CRITICAL DIMENSIONS IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION THEORY: MEAD, DUNCAN, BURKE, HABERMAS AND KLAPP Valerie Malhotra Texas Woman's University April, 1979 No. 40 A paper presented at the Midwest Sociological Society Meetings. Distributed as part of the Red Feather Institute Transforming Sociology Series. The Red Feather Institute, 8085 Essex, Weidman, Michigan, 48893. CRITICAL DIMENSIONS IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION THEORY: ON PSEUDO-COMMUNICATION INTRODUCTION This paper represents a further exploration into the problem of the nature of communication in late capitalist society. Previously (1975a) I concluded that what Mead called "The Unending Conversation," may in fact be coming to an end. If Habermas' (1973:282) analysis that there is an increasing control of normative interaction by instrumental behavior is accurate, then it follows that society is becoming increasingly divided into two groups: the inmates of totalistic/massified institutions and the controllers/managers of those institutions. The purpose of this paper is twofold: First to develop a theoretical basis for hypothesizing that the "unending conversa- tion," is not yet dying out, but is being replaced by "pseudo- communication." Secondly, in-the process of the above, to note those aspects of symbolic interaction theory which best lend themselves to critical insight. In this regard it is not relevant whether or not the theorists examined call themselves 'Symbolic Interactionists." Rather, any theorist whose work in whole or in part treats social life in terms of acts of symbolic communication between persons is considered as a potential contributor to symbolic interaction theory. To this end it is relevant to note two trends in symbolic interaction theory. The first, represented by Mead, Blumer, and Cardwell does not readily lend itself to critical insight due to its neglect of power phenomena. However, theories of this type are useful to the extent that they provide ideal- type models against which to measure existing interaction processes. The second trend, found to varying degrees in the work of Habermas, Burke, Duncan and Klapp, deals directly with the influence of power on symbolic interaction. I will therefore trace the trend of Mead, Blumer and Cardwell's symbolic interactionism briefly, to delineate its communications model. Following this I will describe some of the concepts of Habermas, Burke, Duncan and Klapp which lend themselves directly to critical symbolic interactionism. MEAD'S "IDEAL-TYPICAL" MODEL OF CONSTRAINT-FREE COMMUNICATION Mead's model of self is non-deterministic, and therefore in keeping with a conception of human history as humanly created and potentially changed by communication. As I have shown elsewhere (Malhotra:1975b:70ff), Mead's model of self contains both self as social object, "me", and as acting subject, "I". Using reflective intelligence, which Mead views as the highest and most unique aspect of human action, the "I" may attempt to restructure the social world. (See Miller:1973,57-60 and Malhotra:1975,70- 75). While Mead admits that most human behavior does not necessarily involve this level of conscious awareness, he does not deal with the extent to which a conscientiously acting "I" may be repressed by power interests. Nor is he concerned with the extent to which critical capacities are developed in technocratic educational systems. Reflective intelligence can only function to the extent to which individuals are given critical tools. Concepts which allow for critical insight, such as the nature of a class-based mass society, are rarely taught in American primary and secondary schools. The decline of the humanities and liberal arts in the last decade has been well documented. This has meant a decrease in sharp and incisive written English, in the knowledge base of history, in the critical tool of logic, and in the transcendent imagery and reflective processes of the fine arts. (See Marcuse: 1972, for a treatment of the arts as critical tools.) Mead's concept of the act as a temporal event involving imagery of the past and future (Mead:1959,11 and Malhotra: 1975b,80), represents an important insight into the fluid, and hence potentially changeable nature of human experience. His insight that social objects are constituted in the process of symbolization makes for a potentially crucial breakthrough from the dogmatic world of "discovered" reality and facts in the positivistic framework (1962,215). Furthermore, Mead's exploration of the role of mental imagery in the act presents a potentially liberating view of the creative aspect of everyday life (1962,337f). However, Mead fell short in recognition of the way even private mental imagery can be controlled by power interests. Recent studies of the effects of violence on television are an example, as is the pervasive way advertising effects the construction of a self-image. Mead conceives of the social process as a participatory democracy where through the "unending conversation," the human community solves problems. This radically democratic model of constraint-free communication is used by Mead to describe simul- taneously the most scientific and the most ethical