2.1: A Brief History of Communication Studies

Learning Objectives

1. Analyze the historical development of communication studies by identifying the primary questions, topics, and social contexts that shaped each historical period described.
2. Identify key figures and their foundational contributions to communication theory.
3. Recognize and discuss the historical bias in early communication studies, acknowledging the significant, often overlooked, contributions from feminine and Eastern traditions.
4. Describe the major shifts and research areas that marked the birth and formalization of Communication as an academic field in the early 20th century.

The Four Early Periods of Communication Study

To fully appreciate the current state of communication studies, it’s important to have a historical perspective—not only to understand the field itself, but also to know how you ended up in a Communication class or major. Over time, the study of communication has largely been prompted by the current social issues of particular time periods. Knowing this, we’ll examine the pertinent questions, topics, and scholars of the Classical, Medieval, Renaissance, and Enlightenment periods to find out what they learned about communication to help them understand the world around them.

Historical Bias Disclaimer: Feminine and Eastern Traditions

There is a historical bias that gives the accomplishments of male scholars in Ancient Greece the greatest recognition for the early development of our field. Because society favored and privileged European males, it is often difficult to find written records of the accomplishments of others. Nevertheless, many of the earliest influences of Communication studies also came from feminine and Eastern perspectives, not just the men of ancient Greek society. No doubt you’ve heard of Aristotle, but ancient Indian literature shows evidence of rhetorical theory pre-dating Aristotle by almost half a century. In fact, Indians were so attuned to the importance of communication that they worshiped the goddess of speech, Vach (Gangal & Hosterman). The Theosophical Society states: "To call Vach ‘speech’ simply, is deficient in clearness. Vach is the mystic personification of speech, and the female Logos, being one with Brahma….In one sense Vach is ‘speech’ by which knowledge was taught to man…..she is the subjective Creative Force which…becomes the manifested ‘world of speech. The Mypurohith Encyclopaedia tells us that: Vach appears to be the personification of speech by whom knowledge was communicated to man....who, "created the waters from the world [in the form] of speech (Vach).”

Unfortunately, many of our field’s histories exclude works other than those of Ancient Greek males. Throughout this chapter, we try to provide a balanced view of the field by weaving in feminine and Eastern traditions to provide you with a well-rounded perspective of the development of communication study around the world. Let’s start by focusing on the earliest period of the Old School – The Classical Period.

The Classical Period (500 BCE-400 CE)

Unless you are able to time-travel, you will have to read about the early founders of Old School Communication, such as Aspasia, Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. It was at the Lyceum approximately 2,500 years ago that Aristotle and other rhetoricians taught public speaking and persuasion, which marks what we refer to as the Classical Period of Communication study.

If you’ve taken a public-speaking class, you’ve probably learned and applied principles of public speaking developed during the Classical Period. During this time, people placed high value on the spoken word and argumentation skills, accentuated emotion and logic to persuade others, and developed guidelines for public presentations. It is largely agreed-upon that the formal study of communication began approximately 2,500 years ago in Greece and Sicily. It is here that we will begin our tour of Ancient Greece with the “fantastic four”—Aspasia of Miletus, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—who have come to be regarded as the foremother and forefathers of rhetoric and the field of Communication as a whole. Then, we’ll turn to scholars who extended the work of the fantastic four—Corax, Tisias, Cicero, Quintilian, and Pan Chao.

The argument can be made that our field primarily emphasizes the contributions of men because women were routinely excluded from education as well as other public institutions during this time. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that several women actively contributed to this period (Harris), participating in and receiving educational opportunities not afforded to most women. This begs the question, “If some women were receiving advanced education and producing work in philosophy and rhetoric themselves, then it becomes more puzzling to explain the absence of any surviving texts by them” (Bizzell & Herzberg 26). So, who can we look to as an example of a prominent female scholar during this early period?

