You walk into the party, the sound of music and laughter filling your ears. You feel good, if a little awkward, in your new jacket as you search to get something to drink. As the sound of the bass hums in your ears and vibrates through your body, you see your crush across the room. They’re standing with their friends, laughing and smiling, and you feel compelled to walk up and say something. They notice you as you get closer to the group, and they say with a smile, “Hey! Good to see you here!” You muster up your courage, offer a smile in return and say, “Hey! Are you a thief? Because you just stole my breath away!”

As communication scholar Kellerman (1992) argues, all communication is inherently strategic. Individuals always have a goal in our communicative actions which are formulated (consciously or not) in our mind. This is not to say that people are always out to get you, are always lying, or always trying to out-maneuver you in a conversation. What it does mean is that people do not communicate randomly; that is, we never pick the words we say, non-verbal messages we send, or text we write in a non-intentional way. Rather, we always pick the symbols (consciously or not) we feel will make the most successful strategy. In our example, a pick-up line is a strategy (i.e., flirting) with a goal (i.e., to initiate a romantic relationship). Communication, whether it’s successful or not (in the case of our opening example, it probably would not be!), is a tool used to bring about a desired end. Importantly just because we think we are choosing the most successful strategy doesn’t mean that it is or will be. However, all communication is used to bring about some end or fulfill some goal. Therefore, we are always trying to increase our chances of obtaining our goal by selecting the correct strategy. In this model, communication is understood as strategies executed to maximize the likelihood of reaching our goals.

Goals

Just because communication is goal-directed, doesn’t mean that there is only ever a singular goal present when we communicate. Often, we have overlapping task, social, relational, and cultural goals that are being addressed when a person communicates. If, for example, you wanted someone to give you the salt shaker while you were at the dinner table, you may phrase your request in three different ways. Saying, “Give me the salt” attends very little to the relationship and very much to the task goal. Saying, “Please pass the salt” softens the request and affirms the relationship you have with the other person. Saying, “If it’s not too much trouble, would you pass the salt?” shows that you respect the other person enough to give them the choice to refuse your request, even though you do want the salt. These three types of requests are different politeness strategies; that is, they are strategies that attend to (in different ways) the need to obtain one’s task goal (i.e., get the salt) while also attending to the social goal of maintaining a relationship with the person they are asking help from (Brown & Levinson, 1987).

Constraints

In addition to being goal-directed, communication is constraint bound. Kellerman describes two primary constraints that shape our communication goals and the strategies we use to pursue them: social appropriateness and efficiency. For example, when we make a request from someone we often attend to social appropriateness by thinking of the power differential (e.g., are they your boss or your subordinate?), social distance (e.g., are they an acquaintance or best friend?), and the magnitude of the request (e.g., are you asking for a dollar or a million dollars?) (Brown & Levinson, 1987). We may also think about our social and cultural context—are we at a wedding, funeral, baseball game, or a party? All these constraints inform our thinking about what makes for an appropriate form of communication. Similarly, we are constrained by time and the need for efficiency. Saying, in a measured tone, “If it’s not too much trouble, would you consider the possibility of stopping in the near future, please?” may seem very polite. But, if the driver is about to hit another car, you may yell “STOP THE CAR!” because efficiency becomes a greater communicative constraint.

Adjustments

Finally, Kellerman asserts that communication is adjusted to the purpose of fulfilling goals in a dynamic process. In other words, within a communication process, an individual may change their strategies as they listen, interpret, and coordinate with those they are communicating with at any time in the exchange. For example, when Duke University’s men’s lacrosse team was found to have hosted a party that contained underage drinking and female dancers, the university engaged in a variety of public relations communication to address the situation. Len-Rios (2010) found the university expressed disappointment in the men’s team early in the investigation, stating “This conduct was wholly inappropriate to the values of our athletics program and the University.” However, as the investigation continued and the prosecution’s case unraveled, the university changed its tone to attacking the media it believed created the controversy, “If you were at a university where the president meted out punishment based on what he reads in the newspaper, it would be a pretty dangerous place” (p. 276-277). In this case, the university’s goal was to defend itself against political and possible legal fallout, and it engaged in a variety of changing, evolving strategies over the course of months to obtain its objective.