way of both viewing reality and solving problems. The model makes no distinction between instrumental-utilitarian action and normative interaction. This is because Mead assumed that participatory democracy existed and would continue to exist. It is to Mead's credit that he lived a politically and ethically active life in which he brought his theory to bear on social problems. however, he did not address the question of the social constraints of such participation, nor the question of false consciousness. Finally, it has been found there is good reason to doubt the pervasiveness of social consciousness posited by Mead in his concept of the generalized other (Malhotra:1977). Mead's thesis remains as an ideal-type model in Weber's sense, against which we may examine the extent to which social reality approaches such power-free communications. BLUMER AND CARDWELL'S SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM Blumer's variety of symbolic interactionism has done much to call into question the predominant concepts and methods of positivistic- functionalistic-statistical social science. His Meadian-based model of communications allows for the conscious creation of social outcomes, even to the extent of redirecting social institutions and in the realm of political choice. Blumer rightly insists that individuals must be viewed as: a. having selves, e.g. that they make indications to themselves, b. constructing their action, not merely releasing it, and C. taking one another's action into account (1969,80ff). However, his analysis begs several questions. Blumer does not consider whether individuals have sufficiently developed reflective capacities to consciously make "critical" indications to themselves. Any uncritical acceptance of the demands, wants, constructs, even language of any other is in effect little more than social programming. Secondly, he does not approach the question of whether individuals in a state of "false consciousness" may adequately construct their own action. The effectiveness of mass media in selling products through partially or totally false juxtapositions makes raising such a question imperative. Blumer also begs the question of the meaning of taking the other's behavior into account in a power-saturated society. Reflexivity does not count for much in a society where nonconformity carries severe economic sanctions. Similarly Cardwell, in his delineation of the assumptions of symbolic interactionism (1971,90-94) does little to elucidate how communication occurs through symbols. Cardwell assumes that communicative processes will involve mutually agreed upon norms. In addition Cardwell treats symbols in a mechanistic way, as if they first have an independent existence, and then persons agree about their meaning. Instead, a child learning to speak or an adult learning a new language accepts the dictates of a system of communication agreed upon long ago. Only after having absorbed an existing language may one quibble about meaning, or attempt to discursively justify general acceptance of a new word. In this connection, the mass media are a primary source of the manufacture of new words and the reinterpretation of old symbols. The first few bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony have been successfully trivialized first by a margarine commercial and then by the pop record industry with its "A Fifth of Beethoven." Now the theme is used as a background for undignified antics on television quiz shows and to convince viewers of the elegance of cheap wine. Similarly, new "words" such as "Stroft" (referring to allegedly strong and soft toilet paper) are introduced into the American vocabulary without regard for good lexicography. Corporate monied interests have more to do with the construction of meaning associations than do processes of normative interaction because they control the media; the means of sign and word production. Real meaning and rich symbolism cannot be so manufactured. What results is a cultural saturation of pseudo- meaning and pseudo-symbols which have the side effect of degrading all communication. This is why a critical approach to symbolic interaction is needed to expose the irony of power-based communication. HABERMAS' CONCEPTS OF "LEGITIMATION CRISIS" AND "COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE" IN RELATION TO PSEUDO-COMMUNICATION. Habermas' theory of communicative competence is based on the viewpoint that language is the basis of both autonomy and respon- sibility for the individual and social order: What raises us out of nature is the only thing whose nature we know: language...Our first sentence expresses unequivocally the intention of universal and unconstrained consensus (1973a,14). Genuine communicative understanding, and hence the competency of the user of language, depends on three assumptions. These are as follows: what is being said is comprehensible (can be understood), truthful: (that it can be believed in) and correct or right in light of existing norms. Responsible communication presupposes all three. If questions about any of the three do come up they must be resolved in constraint-free discourse. These norms underlying communication refer to the extra-linguistic social