communication process. Just as there exist alternative ways of giving the same speech, every issue concerning communication may have a number of interpretations.
I have been trying to link a given theory to its author’s presentation in this article. A lot of wisdom and courage is needed to set a new theory path. No sooner a communication theorist makes a new theory public than numerous critics make attempts to violate it. So be it, the truth can only be recognized if the rivalry among concepts is persevered. The ideas which won the competition deserve to be linked to their creators.
There is also another reason for combining the theories with their authors’ presentations. Numerous readers will make the effort to study communication further and learn the names such as Deetz, Burgoon, Delia, Berger, Fisher and Burke. This will enable them to become rightful participants of the dialogue.
There are students who fear taking risk. Just like travelers gazing fearfully at the road atlas, such students grow their phobia towards the theories dealing with the recognition of human intentions and behavior. Their inhibitions and doubts evoke my compassion, still, I have to openly state that the theories I describe have neither emptied nor complicated my life. Quite contrary, they gave my life brightness and provided me with the sense of competence, so useful in communication. Hopefully, the readers will benefit in a similar way.
Contemporary Communication Theories
The boundaries of the communication theories have not been determined. It stems from the fact that researchers have different understanding of the communication notion. It is difficult to elaborate a map of a given area if the opinions concerning its size, shape and location are conflicting. Substantial discrepancies in the communication research result in lack of methodology discipline.
Robert Craig, communication professor of Colorado University, approves of the opinion that the field image is blurred, especially if we are interested in the thorough picture including all the aspects of communication that is specific perception from the bird’s eye view or satellite photograph. Craig suggests however, that communication theory takes the form of a cohesive discipline if communication is to be treated as a practical field. 1 This author is convinced that we should start searching different theory types, where real people truly deal with every day life problems and practical communication conditions. Craig explains that ”(...) all communication theories refer to the common world life practice, in which the communication term has a variety of meanings” 2. From this “down to earth” perspective, the communication theory does not resemble the language of the uninhabited globe. Quite contrary, it is a systematic & well thought reaction of communication researchers to the questions posed with regard to interactions between people. And this is the reaction of the most efficient professionals engaged in this practical discipline.
Craig maintains that provided that temporary approaches to research regarding problems and interactions’ practices are considered, treating communication theory as a branch is by no means justified. Consideration in this respect means distinguishing seven traditions rooted in communication theories, which, in turn, allow for the achievement of this branch’s theorists. These traditions, long-established in a so far research, offer “separate, alternative terminologies” describing various “means of setting the communication problems and practices terms”.
Socio - Psychological Tradition
Communication as interpersonal influence
Socio-psychological tradition is embodiment of scientific or objective perspective. Its researchers believe that detailed and systematic observation makes it possible to discover the truth of communicative phenomena. Cause and effect relationships are sought so that the anticipation of victory and failure of communicative behaviors is possible. The discovery of cause and effect relationships leads to the assumption that we are approaching the answer to ever returning question posed by persuasion practitioners - What else can be done to make people change their mind?
The scientists searching for universal communication laws have been trying to concentrate on what there is rather than what there should be. As empiricists, they apply the warning of a certain skeptical journalist “Do you think that your Mum loves you? Check it out in at least two different sources.” For the communication theorists relying on the socio-psychological tradition, the test boils down to the preparation and controlled experiment conduct.
Carl Hovland, a psychologist, one of the pioneers in the experimental research has been working on communication effects3. He led a team of thirty Yale University researchers. This group has been trying to establish “a set of primary empirical theses regarding relationships between communicative stimuli, addressees’ predispositions and opinion changes” and to create “initial framework for theory development”4.
Yale researchers, based on the formula “who says what to whom and with what effect”, conducted a thorough review of three main reasons of persuasion diversity:
Who - a source of communication (competence, credibility) What - communication content (fears, arguments’ order) Whom - addressees’ characteristics (personality, influence sensitivity)
The main measurable effect is opinion change, apparent in approach difference before and after receiving the message. Yale approach studies set new research directions, however, the notion of source credibility suggested in the program attracted the attention of a number of scholars.
Hovland and his group discovered that the higher source credibility, the bigger opinion shifts. For example, an article on antiflu medicine was more powerful provided it was written by a doctor in The New England Journal of Medicine. The same article published in Life magazine and presented as a material of a reporter tended to be perceived as less reliable. Having proved that link unquestionably, the Yale researchers moved on to test the remaining variables.