Communication, understood as strategies executed to maximize the likelihood of reaching our goals, is best evaluated based on its communicative effectiveness. That is, communication in this model is measured by the question, “Did the communicator select the strategies that fulfilled all of the task, social, relational, and cultural goals of the communicative exchange?” The primary benefit of this model is that it places a great deal of emphasis on the initial source to be communicatively competent. Failures of communication are the fault of the initiator. This failure could be because the initiator doesn’t have the correct words (i.e., they don’t know the vocabulary or terminology) to obtain their goal. If, for example, you tell a car mechanic, “The doohickey is making a thrum noise. I think the whatchacallit is the problem,” they are less likely to be able to help you than if you know to call something an alternator or radiator. The primary drawback of this perspective is that in focusing on effective communication, it may overlook important aspects of communication that are not wholly or primarily concerned with efficiently meeting goals. Think of ritualistic forms of communication, such as prayer, marriage vows, or rooting for one’s sports team–are these dynamics best understood through the lens of effectiveness? As we’ll see in the next section, scholars have come up with a different approach to these forms of communication to better understand them on their own terms.

A six-year old white girl is at the grocery store with her mother. In their small town, almost everyone is white and the town’s demographics haven’t changed much in its nearly 100-year history. As they proceed to the checkout lane, the little girl notices another child, a young Black boy about her own age. Turning to her mother, she asks, “Why does his skin look like that?” Her mother, embarrassed that her daughter commented on another person’s race, tries to shush her. But, the boy’s mother, a Black woman, overhears the comment and walks her son closer to the white family.

“It’s okay,” the woman said with a reassuring smile toward the white pair, “Some people are born with different skin color.”

“Does it hurt?” the little girl asks, her eyes big with concern.

“Of course not!” the woman laughs, “Our skin’s just skin. Maybe you’d like to play with Darrell sometime and get to know us a little more? We just moved to town and I bet he’d like a friend.” She looks up at the white mother, who (looking relieved) nods her head. “Great!,” she says, “it’s a play date!”

As Berger and Luckman (1976) argue, communication is not simply a vehicle for describing the world around us; rather, it shapes and constrains our perception of reality. In other words, communication is a process of social construction, where the symbols we use lead us to perceive, understand, and act on the world in particular ways. As the opening example shows, it’s not the color of a person’s skin that differentiates them. Rather, it is the ways that skin color is communicated about and accepted within a society that gives skin color (or any perceived difference) its social weight. Imagine if the Black mother had not overheard the white girl—what would the girl have learned if she had only been shushed by an embarrassed mother about commenting on another child’s skin color? Maybe that it was a cause for shame or an uncomfortable topic? Her association of race with negative emotions may get connected to other groups of people (e.g., East Asian, Indian, Latinx, or Native Americans) or bloom into other types of negative associations (e.g., fear, anxiety, or anger). Instead, as a result of this kind and open communicative interaction, the young girl likely learns a much more positive lesson. Communication, then, is important to study from this perspective because the social realities we construct through our symbol use shape our experience of the world and are deeply intertwined with communicative ethics. As such, we need to examine where our communication comes from, what it does, and what realities it makes possible or impossible through its practice. Communication, in this model, is the coordination of meaning among communicators that creates shared social realities.

Although communication creates social realities, it doesn’t do so out of thin air. Rather, communicators always draw upon a past when they engage in symbol use (Baxter, 2006). Most obviously, the words you use when you speak (or the words you are reading right now!) are not new or novel. They are the product of thousands of years of human history, culminating into a series of scratches of ink that we (you, as a reader, and we, as writers) coordinate to make meaning. The conventions of our communication—what is thought of as good, polite, rude, or aggressive—are situationally and historically unique. Some of these communicative rules were established long in the past.

Historical Context

For example, as Bitel (2010) writes, in many Western countries, the idea of gender being binary (i.e., male/female) is rooted in the myths about life in Medieval Europe. As a result of these ideas, most ordinary women in Europe and the U.S. were confined to the home, were unable to own property, and were supposed to be submissive to their husbands whereas men were involved in politics, owned property, and were the head of the household for much of the past 500 years. These past views inform our current ideas about gender, and the expectations of how men and women should act. Although what behaviors are considered appropriately masculine or feminine vary across cultures, every culture’s understanding of gender is influenced by the long history of how gender has been communicated about and socially constructed within that culture. Thus, acting outside of traditional gender roles can be difficult because of the weight of hundreds of years of conventions, rules, habits, and rituals. Yet, these norms do change across time, as they are reexamined and rearticulated through communication about gender. When we communicate with one another, we cannot not see each other as individuals with gender, racial, and sexual identities (among others!). As such, we communicate in ways that draw upon the histories of gender, race, sexuality, etc.—no one interacts with another as “just human.” Communication, as an act that draws on the past, is a medium of (mis)understanding because of the shared histories that inform present symbolic coordination.

