The “Decline” of Messages and the “Rise” of Information: Reflections on Communication as a Selection System
(1) Department of Communication Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
The rapid development of digital technology has fundamentally transformed the landscape of contemporary communication studies. Information now circulates in large volumes, spread rapidly, and is often no longer structured within complete, coherent messages. This paper proposes the need for reflection through two questions: (1) How the possibility of communication can be constructed through frameworks beyond the logic of message transmission; and (2) to what extent communication studies that emphasize information can contribute to reducing the complexity of social problems in modern society. This reflection revisits the evolution of communication studies by challenging three influential theoretical perspectives: Harold Lasswell, Jürgen Habermas, and Niklas Luhmann. The Lasswellian model is challenged especially in the context of message confusion and unclear authority of the message sender. Habermas’ communicative rationality is confronted by the dominance of algorithmic logic and emotional expressions that permeate social media spaces. Meanwhile, Luhmann’s systems theory raises further questions regarding the relevance of communication studies in the digital era, where information circulates autonomously, often without requiring the active involvement of human actors. Within the information society, communication is no longer solely a bridge between subjects but also operates as a selection system. Communication processes occur autonomously through the selection of meaning within the social system and decoupled from the ‘burden’ of individual consciousness. This approach to communication as a selection system is particularly relevant for positioning the role of information within the increasingly disruptive digital landscape. Amidst the information flood and a growing crisis of meaning, communication studies need to move beyond the traditional paradigm towards more contextualized and systemic frameworks.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Alamsyah, Feri Ferdinan, Dian Wardiana Sjuchro, Siti Karlinah, dan Herlina Agustin. “Exploring the Different Opportunities For Information Diversity in the Digital Disruption Era.” Rigeo 11, no. 5 (8 Juni 2021). https://rigeo.org/menu-script/index.php/rigeo/article/view/759.
Alhabash, Saleem, dan Anna R McAlister. “Redefining Virality in Less Broad Strokes: Predicting Viral Behavioral Intentions from Motivations and Uses of Facebook and Twitter.” New Media & Society 17, no. 8 (2015): 1317–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814523726.
Arnoldi, Jakob. “Sense making as communication.” Soziale Systeme 16, no. 1 (2010): 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2010-0103.
Bausch, Kenneth C. “The Habermas/Luhmann Debate and Subsequent Habermasian Perspectives on Systems Theory.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14, no. 5 (1997): 315–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199709/10)14:5<315::AID-SRES173>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Bufacchi, Vittorio. “Truth, Lies and Tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 47, no. 3 (1 Maret 2021): 347–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719896382.
Carlisle, Juliet E., dan Robert C. Patton. “Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly 66, no. 4 (2013): 883–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758.
Castells, Manuel. The Information Age, Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. Malden: Blackwell, 1996.
Cohen, Amy J. “Producing Publics: Dewey, Democratic Experimentalism, and the Idea of Communication.” Contemporary Pragmatism 9, no. 2 (21 April 2012): 143–57. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-90000234.
Dewey, John. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. Athens: Swallow Press, 2016.
Elder-Vass, Dave. “Luhmann and Emergentism: Competing Paradigms for Social Systems Theory?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37, no. 4 (1 Desember 2007): 408–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393107307660.
Engin, Zeynep, dan Philip Treleaven. “Algorithmic Government: Automating Public Services and Supporting Civil Servants in using Data Science Technologies.” The Computer Journal 62, no. 3 (1 Maret 2019): 448–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxy082.
Feng, Yang, Chen Huan, dan Qian Kong. “An expert with whom I can identify: the role of narratives in influencer marketing.” International Journal of Advertising 40, no. 7 (3 Oktober 2021): 972–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1824751.
Fiske, John. Introduction to Communication Studies. 3 ed. London: Routledge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837382.
Fuchs, Christian. Digital Capitalism: Media, Communication and Society Volume Three. London: Routledge, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003222149.
Fuchs, Christian, dan Wolfgang Hofkirchner. “Autopoiesis and Critical Social Systems Theory.” Dalam Autopoiesis in Organization Theory and Practice, disunting oleh Rodrigo Magalhães dan Ron Sanchez, 111–29. Bingley: Emerald, 2009.
Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
Feeney, Mary K., Eric Welch, dan Meg Haller. “Social Media, Civic Engagement, and Technology Use in Local Government Agencies: Findings from a National Survey.” IPCE Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement Report. Chicago: University of Illinois Chicago, 12 Juni 2012. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3069940.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
———. “Towards a theory of communicative competence.” Inquiry 13, no. 1–4 (1970): 360–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597.