The Yale team discovered two types of credibility: the one resulting from the competence of the sender reliability. Competent are the people who make the impression that they know well what they are talking about. Whereas the message receivers evaluate the message sender’s reliability, depending on whether they perceive him or her as sincere. The competence of the sender was usually more influential with regard to addressee opinion shift than his or her reliability. Nonetheless the persuasion effect was not permanent. The difference between less reliable source and more reliable source faded away over time. Hovland and his colleagues called this phenomenon “the sleepy head effect”. Many tests were conducted to find out why the above mentioned effect appeared and how it could be counteracted. They found out that people forget where they had heard or read about something over time and what is more, only after the link between the source and the message was established might the source reliability be of significance. These conclusions are not the only reason why the Yale Approach Study deserves attention. The research was important for socio -psychological tradition because the scientists involved had not taken anything for granted. All the theses underwent systematic testing.
Cybernetic Tradition
Communication as Information Processing Norbert Wiener, MIT scientist, coined the word cybernetics in order to characterize artificial intelligence5.The term is a transliteration of the Greek word meaning controller, ruler and illustrates the way in which feedback enables information processing in minds and computers. During World War II, Wiener developed anti-aircraft defense systems. These systems were able to allow for
the future trajectory of an enemy flight based on the earlier taken measures regarding its movement. The term of feedback, proposed by Wiener, enabled cybernetic tradition to be embedded in the belief assuming that communication is a link between separate parts of any system, i.e. computer, family, institution, media systems.
The vision of communication as information transfer was strengthened by Claude Shannon, the Bell Telephone Company scientist, who developed mathematical signals transmission theory.
His objective was achieving a maximum capacity of transfer line accompanied by a minimum signal distortion. Shannon was neither interested in the meaning of the message nor in the effect it exerted on the receiver. His theory was only aimed at solving technical problems of non interfered sounds transmission.
As Bell laboratories covered all Shannon’s research cost, an example of the telephone conversation can be presented to explain the communication model.
According to Shannon you yourselves are the source of information. You send a signal to a microphone which transmits the signal further through phone lines/wires. On its way the signal becomes slightly distorted to be restored to sound in the loudspeaker of the telephone receiver at its destination. Information losses occur at every stage of the process. Therefore the initial message differs from the final one. The final purpose of communication theory is to maximize the amount of information which the system can transmit.
The declaration stating that information is simply “something significant, or something that has some meaning” is sufficient for majority of people. Whereas, Shannon maintains that information refers to the uncertainty diminution. The message informative content can be modified to the extent which still makes it possible to counteract chaos. The less predictable is the content of the message, the more information it gives. A lot of very positive news can be transmitted via the communication channel. The telephone conversation piece, like “I just called to tell you again how much I love you”, does not necessarily have to be classified as information. If the interlocutor does not have to doubt in this feeling, the words function not as information transfer but rather as the ritual reflecting the feelings’ depth. If the addressee knows the message content in advance, the message informative value is next to nothing.
The noise is the enemy of information. It limits the capacity of the channel connecting the transmitter with the receiver. Shannon describes that interrelationship by means of a simple equation.
Channel capacity = information + noise
Every channel is limited by the number of information items it can transfer. Even if a person speaks at the fastest possible pace, he or she could ultimately say six hundred words in three minutes at most. Whereas the interferences of the transmission line, noise and information hum ever present in the receiver’s mind impose securing a part of transmission potential capacity for repeating key message particles, which otherwise could be lost. On the other hand, if repetition occurs too often, communication redundancy leads to boredom of interlocutors as well as to channel capacity potential waste. Shannon views communication as applied science aiming at establishing and maintaining balance between predictability and uncertainty. Shannon’s transmission theory is the engineer’s answer to problems resulting from communicative systems overload, complications in their functioning or even complete breakdown.
The popularity of Shannon’s information flow model stands from the fact that it is usually combined with Warren Weaver’s text in which the latter tries to apply the notion of informative losses in interpersonal communication analysis. Feedback was not an inseparable element of communication model proposed by Shannon & Weaver. It was rather other scientists, referring to cybernetic tradition, who introduced the notion of interactivity and emotional instability.
Rhetorical Tradition
The practical art of discourse
Greek-Roman rhetoric has been the main source of knowledge regarding communication till the twelfth century. In the fourth century before Christ, Demosthenes used to give speeches on the seaside with his mouth full of little stones to improve pronunciation. Cicerone, improved and implemented the system allowing for identifying key ideas in legal disputes, several hundred years later. Martin Luther King, in 1963, gave a famous speech starting with the words ”I had a dream”7, using such style figures as visualization, repetition, alliteration and metaphor. These three speakers and thousands of followers, cultivated Greek-Roman rhetoric tradition started by the sophists of ancient Mediterranean cities-countries. This tradition is yet alive. No matter whether the speakers addresses wide audiences, participate in legal disputes, court sessions, media discussions, they always seek for practical directions to present their views in the best possible way.