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): The Debate of Socrates and Aspasia

Aspasia of Miletus (469 BCE) is an excellent example of an educated woman who is often credited as the “mother of rhetoric” (Glenn). Although relatively little is known about her scholarship because of her disappearance from history circa 401 BCE, Aspasia of Miletus is believed to have taught rhetoric and home economics to Socrates. Her influence extends to Plato as well who argued that belief and truth are not always interchangeable. Even Cicero used Aspasia’s lesson on induction as the centerpiece for his argumentation chapter in De Inventione (Glenn). Aspasia’s social position was that of a hetaera, or romantic companion, who was “more educated than respectable women, and [was] expected to accompany men on occasions where conversation with a woman was appreciated, but wives were not welcome” (Carlson 30). Her specialty was philosophy and politics, and she became the only female member of the elite Periclean circle. In this circle she made both friends and enemies as a result of her political savvy and public speaking ability.

Aspasia was described as one of the most educated women of her era and was determined to be treated as an equal to men (an early feminist to say the least!). She was born into privilege in Miletus, a Greek settlement on the coast of Western Turkey, and did not have many of the same restrictions as other women, working her way to prominence most often granted only to the men of her time. During this period Pericles, the Athenian ruler and Aspasia’s partner, treated Aspasia as an equal and allowed her every opportunity to engage in dialogue with the important and educated men of society. Socrates acknowledged Aspasia as having one of the best intellects in the city. With this intellect and the opportunities presented to her, Aspasia was politically progressive, influencing the works of many of the men who are most often credited with founding our field (PBS).

Where Did Aspasia Fit In? \(\PageIndex{1}\)

It is important to take note of the historical context behind Aspasia’s success. For women during this time, if you were not a slave, you were sorted into one of two social classes:

Athenian Citizen Wives: Athenians believed that citizenship in Athens was a privilege that is inherited. In order to be considered a citizen and have full protections under the law, your parents had to be citizens, and their parents citizens, and so on. This idea of inherited privilege stemmed from the Athenians' idea that women were made to be loved. It was believed that men could not resist loving women, so in an effort to keep their citizenship “pure,” they instilled laws stating which women these men could and could not love. The women, “citizen wives,” in this situation were often raised being taught only domestic duties and were often married by the age of 15. Once married, these women were not allowed to accompany their husbands to social functions. Other than going to temple, they were most often kept in the home.

Athenian Strangers: Because she was not of Athenian lineage, this is the group where Aspasia belonged. These people were not slaves, but just like all other non-citizens, they were not protected under the law. This meant that anyone could do anything short of killing them. The only way these strangers (women particularly) could be granted any protections is if they were able to establish a relationship with a male citizen. When the male Athenian citizens took these women in, it was not for the purpose of marriage, but instead to use them as a Hetaire (companions of male citizens). Some of these women served very basic needs for the men but others, like Aspasia, were highly educated and accompanied men, like Pericles, to banquets in order to help them sound smart during conversations.

Even though this was not a normal occurrence, Aspasia’s education and sophistication were driving forces behind Pericles divorcing his wife in order to marry Aspasia instead.

With Aspasia’s work influencing his education, Socrates (469-399 BCE) greatly influenced the direction of the Classical Period. Most of what we know about Socrates comes from the writings of his student Plato (429-347 BCE) who wrote about rhetoric in the form of dialogues where the main character was Socrates. This era produced much discussion regarding the best ways to write and deliver speeches, with a great deal of the debate focusing on the importance of truth and ethics in public speaking.

From these writings, the idea of the dialectic was born. While this term has been debated since its inception, Plato conceptualized it as a process of questions and answers that would lead to ultimate truth and understanding. Think for a moment about contemporary situations where people use this process. Have you ever had a discussion with a professor where he/she questioned you about your interpretation of a poem? Consider the role that a therapist takes when he/she asks you a series of questions to bring greater clarity in understanding your own thoughts, motives, and behavioral patterns. These are just two examples of dialectic at work. What others can you think of?