The Present

In addition to the past informing communication, the context in which communication occurs also shapes and constrains it. As Baxter (2006) notes, the roles and relationships that communicators have with each other will guide communication. For example, when a student raises their hand in order to talk in class, they are not coming up with that communicative act on their own. They are taking up and performing role-oriented communication—an act that expresses their identity as a student and (simultaneously) recognizes the teacher’s identity as an authority figure (i.e., one that you must ask permission from in order to speak). However, if that student saw the professor in the aisle of a supermarket, both would think it was odd if the student walked up to the professor and raised their hand to talk. In other words, even though the roles between them haven’t changed, they draw upon different contextual clues of what is appropriate communication to guide their exchange based on location.

Creating the Future

Finally, communication creates the future in the moment it occurs. Baxter (2006) offers that this function of communication is how identities (e.g., race, gender, or sexuality), roles (e.g., employee and employer), and cultures (e.g., Deaf culture or national culture) are perpetuated. In this way, communication does not just express or describe our identities; rather, communication socially constructs our identities and culture and, as a result, what future generations will come to believe as good/bad, beautiful/ugly, justice/tyranny, etc. For example, as Forth (2019) writes, women who were overweight were considered more desirable in Western society between the 15^th and 20^th centuries because it signaled wealth and access to an abundance of food. Once food became more available at the turn of the 20^th century, body image ideals for women changed dramatically with thinness and youth becoming the ideal for middle- and upper-class women. Currently, there are discussions about what is considered beautiful, with photo editing software, cosmetic companies, and social media all playing a role in our changing norms. Therefore, creating media representations or campaigns that privilege some women’s body types over others can create social realities where what is deemed ugly, undesirable, or unlovable is based on a standard that has changed in the past and will change in the future.

Thinking about communication as an act that draws from the past, manifests in the present, and creates the future encourages a person to grapple with the ethics of their symbolic coordination. Imagine if a person were to be ignorant of (or chose to hide) in their recounting of U.S. history the immoral actions that the nation has perpetrated in its time: slavery, Indigenous genocide, internment camps, and unprovoked and unjust wars. That person, we would argue, would probably describe the U.S. as perfect (or, as close as a nation can be to perfect) and would ignore or downplay any discussion about how to address how these issues affect us today. In other words, that person would not even have the vocabulary for talking about the problem because those phrases (and thus way of thinking) are absent from the history of language that they draw upon when they talk. To want to improve society it is necessary to know where it has failed or continues to fail in living up to its ideal, and work to create change toward something better. Similarly, you will need to address all sorts of important issues in your life—racism, wealth inequality, climate change, and sexual violence. What history of language you draw from and what world you articulate in the moment of your communication is a choice that comes with a great deal of moral weight.

Dialogues

Communication, within this framework, is best evaluated by the criteria of dialogue. To Ricoeur (1992), dialogue is understood as the moment when communicators deeply and intensely experience a connection with each other— where we really experience the other as ourselves. Most people, organizations, and institutions communicate in ways that are instrumental; that is, they talk, make campaigns or commercials, or develop relationships in ways that are focused primarily on what they want or need with little regard for their communicative partners. Ricoeur decried this approach to communication, believing that what faces humans (and, therefore, what makes us truly human) is the choice we can make to recognize others as subjects who are just as worthy of time, grace, love, forgiveness, or pleasure as we are.  A social construction perspective of communication puts a lot of emphasis on all participants to be understood as co-equals and to share deeply of themselves in the hope that mutual understanding will lead to better outcomes. Failures of communication are when participants disengage from one another or don’t put forth the effort to perspective-take and, as a result, harm another through their communication.