Several characteristics of this important tradition of rhetoric communication can be listed:
The belief that speech differentiates a man from an animal. As far as verbal communication goes, Cicerone asks what else could concentrate the dispersed mankind in one place to establish a society
The belief that public speech given in a democratic forum is more effective means for political problems solving than ruling based on decrees and resorting to violence. Within the framework of this tradition it would be unreasonable to state that something has “only rhetorical” value.
A situation in which an individual orator tries to influence wide audience through persuasive, open discourse. Public speaking is, as a matter of fact, one way communication.
Rhetoric training as a basis of the leader’s education. The orators learn to formulate persuasive arguments and give speeches with a loud voice reaching to the audience edges with no electronic amplifiers support.
The stress on the power and beauty of the language capable of moving emotions and pushing into actions. Rhetoric is rather an art than science.
Public speaking as men’s domain. Till the beginning of the ninetieth century women did not actually have a chance to speak in public. Therefore a key characteristic of the American feminist movement fought for the right to speak in public.
Some rhetoric teachers maintain that nothing can replace shaping the public rhetoric skills, saying that only “practice makes a master”. Others believe that practice can solely strengthen the acquired capabilities. These opposing view points simply prove that both factors are significant in public rhetoric.
Semiotic Tradition
Communication as Process of Sharing Meaning through
Signs
Semiotics is a discipline investigating signs. A sign is any element capable of representing something else. A high body temperature is a sign of infection. Birds flying south are a sign of winter. Possessing an expensive car is a sign of richness.
Words are signs too. They are symbols. Contrary to previously mentioned examples they do not link naturally to any object
or phenomenon for which description they serve. No sounds or letters of which a word is composed, says anything about the word’s meaning.
I.A. Richards, one of the pioneers of the semiotic tradition has elaborated a systematic description of how words function. According to Richards words are arbitrary symbols which mean nothing on their own. He warns against the misconception that words have precise definitions. The meanings are found in people’s intentions.
Richards and C.K. Ogden suggested a semantic triangle. It shows direct relations between symbols and their assumed references. Such a reference is illustrated in the figure below, where the word a dog is analyzed.
The figure represents a supposed link between the word “dog” and the real dog which has to be fed and walked out every day.
The top of the triangle shows a thought which appears in one’s mind when he or she is looking at the puppy in the down right corner. The picture of the puppy evokes thoughts about warm and faithful friendship. Since a direct or cause and effect relation occurs, Richard matches them with a continuous line.
The symbol of a dog placed in the left down corner provokes some thoughts. Naturally, the word dog is used to symbolize the thoughts. This cause and effect relation is also marked by Richards with a continuous line.
However, the link between the word dog and the animal itself hardly exists. Richards illustrates it with a dashed line. Two different people might use the same word with reference to two completely distinct animals.
Though Richards and Ferdinand de Saussure (a Swiss linguist who coined the term semantics, were fascinated with the language, a large number of researchers representing semiotic tradition, concentrated on non-verbal emblems and picture descriptions. These scholars have always been interested in how signs convey meaning and how they can be used to avoid misunderstanding in communication.
Socio-Cultural Tradition
Communication as creating and acting out social reality
Socio-cultural tradition based on a conviction that interlocutors form and act out culture. It is common that interlocutors form and act out culture. It is common to assume that words reflect what truly exists. Still, the theorists assume that words reflect what truly exists. Still, the theorists representing the above tradition imply that this process is reverse.
Our perception of reality is largely influenced by the language we use from our early childhood.
As we have already seen, in accordance with the semiotic theory, the majority of words is not connected in any logical or predictable way with the ideas they represent. For example, the relation between the black signs on paper which together constitute the sequence g-r-e-e-n with the color of the lawn in front of the library building is exclusively a matter of convention for English speakers. Although theorists of socio-culture agree that the term green is arbitrary, they claim at the same time that the ability to see green as a separate color depends on whether there exists a specific word denoting the band in the range of 510-560 nm in the electromagnetic wave spectrum13. There is such a word in English, but in many American Indian languages - there is not. In these cultures, yellow is perceived as a color directly turning into azure. Given the above, we could be tempted to interpret such situations as a kind of color-blindness. However, reality is different. Linguists referring to the socio-cultural tradition would say that the users of this language inhabit a world different from ours.