While Plato contributed a great deal to classical rhetorical theory he was also very critical of it. In Georgias, Plato argued that because rhetoric does not require a unique body of knowledge it is a false, rather than true, art. Similarly, Socrates was often suspicious of the kind of communication that went on in the courts because he felt it was not concerned with absolute truth. Ultimately, the legal system Socrates held in contempt delivered his fate. He was tried, convicted, and executed on charges of atheism and corrupting Athenian youth with his teachings (Kennedy). This same sentiment applies today when we think about lawyers in our courts. In the famous O.J. Simpson case in the 1990’s, Johnnie Cochran became famous for his phrase “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” This received great criticism because it didn’t really speak to the absolute truth of the facts of the case, while at the same time, this rationale was often credited as the reason O.J. Simpson was found not guilty.

The Classical Period flourished for nearly a millennium in and around Greece as democracy gained prominence in the lives of Greek citizens. As we have stated, social problems have guided the development of communication from the earliest periods. During this time, people found themselves in the courts trying to regain family land that earlier tyrants had seized. Thus, trying to regain family land through the court system became a primary social problem that influenced the focus of those studying communication during this time. Early communication practitioners sought the best methods for speaking and persuading. Although the concept of lawyers as we know them did not yet exist at this time in ancient Greece (Scallen), people needed effective persuasive speaking skills to get their family land back. Where did they learn these skills? They learned them from early speech teachers known as Sophists. Resourceful individuals such as Corax and Tisias (400’s BCE) taught effective persuasive speaking to citizens who needed to use these skills in courts to regain land ownership (Kennedy).

Historical records suggest that these two were among the first professional communication teachers that made use of the latest findings in communication for practical purposes. They also formed the basis of what we now recognize as professional lawyers (Scallen). Another Sophist, Isocrates (436-338 BCE), felt it was more important for a speaker to adapt to the individual speaking situation rather than have a single approach designed for all speaking occasions. It is likely that your public speaking teachers explain the importance of adapting to your audience in all communication situations.

Teaching and Learning Communication Then: Sophists: The Original Speech Teachers

Like Corax and Tisias, “Sophists were self-appointed professors of how to succeed in the civic life of the Greek states” (Kennedy 25). The word sophist comes from the root sophos meaning “wise” and is often translated to mean “craftsman.” They taught citizens how to communicate to win an argument or gain influence in the courts, as well as governmental assemblies. Sometimes, the motivation of Sophists was in conflict with other rhetoricians like Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle were committed to using communication to search for absolute truth. When Sophists taught communication in ways that sought anything less than absolute truth, it upset rhetoricians like Plato and Aristotle. Plato even went so far as to label the work of Sophists invalid because it depended upon kairos, or the situation, to determine the provisional truth of the issue under contention.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Libanius the sophist

Arguably the most famous Greek scholar, Aristotle (384-322 BCE), believed rhetoric could be used to create community. As we’ve highlighted, a dialectic approach allows people to share and test ideas with one another. Aristotle entered Plato’s Academy when he was 17 and stayed on as a teacher where he taught public speaking and the art of logical discussion until Plato’s death in 347 BCE. He then opened his own school where students learned about politics, science, philosophy, and rhetoric (communication). Aristotle taught all of these subjects during his lectures in the Lyceum next to the public gymnasium, or during conversations he had with his students as he strolled along the covered walkway of the peripatos with the Athenian youth.

Aristotle defined rhetoric as the “faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever” (Aristotle, trans. 15). We want to highlight two parts of this definition as particularly significant: “the possible means” and “persuasion.” “The possible means” indicates that Aristotle believed, like Isocrates, in the importance of context and audience analysis when speaking; a specific situation with a particular audience should influence how we craft our messages for each unique speaking situation.

Say you want to persuade your parents to give you a little extra cash to make it through the month. Chances are you will work through strategies for persuading them why you need the money, and why they should give it to you. You’ll likely reflect on what has worked in the past, what hasn’t worked, and what strategy you used last time. From this analysis, you construct a message that fits the occasion and audience. Now, let’s say you want to persuade your roommate to go out with you to Mexican food for dinner. You are not going to use the same message or approach to persuade your roommate as you would your parents. The same logic exists in public speaking situations. Aristotle highlighted the importance of finding the appropriate message and strategy for the audience and occasion in order to persuade. For Aristotle, rhetoric occurs when a person or group of people engage in the process of communicating for the purpose of persuading. Aristotle divided the “means of persuasion” into three parts, or three artistic proofs, necessary to persuade others: logical reason (logos), human character (ethos), and emotional appeal (pathos).