situation. "Strategic" forms of communication, such as lying, misleading, and manipulating are derivative of genuine communication. They exist as "parasitic on speech oriented to genuine understanding" (See also McCarthy:1978,287). In order for one to communicate competently, discussion must be unrestricted. No prejudicial opinions may avoid scrutiny. Secondly, one must be able to represent oneself freely. This may result both in extreme individuation and inviolable distance among the partners. Furthermore, one may impose no one-sided obliging norms, nor have any imposed on him (her) self (See Scott:1978,9). Such assumptions underlie all human communication, even if they are false and the persons involved know that they are false. Communication only continues so long as the parties act as if the assumptions were true: For the structure of distorted communication is not ultimate; it has its basis in the structure of undistorted language communication. (Habermas: 1973b, 17) For authentic communication to occur, the false consciousness produced in society must be overcome. A main way of doing this according to some critical theorists is to use the technique of psychoanalysis, at both the personal and collective level. (See Jay,1973) However, such Freudian psychoanalysis can only perform this task so long as families are a primary means of socialization. The possible demise of the family coincides with the de-structuring of the super-ego or normative motives. Habermas asserts that inauthenticity is pervasive and increasing in late-capitalist society, in replacement for alienation. This trend toward inauthenticity, continues because there is a continued increase in instrumental action which replaces normative interaction (1971b). In instrumental action the other is a means. One must learn to "project oneself" or "sell oneself" (Habermas: 1971b; T. R. Young, 1978). People are not able to communicate competently in an identity affirming way unless the truth, validity, and non- constraining norms exist. To the extent that communication occurs which does not meet these claims it becomes distorted, or "pseudo-communication." Relationships become based on a series of misunderstandings which are perceived only by a neutral observer (Scott:1978,8). Social "power" in Hannah Arendt's sense (normative power) only exists under such conditions which includes the premise that those involved in making decisions are not oriented to their individual success but rather are oriented toward reaching agreement (Habermas: 1977,6). When such processes of communication fail, "force" rather than social- normative power takes predominance. Communicative competence will only exist as long as persons are still socialized in an environment based on normative action. That is why Habermas questions the continued existence of the in- dividual, especially so long as an ideologically based "science" monopolizes the interpretation of nature (including human nature). This is because solving the technical problems of world civilization is increasingly taking precedence over motivations based on norms which claim to be true (1973a,128-133). Habermas' concept of "legitimation crisis" clarifies the issue further. A crisis occurs when one is deprived of "part of his normal sovereignty", (1973a,l). The resolution of a crisis therefore effects a liberation, at least for those having the crisis. (NOTE 1) A "legitimation crisis" occurs when the political system is lacking in rationality. It cannot justify its actions based on a normative principle that can be demonstrated discursively to be valid. This is because of the basic contradiction of capitalist society due to the private appropriation of public wealth and "the suppression of generalizable interests through treating them as particular" (McCarthy:1978,35). Advanced capitalist society avoids economic crises by diffusing the effect downward through the political system until it arrives at that sector of the population too poor and too powerless to organize against the sources of the crisis. Absorption of social crisis in the person/bodies of the powerless causes an identity crisis in those individuals who believe that the political system is governing according to justifiable ends. The motivation crisis which follows results in a crisis at the socio-cultural level where motivation for anything except civil and familial privatism is lost (Ibid.,73- 75). (NOTE 2) There are two ways the power interests can solve the crisis. One would be to open up public discourse. However, such discourse would expose knowledge constituted interests which would dislodge the existing unequitable distribution of resources. Therefore power interests give the appearance of responsiveness, using ideological appeals to maintain the status quo. (NOTE 3) The other alternative resolution to the legitimation crisis would mean the complete undermining of true discourse and normatively based communicative competence. Indeed, such an Orwellian alternative may be on its way, as means of socialization become less family based, and education becomes less oriented to teaching the essentials of communicative competence and more oriented towards filling positions in the technocracy. The decline