Roy
Harris
Online
Integrationism
An
integrational approach to communication
The main focus of my research for the past 25 years has been the development
of an integrational approach to signs and semiological systems, and hence
to all human communication. This involves looking at current educational
practice, together with the whole history of linguistic thought from Plato
down to the present day, in a perspective that differs radically from
the orthodox view presented by traditional authorities. Integrationism
has important implications for our understanding of interpersonal relations,
as well as of modern society and its communicational resources, including
the entire range of arts and sciences.
Communication
as a creative activity
All forms of communication, when seen from an integrational perspective,
demand continuously monitored creative activity. Even the most trivial
act of communication is subject to this requirement. Communication, in
other words, is not a closed process of automatic 'transmission' of given
signs or messages from one person's mind to another's, but of setting
up conditions which allow all parties involved the free construction of
possible interpretations, depending on the context. These contextual possibilities
are intrinsically ongoing and open-ended. (This applies to my – or
anyone else's – statement of them.) This open-endedness outstrips
and defies any 'rules' or 'codes' that participants may think can be imposed,
either in advance or retrospectively.
Integration
and time
Postulating the indeterminacy of communication is not the end but only
the beginning of wisdom for anyone who takes the philosophy of the subject
seriously. One reason for this indeterminacy is that all communication
is time-bound. Its basic temporal function is to integrate our present
experience (T1) both with our past experience (T-1)
and with anticipated future experience (T+1). (It
hardly needs pointing out that the idea of indicating temporal sequence
arithmetically as a configuration of 'plus' and 'minus' values, although
convenient for purposes of succinct exposition, already begs various important
questions about time and signs.) The main point is this. In a timeless
world, that temporal integration would not be possible: there could be
no signs and no language. So the first precondition for any society that
depends on semiological proficiency (operating with signs) is that the
participant members must be creatures capable of grasping that integrational
process and its temporal implementation.
Integrationism
versus segregationism
Recognition of this fundamental integrational function provides a basis
for comparing and analysing all communication systems, both linguistic
and non-linguistic. Such an analysis stands in marked contrast to traditional
semiology, where the reigning assumption is that there must already exist
established systems of signs (e.g. languages), without which communication
would be doomed to failure. Thus integrationism (as opposed to 'segregationism',
i.e. any approach which assumes that systems of communication are independent
of their potential users or of the contexts in which they can operate)
denies the existence of context-free signs. Signs, including linguistic
signs, are products of the communicational process, not its prerequisites.
Three
integrational parameters
Integrationist theory recognizes three parameters relevant to the identification
of signs within the temporal continuum. These are (i) biomechanical, (ii)
macrosocial, and (iii) circumstantial. The first of these relates to the
physical and mental capacities of the individual participants. The second
relates to practices established in the community or some group within
the community. The third relates to the specific conditions obtaining
in a particular communication situation.
Signs
and rules
By contrast, segregational approaches treat communication as a process
by which two individuals, A and B, both already knowing a particular system
of signs, choose signs from this given system in order to pass messages
to each other. Accordingly, communication can only break down if A or
B misapplies the system they are both deemed to be using. But the system
itself is, ex hypothesi, adequate for 'conveying' the messages
required. It allegedly stands, epistemologically, 'above' and 'beyond'
its users and their individual circumstances. In this respect, orthodox
theory implicitly treats communication systems as being analogous to institutionalized
games, which cannot be played properly unless the individual players not
only understand and master but consciously abide by the institutionalized
rules.
Integrationism questions this rule-based 'games' approach to human communication, regarding it as an attempt to impose a pre-determined static model on an essentially dynamic and creative process. Only by rejecting static models does it become possible to explain linguistic change or the development in human history of quite novel forms of communication, such as writing or television, that are semiologically unique and unprecedented, but nevertheless rooted in the biomechanical, macrosocial and circumstantial conditions obtaining at a particular time and place.
The
language myth and demythologization
The
integrationist approach to language rejects the 'language myth' that has
dominated Western thinking on the subject for centuries past. This myth
continues to dominate modern linguistics, whose orthodox exponents postulate
idealized linguistic communities bound together by shared systems of known
rules and meanings. The integrationist agenda offers the prospect of an
alternative: a demythologized linguistics which corresponds more realistically
to our day-to-day communicational experience. High on this alternative
agenda are the demythologization of the concept 'language', the demythologization
of the connexions between speech and writing, and the demythologization
of the linguistic relationships between individual and society.
For further discussion of Integrationism and its role in redefining communication please see Integrationism: a very brief introduction
