What’s communication?

It is possible that the first thing that comes to mind if we ever ask ourselves this question is something similar to the transmission of information. Many of us know the communication models that tell us about the existence of a sender of the message, a receiver, a code, a means of communication and a message. These models undoubtedly identify essential elements in the communicative process, but it is not enough to explain it in its complexity.

This, however, leads us to another question: is it worth analyzing the communicative process in its complexity instead of staying with a more simplified notion? If you work or if you plan to work in the field of education, the answer is a resounding YES. Moreover, an educator committed to his own personal and professional development, and to social transformation, must reject simplistic views of communication processes.

Much of the learning processes occur in and through communicative processes. Even when there is no physical educator formally shaping learning, if this person uses resources such as, for example, information on the internet, printed or digital books, mobile applications, dictionaries of any nature and in any format, it can be said that this person is in a communicative process. It happens that communication in our century allows us to communicate independently of the barriers of time and space. This is how we can learn from information shared by people months after they have made it available on the Internet; we can learn from people in simultaneous communication, but being located in different places of the globe; We can even send messages on topics that concern us through social networks. Each time information prepared with the objective of promoting learning is consumed, a communicative process is initiated whose participants can be, and often are, displaced in time and space.

Sometimes it happens that the information was not created for pedagogical purposes, that is, the person who created the resource we use to learn about something did not intende us to use it that way. It is possible that even a resource created with an intention be used for purposes that contradict the intention of who created them. However, can’t the same thing happen in communicative processes face to face? Something we say can be interpreted in different ways that we meant. People can use what we say or write very against our real intentions. Sometimes the messages we share orally or verbally cause effects that we did not anticipate, surprising us.

Let us note that, if this is so, if all the above is true, the simplification of the communicative process does not help to understand reality. If communication were the transmission of information, people would never misinterpret what we say. Someone who explained something to a group could be sure that all people would understand exactly the same. It would never be possible to use what we say against our interests. The problem of simplifying communication is the creation of at least two expectations that are not met. The first, that the issuer is the protagonist of the communicative act and, therefore, controls the understanding of the message; the second, that the receiver is a passive being, whose function is to receive information. Such is the vision of communication understood as the transmission of information, whose vocabulary uses terms of the Theory of Communication. The issuer, however, does not control the communicative act. Nor is he the protagonist. In fact, if we talk about the educational field and, let’s say, the sender is a teacher and the receiver is a student, by adopting progressive pedagogical positions, we would put the student at the center of the learning process. In this way, the receiver would be the protagonist and nothing could be further from the truth that he is a passive actor.