You are assigned a paper for your political science class on the topic of wealth inequality and taxation. The professor’s directions are for you to take a position on whether higher taxes for the wealthy would help or hurt the overall economy and to use sources to back your claims. You decide to read some information before coming to a decision, and type the words “should we tax the rich” into Google to see what comes up in the search. After scrolling down a little you see the article, “Think twice before changing the tax rules to soak billionaires,” and, intrigued, you click the link.

The piece is written by a respected columnist for the Washington Post—itself a respected and internationally read outlet. In the article, the author suggests that the wealthy’s use of resources to engage in PR stunts, such as racing other billionaires to outer space, is a perfectly moral use of social resources. They even have a picture of a smartly-dressed Jeff Bezos (the founder and CEO of Amazon) at the top of the article, who would later fly in suborbital flight (almost 70 miles high) on July 20^th, 2020. They imply that taxing the wealthy would mean that the government would have to raise taxes on middle- and lower-income people as well and so it would be best to just not raise taxes on anyone.

As you finish the piece, you think to yourself, “Wow, that author had a strong opinion against raising taxes on the wealthy.” You start to download the article to your computer for future use, but something keeps nagging at you to look deeper into the situation. You open another tab and do a Google search on Jeff Bezos to find that he owns the Washington Post—the same outlet in which the article appeared.

As philosopher Nancy Fraser (1989) argues, many modern societies are guided by questions of what a population needs and how governments, media, corporations, and other powerful entities can best address those needs. If a population believes that a need is met, then those entities are viewed as legitimate and worth continuing. Importantly, though, those needs don’t have to actually be met as long as the population believes they are, or that their unfulfillment is the fault of someone else. Communication can be, therefore, a powerful tool for misinformation and propaganda, allowing powerful forces to shape social discourse in ways that suit them.

Take our opening example: Jeff Bezos, a man who makes more money in a second than the average U.S. citizen makes in a month (Allcott, 2021), bought an internationally read newspaper which just so happens to publish a piece arguing against taxes on the wealthy. Furthermore, the author implied that raising taxes on the wealthy would mean raising taxes on everyone else—a proposition that links the needs of average U.S. citizens (e.g., having enough money for food, rent, or transportation) to the desires of billionaires (e.g., who have spent more than $1 billion per year since 2000 to go to space). In this perspective, communication is the imposition of meaning from one group onto others, and ultimately of a population onto itself, securing political-economic arrangements that favor the powerful as normal, neutral, necessary, or natural.

When most people think of power, they may conjure up images from The Hunger Games, where the villains are in complete control of society and a small, plucky band of teenagers fight their way to freedom. The reality, however, is much more complicated. First, in most modern societies, there is little need for overt displays of force in order to maintain control. Although military and police forces are sometimes used against civilians and the press, most powerful groups utilize traditional media, social media, and other outlets to cultivate allegiance or rebellion. For example, Russia’s innocuously named “Internet Research Agency” which is, in fact, an organization which specializes in spreading disinformation and propaganda across the Internet (Linvill, 2019). Organizations like these are integral in spreading and cultivating conspiracy theories, reactionary politics, and violence.

In other words, there is no need for draconian laws or a repressive military state; rather, spreading this type of dis/information can ensure people are too busy fighting amongst themselves, or unsure what to believe, to identify or resist things that make their lives dimmer, poorer, or less free. Second, most of the people who run these organizations may not be evil; however, they are interested in maintaining the political-economic arrangements that already favor them and have the means to guide society in directions that serve their interests. For example, oil executives from companies such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP have spent hundreds of millions of dollars across the world to dismantle environmental and worker safety laws over the decades—changes that benefit them and their shareholders (Tabuchi & Friedman, 2021).

Power

Power is the ability to change a target’s (i.e., an individual, group, or even a nation) thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors. Importantly, power isn’t innately evil or wrong. We are guided by, and enforce, all sorts of laws, rules, and habits that keep us happy, safe, and fulfilled; however, power can also be used to deprive people of those attributes. Sprague (1992) drawing from Lukes (1973), offers there are three dimensions of power. In the first dimension, power is used explicitly and overtly to induce people to do something that they would not have done on their own volition. Think, for example, of a police officer telling a person, “Hands up” or “Get on the ground,” while their gun is drawn. The commands are made with the threat of violence as a way to control a person. In the second dimension, power is used implicitly and covertly to induce people to do something that they may not have done on their own volition.