in knowledge of the English language and the tracking of students into training programs supports the accuracy of Habermas' diagnosis. Certain populations, particularly minorities and the poor, are tracked into positions as "recipients of service." The jobless provide jobs. Although Habermas incorporates aspects of systems theory in his analysis, he is critical of it when he says: (systems theory) conceptualizes every social system from the point of view of its control center (1973b,5). The social system evolves by its expanding power as it reduces the complexity of its environment. Habermas contends that systems theory cannot adequately account for the existence of competent communication. Systems theory represents a technocratic consciousness which requires a philosophy of history where the political enlightenment and participation of the individual are perceived as superfluous to social organization. Society proceeds to grow in a natural-like way. This inherently uncritical bias of systems theory extends to the point where it conceals an obligation: "to pose problems in a way that conforms to domination" (Habermas quoted in McCarthy:1978,228). It is in the interest of those in power that true discourse not occur until after such a time as it is no longer possible due to a maximum technocratization of the socialization process accompanied by continued increase in distorted communication. Habermas failed to make the point, however, that pseudo- communication may also be detrimental to those in power. Even Bob Halderman, presidential assistant who gave complete loyalty to Nixon, felt that Nixon knew little of him as a human being. (NOTE 4) The crisis which Nazism and World War II presented for Germany affected the development of Habermas' theory and the theory of the Frankfurt school in general. In addition, the Frankfurt theorists tend to approach theory from the deductive perspective of social structure, following Marx's lead. It is important to note that Habermas' latest work is in the area of linguistics. Kenneth Burke started with the study of language, and reasoned out from there to "society" in an inductive manner. KENNETH BURKE'S CRITICAL SYMBOLIC ANALYSIS Kenneth Burke has developed methods for "purifying" communi- cation to uncover hidden motives (1969a). Like the Frankfurt school critical theorists, lie draws upon Marx and Freud. In his concept of "symbols of authority," economic aspects of authority relations are reflected in concepts such as "property rights." Authority relationships in legislative and educational hier- archies similarly reflect economic factors. During childhood, authority figures take the form of parents, teachers, doctors, etc. The psychological basis of political, economic and religious authority thus rests on the way these early relationships were symbolized (Burke:1941,305). The priest becomes "father." In American political life, imagery of the president as the captain of a "ship" or coach of a team are common. This is because Americans are raised with concepts such as "team loyalty" which involves the submission to the authority of the leader who usually also is viewed as an "expert." So it is assumed that the captain of a ship or the president of a country has expert technical knowledge and access to inside information. In this way, persons are "embarrassed" or "mystified," due to the hierarchal structure of social relationships. The person is "embarrassed" in the presence of someone with supposed exper- tise in another field. one does not know when one's opinions will seem silly due to inadequate knowledge. This is one form of mystification." Another is mystification due to differences of race, sex, age and social class. For example, the middle aged are embarrassed not to be young. The teenagers are mystified by those in their twenties. Men and women are imbued with the idea of both the "typicality" of the other due to sex, and the incom- prehensibility of some of his or her actions (See Burke:1969b,265f). Burke developed the concept of "hierarchal psychosis" to describe the extreme form of this kind of mystification. Per- vasive status anxiety and guilt are the inevitable results of life in a class society, where the codified system of laws, rules and norms cannot be perfectly followed. This leads to a pervasive sense of guilt and tension which is ventilated periodically through victimage. Relating this to Habermas' notion of legitimation crisis, victimage becomes a way of maintaining control, short of entering the reasoned discourse which would put an end to mystification and hence to an irrationally ordered economic hierarchy. Burke's method for demystifying language is an extension of the Freudian techniques of association, looking for puns and looking for opposites (See Malhotra:1975,137f). Burke's concept of symbolic "identification" and comic catharsis also are of critical importance. Identification is a term Burke takes from Freud's familial frame of reference and extends to the socioeconomic context. Identification can be uncovered in looking for the rhetorical functions of symbols (Burke:1979,19- 27). Activities being advocated are contextually identified with higher order symbols. Building of missiles, for