Edward Sapir, a linguist from the University of Chicago, and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf, were the precursors of the sociocultural tradition. The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Sapir-Whorf says that the language structure of a given culture strongly affects human thoughts and actions14. The “real world” is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group”15. Their theory of linguistic relativism rejects the view that all languages are similar and that words are only neutral conduits of meaning.
Let us consider the English pronoun in the second person singular, which is used by English speakers to address other people regardless of their status. That is obviously you. In similar contexts, speakers of German have to use either the pronoun stressing the formal character of the relationship (Sie) or indicating a certain intimacy (du). A special ceremony has even been established (Brudershaft) after which people can switch from one pronoun to the other. Japanese requires the user to choose from an even greater number of alternative pronouns, offering in total ten possibilities, all of which are translated into English as you. However, only one pronoun is suitable for a given context, depending on such factors as gender, age or status of interlocutors.
While the majority of researchers assume that the vocabulary of English, German and Japanese reflect the cultural differences between models of interpersonal relations, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that it is also possible to reverse this relationship. Language shapes our perception of reality. When learning to speak, children learn at the same time what to look for in their environment. The majority of manifestations of the world remains unnoticed because we are literally unable to say anything about them.
Contemporary theorists of socio-cultural research claim that it is exactly by means of a communication process “[...] that reality is created, preserved, repaired or transformed”16. Or, in other words, persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social worlds17. When these perceptual worlds collide, the socio-cultural tradition lends support in bridging the cultural gap dividing “us” from “them”.
Critical Tradition
Communication as a reflexive challenge of unjust discourse The very notion of critical theory derives from publications of a group of German researchers known as the Frankfurt School, because they worked in an independent Institute for Social Studies at the University of Frankfurt. The Frankfurt School, originally established to critically examine the views of Karl Marx, rejected the economic determinism of orthodox Marxism, at the same time keeping the Marxist tradition of social criticism.
The most eminent representatives of this school - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse - were convinced that “all previous history has been characterized by an unjust distribution of suffering”18. They recognized the same pattern of inequality in modern western democracies in which the owners still exploit those devoid of property. Researchers from the Frankfurt School proposed an in-depth analysis of the discrepancies between the liberal values of liberty and equality propagated by political leaders and the unjust concentration of power in their hands as well as of the abuse of political power leading to the transformation of these values into a myth. Such criticism did not apologize for the sullen tones but for pessimistic conclusions. As Marcuse noted, “Critical theory preserves obstinacy as a genuine quality of philosophical thought”19. When Hitler came to power in Germany, it was this obstinacy which forced the emigration of the members of the Frankfurt School first to Switzerland and then to the United States.
Which types of communication research and practice do critical theorists oppose? Although there is no single list of practices which would be criticized by all, critical theorists consistently condemn the following three features of modern civilization:
The control of language to perpetuate power imbalances Critical scholars also condemn each use of words which hinders emancipation. For example, feminists argue that women as a group usually do not speak in full voice because men control language. As a result, the public discourse is full of war and sport metaphors, masculine domains with their own internal jargon. Such a vision of groups devoid of the right to voice their opinions in not new at all. Marcuse claimed that “[...] the avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one - established by the publicity of powers that be, and verified in their practices”20.
Role of mass media in dulling sensitivity to repression Marx described religion as opium for the people. He claimed that religion only diverts the attention of the working classes from
their “real” interests. According to the critics, today this role is often taken over by some elements of television, films, CDs and printed publications. Adorno hoped that people would rise in protest as soon as they become aware of the unjust repression they are subjected to. He also noted that “[...] as communities submitted more and more to the power of mass communication, the preformation of minds became so strong, that practically no room remained left for realizing the state of affairs”21. Marcuse was even more pessimistic about the prospects for social changes initiated by ordinary citizens, who, under the influence of mass media, became indifferent to everything. He claimed that any hopes for changes in the society are connected with “[...] those rejected and alienated, exploited and oppressed, belonging to other human races and having a different skin color, with those jobless and those who will never find a job”22.
Blind reliance on the scientific method and uncritical acceptance of empirical findings
Horkheimer argued that “[...] naivety and bigotry are demonstrated by thinking and speaking only in the language of sci-ence”23. Naivety, because science, contrary to what is propagated by scientists, is not a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Bigotry, because using opinion polls, scientists assume that a sample of public opinion is a true representation of reality. According to Adorno “[...] a cross-section of opinions stands not for an approximate depiction of truth but for a cross-section of social illu-sion”24. These scholars are especially critical about government, economy and education leaders who are using the empirical appearances of social sciences to vindicate the existing unjust state of affairs, obviously to the benefit of their own interests.
