Gerbner's General Model (1956)

Gerbner's General Model emphasizes the dynamic nature of human communication. It also gives prominence to the factors which may affect fidelity. The model shown diagrammatically is to be read from left to right, beginning at E - Event.

• The event (E) is perceived by M (the man (sic) or machine).
• The process of perception is not simply a matter of 'taking a picture' of event E. It is a process of active interpretation.
• The way that the E is perceived will be determined by a variety of factors, such as the assumptions, attitudes, point of view, experience of M.
• E can be a person talking, sending a letter, telephoning, or otherwise communicating with M. In other words, E could be what we conventionally call the Source or Transmitter.
• Equally, E can be an event - a car crash, rain, waves crashing on a beach, a natural disaster etc. In this case, we could be applying the model to mass media communication, say the reporting of news.

The model is a useful starting-point for the analysis of wide variety of communication acts. Note that the model, besides drawing our attention to those factors within E which will determine perception or interpretation of E, also draws our attention to three important factors:

• Selection: M, the perceiver of the event E (or receiver of the message, if you prefer) selects from the event, paying more attention to this aspect and less to that. This process of selecting, filtering is commonly known as gatekeeping, particularly in discussion of the media's selection and discarding of events or aspects of them.
• Context: a factor often omitted from communication models, but a vitally important factor. The sound represented by the spelling 'hair' means an animal in one context, something that's not supposed to be in your soup in another. Shouting, ranting and raving means this man's very angry in one context, raving loony in another.
• Availability: how many Es are there around? What difference does availability make? If there are fewer Es around, we are likely to pay more attention to the ones there are. They are likely to be perceived by us as more 'meaningful'. What sort of Es are there - for example, in the UK's mainly Conservative press, how many non-Conservative messages are available to us?


Gerbner: E1 and M
E1 is the event-as-perceived (E) by the man (sic) or machine M. In terms of human communication, a person perceives an event. The perception (E1) they have of that event is more or less close to the 'real' event. The degree of correspondence between M's perception of event E (E1) will be a function of M's assumptions, point of view, experiences, social factors etc.

Gerbner: Means and Controls
In the next stage of the model, M becomes the Source of a message about E to someone else. M produces a statement about the event (SE). To send that message, M has to use channels (or media) over which he has a greater or lesser degree of control. The question of 'control' relates to M's degree of skill in using communication channels. If using a verbal channel, how good is he at using words? If using the Internet, how good is he at using new technology and words? And so on? 'Control' may also be a matter of access - does he own this medium? can he get to use this medium? Think of teachers in classrooms controlling the access to communication channels, parents at home, owners of newspapers, editors of letters pages etc.

Gerbner: SE
SE (statement about event) is what we would more normally call the 'message'. S stands for Signal in fact, so in principle an S can be present without an E, but in that case it would be noise only. The process can be extended ad infinitum by adding on other receivers (M2, M3etc.) who have further perceptions (SE1, SE2 etc.) of the statements about perceived events.

Sadharanikaran

In "Aristotle's and the Sadharanikaran Models of Communication: A Comparative Study" (N.M. Adhikary's Independet Study for M.Phil.), Aristotles model and the Sadharanikaran model have been compared in terms of structure and scope of two models, human relationships in the process and the goal of communication. Then it is shown that these two models differ in all of the four aspects.

Aristotle's model has unrealistic linear approach due to which number of biases created and advancement of the communication discipline stained. But the Sadharanikaran model is non-linear and hence free from the limitations of Aristotle's model.

The scope of the Sadharanikaran model is too broad as compared to Aristotle's model. The latter is considered applicable to public speaking merely. But the former seems applicable for the study of all levels of communication from intrapersonal to interpersonal to mass. Its scope ranges even from the human communication to the attainment of Moksha. Thus it is in consonance with the Hindu worldview.

In Aristotle's model, the receiver is vulnerable to dominance and manipulation by the sender as he/she is passive. In the Sadharanikaran model, though the relationship is hierarchical the sender and the receiver are Sahridayas and thus are capable of experiencing satisfaction and joy. This model offers explanation of how successful communication is possible in Hindu society where complex hierarchies of castes, languages, cultures and religious practices are prevalent.

Finally, these two models differ vastly while setting the goal of communication. Aristotle's model has a highly specific and narrower goal of influencing or persuading the receiver as intended by the sender. The Sadharanikaran model, on the other hand, aims mutual understanding and becoming Sahridaya. Its goal covers worldly as well as spiritual achievements by encompassing all of Artha, Kama, Dharma and Moksha.

By this comparative understanding, we come to the conclusion that Aristotle's model cannot represent and describe the communication theory and practice of countries like Nepal and India.

The scope of the Sadharanikaran model should be properly understood. With vast diversities of cultures and philosophies within the Hindu society, it is just one of many models that could be developed. Many theories and models of communication would come out if communication discipline has enthusiasm of encountering with different Hindu philosophical traditions.

Nirmala Mani Adhikary