example, is placed in the context of a "security" program. Metaphors are also used to make identifications, such as a politician addressing citizens as "members of the team." False or over- general terminology may also be used to make identifications. For example, terms such as "scientific research" may be used to describe the development of germ warfare technology. Other forms of identification occur through the use of non-verbal signs, such as style of clothing, hair cuts, and bodily posture. (NOTE 5) Extending the concept of metaphor to all language--all lan- guage refers to something else--Burke's "perspective by incongruity" is a method for forcing hidden meaning to become apparent. It is a technique of consciously looking for incongruous or even opposites to what is being asserted. For example, Don Juans past and present have used this manner of interpreting the lady's "No." Burke uses the example of the term "bureaucracy," which usually connotes dull, routine specificity and a lacking of spontaneity and imagination. If we look to find imagination therein, we will find phantasies underlying the nature of bureaucracy, such as the belief that the organizational structure is in complete rational control of its processes and outcomes. We may also begin to see the amount of spontaneous improvisation that actually goes on as the officials try to either save, face, or accomplish actual tasks that are not possible or controllable within the official procedures and policies. Burke also advocates the use of the comic perspective to gain critical understanding. Comedy systematically shows that nothing is what it seems to be on the surface. The suave international spy (in the form of Peter Sellers in The Return of the Pink Panther, a film), tears his trousers on a doorknob. The psychopathology underlying a science devoted to developing means of destruction falls apart when the scientist's technological discovery (a rocket-like machine that makes anything dissolve) is stolen by a madman who delights in his destructive power and says: "What is the life of one man in comparison with the destruction of a whole city." CRITICAL ASPECTS OF HUGH D. DUNCAN'S COMMUNICATIONS THEORY Building upon G. H. Mead, Kenneth Burke and others, H. D. Duncan has delineated a theory of society grounded in the model of social life as a dramatic enactment. Duncan's theory was from the start "critical" or "radical" in its intent (See Overington: 1976 for a similar view of Duncan). Duncan based his work on the belief that communicative-symbolic power was being misused (as with the Hitler regime in Germany). Duncan was interested in discovering the nature of society as a symbolic-dramatic process, and where and how it could become more humane and more of a participatory democracy (Duncan: Rules, unpublished manuscript). As Duncan said: When we repeat that the infinite mind of God cannot be known to the finite mind of man, or that scientific inquiry is "value- free" because it only discovers "laws of nature," we are in the ultimate reaches of hierarchal symbolism. only a method of analysis which examines critically the relevance of all radiant ends to social order can safeguard us from more Hitlers and Stalins (1969,271). Duncan looked for existing models of democratic communication: essentially the same as Habermas' constraint-free normative discourse. He found these in maxims, as developed in 17th century dialogue between courtly peers, and in the participatory democracy of the American frontier when that frontier was in what is now known as the Midwest. (Social Courtship, unpublished manuscript, chapter ten, page one). Emphasizing the importance of forms of action, Duncan was concerned with the how as well as what and why. "Victimage" which occurs and reoccurs in hierarchically organized society, is symbolically justified by appeals to ultimate symbols. According to Duncan, each act of communication involves an appeal for legitimation. There is a stated or implied appeal to a symbol of social order. Thus Duncan shows how legitimacy claims (or claims that the act is acceptable in the normative system) exists in every act. It logically follows that what is being said can be counted as truthful, and that the speaker is free to speak and act without constraint. In effect Duncan is showing how a model of communicative competency, such as Habermas,' is occurring. Yet Duncan recognizes that free communication occurs only between equals. However, even in the position of inferior, a person may not accept the legitimacy of the position of those higher in the social order. A superior depends on the acceptance of her/his position by 'inferiors' playing appropriate roles (for a similar concept of power see Arendt:1969). Social forms such as etiquette, customs, manners and decorum mean that one accepts the legitimacy of another's position (Social Courtship, p. 1). In social courtship persons look for affirmation from others of the right to certain roles. Duncan developed a typology which deals with the way communication occurs to various types of audiences. One must appeal to each audience in the appropriate form (See Duncan:1962,288f). One even strives for legitimation in one's own eyes in internal soliloquy. This