P a g e | 0

THE PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE OF HUMAN

COMMUNICATION: A View from System Theory
By B. A!rey Fisher.
SUMMAR":
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.
eviews have been penned about this !lm for si"ty years. #his movie has been an
inspiration for many afterward generations of directors and has been a topic of
$uery which generated many debates through all these years. #his Japanese classic
had spawned several imitations. #he American !lm Outrage, is also a rema%e which
has the central concept of ashomon.
#he story of the !lm ashomon is both simple and comple" at the same time. #he
central story is about the incident which too% place in the woods, and the movie is
presented in the &ashbac%s from the perspective of four narrators, which were
involved or witnessed that incident. 'n the end of the !lm, the audience may leave
with the an"iety of %nowing whom perspective of the event was true. (ut it is not
about what actually happened in the woods) rather the !lm raises the $uestions far
more profound and thought provo%ing.
*+any moviegoers interpreted this !lm to be an illustration of the unreliability
of human observations. ,thers believed the !lm documented how human
perception distorts reality or, at least, selects from reality those details
consistent with the observer-s own beliefs and silent desires..
+ost interpretations of this !lm follow the fallibility of human perception. /very
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 !ghter and a proud man. All interpretations of a
single reality are consistent with the thoughts and desire of each interpreter. #hat-s
what most of the moviegoers concluded from ashomon.
All of the narrators in Rashomon tell compelling and believable stories, but, for a
variety of reasons, each of them must be deemed unreliable. 't0s impossible to
determine to what degree their versions are their own inventions and how many
discrepancies is the result of legitimate di1erences in points2of2view. 't0s said that
four witnesses to an accident o1ered di1erent 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 e"plained away on this basis. And
the impressions of the 3impartial3 observer further muddy the waters, because,
despite his protestations that he doesn0t lie, we trust his tale the least.
P a g e | 4
'n the end, we are left recognizing only one thing5 that there is no such thing as an
ob6ective truth. Actual truth can never be found, only appro"imated. #his brilliant
move Rashomon is never to reveal what really happened. 7e are left to ma%e our
own deductions.
#he authors claims that the conclusion derived about the unreliability of human
observations are not enough to credit this magni!cent !lm which o1er much more
than this. ashomon reveals the issue of the *nature of reality.. #he common sense
theories and the common believed held by people, both support the view of the
e"istence of 8a reality-. (ut 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.
*#he lesson of ashomon 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 conte"t of subse$uent events.
eality, then, is not merely a static physical entity but a functioning event
within an ongoing stream of events..
#he author denied the view that, there e"ist a reality and what we see, is its
di1erent interpretations by di1erent people and these interpretations are in&uenced
by the interpreters psychological factors. 'nstead of this, he claims that the !lm
conducts more complicated e"amination of the reality and truth. #here is no true,
constant and !"ed reality but e"ist multiple realities and these realities even have
no physical e"istence but they are themselves only actions which are ta%ing part in
a continuity ongoing stream of events.
According to Paul 7atzlawic%, there is no physical reality as such, as matter of fact,
to believe that there e"ists only one reality is a dangerous delusion. eality is only a
construction of our communication. 7e live in a social circle, we share language and
meanings, and this is how we share reality within our social conte"t. 7e might have
many di1erent 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 boo% is not about 6udging the theories of communication that
which one-s is better and more acceptable. #his boo%s deals with the reality of
human communication. #he problem is that the theorist and each of us try to create
a reality of communication by using communication and that ma%es the issue more
comple", and so each resulting theory is less an interpretation of communication
than it is a creation of communication.
/"plicit communication is based on some pragmatic goals and assumptions.
9ommunication itself is not an essential phenomenon. 't is basically and always
P a g e | :
done as a part of medium of %nowledge. #his medium is nothing on its own but only
has functional utility i.e. to pass information on some purpose. #his purpose must
be pervasive, humanistic and social.
PHENOMENA OF COMMUNICATION
FUNCTIONA#: 9ommunication is occurred when an action ta%e place. 't is not the
physical phenomena. 't does not fall in physical sciences or %nowledge structure. 't
is wholly depended on human activity. #herefore we can learn about communication
by learning about human actions. 'n view of this argument, communication has only
functional utility of e"plaining some human activity. All other assumptions of e"plicit
communication based on this argument of functional signi!cance of communication.
EFFECTIVENESS: /"plicit communication must be general and pervasive. A good
communication has meaning for cultures and societies all across the world.
HUMAN CENTRIC: 9ommunication is not an independent phenomenon as
discussed earlier. 't ta%es place between humans. #elevision and other electronic
devices are nothing but act as a medium or tool to communication among humans.
#hese devices must not be given more important than human dependency of
communicative process.
SOCIA# PHENOMENON: 9ommunication occurred in society not within individual.
't is 8actions- communicates to others. 't cannot be developed within the premise of
a individual. 9ommunication is done only with in society.
