Modernism, Postmodernism, and Communication Studies — Comprehensive Study Notes
Modernism, Postmodernism, and Communication Studies — Comprehensive Notes
Purpose of Mumby’s essay: To reframe debates about modernism vs. postmodernism in communication studies. Argues against a simple dichotomy and proposes four discourses that organize how communication, identity, and knowledge are formed.
Four discourses identified:
(a) a discourse of representation (positivist modernism)
(b) a discourse of understanding (interpretive modernism)
(c) a discourse of suspicion (critical modernism)
(d) a discourse of vulnerability (postmodernism)
Additional concept: postmodern communication conditions – a lens to connect postmodern thought with communication studies.
Context in the field: Recent journals debated the disciplinary status and epistemology of communication studies, with critiques and defenses of how the field relates to modernist and postmodernist traditions (Andersen 1993; Bantz 1993; Levy 1993a, 1993b; Petronio 1994).
Core methodological tension: Many positions either denigrate critical/postmodern approaches or uncritically appropriate postmodernism, leaving modernism and postmodernism undertheorized and obscuring continuities between them.
Central commitment: View four discourses as different “games of truth” (Foucault) that shape how communication is understood as a human phenomenon, with ethical and political consequences.
Personal positioning: Mumby situates himself between critical theory and postmodern critique, advocating toward a democratic communication ethic while acknowledging postmodern critiques of totalizing tendencies.
The Field Context and Key Stakes
The debate over disciplinary status and epistemology of communication studies: The field grapples with questions of knowledge, power, and legitimacy within social science.
The crisis of representation: A touchstone for examining how knowledge is produced and what counts as truth within the field.
Four discourses as a constructive framework: Each discourse engages Enlightenment goals (reason, emancipation) but does so with different assumptions about representation, truth, power, and community.
The term “discourse” (Foucault, 1980b) is used to denote systems of possibilities for knowledge production, including who can speak, what counts as knowledge, and how subjects are formed.
The essay’s aim: Not to settle a fixed taxonomy, but to offer a productive way to contextualize issues of knowledge, power, and community in a time of flux.
The Modernist Project and Communication Studies: Four Discourses
1) The Modernist Discourses of Representation (Positivist Modernism)
Core idea: Positivist legacy rooted in Cartesian dualism – radical subject/object bifurcation. Knowledge/truth tied to the scientific method.
Key features:
Language as a neutral representation of external reality.
“Three c’s” of modernist closure, certainty, and control (pursuit of stable knowledge).
Research tends to treat communication as a conduit for already-formed ideas or as a hindrance to truth, rather than as a constitutive force in meaning-making.
Implications for communication studies:
Communication seen as instrumental or purposive: a vehicle for achieving predetermined ends.
Democracy reduced to competing voices in a marketplace of ideas, with limited room for a robust communication ethic.
Research emphasis on effectiveness and impact; relatively less attention to how communication constructs reality or power relations.
Key critiques and examples:
Shepherd (1993): Cartesian legacy leaves little ontological substance for communication; conduit model pervades organizational thought; communication as separate from power/identity formation.
Pfeffer (1981): Language and symbols contribute to power but do not co-create power; focus on resource interdependence and material conditions rather than constitutive communication.
Deetz (1992): Politics of expression shows how “expression” models neglect democratic participation and identity formation; governance of discourse matters.
Consequence: The representational model misses how communication can shape power and resources; treats communication as an “empty conduit.”
2) The Modernist Discourses of Understanding (Interpretive Modernism)
Core idea: Move beyond the strict subject/object split toward a dialectical tension where the mind actively constitutes knowledge (hermeneutic/linguistic turn).
Historical roots: Kantian active mind, Hegelian dialectics, Schleiermacher, Dilthey (Verstehen), hermeneutics, phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, pragmatism, Gadamer, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Mead, James, etc.
Central argument: Truth emerges from linguistic/interpretive engagement with a community; knowledge is grounded in the lifeworld and shared horizons, not in universal methodological rules alone.
Gadamer and interpretive modernism:
Truth eludes mere methodological capture; understanding arises from being embedded in a community of discourse.
Habermas’s Lifeworld concept: rational discourse occurs within a shared lifeworld; the role of language is constitutive of meaning.
