What Is Theory? 1
What is Theory?
Jure Belamaric
Communication 480
Professor Hack
September 24, 2009
What is Theory? 2
What is Theory?
The perspective of interpretive communication, also known as rhetorical
criticism, can best be defined as a theory of communication which uses qualitative
research methods. These methods include the study of text books and ethnography. This
perspective is tested along with the objective approach; which uses quantitative research
to determine the reason of success for a monster.com commercial that ran during the
super bowl (Griffin, 2006, p. 9). According to Marty Medhurst, a faculty member at
Baylor University who was schooled rhetorical criticism, the commercial “When I grow
up…” is best understood as a redemption myth. It is defined as “an object of desire;
obstacles that block the realization of those desires, motivation to seek the desired object,
and a means to alleviate that guilt and possess the desired outcome” (2006).
Medhurst claims that the commercial is a perfect example of Kenneth Burke’s
cycle of guilt-purification-redemption. Viewers of the commercial hear the opposite of
what they expected. A series of kids speak about what they want to be when they grow
up. What’s disturbing is instead of wanting to become a doctor, lawyer, or business
executive the viewer hears the children listing the horrors of modern corporate life “I
want to file all day long, be replaced on a whim, and claw my way to middle
management” (Griffin, 2006, p. 9). Burke identifies this technique as “perspective by
incongruity” which he claims seems to keep the redemption cycle in motion.
Burk states that perspective by incongruity occurs when two items that do not
belong together logically or psychologically are placed together as they are in the
commercial (2006). The interpretative approach insists that the “incongruity of this
What is Theory? 3
pairing caused the observer to see the situation in a new light and to gain a different
perspective on the world” (Griffin, 2006, p. 9). Medhurst’s explanation for the 2.5 million
visitor increase each month for the entire year after the commercial aired is that the
viewers who are stuck in the corporate world doing jobs they hate. They are reminded of
their childhood dreams of becoming something more. The guilt pressures them into
wanting redemption which they feel they can achieve through monster.com to search for
a better job and have the hope of being purified (2006).
The interpretative perspective is superior to the objective approach because of its
many strengths and its flexibility over the restrictions of scientific research. The key
factor which sets these two theories apart comes down to understanding human nature
and discovering truth of human choice. “Scientist stress the forces that shape human
behavior; interpretive scholars focus on conscious choices made by individuals” (Griffin,
2006.p.11). This means scientists follow the belief that we are hard-line determinists,
meaning every move we make is a result of heredity, biology, and environment. So
basically we do not have the power to change our fate if the pre-existing conditions
prevent us from doing so. Griffin also states that “Once a principle is discovered and
validated, it will continue to hold true as long as the conditions remain relatively the
same” (2006.p.10). If this were true what would be the point of living? It is clear that the
interpretive scholars have a much better grasp on human nature. Coming from the
standpoint that we have free will, purists argue that every human action is ultimately
voluntary. We alone chose our fate (2006).
The idea of the commercial coming from an objective standpoint is that “the ad
can be designed to trigger memories that make it relatively easy to get people to act”
What is Theory? 4
(Griffin, 2006.p.11). It is stated in language that does not leave much room for free will.
Interpretive scholars use explanatory phrases that attribute a person’s actions to conscious
intent. They believe that reality is situational and open to interpretation, almost on a
case-by-case basis (2006). Interpretative scholars welcome the idea that a text may have
multiple meanings.
Another strength of the interpretative approach is how it is understood and
verified by others in the field. A good interpretive theory is usually identified by the
amount of support it is able to collect from a community of scholars. David Zarefsky, the
former National Communication Association President, states that rhetorical validity is
best when work is established and debated in a broad marketplace of ideas to produce the
most rounded answers. The objective approach does not allow community support or
community rejection for a theory. It purely relies on the ability to be proven or disproven
through experimentation. Griffin argues that “A rhetorical theory cannot meet the
community of agreement standard unless it becomes the subject of widespread analysis”
(Griffin, 2006, p. 47).
The aesthetic appeal is also a strength of the interpretative approach theory. For
example, playwright Robert Frost observes that “society can never think things out; it has
to see it acted out by actors” (Griffin, 2006 p. 46). To the audience Frost’s plays were like
a mirror image of society. His message allowed viewers to better understand themselves
and find comfort in familiar situations.
Kenneth Gergen, a college social psychologist states that theory has “the capacity
to challenge the guiding assumptions of the culture, to raise fundamental questions
regarding contemporary social life, and thereby to generate fresh alternatives for social
What is Theory? 5
action” (Griffin, 2006, p. 47). This leads to another strength the interpretative approach
possesses which is the ability to reform a society because it generates change in a positive
way by making social reform possible. This ultimately leads to better systems and brings
people together despite their differences.
These are some reasons why the interpretive approach is a better communication
theory than the objective approach. Lastly Marty discusses how he is aware of his own
ideology and fully admits that his personal values influence most of his conclusions. This
is actually not a negative or unprofessional approach, but a positive strength because
interpretive scholars place a high value on social research “that seeks to liberate people
from oppression of any sort. They decry the detached stance of scientists who refuse to
take responsibility for the results of their work” (Griffin, 2006, p. 9). Most importantly, in
the interpretative approach scholars insist that knowledge is never neutral. They
acknowledge that the researcher always has an impact on the research, and she/he
incorporates that research into the theory.
The major objection to the interpretive perspective is the possibility of error. Not
knowing what is absolutely true of the overall opinion is a fallacy which is the main point
the objective approach makes. “Scientists assume that Truth is singular. There’s one
reality out there, waiting to be discovered through the five sense of sight, sound, touch,
taste, and smell” (Griffin, 2006, p. 10). Interpretative scholars seek truth as well, but they
are more cautious about the possibility of showing objective truth, even if it is not one
hundred percent fool-proof. “An objective approach theory is credible because it fulfills
what the leading text of social research method calls the “twin objectives of scientific
knowledge.” (Griffin, 2006, p. 39). A good objective theory will explain a possible
What is Theory? 6
future event or future human behavior. This method provides a way of clarifying and
better sense-making of a confusing situation. The interpretative approach provides us
with a more humanistic view that art captures the human imagination, which suggests
that the human mind is so powerful it can predict what is going to happen without using
statistics.
Even though the objective approach does seem to be more on the logical side and
has good methodology, the interpretative approach is still superior. The objective
approach holds true to the concept of resonance which makes it relatively easy to get
people to act but is not able to give a persuasive message that motivates people in a
certain way. Overall, the interpretative approach to communication is clearly identified as
being a stronger and a more superior method of research.