I$tro%&tio$ To Pr'(m'ti& Pers)e&ti*e of Hm'$ Comm$i&'tio$:
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. #heory and practice are not separate spheres)
rather, theories and distinctions are tools or maps for !nding our way in the world.
#o simply put it, there is no $uestion of theory versus practice but rather of
intelligent practice versus uninformed practice.
Theoreti&'+ Pers)e&ti*e:
;ere we will discuss the elements of human communication s%ills regarding theories
and elements of the system theory5
P a g e | <
E+eme$ts of System Theory:
=ystem theory is basically not an actual theory. 't is 6ust an abstract of the principles
of basic human communication learned through pragmatism. #his system is
confused with many other models or epistemologies li%e cybernetics and
information system. #o understand better, we will discuss a few basic central
principles of them system theory, which are5
Ho+ism , No$-smm'ti*ity: #o simply de!ne this principle is the 0wholeness0 of
the system. 'f a system has gaps or interventions, the whole scheme and
organization falls apart. ;olism is the term used in a case where the system has too
many 0holes0 which lead to incompletion of a tas% or ob6ect. 7hile non2summativity
is failed synchronization of the collective observation of the whole system. #he
ob6ect here is to gather the system components in an interdependent relationship.
#he parts of the system are less important than the connectedness of the parts.
O)e$$ess: ,penness is the $uality of a system which can it possessed or not
possessed. 't simply means the free e"change of energy in an open environment.
Following are its fundamental points and observations5
4. #hese are categorized by e$ui!nality) relatively independent of the parts of
the system.
:. #he entropy may decrease in an open system.
<. 9haracterized by evolutionary processes leading the comple"ity of the
system.
>. #hese are capable of self2regulation.
Hier'r&h'+ Or('$i.'tio$: A hierarchical organization is an organizational
structure where every entity in the organization, e"cept one, is subordinates to a
single other entity. #his arrangement is a form of a hierarchy. 'n an organization, the
hierarchy usually consists of a singular?group of power at the top with subse$uent
levels of power beneath them.
Or('$i.e% Com)+e/ity: #he easiest de!nition of comple"ity is di1erentiation.
9ommunication systems are highly comple" systems. #heir comple"ity is e"hibited
in several ways.
#he other factor which de!nes the comple"ity is the arrangement of the states of
the system. A system with !nite and schematically arranged states is said to be a
less comple" system.
Se+f-Re(+'tio$: #he openness of a system is its ability to self2regulate itself. 't is
the capability of a system to regulate, run, restore and rectify itself. #he functions of
P a g e | >
a system change with time and increasing comple"ity, here the self regulation of
the system provides the system0s capability to manage itself.
The Pr'(m'ti& Pers)e&ti*e
#he pragmatic perspective is also %nown as the interactional view because of the
dependence on the particular situation at hand. +iscommunication occurs because
people are not 3spea%ing the same language.3 #hese languages contrast because
people have di1erent points of view from which they are spea%ing. 7hen people0s
content and relationship component do not match up, miscommunication is li%ely to
occur.
Im)+i&'tio$s for Comm$i&'tio$ Theory0I$1iry
For ages, the educational system has missed out on the importance of analytical
and critical thin%ing of human communication. esearch in sub6ects li%e
+athematics has logic have made us believe in reason and causes. #he biggest
problem lies in thin%ing of theories which are both holistic and non2linear. #o realize
its importance, we have to consider the assumptions for both formal and informal
trainings in the said sub6ect.
#hese implications are discussed in terms of how pragmatic perspective contrasts
theoretical assumptions. And that too without modifying the thought processes of
communication. @o one can employ a new theory or gain bene!t without
conducting in$uiry within a new perspective or direction.
23h't404How404How &ome4 5estio$s- Not 23hy4 5estio$s
#raditional epistemologies of communication have emphasized the *why. $uestion.
As%ing *why. $uestion conceptualized time in a linear and unidirectional manner.
People communicate for some reason, and if we !nd that reason, we will understand
the process of communication. ?in as%ing *what. and *how. $uestion, is a small step
to the longitudinal $uestions regarding development. 7e understand
communication by %nowing what it isA ;ow it is performed or createdA And how it
comes about developmentA
Me'$i$(s I$ter)rete%- Not Assi($e%
+eanings, that are assigned and the process of governing behavior, become a
process of interpretation that occur after a behavior is performed. +eanings should
be found in the se$uence of behavior. #he concept of meaning shifts when the focus
of communication shifts from person to behavior and from structure to functions. 'n
the pragmatic perspective of human communication, meanings are interpreted not
assigned as in other theoretical perspective. +eanings of events can only be
interpreted in the conte"t of other events after they have transpired.
Co$&+sio$
P a g e | B
7hen one chooses a theory, his choice should always be made on rational grounds.
+ore than one theory of communication can be intrinsically rational. #he choice
among rational theories is usually made on the basis of personal and arbitrary
reasons which in&uence the decision of re6ecting an e$ually rational theory.
#herefore, 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.