Critical theorists are less eloquent about what they support. Their writings are full of appeals for liberation, emancipation, transformation and enhancement of awareness, but these banners only vaguely suggest how to achieve these respectable goals. Nevertheless, they have a common ethical goal which is the solidarity with suffering people, solidarity which is our minimum moral responsibility. That is why Adorno declared: “Writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”25. The majority of critical theorists try to move beyond the feeling of sympathy propagating some more demanding ethical behavior which Craig termed praxis. He defines the word as a “theoretically reflexive social behavior”26. Many thinkers discussed in Ethical Reflexions in this book follow similar goals.
Phenomenological Tradition
Communication as the experience of self and others through dialog
Although phenomenology can strike us as an impressive philosophical term, in reality it is about analyzing everyday life from the viewpoint of its participant. Therefore, the phenomenological tradition emphasizes the interpretation of one’s own subjective experiences. Individual experiences gain particular importance, become more authoritative than research hypotheses or communication axioms. Psychologist Carl Rogers claims that “Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither Freud nor research neither the revelations of God nor man can take precedence over my own direct experience”27.
The problem is that two different people cannot have identical life experiences. If we cannot experience the experiences of others, we tend to depart from them during a conversation, only to lament later that “Nobody really understands me”. Can two people overcome superficial impressions to build stronger relationships with each other? As an experienced consultant, Carl Rogers became convinced that both personal and relational development of his patients was really possible.
Rogers thought that his clients’ health was improving only when he was able to create conditions for them to speak safely. He described three conditions necessary and sufficient for changing the personality of his clients and their relations with others. Those clients who became convinced about (1) the appropriateness of the behavior of their counselor, (2) his unconditionally positive attitude to them and (3) emphatic understanding, were really feeling better28.
Congruence is a match between the internal feelings of an individual and their external manifestations. A counselor whose behavior is appropriate is authentic, real, integrated and transparent. A person whose behavior is incongruent tries to impress others, acts out roles, puts on masks, hides behind pretenses. “In my relations with patients” writes Rogers, “I have learnt that in the long term it does not pay to behave like someone I really am not”29.
Unconditional positive regard means acceptance which does not depend on the behavior of the patient. Rogers asked himself a question: “Can I let myself experience positive attitudes toward this other person - attitudes of warmth, caring, liking, interest, and respect?”30. If the answer was positive, both Rogers and his client were reaching a higher degree of human maturity. Moreover, they truly liked each other.
Accurate emphatic understanding is a caring ability of temporary putting aside of one’s own views and values in order to enter someone else’s world in an unbiased manner. It is an active process of making efforts to hear the thoughts, feelings, moods and opinions of another person as if they were our own. Rogers treated suspiciousness as a waste of time. He claimed that the question “What does she really mean by it?” is not worth considering. He was convinced that we can be more helpful if we take the words of our clients for what they are. We must assume that [the patients] are trying to describe their worlds exactly as they see them.
Although Rogers formulated the necessary and sufficient conditions for understanding in the context of therapy, he was completely convinced that they are equally important in all interpersonal relations. A Jewish philosopher and theologian Martin Buber came to a similar conclusion. He propagated the possibility of achieving authentic interpersonal relations through dialog, an intentional process, whose only aim is mutual understanding. The views of Rogers, Buber and other representatives of the phenomenological tradition can be found in the handbooks and in the teaching of interpersonal communication.
LIMITATION OF THE SCOPE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY
The above-discussed traditions are deeply rooted in the communication theory. Obviously the theorists, researchers and practitioners subscribing to a given tradition often listen to critical opinions saying that their approach is groundless. But in order to defend their right to cultivate their selected plots of land they can refer not only to their own arguments but also to the fact that their predecessors had already set out the field and had established the right to farm it. Taking this agricultural metaphor seriously, in Fig. 3.3 I have presented seven traditions in the form of seven separate plots of land, which together constitute a larger field of research. Some explanations are due here.
A map of traditions in communication theory
Firstly, the seven plots marked in Fig. 3.3 do not necessarily have to include all approaches to the communication theory. Craig considers the possibility of defining additional traditions such as feminist tradition, aesthetic tradition, economic tradition, spiritual tradition or media tradition31. Although eventually he concludes that the best solution is to include them in the seven traditions mentioned above, the very readiness to extend the list proves that some amendments can be introduced to our map.
