The sharing of meaning

Definitions of communication abound. Indeed, a famous text explores 126 different definitions of the term (Dance and Larson 1976).

We won’t be using 126 definitions in this textbook – although we will acknowledge the complexity of communication and the multiple perspectives from which it can be understood.

So let’s establish our definition. This book defines communication as the sharing of meaning.

I first came across this idea of “sharing meaning” in a book called Communicating as Professionals, which, as the title suggests, writes to a readership of professional practitioners and offers suggestions for improving communication in professional contexts. The authors, Terry Mohan et al., define communication as “the sharing of meaning through information, ideas and feelings” (2008: 5). The influential Spanish sociologist and media theorist Manuel Castells uses a similar definition in his book Communication Power, where he defines communication as “the sharing of meaning through the exchange of information” (Castells 2013: 54).

If we, like Castells and Mohan et al., think of communication as the “sharing of meaning”, it quickly becomes apparent that such “shared meaning” can take many forms and serve many purposes. You can share meaning through body language, through what you choose to wear or how you decorate the space around you. You can share meaning through signs, symbols, gestures, and culturally constructed actions. Sending someone a bunch of flowers on their birthday is an act of communication, whether or not you are there to deliver the flowers in person or provide a written note. In fact, you might give someone a bunch of flowers in many different contexts and you might choose different flowers for different situations because your choice of flower communicates something; it allows you to share particular meanings.

We can share meaning unintentionally. Even when we try to refrain from communicating, we are usually sharing something.

For example, a student who keeps their camera off during an online seminar might do so because they don’t want to share meaning about their identity, their surroundings, or the fact that they are driving or cooking dinner when they should be listening to their lecturer. By keeping their camera off, the student thinks they are not communicating. But if the lecturer sees a black square where the student’s face should be, they might interpret this as a lack of engagement, or even as rudeness. So the student has communicated with the lecturer, sharing a meaning they probably did not intend to share.

At the other end of the spectrum, communication can be a highly strategic and intentional practice. A communication strategy is a detailed plan for how you will engage with your audience – a sort of blueprint for communicating with stakeholders and target publics, where every aspect of the meaning-making process is carefully controlled.

Even if we’re being strategic or intentional, we can share meaning in different ways and contexts, seeking diverse impacts and informed by diverse objectives. An artist might share meaning in a way that is abstract, designed to impact us on an emotional or even visceral level. An activist might share meaning in a way that is provocative, designed to grab our attention and shake up our preconceived ideas – for example, throwing food at an artwork (an act of communication used in recent years by climate activist groups).

Meaning can also be shared in a way that’s designed to be clear, impactful, and so vital that it saves lives. During natural disasters, communication is essential to survival: emergency responders use various channels to share information with communities, including social media, radio, text messages, and face-to-face communication in the form of door-knocks or public announcements.

When we use this word “share” to describe the process of communication, we find we’re able to move behind the limits of transmission. To share something is not to transmit but to apportion, to distribute, to co-inhabit, even to co-create; it is a practice that involves multiple contributors or participants. When I share meaning with you by writing these words, we are occupying the same exciting and uneasy space of potential understanding.

Beyond “understanding” – negotiating and contesting meaning

Understanding is, of course, the desired outcome of communication. When we share meaning with someone, we hope that person or people will understand us. If they do, we can claim that communication has taken place. In order to facilitate understanding, we follow particular rules, codes, and conventions that we’ve learned over time, including language and the cultural nuances that inflect upon its use.

But understanding is a desired outcome, not a guaranteed one. In other words, communication is also something that can go wrong. There can be failures of communication – misunderstanding happens all the time, as does communication breakdown. Technology can both enable or disrupt our communication processes, and a failure of technology can lead to interruptions in the sharing of meaning. The problem may also be a lack of access to technologies of communication or a lack of the skills needed to use a particular technological tool.

Communication can also fail if there’s a problem with how you try to get your message across. A communicator who is obtuse, abrupt, confusing, or offensive may limit the ability of their audience to understand their message and therefore to partake in the meaning-sharing practice they are trying to initiate.

Part of being an effective communicator, then, involves recognising the potential barriers to the sharing of meaning. An effective communicator will always ask, how can understanding be enabled in the face of these barriers?

Yet understanding does not exclusively involve agreement. And this is important. We can understand a message but also disagree with it. Understanding may be the first step in a process of unpacking, reworking, or speaking out against a message. As the German sociologist and philosopher Niklas Luhmann once wrote, “Communication can be used to indicate dissent. Strife can be sought” (1992: 255).

If you’re reading this chapter because you’re looking for ways to improve your communication skills, you may be interested primarily in how to achieve agreement. But in this book, we are also interested in the strife.

So let’s build on our definition. Communication is a process through which meaning is shared, but this process is not always (or indeed, often) a smooth one. With this in mind, we might describe communication as the act of sharing, negotiating, and contesting meaning. In the chapters ahead, we’ll explore how communication shapes meaning as well as sharing it. And let’s not forget where we started: if communication can indeed save the planet, we must explore the ways in which communication shapes not just meaning but action.