Logos is the presentation of logical, or seemingly logical, reasons that support a speaker’s position. When you construct the order of your speech and make decisions regarding what to include and exclude, you engage in logos. Ethos occurs when “The orator persuades by moral character when his speech is delivered in such a manner as to render him worthy of confidence…moral character…constitutes the most effective means of proof” (Aristotle, trans. 17). Ethos, in short, is the speaker's credibility. The final proof, pathos, occurs when a speaker touches particular emotions from the audience. Aristotle explains, “the judgments we deliver are not the same when we are influenced by joy or sorrow, love or hate.” (Aristotle, trans. 17). In present day, commercials are often judged as effective or ineffective based on their use of pathos. Many times, commercials are considered effective when they produce an emotional response from us, such as joy, anger, or happiness. We will discuss Aristotle's Rhetorical Appeals later in this book.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Detail from Cicero Denounces Catiline

Cicero (106-43 BCE) and Quintilian (c. 35-95 CE) deserve recognition for combining much of what was known from the Greeks and Romans into more complete theoretical ideas. Like Aristotle, Cicero saw the relationship between rhetoric and persuasion and its applicability to politics (Cicero, trans. 15). Think of politicians today. Quintilian extended this line of thinking and argued that public speaking was inherently moral. He stated that the ideal orator is “a good man speaking well” (Barilli). Is your first impression that politicians are good people speaking well? How do Aristotle’s notions of ethos, logos, and pathos factor in to your perceptions of politicians?

Cicero is most famous in the field of communication for creating what we call the five canons of rhetoric, a five-step process for developing a persuasive speech that we still use to teach public speaking today. Invention is the formulation of arguments based on logos—rational appeal or logic. Arrangement is ordering a speech in the most effective manner for a particular audience. Style means 'fitting the proper language to the invented matter' to enhance the enjoyment, and thus acceptability of the argument, by an audience (Cicero, trans. 21). Memory, a vital skill in the Classical Period, is less of a requirement in today’s public speaking contexts because we now largely believe that memorized speeches often sound too scripted and stale. Notes, cue cards, and teleprompters are all devices that allow speakers to deliver speeches without committing them to memory. Finally, delivery is the use of nonverbal behaviors such as eye contact, gestures, and tone of voice during a presentation. If you have taken a public speaking class, have you used some or all of these to construct your presentations? If so, you can see the far-reaching effects of the early developments in communication on what we teach today. We will discuss Cicero's Five Canons of Rhetoric later in the book.

We want to round out our discussion of the Classical Period by highlighting the work of Pan Chao (c. 45 CE-115 CE). She was the first female historian in China and served as the imperial historian of the court of emperor Han Hedi. She was a strong believer in the benefits of education, and was another of the early female pioneers to argue for the education of girls and women. Writing, in Lessons for Women, on the four qualifications of womanhood (virtue, words, bearing, and work), she said that womanly words, “need be neither clever in debate nor keen in conversation,” but women should “…choose words with care; to avoid vulgar language; to speak at appropriate times; and to not weary others (with much conversation), [these] may be called the characteristics of womanly words” (Swann 86).

Even though it began 2500 years ago, the Classical Period was filled with interesting people who made great strides in the formal study of communication to help with the social problems of their day. The Classical Period laid the foundation of our field and continues to impact our modern day practice of studying and performing communication. You have likely learned concepts from the Classical Period in your public speaking classes. Next, let’s examine the Medieval Period and its further development of our field.

