Three Problems of Communication, Essay Example

In the discussion about the three problems of communication, it is tempting to consider the first problem to be mostly mechanical. The problem is concerned with the accuracy of symbol transmission. Shannon and Weaver actually describe this problem as mostly mechanical (Shannon and Weaver 6). In communications, people deal with the problems discussed by Shannon and Weaver on a daily basis, and the anomalies that plague our communication illuminate its nature as a rule-oriented process. These rules govern the ways in which we transmit information, and we gain further insight in to communications by further examining how they affect human communication.

Shannon and Weaver describe the aspects of communication, beginning with a transmitter who sends a message along a means of communication to a receiver (Shannon and Weaver 7). Whether the means of communication is a telephone, a television, or just the air itself, all communication requires these three essential aspects. Obviously, without a transmitter, there would be no message and, without a receiver, there would be no reason to communicate. Indeed, it seems the first problem is mostly based upon the means of communication.

A good specific example is noise, which can interfere with the transmission process from transmitter to receiver. The fact that language, music, and any other form of communication can be disturbed by an outside force and have its original intended meaning perverted also seems to indicate that communication is a rule-oriented process. For, it seems, if there were no real rules of language or communication, then noise would not be a hindrance and would, instead, simply be noise on top of the noise made between transmitter and receiver.

Another interesting view on the rules of communication is brought up in the article by Umberto Eco, in which he describes a number of archetypal characters in the film Casablanca. From the recovered drunk to the betrayed husband, Eco shows how Casablanca uses the archetypes to tell its story. While his article is concerned with clichés, he shines lights upon how our rules of communication work in the film medium.

We know, for example, that humans are not as simple as those portrayed in the film or as the archetypes described by Eco (Eco 1995). The betrayed husband has a unique upbringing and unique motivations that are beyond the scope of the film. When we watch Casablanca, or any other film, we are unconcerned with the entirety of a character, and concerned with his or her role in the film. The archetypes are a form of code for us. We know what to expect from a jilted lover, a recovering alcoholic, or a voluptuous vixen because we have seen them all in film before.

It is much like a type of language. An audience is unsurprised when a dramatic scene calls for an archetypal character to act according to his or her archetype. If, for example, a jilted lover were to calmly accept the situation and move on, it would not make for a decent story. In reality, a human could have any number of reactions to a situation. We expect to predict the actions of humans less than we do the actions of characters on screen, and that is what makes archetypes much like a language of their own. We know that a jilted lover in a film will more than likely react dramatically and, if he does not do so, it is likely for comedic or ironic effect. Film makers work with archetypes in much the same way that writers work, not with words, but with descriptive phraseology and emotive language. These concepts do not necessarily define the work, but are useful in communicating with the psyche of an audience.

In this way, Eco and Shannon and Weaver show us how our expectations play in to our rules of communication. We require that communication be clear so that we can decipher based on the underlying rules of communication that go far deeper than the simple need to overcome static or noise, but that need sheds light on the nature of human communication. In addition, we see that discussions like Eco’s article on Casablanca illuminate our own expectations when it comes to the message being transmitted by a film maker.

Works Cited

Eco, Umberto “Casablanca, or, The Clichés are Having a Ball” (1994)from Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers, Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon, eds. Boston, Massachusetts, Bedford Books (1994). pp. 260-264.

Shannon, Claude E. and Weaver, Warren (1968). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.