Implications for the discipline:
Emphasis on how communication constitutes identity and community (e.g., organizational culture, ethnography of speaking).
Ethical critique of purely instrumental rationality; advocates for an ethic of open discourse and good will in dialogue.
Examples of interpretive modernist work:
Ethnography of speaking tradition: Philipsen (Teamsterville), Carbaugh (Donahue show as electronic community), Rawlins (discourse and friendship), Trujillo (baseball subcultures).
Organizational culture studies (Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo; Smircich & Calhs): culture as constitutive of organizing and meaning rather than mere background context.
Habermas’s Lifeworld-based critique of domination and emphasis on dialogue as a pathway to understanding.
Critical assessment within the tradition:
Deetz (1992) critiques Gadamer for lacking explicit politics; interpretive modernism may underplay power structures that distort dialogue.
Strength: advances a non-reductionist view of communication as the basis of social life; ethical orientation toward democratic dialogue.
3) The Critical Modernist Project: Suspicion (Critical Theory/Neo-Marxist Perspectives)
Core idea: While sharing social-constructivist commitments, critical modernists foreground power, ideology, and systemic domination; seek to reveal deep structures behind surface meanings.
Two dominant strands:
Neo-Marxist: Gramsci, Lukács, Voloshinov (superstructural, cultural/ideological dimensions of power); critique economistic explanations of domination.
Frankfurt School: Horkheimer, Adorno, and later Habermas; skeptical about Enlightenment as emancipation; focus on how rationality and reason can be co-opted by capitalism.
Key concerns:
Enlightenment critique: not a rejection of modernity but a reconstruction that recognizes the perversion of reason when tied to domination and control.
The “dialectic of Enlightenment” and the critique of instrumentality; Emancipation requires critique of how rationality is deployed.
Habermas and the modernist-emancipatory turn:
Rebuilds modernist aims with a linguistically grounded theory of communicative action.
Three rationalities: Lifeworld rationality (practical), System rationality (instrumental), Emancipatory rationality (self-reflection and freedom from domination).
Communicative action as both constitutive of understanding and a site of power/colonization by systemic forces.
Implications for organizational and mass communication:
Focus on power/identity relations, ideology, and domination; organizations as sites of meaning deformation and ideological control (Deetz 1992; Mumby 1987, 1988; Riley 1983).
Aimed at democratic reform through critical reflection and discursive practices that challenge domination.
Key figures and concepts:
Foucault: Power/knowledge regimes; power as diffuse, not sovereign; “games of truth.”
Adorno/Horkheimer: Dialectic of Enlightenment; critique of instrumental rationality; Enlightenment’s self-undermining tendencies.
Habermas: Reconstructs Enlightenment with a focus on communicative rationality and the potential for emancipation via democratic discourse.
Methodological stance: Privilege critique of ideology, power, and the politics of truth; examine how discourse sustains or challenges domination; aim for more democratic Lifeworlds.
4) Postmodernism and Communication Studies: A Discourse of Vulnerability
Core idea: Postmodernism questions the stability of knowledge, the sovereignty of the knowing subject, and the possibility of a single, universal truth; foregrounds contingency, plurality, and the politics of representation.
The crisis of representation intensified: Jameson’s articulation that Truth is radically unsettled; knowledge is contextual and contingent.
Core features of the postmodernist stance:
Decentered or “subjectless” view of the speaking subject; identity is constructed by discourses rather than pre-given.
Rejection of a fixed signified/signifier relation; language as a play of differences with meaning always deferred (Derrida’s différance).
Baudrillard’s hyperreality: the simulacrum can become more real than the thing it represents; signifieds lose their referential anchor.
The social science and anthropology influence: Postmodern anthropology critiques ethnography’s authority, objectivity, and representation; emphasizes fieldwork poetics and politics of representation.
The politics of truth and power: Foucault’s power-knowledge regime; truth is produced within discursive regimes; not simply discovered.
Different postmodern streams (not monolithic): affirmative vs skeptical, resistance vs ludic (Hennessy, Rosenau), etc.
Postmodernism and the discipline of communication studies: Is there a viable, postmodern, post-subject communication studies? Mumby argues yes, if we articulate postmodern conditions without relinquishing critical commitments.
