Introduction
Interpersonal communication, often defined by scholars as communication between two or more individuals, serves as a fundamental concept in the study of media and communication theories. This definition encapsulates a broad spectrum of interactions, ranging from personal conversations to mediated exchanges. The purpose of this essay is to justify this definition by exploring two critical frameworks: interpersonal messages and symbolic interactionism. These perspectives offer valuable insights into how communication operates as a dynamic, meaning-making process between individuals. By examining the role of messages in shaping relationships and the centrality of symbols in human interaction, this essay will argue that interpersonal communication, as defined, is both a practical and theoretically robust concept. The discussion will first address the nature of interpersonal messages, before delving into the principles of symbolic interactionism, and conclude with a synthesis of these ideas in support of the given definition.
Interpersonal Messages: The Core of Communication Between Individuals
At the heart of interpersonal communication lies the concept of messages, which are the vehicles through which thoughts, emotions, and intentions are conveyed between individuals. According to Trenholm (2011), interpersonal messages are not merely verbal exchanges but encompass non-verbal cues, tone, and context, all of which contribute to the meaning derived by the participants. This multifaceted nature of messages aligns with the definition of interpersonal communication as involving two or more people, as it inherently requires a sender and a receiver who engage in a reciprocal process of encoding and decoding information.
One key justification for this definition is the relational aspect embedded in interpersonal messages. As Burleson (2010) argues, messages in interpersonal communication are often tailored to the specific relationship between individuals, whether it be familial, romantic, or professional. For instance, a casual greeting between friends carries different connotations compared to the same greeting in a formal workplace setting. This adaptability of messages highlights the personal and interactive nature of communication between two or more people, distinguishing it from mass communication, where messages are typically generalised for a broader audience. However, it must be acknowledged that not all interpersonal messages are equally effective; misunderstandings can arise due to cultural differences or misinterpretations of non-verbal cues, which suggests a limitation in achieving perfect clarity in every interaction (Trenholm, 2011).
Furthermore, interpersonal messages often serve multiple functions simultaneously, such as expressing emotion, conveying information, and maintaining social bonds. This complexity supports the idea that communication between individuals is a rich, dynamic process that cannot be reduced to mere information exchange. Indeed, the definition of interpersonal communication as involving two or more people captures this depth, as it inherently implies an interactive exchange where messages are co-constructed. Therefore, the concept of interpersonal messages provides a sound basis for understanding and justifying the scholarly definition under scrutiny.
Symbolic Interactionism: Meaning-Making in Interpersonal Communication
Symbolic interactionism, a foundational theory in communication studies, offers another lens through which to justify the definition of interpersonal communication as communication between two or more people. Developed by Herbert Blumer, who built on the ideas of George Herbert Mead, symbolic interactionism posits that individuals create and interpret meaning through the use of symbols during social interactions (Blumer, 1969). This theory directly supports the notion that communication is inherently interpersonal, as it relies on shared symbols and mutual understanding between individuals to construct social reality.
A central tenet of symbolic interactionism is that people act towards things based on the meanings they ascribe to them, and these meanings are derived from social interaction. For example, a handshake might symbolise respect or agreement in one cultural context but could be interpreted differently elsewhere. This illustrates how interpersonal communication, involving two or more people, is fundamentally a process of negotiating shared meanings. As Griffin (2012) notes, symbolic interactionism emphasises the active role of individuals in shaping their social world through communication, thereby reinforcing the idea that interpersonal exchanges are central to human experience.
Moreover, symbolic interactionism highlights the subjective nature of communication, where meanings are not fixed but are continually negotiated. This aligns with the definition of interpersonal communication as it underscores the importance of the interaction itself—between individuals—rather than a one-way transmission of information. However, a potential limitation of this perspective is its focus on micro-level interactions, which may overlook broader societal influences on communication (Griffin, 2012). Despite this, the theory remains a powerful tool for understanding how interpersonal communication functions as a collaborative, meaning-making process, thereby providing strong justification for defining it as communication between two or more people.
Synthesis: Bridging Interpersonal Messages and Symbolic Interactionism
Bringing together the concepts of interpersonal messages and symbolic interactionism, it becomes evident that the definition of interpersonal communication as communication between two or more people is both theoretically grounded and practically relevant. Interpersonal messages, with their emphasis on relational dynamics and contextual nuances, demonstrate how communication is shaped by the unique interactions between individuals. Similarly, symbolic interactionism underscores the collaborative nature of meaning-making, where symbols are interpreted and negotiated through interpersonal exchanges. Together, these frameworks highlight the interactive, reciprocal, and personal dimensions of communication, which are encapsulated in the scholarly definition under discussion.
Furthermore, both perspectives acknowledge the complexities and potential challenges within interpersonal communication. Whether it is the misinterpretation of messages due to cultural differences or the subjective nature of symbols, these limitations suggest that while the definition is broadly applicable, it must be understood as a starting point rather than a definitive encapsulation of all communicative scenarios. Generally, however, the integration of interpersonal messages and symbolic interactionism provides a robust justification for viewing interpersonal communication as a process inherently involving two or more individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has justified the scholarly definition of interpersonal communication as communication between two or more people by exploring the interrelated concepts of interpersonal messages and symbolic interactionism. Interpersonal messages reveal the intricate, relational nature of communication, where verbal and non-verbal cues are tailored to the specific dynamics between individuals. Symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, offers a theoretical foundation by emphasising how meaning is co-constructed through shared symbols during social interactions. Together, these perspectives affirm that interpersonal communication is fundamentally about the exchange and negotiation of meaning between individuals, supporting the given definition. The implications of this discussion extend to both academic study and practical application, encouraging a deeper appreciation for the complexities of human interaction in media and communication contexts. While limitations such as cultural misunderstandings and subjective interpretations exist, they do not negate the validity of the definition but rather highlight areas for further exploration. Ultimately, understanding interpersonal communication as a process involving two or more people provides a comprehensive framework for analysing the myriad ways in which individuals connect and communicate.
References
- Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice-Hall.
- Burleson, B. R. (2010) The Nature of Interpersonal Communication: A Message-Centered Approach. In: Berger, C. R., Roloff, M. E. and Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (eds.) The Handbook of Communication Science. Sage Publications.
- Griffin, E. (2012) A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th ed. McGraw-Hill.
- Trenholm, S. (2011) Thinking Through Communication: An Introduction to the Study of Human Communication. 6th ed. Pearson.
