Communication cannot be defined, because any definition is in itself part of communication. It is impossible (for human being) to step aside from communication, look at it and say: «Communication is this and this.» We are always inside communication.
There are humans who seem to be outside of communication. Communicative outsiders, autistics.
It seems easier to say which definitions of communication are false.
Look in the web for «essay on communication» and the result would be an essay on communication in 100 words:
«Communication is the essence of human interaction, allowing us to exchange ideas, emotions, and information. It serves as the foundation of society, enabling collaboration, understanding, and empathy. … By mastering the art of communication, we cultivate a harmonious world where mutual respect and cooperation thrive, fostering a brighter future for all.»
Very typical and very wrong. This is not a definition at all, this is some advertising. Author of such definition wants to sell me communication at all costs. It is possible to replace «communication» in this text with «music,» «mysticism,» «capitalism», «socialism,» «love», «army service», all Webster’s dictionary. «Britannica is the essence of human interaction…»
Advertising is one of the countless varieties of communication, and it is advertising which is communication in order to make some exchange. What a dull variety!
Parents and a child communicate but there is no exchange between them. A child receives something but doesn’t give anything. Unidirectional communication.
Cognition is a variety of communication but astronomer doesn’t receive anything from a star. Unidirectional communication.
Human can communicate with one’s own self. Inner dialogue is quite real communication. It includes exchange, although it is very hard or even impossible to define what is exchanged in the inner dialogue.
Communication is not «the foundation of society.» Society is not a goal, society is one of the by-products of communication and a means of communication.
Communication doesn’t produce «a harmonious world». Communication can be a source of tragedy, of love, of hatred and so on. The results of communication are unpredictable, because humans are unpredictable. The naive, simplified, optimistic view on communication is the result of wrong communication and wrong anthropology, wrong idea of what is to be human. This naivety is mostly insincere and manipulative, a cheap attempt to avoid the problem of evil, of false and/or deceitful communication, which is widespread even in the self-communication, inner dialogue.
Self-deception or deception and all sort of lies seem to be not a random phenomena, but an essential unavoidable feature of communication. Is it bad? Only if we think that freedom and love are bad, if we put stability above life and wand to exterminate risk from our being. Being without risk is possible and real, certainly, but it is not the human being.
27 March 2024