is the basis of conscience. Crisis of conscience occurs when one cannot legitimate ones own actions to oneself, and thus feels guilt and shame. In each case, the response of the audience may validate or invalidate the truth, validity and normative claims of the speaker. The fact that these claims and validations constantly occur is illustrated by the idea of the "empty ritual." This occurs when one must act as if one believes the other to be truthful and unconstrained when one really knows these implied claims are false. For example, one knows the salesman at the door is motivated by the desire to make money. Interaction usually is polite, however, and does not assault the validity claims of the other. Rather, one typically looks for an excuse other than lack of belief in the truthfulness and unconstrained nature of the communication. This is one way that competitive economic or political situations undermine the claims necessary for true discourse. This power- based distortion of communication is amplified to the extent that powerful economic and political influences block opposing viewpoints from even being aired: "Whoever creates and controls the socio-dramas of everyday life controls our lives" (1968,236). Furthermore, powered interests also have structured the system of roles. Analyzing action as symbolic interaction using the Burke- Duncan "pented" (five sided process) is already a step towards critical understanding. The five parts of any action are: the act itself (what is done); scene (the physical, historical, social, situation); agent (the actors in what roles with what kind of background); agency (the means used to carry out the action); and end (to what purpose and according to what legitimate structure.) The use of the dramatic metaphor allows for an analysis of the whole symbolic context and realization of an action, and the extent to which power interests affect the process. ORRIN KLAPP'S SYSTEMS COMMUNICATION Using the popular (and in this writer's opinion unfortunate) metaphor of cybernetics, Klapp discusses the effects of informa- tion overload, that is where one is overwhelmed with the quantity of information with which one is presented. There are limits to the amount of information that can be accepted by the capacity of the human mind. The level of organization of facts also deter- mines their useability. Without adequate conceptual tools for assimilating information, it will be rejected, or "misfiled." (1978,55f) New jargon or terminologies which conflict with one's value system, integration of new facts, and the stress of irrelevance all add to the information load on the brain. Overload is dealt with in varying ways. Persons defend themselves from information overload by insulation and prejudice. In addition, there is a "meaning gap" in that students are typically exposed to lots of courses with no integrative theoretical perspective. (Ibid., 70-71) Meanings are rooted in conscious processes of mutual awareness. They are discovered in discourse. There is a need for redundancy, since the self is anchored in repetition of familiar themes. Klapp also delineates a series of factors which limit the level of tolerance of the individual for receiving information. one who has a high degree of internal tension, for example, will be able to assimilate less than someone who feels he is successfully coping. The degree of social noise, or irrelevant, distorted or overloaded communication, varies with the size of the city in which one lives. (Ibid., 77) It also varies with the type of work one does. Those who handle crises, take on other's problems, or those who do not specialize suffer more overload, as do those who barter conflicts or have marginal positions. Communication creates order--while entropy degrades it. Klapp delineates various ways that entropic communication is fa- vored: mass contagions, manipulations, and being locked into a mutually destructive pattern of role enactment are among them (Ibid., p. 83). Klapp's treatment is supportive of Habermas' notion of legitimation crisis: "...this is the danger of manipulation: that it degrades information to the point at which the benefits of knowing it turn to detriment." (Ibid., 99-100) Contemporary society is so full of manipulative communication that persons are inclined to "close"--that is to quit communicating and to reject those who are "signaling" to one as unfriendly. Klapp thus is saying we are suffering from a form of social catatonia induced by over-exposure to power-based manipulative communication. Klapp's concept of symbolic poverty (reminiscent of Jung) further attests to a negative effect of overloaded and manipula- tive communication. Symbolic poverty may be measured by an in- crease in the ratio of new things to old. Symbols cannot be in- vented, but can only be created through a long process of norma- tive communication. The more demanding or difficult norms are to follow, the more consistently they need to be reinforced in direct communication. Important symbols and values lose meaning unless they are part of a process of normative interaction where meaning is conferred and the viability of symbols retained. Klapp also reiterates the point, made decades ago, by the Frankfurt