Journal of Business Communication

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zak, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 33, No. 4, 503-511 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/002194369603300409
© 1996 Association for Business Communication

The Deep Structure of the Field

Michele Zak

Stanford University

Critical theory examines how ideology frames and limits discourse for all organizational members and a critical theory perspective explores the meanings of symbolic aspects of communication with respect to those frames and limits. Critical theory focuses on the structure of meaning that embodies and reinforces domination and how that communication is systematically distorted so as to maintain and enhance power relations that privilege one social reality over others and that favor some interest groups at the expense of other groups. To explore the meaning of symbols in this context is to seek to discover the deep structure of the relationship of power to social reality.

Applying a critical theory perspective to the workforce's culture, language, and symbols, provides us insight into a pattern of power agendas in the deep structural meaning that determines which issues and which questions will be legitimately open for debate while other privileges are defined as the way things are, not susceptible to change, as if defined by natural law, and that makes discussion pointless. Our ability to understand, and to teach our students to understand, the distortion of communication to impose power, and to respond to its seemingly arbitrary exercise, gives us a particular responsibility to attend to the issue of diversity in the workplace.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?