Core postmodern propositions for research and practice:
Communication is a site of continual negotiation and contestation; discourses compete and transform identities.
Recognize that meaning is unstable and contingent on power relations; avoid universalizing claims.
Emphasize the politics of representation; examine who has authority to speak and whose voices are marginalized.
Postmodern communication conditions (Mumby’s synthesis):
Communication is potentially (im)possible; societies cannot fully close differences or fix meaning; discourses are always partially fixed and always open to transformation.
The social world is a sutured totality that cannot be fully captured or closed; meaning is always partial and slips due to continual discursive overflow (Laclau & Mouffe; Hall; Derrida).
Examples of postmodern research and practice:
Textual poaching by fan communities (Star Trek) – Jenkins (1988).
Gendered resistance practices in offices – Bell & Forbes (1994).
Scott’s (1990) hidden transcripts and infrapolitics of subordinate groups – everyday acts of resistance that undermine domination.
Subaltern counter-publics (Fraser) and postmodern ethnographies (Conquergood) highlighting marginalized voices.
The political nature of postmodern research:
Move beyond a simple opposition to power; examine how power/knowledge regimes regulate who can participate in dialogue.
The aim is not to replace one domination with another but to articulate diverse articulations and empower marginalized groups through analysis and critique.
Postmodern feminism and subjectivity:
Feminist scholarship contributes to the postmodern project by interrogating gender, discourse, and identity formation; emphasizes deconstructing gender norms and power relations.
Postmodernism and “subjectless” communication:
Meaning is not located solely in individual intention; speakers are interpellated by discourses; yet the interpellation is not unchallengeable.
Hall’s view: experience is structured by systems of representation and ideology; there is no experience outside these codes.
Toward a postmodern communication studies:
The discipline can retain a commitment to emancipation and critique of domination while recognizing the contingency and multiplicity of meaning.
The postmodern lens helps reveal how knowledge claims are embedded in discourses, institutions, and power relations.
Postmodern Communication Conditions (Concrete Implications and Examples)
Core philosophical anchors:
Laclau & Mouffe: The social is not a fixed totality; meaning is articulated through discourses that are partial and contingent, prone to transformation.
Hall: Ideologies constrain how dominance reproduces itself; there is no smooth reproduction of domination without question.
Derrida: There is nothing outside the text; meaning always deferred; signs refer to other signs, never to a fixed external reality.
Chang (1988): The possibility of communication is inherently unstable; signs disseminate endlessly.
Practical implications for research:
Employ genealogical analyses of truth claims and discourses; study how certain knowledge regimes emerge and persist.
Examine everyday practices of resistance (hidden transcripts, infrapolitics) to understand how marginalized groups contest domination.
Explore how offices, classrooms, and media produce gendered, racialized, or classed subjectivities and how these subjectivities can be challenged.
Notable empirical demonstrations:
Trekkies/Textual poaching (Jenkins 1988): Fans actively rewrite or extend canonical texts to create subversive meanings.
Office bureaucracy and gendered knowledge (Bell & Forbes 1994): Secretaries co-opt official structures to resist bureaucratic control.
Hidden transcripts and resistance (Scott 1990): Public transcripts show surface compliance; hidden transcripts reveal resistance that undermines hegemonic order.
Deconstructing masculinist knowledge in academia (Blair, Brown, Baxter 1994): Reviews reveal ideological mechanisms that privilege masculine norms and define legitimate knowledge.
Ethical-political commitments:
Postmodern discourse emphasizes democracy, inclusion, and the recuperation of marginalized voices; aims to democratize the production of knowledge and the means of discourse.
Encourages reflexivity about our own positions within knowledge hierarchies and the power relations embedded in research practices.
Feminism, Postmodernism, and the Discourse of Vulnerability
Relationship to feminism:
Feminism intersects with critical modernist commitments, offering gendered analyses of Enlightenment rationality and systems of domination.
Some feminist work aligns with postmodernism, while others critique postmodernism for relativism or for neglecting structural power.
Representative feminist contributions:
Campbell (1989, 1995): Gender and rhetoric, challenging the gender-blind character of rhetorical studies.