school critical theorists, of the degeneration of character models. Heroes of high moral fibre are hard to find. Klapp contends that the media are reinforcing male role models who are "self-centered, gluttonous, sex-obsessed, hedonistic, manipulative and violent with a mind attuned to triviality." (Ibid., p. 125) Klapp's idea of the "danger of stylelessness" bears a rela- tionship to Habermas' theory of communicative competence. (1969:112) Clothes traditionally were means of communicating varying statuses such identity defining characteristics as social class, age, sex, etc. These categories overlap and break down in the continued surge of fashion changes. (Recently women's fashions have moved from the 1930's look to the 1940's in a matter of months). The claims of truth, understandability and correctness within a certain normative system are no longer true in regard to fashion. Therefore the identity-confirming function of clothing has degenerated to pseudo-communication. We now change costumes in a perpetual masquerade. "Poverty of ritual" is also evident in that persons typically think of ritual as empty and useless formality rather than as a symbolic language with significance and deep emotional importance (Klapp:1969,118f). The new Romanticism emphasizes that each individual has a right to pursue idiosyncratic pleasures. The search for identity thus leads one to leave the "square world" and seek pleasures in increasingly hedonistic sensationalistic ways. Klapp discusses the way celebrities, both heroes and villains, are made and images created through "public drama" (1964). This phenomenon attests to the legitimation crisis in that being a popular hero or villain is not the result of publicly debatable discursively redeemable acts. Rather it is the result of the manipulation of public response through dramatic enactment. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In spite of recent criticisms of symbolic interactionism as a new form of conservatism there are a wealth of critical concepts in current symbolic interaction theory. Mead's model of democratic-scientific-problem-solving communication provides an ideal-type model, and a suggested epistemology for developing constraint-free communication. Blumer's critique of positivism provides further impetus for the focus on symbolic interactionism and for the importance of normative-interaction. However, Mead's Blumer's and Cardwell's models of symbolic interaction do not adequately illuminate the current crisis of communication. For this the key concepts of communicative com- petence and legitimation crisis of Jurgen Habermas are most crucial. They adequately reveal the pervasiveness of pseudo- communication in present day society. In this connection, Kenneth Burke's integration of Marx and Freud in his concepts of identification, symbols of authority, mystification, hierarchal psychosis, perspective by incongruity and the use of comedy present valid ways of going beyond hermeneutics into a critique of ideologies, distortions, and hidden meanings. Having started his work where Habermas has recently arrived, namely in the study of the linguistic structuring of the human world, Burke provides an extremely rich source of concepts for critical symbolic interactionism. Duncan's sociologization of Burke has resulted in additional insights. The importance of foes in interaction, the pervasive- ness of victimage, the typology of audiences, the pented, the ex- tension of the use of comic illumination and catharsis, and a search for existing models of democratic communication are among Duncan's contributions. Klapp, in spite of his recent (and inconsistent) desertion of the dramatic metaphor for systems theory, has developed the following concepts which are critically elucidating: information overload, meaning social noise, entropy, symbolic poverty, style- lessness, poverty of ritual, and public drama. These ideas are supportive of the hypothesis of the increase in pseudo-communica- tion and the possible end of normative interaction (the "unending conversation"). This would occur by destructuring the ego to the point where all action is instrumentally structured. An alternative to this "1984" society would be for the legitimation crisis to be solved by a re-legitimation through an opening up of discourse in such a way that the economic and power-based irrationalities of the existing form of late- capitalism would be brought to an end. Meanwhile, given acceptance of the above argument, several key questions in the area of critical symbolic interactionism remain unanswered. The first is an epistemology for discovery of the "truth," and a working model of constraint-free communication. Is truth always the result of democratic process? What about the hermeneutics of any existing social context of discourse? Should the majority rule,in cases of unreconcilable differences of interest? How does one successfully eliminate the selectivity of perception, the repressed observations, and the unconscious and socially conditioned biases even of those who wholeheartedly and unselfishly may enter the discourse? We are back to some of the problems Mead addressed in his approach to perception, science and democratic communication. What is needed is research which tests the validity of ideal-type models such as that implied by Mead. Also of utmost importance is research into the nature, effects, and possible means to alleviate the problems caused by pseudo-communication. If it takes the mentality of a Kenneth Burke to track down the hidden power-based biases of our language and thought human beings will have to evolve a long way before each relevant discourse will be critically exposed. