THE PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION: A View from System Theory

By B. Aubrey Fisher.

SUMMARY:

Aubrey Fisher started the article by giving the reference of a Japanese movie Rashmon, which had already been recognized as a brilliant classic in its time. Reviews have been penned about this film for sixty years. This movie has been an inspiration for many afterward generations of directors and has been a topic of query which generated many debates through all these years. This Japanese classic had spawned several imitations. The American film Outrage, is also a remake which has the central concept of Rashomon.

The story of the film Rashomon is both simple and complex at the same time. The central story is about the incident which took place in the woods, and the movie is presented in the flashbacks from the perspective of four narrators, which were involved or witnessed that incident. In the end of the film, the audience may leave with the anxiety of knowing whom perspective of the event was true. But it is not about what actually happened in the woods; rather the film raises the questions far more profound and thought provoking.

“Many moviegoers interpreted this film to be an illustration of the unreliability of human observations. Others believed the film documented how human perception distorts reality or, at least, selects from reality those details consistent with the observer’s own beliefs and silent desires.”

Most interpretations of this film follow the fallibility of human perception. Every man’s version of reality is constructed from his imagination and what he believes would have happened. For instance, the bandit who was so conceited of himself, his testimony showed him a brave fighter and a proud man. All interpretations of a single reality are consistent with the thoughts and desire of each interpreter. That’s what most of the moviegoers concluded from Rashomon.

All of the narrators in Rashomon tell compelling and believable stories, but, for a variety of reasons, each of them must be deemed unreliable. It's impossible to determine to what degree their versions are their own inventions and how many discrepancies is the result of legitimate differences in points-of-view. It's said that four witnesses to an accident offered different accounts of the same event, but there are things in Rashomon, namely, that each of the three participants names himself or herself as the murderer that cannot be explained away on this basis. And the impressions of the "impartial" observer further muddy the waters, because, despite his protestations that he doesn't lie, we trust his tale the least.

P a g e | 1

In the end, we are left recognizing only one thing: that there is no such thing as an objective truth. Actual truth can never be found, only approximated. This brilliant move Rashomon is never to reveal what really happened. We are left to make our own deductions.

The authors claims that the conclusion derived about the unreliability of human observations are not enough to credit this magnificent film which offer much more than this. Rashomon reveals the issue of the “nature of reality”. The common sense theories and the common believed held by people, both support the view of the existence of ‘a reality’. But we also believe that what we perceive and what we interpret from actual facts and events, involves certain psychological factors and when these factors can mold and corrupt the truth.

“The lesson of Rashomon rises above common sense to a much sophisticated treatment of multiple realities, which are created, not by an act of interpretation, but by functioning in the context of subsequent events. Reality, then, is not merely a static physical entity but a functioning event within an ongoing stream of events.”

The author denied the view that, there exist a reality and what we see, is its different interpretations by different people and these interpretations are influenced by the interpreters psychological factors. Instead of this, he claims that the film conducts more complicated examination of the reality and truth. There is no true, constant and fixed reality but exist multiple realities and these realities even have no physical existence but they are themselves only actions which are taking part in a continuity ongoing stream of events.

According to Paul Watzlawick, there is no physical reality as such, as matter of fact, to believe that there exists only one reality is a dangerous delusion. Reality is only a construction of our communication. We live in a social circle, we share language and meanings, and this is how we share reality within our social context. We might have many different versions of reality because everyone would interpret an event according to his own thoughts and imagination, and some of version might contradict, but they are only the product of mutual communication, not the manifestation of some eternal truth or reality.

Fisher clears that this book is not about judging the theories of communication that which one’s is better and more acceptable. This books deals with the reality of human communication. The problem is that the theorist and each of us try to create a reality of communication by using communication and that makes the issue more complex, and so each resulting theory is less an interpretation of communication than it is a creation of communication.

Explicit communication is based on some pragmatic goals and assumptions. Communication itself is not an essential phenomenon. It is basically and always done as a part of medium of knowledge. This medium is nothing on its own but only has functional utility i.e. to pass information on some purpose. This purpose must be pervasive, humanistic and social.

P a g e | 2

PHENOMENA OF COMMUNICATION

FUNCTIONAL: Communication is occurred when an action take place. It is not the physical phenomena. It does not fall in physical sciences or knowledge structure. It is wholly depended on human activity. Therefore we can learn about communication by learning about human actions. In view of this argument, communication has only functional utility of explaining some human activity. All other assumptions of explicit communication based on this argument of functional significance of communication.

EFFECTIVENESS: Explicit communication must be general and pervasive. A good communication has meaning for cultures and societies all across the world.

HUMAN CENTRIC: Communication is not an independent phenomenon as discussed earlier. It takes place between humans. Television and other electronic devices are nothing but act as a medium or tool to communication among humans. These devices must not be given more important than human dependency of communicative process.