The Medieval Period (400 CE-1400 CE)

In contrast to the Classical Period, which saw tremendous growth and innovation in the study of Communication, the Medieval Period might be considered the dark ages of academic study in our field. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Christian influence became very powerful. The Church viewed older, "secular" ideas about rhetoric as threatening or "pagan." While the Church did save some classical teachings on rhetoric, they made these difficult to access for most people outside of direct church service. Getting any kind of secular education during this time was extremely rare. Despite condemning some aspects of communication study, the Church still used these powerful tools for its own goals. They focused on communication to improve preaching and letter writing – skills essential for persuading people to Christianity. Like before, women's participation in education was heavily restricted, with men largely controlling learning and the Church.

One key figure from this era was Augustine (354-430 CE). As a Christian clergyman and skilled rhetorician, he actually argued that the Church should continue to develop ideas from the Classical Period. He believed studying persuasion was valuable for spreading God's word and moving people toward truth. However, outside of Augustine's efforts, the formal study of communication largely took a back seat to theology. It survived mainly as part of a general "liberal education" but remained focused on developing styles for preaching. While figures like Boethius and Isidore of Seville tried to preserve classical works, there was little new progress in communication theory during these "dark ages" until the Renaissance.

While the formal study of rhetoric saw a decline, we do get a rare glimpse into personal communication and daily life during this period through figures like Margery Kempe. Writing sometime in the 1430s, Kempe authored what is believed to be the first autobiography in English. From a position of wealth and status, she vividly shared her personal experiences, including a profound religious vision she claimed to have had after the birth of her first child. Her writings offer unique insights into the daily life, societal norms, and personal beliefs of someone living in a late medieval town, providing valuable context for understanding how society developed.

The Renaissance (1400-1600 CE)

Powered by a new intellectual movement during this period, secular institutions and governments started to compete with the church for personal allegiances. As more people felt comfortable challenging the church’s approach to education, reinvigorated attention to classical learning and fresh opportunities for scholarly education reemerged. As with the two previous periods we’ve examined, obtaining education for women was still tough, as many social limitations continued to restrict their access to knowledge.

Despite the continued oppression, several brave women took advantage of the changes brought in by the Renaissance. Christine de Pisan (1365-1429) has been praised as “Europe’s first professional woman writer” writing 41 pieces over a 30-year period (Redfern 74). She wrote extensively on how women could achieve their potential and lead meaningful lives. She showed that effective speaking and writing were key to women's success in both public and private matters. Laura Cereta (1469-1499), from Italy, bravely engaged in intellectual debates through her letters with male scholars. Even when her letters went unanswered, she persisted in her education and challenged traditional roles, advocating for women's education.

Ideas surrounding issues of style in speaking situations received significant attention during the Renaissance period. Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) paid great attention to the idea of style by actually grouping style and delivery of the five canons together. Ramus also argued that invention and arrangement did not fit the canon and should be the focus of logic, not rhetoric. Ramus, who often questioned the early scholars, believed that being a good man had nothing to do with being a good speaker and didn’t think that focusing on truth had much to do with communication at all. Needless to say, he had a way of making a name for himself by challenging much of what early scholars thought of truth, ethics, and morals as they applied to communication.

In contrast to Ramus, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a contemporary of Shakespeare, believed that the journey to truth was paramount to the study and performance of communication. According to Bacon, reason and morality required speakers to have a high degree of accountability, making it an essential element in oration. Where do you think ethics, truth, and morality fit into communication today? Think about your concept of politicians or car salespersons. How do these notions fit when communicating in these contexts?

These scholars – de Pisan, Cereta, Ramus, and Bacon – pushed the boundaries of communication study. They challenged old ideas, debated new ones, and reignited the discussion about how communication works and how it should be used. Their work set the stage for further advancements in the study of communication during the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment (1600-1800 CE)

A maturing Europe continued to see a lessening of tension between the church and secular institutions, and the transformation of the Communication field was a reflection of broader cultural shifts. Modernizations, such as the printing press, made the written word more readily available to the masses through newspapers and books thus forever changing the ways people learned and communicated. This era was the precursor to the Industrial Revolution and began the rapid changes in the development of our field that were to come.