Hill, Richard, “The Coming of Post Industrial Society,” Insurgent Sociologist 4, no. 3 (1974): 37–51.
Holmström, Susanne. “Niklas Luhmann: Contingency, Risk, Trust and Reflection.” Public Relations Review 33, no. 3 (2007): 255–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.003.
Kim, Ji Won. “They Liked and Shared: Effects of Social Media Virality Metrics on Perceptions of Message Influence and Behavioral Intentions.” Computers in Human Behavior 84 (2018): 153–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.030.
Lasswell, Harold D. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” Dalam The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses, disunting oleh Lyman Bryson, 37–51. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 1948.
———. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society.” İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, no. 24 (2007): 215–28.
Lee, Daniel. “The Society of Society: The Grand Finale of Niklas Luhmann.” Sociological Theory 18, no. 2 (1 Juli 2000): 320–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00102.
Lepage-Richer, Théo, dan Fenwick McKelvey. “States of Computing: On Government Organization and Artificial Intelligence in Canada.” Big Data & Society 9, no. 2 (1 Juli 2022): 20539517221123304. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221123304.
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, dan John Cook. “Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the ‘post-truth’ era.” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6, no. 4 (2017): 353–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
Littlejohn, Stephen W., dan Karen A. Foss. Theories of Human Communication: Tenth Edition. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2010.
Luhmann, Niklas. Introduction to Systems Theory. Disunting oleh Dirk Baecker. Diterjemahkan oleh Peter Gilgen. Cambridge: Polity, 2013.
———. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.
Ma, Xiaoyu, dan Xu Fan. “A Review of the Studies on Social Media Images from the Perspective of Information Interaction.” Data and Information Management 6, no. 1 (1 April 2022): 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2022.100004.
Neves, Marcelo. “From the Autopoiesis to the Allopoiesis of Law.” Journal of Law and Society 28, no. 2 (2001): 242–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00188.
Oztemel, Ercan, dan Samet Gursev. “Literature Review of Industry 4.0 and Related Technologies.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31, no. 1 (2020): 127–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1433-8.
Prier, Jarred. “Commanding the trend: Social media as information warfare.” Dalam Information Warfare in the Age of Cyber Conflict. London: Routledge, 2020.
Rowe, Gene, dan Lynn J. Frewer. “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 30, no. 2 (2005): 251–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.
Sapienza, Zachary S., Iyer ,Narayanan, dan Aaron S. and Veenstra. “Reading Lasswell’s Model of Communication Backward: Three Scholarly Misconceptions.” Mass Communication and Society 18, no. 5 (3 September 2015): 599–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1063666.
Schultz, Friederike, Sonja Utz, dan Anja Göritz. “Is the Medium the Message? Perceptions of and Reactions to Crisis Communication via Twitter, Blogs and Traditional Media.” Public Relations Review 37, no. 1 (1 Maret 2011): 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001.
Tellis, Gerard J., Deborah J. MacInnis, Seshadri Tirunillai, dan Yanwei Zhang. “What Drives Virality (Sharing) of Online Digital Content? The Critical Role of Information, Emotion, and Brand Prominence.” Journal of Marketing 83, no. 4 (1 Juli 2019): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919841034.
Vanderstraeten, Raf. “Parsons, Luhmann and the Theorem of Double Contingency.” Journal of Classical Sociology 2, no. 1 (1 Maret 2002): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X02.
Vásquez, Consuelo, dan Rubén Dittus Benavente. “Revisiting Autopoiesis: Studying the Constitutive Dynamics of Organization as a System of Narratives.” Management Communication Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1 Mei 2016): 269–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915620492.
Waisbord, Silvio. “Truth is What Happens to News: On journalism, fake news, and post-truth.” Journalism Studies 19, no. 13 (3 Oktober 2018): 1866–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881.
Walsh, Michael James, dan Shannon Jay Clark. “Co-Present Conversation as ‘Socialized Trance’: Talk, Involvement Obligations, and Smart-Phone Disruption.” Symbolic Interaction 42, no. 1 (2019): 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.38.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ret.v13i1.11871
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 Nur Imroatus Sholikhah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora is published by the Graduate Program in Cultural Studies at Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Retorik is also available in print edition. Please click here for contact information.