Spitzack & Carter (1987): Gendered dimensions of communication and the need to reframe the discipline to include gendered experiences.
Buzzanell (1994, 1995): Feminist organizational communication theory and reframing the glass ceiling as a social construction.
Relevance to Mumby’s framework:
Feminism contributes to the discourse of vulnerability by foregrounding how gendered power relations shape knowledge production and subjectivity.
Encourages a nonessentialist view of identity and subjectivity, recognizing that gender is discursively produced and historically situated.
How the Four Discourses Relate to Enlightenment and to Each Other
Continuities with Enlightenment aims:
All four discourses acknowledge the importance of reason, inquiry, and emancipation; they differ in how they conceive the path toward humane, just, and democratic communities.
Key tensions:
Representational modernism emphasizes control over uncertainty; interpretive modernism emphasizes dialogic understanding; critical modernism emphasizes exposing domination; postmodernism emphasizes exposing contingency and avoiding totalizing meta-narratives.
Habermas as a hinge between modernism and critical modernism:
Reinterprets modernity through communicative rationality within a Lifeworld/System dynamic; aims to preserve emancipation while acknowledging systemic constraints.
Critics and counterpoints:
Stewart (1991) characterizes modernism with a generic “social constructionist” label; Ellis (1991) critiques poststructuralism as inadequate for a theory of communication.
Mumby’s stance: Do not caricature these positions as mutually exclusive; instead, view them on a continuum that highlights continuities and differences.
Implications for the Field and Exam-Prep Takeaways
Key takeaways for understanding the ongoing debate:
Do not equate modernism with positivism or postmodernism with pure constructivism. There are nuanced continuities and tensions.
The four discourses offer a robust framework to analyze how communication studies treats truth, power, and community.
Modernism (representational and interpretive) seeks to understand or represent the world; critical modernism interrogates power structures and ideology; postmodernism foregrounds the instability of meaning and the politics of representation.
Habermas provides a bridge: a modernist project that maintains emancipation as central, while acknowledging the complexities of power and legitimacy.
Practical consequences for research design and critique:
When studying organizations, consider not only how communication reflects power but how it constitutively shapes power relations (power-knowledge regimes).
When studying media and culture, attend to how discourse constructs subjectivities and who is authorized to speak.
When engaging in fieldwork, recognize the politics of representation and the potential for researcher bias; foreground reflexivity and ethics.
Closing synthesis:
Postmodernism does not annihilate the modernist project; rather, it extends and critiques it by highlighting the contingency, politics, and ethics of knowledge production.
The goal for communication studies is a nuanced, multi-voiced discipline that can address social inequities while maintaining rigorous inquiry into language, meaning, and social life.
Short Reference Points and Key Terms to Memorize
Four discourses:
Representation (positivist modernism)
Understanding (interpretive modernism)
Suspicion (critical modernism)
Vulnerability (postmodernism)
Core theoretical anchors:
Cartesian dualism; Lifeworld vs System; power-knowledge; discourse; games of truth; intersubjective rationality; interpellation; différance; simulacra/hyperreality.
Central figures and concepts:
Foucault: discourse, power/knowledge, games of truth
Habermas: Theory of Communicative Action; Lifeworld/System; practical and emancipatory rationality
Adorno & Horkheimer: Dialectic of Enlightenment
Derrida: deconstruction, différance; nothing outside the text
Baudrillard: hyperreality; simulacra
Derrida, Lyotard, Jameson: crisis of representation; postmodern condition
Scott: hidden transcripts; infrapolitics
Fraser: subaltern counter-publics
Jenkins: textual poaching; fan communities
Important methodological moves:
Viewing communication as constitutive of social life, not merely representative
Analyzing discourses as sites of power, ideology, and resistance
Emphasizing reflexivity, democratization of discourse, and critique of domination
Final Note
Mumby’s conclusion reiterates the need for a nuanced reading of modernism and postmodernism and argues that postmodernism has “cash value” for communication studies by problematizing the relationship between communication and subjectivity, while preserving a commitment to democratic, emancipatory aims.
The discourses framework provides a practical tool for students to analyze scholarly debates, organizational communication, media studies, and fieldwork with clarity and depth.