Trying to Define (mass) Communication

Perhaps the easiest way to define communication, such an all encompassing, somewhat ambiguous term, would be simplify it as much as possible first and elaborate later. This is basically what was done in the Shannon and Weaver method for breaking down communication into something mathematical. By the Shannon Weaver model, communication is broken down into five principal parts, where information is transmitted through a channel to a receiver which helps it arrive at it's destination[1]. Lasswell translates this model into a simple verbal sentence of "Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?"[2].

However this is simply a good place to start. Communication, as it is traditionally understood as an early 20th century colloquialism, is something of an outdated term in-and-of itself. Communication originally meant the transport of physical goods as well as information, as it was delivered through some sort of physical medium. Therefore information was thought to be communicated as something tangible, even physical, thus developing a concept that information was to be in some way physically transported[2], which fits nicely in the Shannon Weaver model. This all changed once information started being transfered though means beyond the physical, such as through sound waves and electricity. However the metaphor that communication was something physical remained. As James Carey puts it, "The telegraph ended the identity but did not destroy the metaphor"[2].

And now, entering the current era, communication is something that occurs on too frequent a scale to properly comprehend. From completing this assignment alone dozens of acts of communication took place. Between getting the assignment through an email, opening the .pdf, finding the readings, actually reading them, procrastinating on youtube, writing the entry, posting the entry and it finally being read, any small task involves a plethora of individual communications.

So where does the divide between the traditional notion of communication and the modern institution of mass communication lie? Is sheer frequency all that separates the simple Shannon and Weaver model from the communications era that permeates our lives in so many ways every day? Perhaps the back and fourth of mass communication is what makes it unique, as in it lies the opportunity for involvement of each person, thus making each and every one of us a part of it, as we both absorb and contribute. According to Hardt, the true definition of mass communication might be significantly more sinister than that. Hardt maintains that mass communication was born out of a desire of certain nefarious individuals to obtain the ability to control the buying patterns and political ideologies of the general populous. How ever besides the possible negative consequences, Hardt claims that mass media "defines reality and marks the boundaries of social knowledge"[3]. So whether it be a vessel of participation and learning or a tool to make us think and buy as the corporations wish, mass communication is an established institution that goes far beyond any simple five step process.

[1] Shannon, Claude: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27 (July and October) 1948, pp. 379-423, 623-656, http://plan9.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf. 05 January 2011. Web.

[2] Chandler, Daniel. "Transmission Model of Communication". Prifysgol Aberystwyth / Aberystwyth University. 18 Sept. 1995.http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html 05 January 2011. Web.

[3] Hardt, Hanno. Myths for the Masses: an Essay on Mass Communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Print.