Golden, Berquist, and Colemen point to four prominent trends during the Enlightenment. Neoclassicism revived the classical approach to rhetoric by adapting and applying it to contemporary situations. Second, the eclectic method of belletristic scholars offered standards of style for presenting and critiquing oration, drama, and poetry. Englishman Hugh Blair (1718-1800) advocated the notion of good taste and character in communication encounters, and a book of his lectures was so popular that his publisher stated, “half of the educated English-speaking world was reading Blair” (Covino 80). Third, the psychological/epistemological school of rhetoric applied communication study to basic human nature, knowledge, and thought. The Scottish minister and educator, George Campbell (1719-1796), tried to create convincing arguments using scientific and moral reasoning by seeking to understand how people used speech to persuade others. Finally, the elocutionary approach concentrated on delivery and style by providing strict rules for a speaker’s bodily actions, such as gestures, facial expressions, tone, and pronunciation.

Overall, the Enlightenment Period served as a bridge between the past and the present of communication study, the old and the new school. During this period, people used many of the early approaches to further explore communication in ways that would ignite an explosion in the Communication field in the 20th Century. While we’ve quickly covered 2400 years of communication study, let’s look at the 20th century, which witnessed more advances in communication study than the previous 2400 years combined.

New School- Communication Study in the 20th Century

Topics such as persuasion, public speaking, political debate, preaching, letter writing, and education guided communication study in the early periods as these were the pressing social matters of the day. With the industrial revolution in full effect, major world changes took place that impacted the continuing advancement of communication study. We have seen more changes in the ways humans communicate, and communication study, in the past 100 years than in any other time in history. Rapid advances in technology, and the emergence of a “global village,” have provided almost limitless areas to study communication. In this half of the chapter, we examine the development of the modern field of Communication, demonstrating how it has developed into the departments of Communication that you may recognize on your campus today.

The Birth of an Academic Field

Think about the different departments and majors on your campus. What about the Department of Communication? How did it get there? You may not know it, but academic departments like Communication are a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. While there is evidence of speech instruction in the U.S. as far back as the colonial period, 100 years ago there were only a few departments of Communication in U.S. colleges and universities (Delia). From 1890 to 1920, “the various aspects of oral communication were drawn together and integrated, under the common rubric of speech” and generally housed in departments of English (Gray 422). Some universities moved to create specific academic departments of communication in the late 1800’s, such as De Pauw (1884), Earlham (1887), Cornell (1889), Michigan and Chicago (1892), and Ohio Wesleyan (1894), which led the way for the continued academic development of Communication study (Smith).

A big push to create distinct Communication departments came at a 1913 conference, where faculty sought to separate from English. By the early 1920s, the first Master's and Ph.D. programs in Communication emerged. By 1944, the U.S. Office of Education recognized the field, stating that "expressive arts have gained full recognition in college programs of study" (Smith 448). As the field grew, scholars also formed professional associations. The National Association of Elocutionists began in 1892 (Rarig & Greaves 490), followed by others like the Eastern Public Speaking Conference in 1910. Our current National Communication Association started in 1914 as the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking, eventually adopting its current name in 1997. These organizations were key in shaping how Communication departments look and operate today.

Major Research Areas (1900-1940)

From 1900 to 1940, major shifts in politics, society, education, and technology spurred new communication research. Five main areas dominated this period (Delia 25):

1. Communication and Political Institutions: Scholars like Walter Lippman (father of public opinion analysis) and Harold Lasswell (pioneering propaganda research) studied how political messages, propaganda, and public opinion influenced society.
2. Communication in Social Life: The "Chicago School of Sociology" (including scholars like Herbert Blumer and George Herbert Mead) examined human interaction, the effects of urbanization, and how media influenced culture. Their work helped shift the field from purely humanistic to social scientific.
3. Social-Psychological Analysis: This area explored individual social behavior in communication. Researchers studied communication norms and media effects (especially movies) on young people, contributing to ongoing debates about media violence.
4. Communication and Education: Research here focused on instructional communication and the impact of new technologies (radio, film, TV) on learning, seeking the best communicative techniques for teaching.
5. Commercially Motivated Research: With rising national brands and advertising, scholars like Paul Lazarsfeld pioneered studies on persuasion and advertising's impact on consumer behavior, recognizing the massive financial implications of mass media.