Secondly, it is possible to join different traditions. This chapter helps to understand that each tradition defines communication in its own way. Therefore, the lines on the map separating individual plots of land from each other can be seen as fences designed to stop the inflow of foreign ides. But researchers are individualists; they jump over fences, they read periodicals and attend exotic conferences. Sometimes such “cross-pollination” gives rise to approaches drawing from two or three traditions. In Annex C I have tried to assign each theory to one of the seven traditions. At least one-third of them sit astride the fence.
Lastly, we should remember that the location of the traditions on the map is not accidental. The reason why I have located them in the figure in the way I did is the split, proposed in earlier chapters, into objective and interpretive theories. In connection with the criteria discussed in chapters 1 and 2, the socio-psychological tra-
dition should be seen as the most objective one and that is why it The above-described framework will help us better under-
has been placed next to the left edge of the map. Moving to the stand the great diversity of communication theories. When reading
right, we come across traditions which are increasingly more in- about a theory dealing with media effects one should not forget
terpretive and less objective. The phenomenological tradition that it may originate from the same source as the theory learned
seems to rely on interpretation the most and therefore it has been earlier presented in the part of the book devoted to the develop-
placed on the far right. The order in which individual traditions ment of bonds. I will draw the attention of the readers to such in-
were discussed in this chapter was also based on this principle: terrelations and I will systematically connect theories with their
gradual moving from objective traditions to interpretation-oriented respective traditions if only I am convinced that the theories them-
traditions. It is easier for scholars developing theories in adjacent selves are clear. I hope that when you reach that stage you will be
traditions to appreciate the achievements of their neighbors. On the ready to take up discussion with the words of the piece by 10cc:
map, their plots have a common boundary. In the professional ’’Communication is the problem to the answer”. Each of the seven
sense, they are closer to each other in terms of their main premises. traditions of the communication theory gives us its own solution to
the problem.
Table 1
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 199-161. ________________________Seven Traditions of Communication Theory__________________________________________
Rhetorical Semiotic Phenomenologic al Cybernetic Socio- Psychological Socio- Cultural Critical
Communicati on theorized as: The practical art of discourse Intersubjecti ve mediation by signs Experience of otherness; dialogue Information processing Expression, inter-action, & influence (Re)producti on of social order Discursive reflection
Problems of communication theorized as: Social exigency requiring collective deliberation and judgment Misunderstanding or gap between subjective viewpoints Absence of, or failure to sustain, authentic human relationship Noise; overload; underload; a malfunction or "bug " in a system Situation requiring manipulation of causes of behavior to achieve specified outcomes Conflict; alienation; misalignment; failure of coordination Hegemonic ideology; systematically distorted speech situation
Metadiscursiv e vocabulary such as: Art, method, communicator, audience, strategy, commonplace, logic, emotion Sign, symbol, icon, index, meaning, referent, code, language, medium, (mis)underst anding Experience, self &other, dialogue, genuineness, supportiveness, openness Source, receiver, signal, informa-tion, noise, feedback, redundancy, network, function Behavior, variable, effect, personality, emotion, per-cep-tion, cognition, attitude, interaction Society, structure, practice, ritual, rule, socialization, culture, identity, coconstruction Ideology, dialectic, oppression, conscious- ness-raising, resistance, emancipa- tion
Plausible when appeals to metadis-cursive commonplaces such as: Power of words; value of informed judgment; improvability of practice Understanding requires common language; omnipresent danger of miscom-munication All need human contact, should treat others as persons, respect differences, seek common ground Identity of mind and brain; value of information and logic; complex systems can be unpredictable Communication reflects personality; beliefs & feelings bias judgments; people in groups affect one another. The individual is a product of society; every society has a distinct culture; social actions have unintended effects. Selfperpetuation of power & wealth; values of freedom, equality & reason; discussion produces awareness, insight
Interesting when challenges meta-discursive commonplaces such as: Mere words are not actions; appearance is not reality; style is not substance; opinion is not truth Words have correct meanings & stand for thoughts; codes & media are neutral channels Communication is skill; the word is not the thing; facts are objective and values subjective Humans and machines differ; emotion is not logical; linear order of cause and effect Humans are rational beings; we know our own minds; we know what we see. Individual agency & responsibility; absolute identity of self; naturalness of the social order Naturalness & rationality of traditional social order; objectivity of science & technology
Table 2
Topoi for Argumentation across Traditions
Rhetorical Semiotic Phenomeno logical Cybernetic Socio- psychological Socio-cultural Critical
Against rhetoric The art of rhetoric can be learned only by practice; theory merely distracts. We do not use signs; rather they use us. Strategic communication is inherently inauthentic & often counterproductive. Intervention in complex systems involves technical problems rhetoric fails to grasp. Rhetoric lacks good empirical evidence that its persuasive techniques actually work as intended. Rhetorical theory is culture bound & overemphasizes individual agency vs. social structure. Rhetoric reflects traditionalist, instrumentalist, & individualist ideologies.
