I taught communication theory at universities for decades. I learned that some theories lead us to communicate inhumanely.
Looking back on my days as a university research assistant, I recall how profs treated me like a lab rat in order to get me to treat freshman subjects like lab rats.
Professors dispensed pellets to us assistants in the form of tuition reimbursements and student wages. They knew how to get me to to do things that I considered questionable, particularly how I treated naive freshmen who were required to participate in experiments.
I learned how to lie and intimidate with a smile. All I had to do was tell the fearful students that their academic careers were at stake. If they did not participate “willingly” and “honestly,” I said, I would not give them the necessary academic credit. I fed them verbal and nonverbal pellets to achieve compliance.
One of the scarier profs who advocated such “behavioral” theory always wore dark sunglasses, making it difficult to gauge his emotions.
I was alone in an elevator when Dr. Sunglasses got on. He stood right in front of me, face to face, with no evident emotion and without speaking for the entire ride. I wondered if he was conducting a behavioral experiment on me.
Yet today, some communication theories are designed to help people effectively manipulate others. Their advocates aim to conform society to their vision of a good society, which is actually closer to 1984.
We professors develop theories that help people influence others. But do we think about the fact that the same theories can be used to influence us? Are we also lab rats?
I think that we all need to evaluate our own, implicit theories of communication. Are we seeking to create virtuous communicators and promote democratic discourse? Or are we manipulating and even oppressing people?
The data-driven communication theories behind contemporary politics might be powerful, but are they serving democratic society? Or are we voters becoming pellet-eating lab rats?
— Dr. Q