communication
The phenomenological tradition has a different focus than that of the semiotic. Its focus is more on the individual interpreter rather than the function and symbolic nature of the sign itself. People interpret messages and experiences by filtering the comprehension through their own values and understanding and therefore deciphering the world through this. An individual comes to know the world as they participate and engage within it and how they relate to an object is how they assess the meaning behind it (Littlejohn & Foss 37). This is why the process of interpretation is at the central point of this tradition, stating that it is literally what forms the reality of the information or existence for that individual (Littlejohn & Foss 38). Direct experience is therefore very important in this theory. The phenomenological tradition is also split into three schools of thought: classical phenomenology, the phenomenology of perception, and hermeneutic phenomenology. Edmund Husserl, considered the founder of modern phenomenology, held an almost controversial view that instead of seeing things through our own psyches, we should take ourselves away from our biases and see things in an objective way in order to be able to interpret the actual experience (Littlejohn & Foss 38). Many scholars disagreed and thus the phenomenology of perception came to be. This is the concept that says we only know things through our own experiences. Hermeneutic phenomenology is similar to this but goes a little bit deeper and connects communication and language more in depth.
Cybernetics is a little bit different than the previous two traditions. It examines the overall workings of communication in relation to systems. A system being “a system of parts, or variables, that influence one another, shape and control the character of the overall system” (Littlejohn & Foss 40). To put this in an easier way to understand, we’ll use an example of a classroom system. The relationships between the
Cybernetics is a little bit different than the previous two traditions. It examines the overall workings of communication in relation to systems. A system being “a system of parts, or variables, that influence one another, shape and control the character of the overall system” (Littlejohn & Foss 40). To put this in an easier way to understand, we’ll use an example of a classroom system. The relationships between the