Against semiotics All use of signs is rhetorical. Langue is a fic-tion; meaning & inter-subjectivity are indeterminate. Langue-parole and signifier-signified are false distinctions. Languaging constitutes world. "Meaning" con-sists of functional relationships with-in dynamic information systems. Semiotics fails to explain factors that influence the produc-tion & interpretation of messages. Sign systems are not autonomous; they exist only in the shared practices of actual communities. Meaning is not fixed by a code; it is a site of social conflict.
Against pheno- menolo- gy Authenticity is a dangerous myth; good com-munica-tion must be artful, hence strategic. Self & other are semioti-cally determined subject positions & exist only in/as signs. Other’s experience is not experienced directly but only as constituted in ego’s consciousness. Phenomenological "experience" must occur in the brain as information processing. Phenomenological introspection falsely assumes self-aware-ness of cognitive processes. Intersubjectivity is produced by social processes that phenomenology fails to explain. Individual consciousness is socially constituted, thus ideolo-gically distorted.
Against cyberne- tics Practical reason cannot (or should not) be reduced to formal calculation. Functionalist ex-plana-tions ignore subtleties of sign systems. Functionalism fails to explain meaning as embodied, con-scious experience. The observer must be included in the system, rendering it indeterminate. Cybernetics is too rationalistic; e.g. it underestimates the role of emotion. Cybernetic models fail to explain how meaning emerges in social interaction. Cybernetics reflects the dominance of instrumental reason.
Against socio- psycho- logy Effects are situational and cannot be precisely predicted. Socio-psychological "effects" are internal properties of sign systems. The subject-object dichotomy of sociopsychology must be transcended. Communication involves circular causation, not linear causation. Socio- psychological theories have limited predictive power, even in laboratory. Socio-psychological "laws" are culture bound & biased by individualism. Sociopsychology reflects ideologies of individualism, instrumentalism.
Against socio- cultural theory Sociocultural rules etc. are contexts & resources for rhetorical discourse. Sociocultural rules etc. are all systems of signs. The social life-world has a phe- nome- nological foundation. The functional organization of any social system can be modeled formally. Socio-cultural theory is vague, untestable, ignores psychological processes that under-lie all social order. Socio-cultural order is particular & locally negotiated but theory must be abstract and general. Socio-cultural theory privileges consensus over conflict & change
Against Practical There is Critique is Self- Critical theory Critical theory im- Critical theory is
critical reason is nothing immanent in organizing confuses facts & poses an interpre- elitist & without
theory based in outside every au- systems values, imposes a tive frame, fails to real influence on
particular the text. thentic en- models ac- dogmatic ideol- appre-ciate local social change.
situations counter with count for °gy. meanings.
not uni- tradition. social con-
versal prin- flict &
ciples. change.
Bibliography
1. Podgorecki, J. Atrybucje komunikacji spolecznej we wspolczesnej pedagogice / J. Podgorecki, W.M. Ggrebennikowa, Wydawnictwo: Wydzial Pedagogiki i Komunikatywistyki Kubanskiego Panstwowego Uniwersytetu. - Krasnodar: Rosyjska Akademia Nauk, Ministerstwo Nauki Rosyjskiej Federacji, 2008.
2. Podgorecki, J. Атрибуты социальной коммуникации в процессе беспреривного образования учителей / J. Podgorecki, A. Zubko, 2008.
3. Atrybucje komunikacji spolecznej w procesie ksztalcenia nauczycieli, Wydawnictwo: Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki Ukrainy, Juzno Ukrainski Instytut Podyplomowego Ksztalcenia Kadr Pedagogicznych - Herson (Ukraina), 2008.
4. PODGORECKI J. Psychological principles of communication Ivanofrankiwsk Ukraina. - Nowa Zorya, 2008.
Статья поступила в редакцию 10.06.10
УДК (159.923.2)
О. И. Лаптева, доц. СибАГС, г. Новосибирск, Е-mail: lapteva_r@rambler.ru РЕФЛЕКСИЯ КАК МЕХАНИЗМ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ АНТИКОРРУПЦИОННОЙ УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ ЛИЧНОСТИ
При рассмотрении вопроса о формировании антикоррупционной устойчивости личности необходимо учитывать многие психологические феномены. В данной статье рассмотрена характеристика рефлексии как механизма формирования антикоррупционной устойчивости личности.