SOCIAL PHENOMENON: Communication occurred in society not within individual. It is ‘actions’ communicates to others. It cannot be developed within the premise of a individual. Communication is done only with in society.

Introduction To Pragmatic Perspective of Human Communication:

Pragmatic perspective, as derived from its meaning is the convention of human communication as learned from practice and theory. Pragmatism is basically the research through practice and theory, here we will further ponder upon which theories and studies lead us to the conclusions of the human communication.

Pragmatism is based on the premise that the human capability to theorize is necessary for intelligent practice. Theory and practice are not separate spheres; rather, theories and distinctions are tools or maps for finding our way in the world. To simply put it, there is no question of theory versus practice but rather of intelligent practice versus uninformed practice.

Theoretical Perspective:

Here we will discuss the elements of human communication skills regarding theories and elements of the system theory:

Elements of System Theory:

System theory is basically not an actual theory. It is just an abstract of the principles of basic human communication learned through pragmatism. This system is confused with many other models or

P a g e | 3

epistemologies like cybernetics and information system. To understand better, we will discuss a few basic central principles of them system theory, which are:

Holism & Non-summativity: To simply define this principle is the 'wholeness' of the system. If a system has gaps or interventions, the whole scheme and organization falls apart. Holism is the term used in a case where the system has too many 'holes' which lead to incompletion of a task or object. While non-summativity is failed synchronization of the collective observation of the whole system. The object here is to gather the system components in an interdependent relationship. The parts of the system are less important than the connectedness of the parts.

Openness: Openness is the quality of a system which can it possessed or not possessed. It simply means the free exchange of energy in an open environment. Following are its fundamental points and observations:

1. These are categorized by equifinality; relatively independent of the parts of the system.

2. The entropy may decrease in an open system.

3. Characterized by evolutionary processes leading the complexity of the system.

4. These are capable of self-regulation.

Hierarchal Organization: A hierarchical organization is an organizational structure where every entity in the organization, except one, is subordinates to a single other entity. This arrangement is a form of a hierarchy. In an organization, the hierarchy usually consists of a singular/group of power at the top with subsequent levels of power beneath them.

Organized Complexity: The easiest definition of complexity is differentiation. Communication systems are highly complex systems. Their complexity is exhibited in several ways.

The other factor which defines the complexity is the arrangement of the states of the system. A system with finite and schematically arranged states is said to be a less complex system.

Self-Regulation: The openness of a system is its ability to self-regulate itself. It is the capability of a system to regulate, run, restore and rectify itself. The functions of a system change with time and increasing complexity, here the self regulation of the system provides the system's capability to manage itself.

The Pragmatic Perspective

The pragmatic perspective is also known as the interactional view because of the dependence on the particular situation at hand. Miscommunication occurs because people are not "speaking the same language." These languages contrast because people have different points of view from which they are speaking. When people's content and relationship component do not match up, miscommunication is likely to occur.

P a g e | 4

Implications for Communication Theory/Inquiry

For ages, the educational system has missed out on the importance of analytical and critical thinking of human communication. Research in subjects like Mathematics has logic have made us believe in reason and causes. The biggest problem lies in thinking of theories which are both holistic and non-linear. To realize its importance, we have to consider the assumptions for both formal and informal trainings in the said subject.

These implications are discussed in terms of how pragmatic perspective contrasts theoretical assumptions. And that too without modifying the thought processes of communication. No one can employ a new theory or gain benefit without conducting inquiry within a new perspective or direction.

“What”/”How”/”How come” Questions- Not “Why” Questions

Traditional epistemologies of communication have emphasized the “why” question. Asking “why” question conceptualized time in a linear and unidirectional manner. People communicate for some reason, and if we find that reason, we will understand the process of communication. /in asking “what” and “how” question, is a small step to the longitudinal questions regarding development. We understand communication by knowing what it is? How it is performed or created? And how it comes about development?

Meanings Interpreted- Not Assigned

Meanings, that are assigned and the process of governing behavior, become a process of interpretation that occur after a behavior is performed. Meanings should be found in the sequence of behavior. The concept of meaning shifts when the focus of communication shifts from person to behavior and from structure to functions. In the pragmatic perspective of human communication, meanings are interpreted not assigned as in other theoretical perspective. Meanings of events can only be interpreted in the context of other events after they have transpired.

Conclusion

When one chooses a theory, his choice should always be made on rational grounds. More than one theory of communication can be intrinsically rational. The choice among rational theories is usually made on the basis of personal and arbitrary reasons which influence the decision of rejecting an equally rational theory. Therefore, if the choice is made on theoretical stance is better since it will not involve a person’s own preferences and his own rational basis.