Formalizing the Field (1940-1970)

World War II significantly shaped communication study in the 1940s, with researchers like Kurt Lewin and Carl Hovland studying group dynamics and mass communication. Post-war, scholars like Lazarsfeld, Lasswell, Hovland, and Wilbur Schramm pushed for Communication to be its own academic field. They formalized it by creating specific vocabulary, textbooks, and core processes for teaching.

Wilbur Schramm is often called the modern father of communication study. He's credited with creating the first university classes with "communication" in the title, writing specific textbooks, receiving the first Communication Ph.D., and establishing prominent research institutes at universities. His work led to the widespread formation of Communication departments across the country.

The 1950s saw important research in voting and mass media (Lazarsfeld) and experimental studies on persuasion (Hovland). This period brought together theory and practice, using experimental and survey methods to develop theories of communication.

Growth and Diversity (1970-Present)

The social movements of the 1960s and 70s (women's, civil rights, anti-war) pushed the Communication field to address new questions. This led to a rise in feminist scholarship from the 1970s onward, with scholars like Donna Allen and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell challenging existing theories and research practices. Organizations like the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender (OSCLG) and the Organization for Research on Women and Communication (ORWAC) were formed to support women's scholarship.

Remember our discussion earlier regarding the overwhelming exclusion of women in education, including communication study. In its report, Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities Summary Report 2013, the National Opinion Research Center reported that 649 Ph.D.’s were awarded in Communication in 2013. Of those, 403 were awarded to women. This means 63.2% of Ph.D.’s earned in Communication in 2006 were earned by women. We’ve come a long way from the Classical Period. Now, it’s more likely that you will have a female professor than a male professor! While change has been slow, it is happening.

Today, the field of Communication continues its remarkable growth. We now see a wide range of specialized areas, including: rhetoric, mass communication, instructional communication, interpersonal communication, group communication, organizational communication, intercultural communication, gender communication, health communication, visual communication, communication and sport, Latino/Latina Communication Studies, family communication, and many more.

Exercises

1. What are the specializations of the Communication professors at your school?
2. With the increasing emphasis on communication and information technologies, what kind of communication research do you think will happen in the future?
3. Why is knowing our history valuable for understanding the discipline?

References

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Dover Thrift Eds edition. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications, 2004. Print.

Baldwin, Charles S. “St. Augustine on Preaching.” The Province of Rhetoric. N.p., 1965. 158–72. Print.

Barilli, Renato. Rhetoric. U of Minnesota Press, 1989. Print.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Second Edition edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.

Blumer, Herbert. Movies and Conduct. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1933. Internet Archive. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Print.

—. A Rhetoric of Motives. New Ed edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Print.

—. Language As Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. Print.

Carlson, Cheree. “Aspasia of Miletus: How One Woman Disappeared from the History of Rhetoric.” Women’s Studies in Communication 17.1 (1994): 26–44. Print.

Cereta, Laura. Collected Letters of a Renaissance Feminist. Ed. Diana Robin. University of Chicago Press, 1997. Print.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Inventione, with an English Translation by HM Hubbel. N.p., 1960. Print.

Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the Social Order. Transaction Publishers, 1992. Print.

—. Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. C. Scribner’s, 1911. Print.

Covino, William A. Magic, Rhetoric, and Literacy: An Eccentric History of the Composing Imagination. SUNY Press, 1994. Print.

Delia, Jesse. “Communication Research: A History.” Handbook of Communication Science, Edited by Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee. Ed. Charles R. Berger and Steven H. Chaffee. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 20–98. Print.

Dewey, John. The Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Henry Holt and Company, 1922. Print.

—. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. Penn State Press, 2012. Print.

Gangal, Anjali, and Craig Hosterman. “Toward an Examination of the Rhetoric of Ancient India.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 47.3 (1982): 277–291. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Glenn, Cheryl. “Rereading Aspasia: The Palimpsest of Her Thoughts.” Rhetoric, Cultural Studies, and Literacy, Edited by Frederick Reynolds. Ed. Frederick Reynolds. New York: Routledge, 2009. 35–43. Print.