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arendt, Hannah, 1969, On Violence. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Blumer, Herbert, 1969, Symbolic Interactionism. Burke, Kenneth, 1941, The Philosophy of Literary Form. Louisiana State University Press. 1969a, A Grammar of Motives. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1969b, A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Cardwell, J. D., 1971, Social Psychology: A Symbolic Interaction- ist Perspective. F. A. Davis, Philadelphia. Duncan, Hugh D., 1962, Communication and Social Order. Oxford University Press, New York. 1968, Symbols in Society. Oxford University Press, New York. 1969, Symbols and Social Theory. Oxford University Press, New York. Rules. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University Archives. Social Courtship. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University Archives. Gans, Herbert J., 1973, More Equality. Random House, New York. Habermas, Jurgen, 1971a, Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press, Boston. 1971b, Toward A Rational Society. Beacon Press, Boston. 1973a, Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston. 1973b, Theory and Praxis. Beacon Press, Boston. Jay, Martin, 1973, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923- 1950. Little, Brown and Col., Boston. Klapp, Orrin, 1964, Symbolic Leaders: Public Dramas and Public Men. Aldine, New York. 1969, Collective Search for Identity. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. 1978, Opening and Closing: Strategies of Information Adaptation in Society. Cambridge University Press, New York. Malhotra, Valerie, 1975a, "The End of the Unending Conversation: A Comparison of Jurgen Habermas and George Herbert Mead." Paper read at the Midwest Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois. 1975b, Towards A Sociology in a New Key: A Discussion of Dramatistic Social Theory. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 1976, "Critical Dimensions in the Social Psychology of Mead and Habermas." Red Feather Institute, Red Feather, Colorado. 1977, "Relating Mead's Model of Self and Phenomenology: An Empirical Analysis." The Wisconsin Sociologist, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 8-23. Marcuse, Herbert, 1972, Counterrevolution and Revolt. Beacon Press, Boston. McCarthy, Thomas, 1978, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Beacon Press, Boston. Mead, George Herbert, 1959, The Philosophy of the Present. Open Court, La Salle, Illinois. 1962, Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press. 1964, Selected Writings., ed. by Andrew J. Reck, Bobbs- Merrill, Indianapolis. Miller, David L., 1973, George Herbert Mead: Self, Language and the World. University of Texas Press, Austin. Mills, C. Wright, 1956, White Collar. Oxford University Press, New York. "The New Republic," January 17, 1979, Vol. 180, No. 4, Washington, D. C. Overington, Michael A., 1976, "Policy Research and the Future: An Example for a Critical Symbolic Interactionism. (Socio- logical Focus, Vol. 9, No., 3). Scott, John P., 1978,"Critical Social Theory: An Introduction and Critique:' British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 1, March. Young, T. R., 1976, "Critical Dimensions in Dramaturgical Analysis, Part II: Backstage at the Whitehouse." Paper presented at the American Sociological Association annual meeting in New York. 1978, "Some Theses on the Structure of the Self: A Marxist Perspective." Red Feather Institute, Colorado. NOTES 1. The notion of crisis has normative implications which Habermas has not dealt with, for according to this definition, a crisis to one person could be an increase in freedom for another. However it would take us too far off the purpose of this paper to deal with this at this point). (See Gans:1973 for an elaboration). 2. Certainly Watergate, the Kennedy and King assassinations and resulting controversies, the events of the 60's in general, followed by a withdrawal of the cynical or exhausted public into privatism make the legitimation crisis hypothesis plausible. 3. Such appeals to 'cultural capital' include patriotism, fundamentalist religion, racism, gay-bashing, family values, foreign enemies, pseudo-scientific findings about I.Q., crime or other such tactics which deflect attention from social relations to cultural values (T.R.Y., editor of the Series). 4. The New Republic, January 17, 1979, p. 3. See also T. R. Young, 1976, for an analysis of the dramaturgy of the last days of the Nixon whitehouse in the context of the "self-fulfilling prophecy and the sociology of fraud. 5. Mills in White Collar, 1956, amplified on the detrimental economic effects on white collar workers who identify by style of dress with management.