From Saussure to Buber: Six(ish) Degrees of Separation

 

            Throughout the semester, we’ve read a number of articles and books with interlocking concepts.  From Buber to Baxter and Montgomery, Bailey to Hart et al., the ideas put forth in each reading seemed to build off the last in one way or another.  So for this, I will attempt to connect some of the authors who have at least influenced our readings this semester to the work of Martin Buber. 

First Degree

            Famous scholar Ferdinand de Saussure (1959) paved the way for modern day notions of linguistics, revolutionizing the way in which we approached language and its societal uses.  In particular, Saussure identified the difference between langue and parole.  Essentially, langue constitutes actual language, or speech, including the specific meanings given to the words.  Parole, on the other hand, includes the psychological mechanisms; it is speaking, and takes in the context of the moment.  As Saussure argued, “Execution is always individual, and the individual is always its master: I shall call the executive side speaking [parole]” (his addition and emphasis, p. 187).  Because the act of actually speaking is always in the moment, is always bound by contextual aspects, it is necessarily an individual experience.  Additionally though, Saussure felt as though langue was more important, or more conducive to studying language;  however, many scholars along the way have argued against Saussure’s notion.

Second Degree

            One of these scholars who diverged from the path Saussure paved was Mikhail Bahktin (1981), who argued that language should be studied as a living system, rather than a closed one, to take into account all of the specific contexts that each interaction includes.  As Bahktin asserted, “A unitary language is not something given but is always in essence posited – and every moment of its linguistic life it is opposed to the realities of heteroglossia” (p. 270).  This notion of heteroglossia put forth by Bahktin refers to language-in-use, or to the in-the-moment contexts and situations that impact everyday communication between individuals.  The ideas and arguments surrounding this concept have impacted many aspects of communication, but one aspect directly connected to moment-centric communication occurs in research on certainty and uncertainty.

Third Degree

            Baxter and Montgomery (1996), expand upon this notion in their discussion of certainty and the usefulness of uncertainty in dialogic communication.  The authors discuss Bahktin’s sentiments directly, arguing that “personal relationships are not closed, determinate systems but rather processes of interplay between forces of certainty and forces of uncertainty” (p. 107).  As such, the authors proposed the parole was a more effective way of studying the impact of (un)certainty in dialogic communication.  They advance this notion further, arguing that “[a] dialogic perspective fundamentally challenges a view of communication as interaction between two monadic individuals, each of whom undertakes independent surveillance work in viewing the other as an object” (p. 118).  By doing so, the authors hit upon a topic we’ve discussed throughout this class: the idea of monologue vs. dialogue.

Fourth (and final) Degree

            This tension between monologue and dialogue is something that heavily influenced Marin Buber’s (1958) I and Thou.  In his discussion of I/Thou communication, Buber asserted “All modern attempts to interpret this primal reality of dialogue as a relation of the I to the Self, or the like – as an event that is contained within the self-sufficient interior life of man – are futile: they take their place in the abysmal history of destruction of reality” (p. 68).   Essentially, Buber argued that, on the spectrum of communication, individuals and conversations varied in levels of how personal they were, the most personal of which was I/Thou communication.  By following Buber’s assertion, individuals could be engaged in a conversation with another individual but still be engaging in monologue.  In order for individuals to truly experience dialogic communication, one must take the focus off of oneself and be truly engaged and active in what the other is saying/feeling.  This notion of dialogic communication, as well as looking past the self and opening oneself up to the “other,” is clearly a tying factor that connects many of the readings we have encountered throughout the semester, greatly influencing interpersonal communication, and the field of communication studies in general. 

References

Bahktin, M. M. (1981).  The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bahktin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. (1996).  Relating dialogues and dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) New York: Scribner.

de Saussure, F. (1959).  Course in general linguistics. (W. Baskin, Trans.; C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with A. Reidlinger, Eds.).  In R.T. Craig & H.L. Muller (Eds.), Theorizing Communication (pp. 357-360). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.