Emancipatory Communication Theory

The idea of de-institutionalizing reality has been posited albeit implicitly by Berger and Luckmann in SCRT. They recognized the possibility of the

institutions‟ “diminishing effect” as they become non-viable and man‟s capability as a collective entity to de-institutionalize the same to make them

mode of interaction as proposed by Krippendorff (1991) in his Emancipatory Communication Theory (ECT) is therefore essential for the transformation to be emancipatory.

Applying such concept, the study explored on the process of

deconstruction and reconstruction through an experiential search for truth whereby people were actively engaged in feeling, seeing, hearing and speaking their war realities. Indeed Krippendorff (1995) stressed reality construction

should “not preclude human involvement like universal theories whose inherent imperialism discourages local understanding and diversity” (7).

However, the problem of being “trapped” in a given reality and belief system from one generation to another has time and again precluded people from the construction of their own truths. Because of the coercive social and psychological sanctions institutions imposed upon them they unwittingly yield

instead of becoming actively involved in constructing their world. “Entrapment”

is what Krippendorff called such a situation quoted as follows:

The traditional notion of power does not provide individuals the means to breakaway from this entrapment. Instead the individuals are pushed further into the pitfall because they do not provide the individuals the chance to recognize the trap. Thus, even the non-viability of the part of the system is felt, individuals blindly conform to the system because they do not recognize the entrapment as such (Krippendorf, 1991).

Entrapment thus may manifest itself through institutions (structures, systems of beliefs and practices) which have become non-viable and oppressive through time. Individuals are coerced into submitting because of their powerful

pointed out by Berger and Luckmann, it can be reconstructed and de- institutionalized in certain areas of social life.

Based on this assumption Pasumbal (2000) cited two alternative notions of power defined by Krippendorff as:

One alternative notion is that power always resides in social relationships, not in individual or groups- but in society. For instance, it is not the power of the powerful that forces the powerless into compliance, but it is the compliance that invites power to emerge (58).

Another notion is that power does not reside in objective conditions outside social relationships but in reality constructions invented; talked about and complied with by those involved (59).

Krippendorf offers these two alternative notions of power as options to liberate our minds from pre-structured beliefs of power using communication to deconstruct and reconstruct realities more viable to our conditions. Thus, he

declares “for a linguistic assertion to do something, someone must let it participate meaningfully within his or her reality construction” (1991).

As Krippendorff (1995) earlier suggested participation pertains to

human involvement that is both “socially constructive and reflexive” as opposed to some “universalizing theories that discourage local understanding and diversity.” And this means dialogical involvement that is participatory as well

as critical. It is participatory in the sense that people of diverse culture and local

circumstances actively take part in the “re-visions, re-articulations and

languaging” of their realities. And “critical because they are encouraged not

Gergen (1994) talks of dialogue and diversity in the same vein. Dialogue

accordingly is imperative through “communicative relations in order to generate

new orders of meaning from which new forms of action can emerge.” And that

diversity in reality construction should be taken into account because of “the

historical and cultural specificity of truth embodied in language constitutive of

one or more traditions.”

All the above suppositions revolved around “communication as

power”as Krippendorff (1991) proposed where dialogue and diversity come into

play. And as earlier stressed by Gergen (1994) for communication to be

emancipatory however, it should both be “reflexive and socially constructive.”

Communication in the form of dialogues therefore should be taken to have dual perspectives: it should be individually expressed and socially formed. In other words, to be self-reflexive, reality should be reflective of the individual‟s response (cognitive and affective) to a situation; and to be socially constructive, reality should be construed according to how the individual relates this reality to

others. The former would refer to the individual‟s subjective reality while the

latter to his or her objective-external reality.

Notwithstanding SCRT‟s notion of reality as a product of man‟s collective effort and number of concepts have emerged especially in the field of social psychology offering varied perspectives. This helped in clarifying the long-standing controversy between the self and the social. For example, as

earlier noted, Burr (1997) claimed that there really is only “false dichotomy”

fabric of the society he constructs. Such is the dialectic relation between man and society, where man is described both as the producer and the product of his reality. The study in effect examined how such paradox applied among war victims of diverse cultures while they dealt with their subjective as well as objective realities.