Golden, James L. et al. The Rhetoric of Western Thought. Iowa: Kendall, 2000. Print.

Golden, James L., and Edward P. J. Corbett. The Rhetoric of Blair, Campbell, and Whately. SIU Press, 1968. Print.

Gray, Giles Wilkeson. “Some Teachers and the Transition to Twentieth-Century Speech Education.” History of Speech Education in America. Ed. Karl Wallace. N.p., 1954. 422–46. Print.

Harris, William. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. Print.

Hovland, Carl I. “Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change.” American Psychologist 14.1 (1959): 8–17. APA PsycNET. Web.

Hovland, Carl I., Arthur A. Lumsdaine, and Fred D. Sheffield. Experiments on Mass Communication. (Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Vol. 3.). x. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press, 1949. Print.

Hovland, Carl, Irving, Janis L., and Kelley, Harold, eds. “Communication and Persuasion.” Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Print.

Kennedy, George Alexander. Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian & Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Univ of North Carolina Press, 1999. Print.

Laswell, Harold. Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York: Knopf, 1927. Print.

Laswell, Harold Dwight, Ralph Droz Casey, and Bruce Lannes Smith. Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press, 1946. Print.

Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix. Radio and the Printed Page: An Introduction to the Study of Radio and Its Role in the Communication of Ideas. New York: Duell, Pearc and Sloan, 1940. Print.

Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. Print.

Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, Cantril Hadley, and Frank Stanton. “Current Radio Research in Universities.” Journal of Applied Psychology 23 201–204. Print.

Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, and Frank Stanton, eds. Communication Research, 1948-1949. New York: Harper, 1949. Print.

Lewin, Kurt. “Self-Hatred among Jews. Contemporary Jewish Record, IV.” Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. N.p., 1941. Print.

—. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics I: Concept, Method, and Reality in Social Science, Social Equalibria, and Social Change.”Human Relations 1.1 (1947): 5–42. Print.

—. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research.” Human Relations 1.2 (1947): 143–153. hum.sagepub.com. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

—. “Some Social-Psychological Differences Between the United States and Germany.” Journal of Personality 4.4 (1936): 265–293. Wiley Online Library. Web. 2 Feb. 2015.

Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Transaction Publishers, 1946. Print.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print.

Park, Robert E. “The Natural History of the Newspaper.” American Journal of Sociology 29.3 (1923): 273–289. Print.

Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie. The City. University of Chicago Press, 1984. Print.

Park, Robert Ezra. The Immigrant Press and Its Control. Harper & Brothers, 1922. Print.

PBS. “Aspasia of Melitus.” www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/htmlver/characters/f_aspasia.html. N.p., Oct. 2005. Web.

Plato. Phaedrus. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956. Print.

Rabil, Albert. Laura Cereta, Quattrocento Humanist. New York: Cornell University Press, 1981. Print.

Rarig, Frank M., and Halbert G. Greaves. “National Speech Organizations and Speech Education.” History of Speech Education in America: Background Studies. Ed. Karl Wallace. New York: Aplleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. 490–517. Print.

Redfern, Jenny R. “Christine de Pisan and the Treasure of the City of Ladies: A Medieval Rhetorician and Her Rhetoric.”Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition. Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995. 73–92. Print.

Rogers, Everett M. A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Print.

Smith, Donald. “{Origin and Development of Departments of Speech}.” History of Speech Education in America. Ed. Karl Wallace. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954. 447–470. Print.

Swann, Nancy Lee. “Pan Chao: Foremost Woman Scholar of China. No. 5.” University of Michigan Center for chinese, 1932. Print.

Theosophy Northwest. “Collation of Theosophical Glossaries: V – Vd.” COLLATION OF THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARIES 2006. Web.

Adapted from:

Paynton, S. T., & Hahn, L. K. (n.d.). History of communication study (Chapter 4). In Introduction to Communication. LibreTexts Social Sciences.