Ключевые слова: рефлексия, механизм рефлексии, антикоррупционная устойчивость личности.
Одним из основных направлений антикоррупционной подготовки специалистов является общая гуманитарная подготовка, в рамках которой формируются нравственные принципы, способствующие формированию антикоррупционной устойчивости как противодействию коррупционным проявлениям.
Устойчивость - особое свойство системы, характеризующее ее способность противостоять разрушающим факторам. Устойчивость личности зависит от ее нравственных качеств: чем больше человек способен подчинять личные интересы интересам общества, тем выше его устойчивость к трудностям. Устойчивые в поведении сотрудники отличаются серьезным отношением к вопросам поддержания порядка и организованности в работе, к соблюдению правовых и нравственных норм, установками на следование социальным ценностям (честность, аккуратность, добросовестность, порядочность, человечность и др.).
Одним из свойств коррупции является латентность, поэтому поступать нравственно в реальных условиях воздействия корруп-циогенных факторов бывает не просто. Чтобы выбраться из возникающих трудностей и кризисных положений, некоторые люди становятся на путь обмана, мошенничества, лжи, измены, предательства, правонарушений.
Почему люди совершают те или иные поступки, даже сознавая, что поступают при этом неправильно? Дело в том, что люди стремятся к успеху, который у них обычно выражается в финансовых достижениях и высоком социальном статусе. Многие считают, что при этом им приходится выбирать между успехом и нравственной устойчивостью. Нравственная устойчивость, по их мнению, ограничивает выбор и возможности человека, ухудшает перспективы успеха в его деятельности. Когда человек может выбирать лишь одно из двух: либо добиться успеха любой ценой, чего бы это ни стоило, либо не отступать от позиции нравственности и потерпеть крах. В действительности немного людей желают быть безнравственными, однако потерпеть неудачу не хочет никто. В такой ситуации этической дилеммы, когда встает выбор между «правильным» и «неправильным», необычайно важна способность к рефлексии.
Рассмотрим феномен рефлексии как механизма формирования антикоррупционной устойчивости личности. Понятие «рефлексия» (лат. ге/1ех1о - обращение назад) первоначально возникло в философии и означало процесс размышления че-
ловека обо всем происходящем в его собственном сознании. Иными словами, это деятельность самопознания, раскрывающая человеку содержание его внутреннего мира [1, с. 683].
Сократ считал важнейшей задачей человека познание своей внутренней активности в ее познавательной функции. Платон указывал на важность самопознания в связи с воспитанием такой добродетели, как благоразумие, которое он определял как знание самого себя. Аристотель признавал за рефлексией свойство разума, который способен обнаружить единство предмета знания и знания, т. е. мыслимого и мысли.
С течением времени понятие рефлексии расширилось. Так, Декарт отождествлял рефлексию со способностью индивида сосредоточиться на содержании своих мыслей, отвлекаясь от всего внешнего [1, с. 229]. Полученное в результате знание о самом себе - есть единственно достоверное знание, которое становится основанием для последующих размышлений о свойствах физического мира. Локк рассматривал рефлексию как внутренний опыт, являющийся основным источником знаний, в отличие от опыта внешнего, основанного на восприятии окружающего мира органами чувств. Локк впервые выделил рефлексию как особую психическую реальность. Он определял ее как действие ума над самим собой, «.. .наблюдение, которому ум подвергает свою деятельность и способы ее проявления, вследствие чего в разуме возникают идеи этой деятельности» [1, с. 230].
В немецкой классической философии рефлексия понималась как анализ наукой собственных средств познания или особый вид теоретической ретроспекции. Кант выделил логическую рефлексию, при которой представления об окружающем мире просто сравниваются друг с другом, и трансцендентальную рефлексию, при которой сравнимые представления связываются с той или иной познавательной способностью -чувственностью или рассудком [2]. Гегель признавал рефлексию как необходимый момент познавательного процесса. В рефлексии он видел движущую силу развития внутреннего мира человека.
В философии Западной Европы в Х1Х-ХХ вв. начал развиваться рефлексивный подход так, в феноменологии Гуссерля рефлексия трактуется как универсальный способ познания сознания, при котором «поток переживания со всеми его разнообразными событиями <...> становится ясно постигае-