For example, have you ever been driving and seen a marked police vehicle in the median of the highway? Your heart might flutter as you look at your speedometer and make sure your seatbelt is buckled. Even though you are doing nothing wrong, just the sight of a police officer is an exercise of state power— simply seeing them reminds you that you must follow the law or face consequences. In the final dimension, power is so routinized that people do not even think that they are changing their behavior. For example, if you follow the speed limit while driving you might think to yourself, “I don’t want to get a speeding ticket, so I’ll follow the law” even though you don’t see any police officers to enforce the rules. In this way, you have subjected yourself to power by changing your behaviors, even in the absence of any present external force.

Hegemony

Hegemony, then, is the condition in which a person believes their choices are normal, natural, or neutral when, in actuality, their choice is shaped and constrained by the communicative culture they are a part of. The state of hegemony, like power, isn’t necessarily or inherently bad. We might wish that it was hegemonic to believe that all people have rights, and to act in the world as if respecting those innate rights is normal, natural, or neutral. However, make no mistake, the idea of human rights is, historically speaking, a relatively recent development and under constant attack around the world. Furthermore, many countries that recognize human rights do not agree on the same rights or to the same degree rights need to be protected. The language that we use to communicate our ideas, such as truth, justice, or beauty are all subject to, and expressive of, power.

Communicative justice

Communication, within this framework, is best evaluated by the criteria of communicative justice. Of course, within this perspective, justice isn’t a neutral descriptor—it reflects and expresses power. However, we believe that the criteria of justice should be characterized by three communicative ideals: protecting human rights, informing others completely, and respecting autonomy (Deetz, 1992). These ideals apply to all people, groups, and organizations, and should guide communicative practice in all situations. Communication, viewed through the lens of power and hegemony, is a means by which those with more power attempt to keep political-economic relationships the way that benefits them the most. To develop an understanding of communication is, therefore, imperative so you can seek justice for yourself and others.

Communication is as innate to our species as our opposable thumbs or bipedal legs—it defines who we are, what we can do, and who we can be. The strategies we use to obtain our goals, the phrases we use to develop our social bonds, and the terms we deploy to define problems/articulate solutions are neither random nor inconsequential; rather, they are a fundamental aspect of our relationships with our friends, families, and colleagues as well as how governments, media corporations, and workplaces shape our lives. To study communication, then, is to study the very essence of what it means to be human—to know how to convey information, persuade others to your cause, or motivate them. And, whether you study how to be a better communicator, we hope you keep the three perspectives of communication (i.e., goals-strategies, social construction, and power-hegemony) at the front of your mind. Because, if you do, you’ll be more than the young fish at the start of this chapter—you’ll be able to see and change the world around you by your communication practices.

In this class, you’ll be introduced to the fundamentals of studying communication. Although we are sure you’ll learn a lot over the course of the semester, we would encourage you to explore a major or minor in communication studies as a way to obtain your personal and professional goals within and beyond college. Our department offers coursework that reflects these perspectives of communication, which can greatly enhance your life. We are concerned with helping you become the best at creating effective communication, and how to create, curate, and disseminate messages, videos, and social media in ways that best obtain goals. We offer the following majors and minors, and you can learn more about our program on the University of Northern Iowa Communication and Media website:

• Communication Studies: Talk to someone before class. Watch a TikTok video. Read a blog. Listen to a podcast. Browse a website. We are communicating when we do any of these things. The means and methods of communication are constantly evolving, but the basic principles of communication remain the same – those principles are what we teach. What makes the communication major at UNI unique is that the things you learn in a class can be put into practice immediately – building a set of skills and principles that will prepare you to adapt to our constantly changing world. We offer the following certificates that you can obtain either as a Communication Studies major/minor, or as a bundle of classes to complement your chosen major and make you more prepared for post-graduation life: Organizational Communication and Training; Organizational Communication and Inclusive Leadership; and Performance, Rhetoric, and Advocacy.
• Communication-Theatre Teaching: The communication-theatre teaching program is the only one of its kind in the state, preparing students to teach communication and theatre (including speech communication, debate and theatre) in grades 5-12. Administered jointly by the Department of Communication and Media and the Department of Theatre, a major in communication-theatre teaching provides you with rich content area learning in both communication and theatre courses. Students will have multiple field placement opportunities, giving them over 700 hours of real classroom experience before graduation. Our graduates go on to teach at the middle and high school level, providing their own students with the opportunity to expand their creative capacities, argue with evidence and conviction, and develop leadership and team-building skills.
• Digital Media Journalism: Digital journalism at UNI focuses on reporting, news writing, editing and design, online journalism, mobile journalism, sports journalism, photojournalism, and media law and ethics, and is taught by experienced, award-winning faculty. The major and minor are popular with students from all areas across campus who want to write well and understand the best practices in ethical reporting and great storytelling. The digital journalism major is part of the Department of Communication and Media’s digital media program. With concentrations in digital journalism, digital media leadership and digital media production, the program is a hub of creativity, collaboration and innovation.
• Digital Media Production: The digital media production major provides hands-on training from award-winning faculty for a range of media careers in television news and magazine shows, fiction, documentary and web/interactive formats. In our courses, you will learn how to develop scripts and screenplays, operate field and television studio cameras, design creative lighting, record audio for field and music events, and create compelling videos through editing and motion graphics. The digital media production major is part of the Department of Communication and Media’s digital media program. With concentrations in digital journalism, digital media leadership and digital media production, the program is a hub of creativity, collaboration and innovation.
• Digital Media Leadership: The digital media Leadership program is preparing creative leaders for the challenges facing the media industry. The program offers a variety of cutting-edge courses, outstanding faculty, media industry events and internship opportunities that prepare students for careers in Iowa and beyond. Students develop media management strategies and entrepreneurial skills for producing, distributing, marketing and monetizing digital media content across platforms. The digital media leadership major is part of the Department of Communication and Media’s digital media program. With concentrations in digital journalism, digital media leadership and digital media production, the program is a hub of creativity, collaboration and innovation
• Interactive Digital Studies: The IDS major/minor is a great tech-fueled addition to any specialized major program of study. It consists of the four IDS foundation courses and one “bundle” of study. We offer the following bundles: Advertising, Computation, Imaging, Music, History, Writing, Visualization, Web Development
• Political Communication: With fewer than a dozen undergraduate political communication programs in the United States, UNI students are sure to stand out. Our majors work with experts in both communication & media and political science, and graduate with first-hand experience gained through internships in political campaigns, legislative offices, government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations.
• Public Relations: If you’re a strong communicator, team player and cool under pressure, you should consider a career in public relations. As a public relations major, you’ll learn to build, engage and maintain good relationships, public understanding, and reputation for various brands and organizations. All of our emphases include coursework from other departments, professional internship opportunities and experiences outside of the classroom with student organizations sponsored by the department. At UNI we offer three major emphases that reflect important areas of public relations practice: Strategic Public Relations, Special Events, and Sports Public Relations.
• Business Communication: How we communicate is just as important as the business strategies and policies we implement. Unfortunately, because human communication is routine, we often don’t think about how our communication style can impact our business success. Polished written and oral communication and enhanced listening skills will make you a better leader in any organization.
• Communication and Media Master’s Program: The Graduate Program in the Department of Communication and Media provides students with Master’s level training and helps them fulfill their post-graduation goals, whether obtaining professional employment, enrolling in a PhD program, or reskilling/upskilling for their current profession. We offer three opportunities for Master’s educational experiences and credentials: the standard 2-year MA program, the accelerated 4+1 program for high achieving undergraduate majors, and Master’s level certificates. Nearly all of our coursework is offered in the evenings, entirely online, or hy-flex (i.e., the ability to Zoom into a F2F class instead of being physically present). This organization allows students to pursue M.A. level education with a flexibility that works for full-time students, full-time employees, and everyone in between.

All these choices, and more, in the Department of Communication and Media can help put you on the path to professional and personal success. All that awaits is your choice to take the first step toward the next chapter of your life.

Employment in Communication and Media occupations is projected to grow 6 percent from 2021 to 2031, on pace with the average employment in all sectors of the economy. Furthermore, the median annual wage for communication and media majors is $62,340 which was higher than the median annual wage for all occupations of $45,760. As such, a degree in this field can make sure you have the financial stability to reach your personal, professional, and civic goals throughout your life. All information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022).