Scholars Such as Brown (1992)

¶ … scholars such as Brown (1992) and Osborne and Rose (1997), new disciplines develop and wane in interest due to the cultural practices and beliefs that sustain them. Therefore, psychology and sociology grew as a discipline in the 1800s because of the evolution of trends in society and culture. However, in the 20th century, many scholars and universities of learning debated about where to place communications, since this field has been steadily growing in relevance in most cultures. If it is to be studied as a discipline, should it fall under Humanities, Social Sciences, or Science and Technology and can it be held to the statistical scientific research of validity and reliability?

However, as can be seen through these essays in our book, communication is by no means unidirectional or only involved with one form of society or culture. Instead, it is a cross and interrelated discipline. The field's inherent communication can better be understood as a process or a procedure that consists of other disciplines such as psychology, politics, society, technology and economics. It also connects different disciplines, such as the technical and social, as when looking at how something such as television impacts Western society. or, for example, the influence of the media has made the field of communication be multi-dimensional, so it is not just a sociology, psychology or humanities area. It is too difficult to define it as existing by itself as an independent, isolated field of study.

This reinforces the thought of individuals such as J. Peters who stress the need to stop worrying about where communication falls within in the six social sciences and be more concerned about the need to reorganize information so it makes sense for today's world that does not have clearly defined academic boundaries. This should promote communication among the various disciplines, something that is very much needed due to the increasing complexity of the world.

With James Carey's ritual model of communication, there are specific steps that take place. First is the ceremony that occurs with the participants. It is a ceremony that is created and recreated in order to be a shared experience and establish a sense of community among those participating and of community and agreement across time.

The goal is not to impart information, but rather to enhance shared beliefs. It draws people together through fellowship and having and sharing something in common.

Burke notes that the importance of drama is finding a perceived similarity between the speaker and the listener. Then the audience is more likely to believe that the speaker is "talking sense." In other words, this could be called the commonality aspect of the ritual mode of communication. The more the speaker and listeners are similar, the more they will share common beliefs.

Goffman talks about how people represent themselves. If they represent themselves as honest, as they really are, then there is a greater chance for a ritual communication to take place. If they present themselves as something they are not or wear a mask of deceit, then others cannot relate to them and a commonality cannot occur.

Garfinkel discusses the order or lack of order in the world. Without some form of ritual communication, there cannot be order. The lack of commonality and cohesiveness leads to anarchy and chaos.

Performance can lead to or detract from ritual communication. If the person/persons performing have a message that is understood and related to by the audience members, then ritual communication can take place -- there is a sharing of thought and values. On the other hand, if those performing are completely alien to the audience, a sense of belonging and commonality cannot take place.