neto 1

kernel

Marcelo Neto
2 kernel

For Beatriz

marceloneto@me.com
www.marceloneto.me
https://creativecommons.net/MarceloNeto
some rights reserved
 neto 3

kernel

Marcelo Neto

Originally submitted to the communications faculty of the Department of Communications at Simmons College,
as a thesis of its Master of Science in Communications Management — Professor Lynda Beltz
4 kernel
 neto 5

Assumptions and Goals

The original goal of this work was to develop a novel approach to advertising and marketing services,1 hoping
to address some of the critical claims of practitioners and students. For at least three decades, both groups have
been asking for consistency across disciplines; the liquidation of functional silos; the development of a common
measurement process; and the congruity of compensation practices—ultimately calling for a ‘re-orchestration
of the agency model.’ This systemic dysfunction has been the topic of books, forums, manifestos, videos, blogs,
online communities and dozens of articles, which often debate the scientific nature of this craft. Indeed, the
question of whether advertising is a science or not is part of the industrial ontology and the academic burden,
since the first schema commands the hierarchy of knowledge. This authority incurs in a proliferation of terms
within an mystic conceptual apparatus that prevents practitioners from approaching problems and discussing
solutions; not even the last decade’s sociotechnological developments have influenced communications as
a science. On the contrary, there is a growing accumulation of disciplines and methods, on a par with the
plethora of media and mobile devices. Such is the clutter that one has to postpone technicalities in favor of an
epistemological understanding of the field, a goal that requires an interpretation of what science is and how
communications fits into the scientific enterprise.

While looking for ways to address these open-ended questions, this research crisscrossed multiple academic
fields, eventualy reaching philosophy of science, the branch of philosophy that is, in great part, responsible for
determining how to create, develop and validate scientific theories. The navigation under its web of movements,
expressions and times is no slight task, but with persistence one can meet a crisis grounded on the same
historical residues that locked the field of communications. In fact, the similarity relations are both structural and
procedural, since the disagreement among philosophical schools rests on the notion of having ideal methods and
languages to approach, develop, communicate and verify scientific theories. That is, for the last 350 years, science
has been giving considerable attention to this topic, since it is attached to the decisions that shaped western
cultures, boundaries, economies and policies—pervading all sorts of communications and structuring the world.
Furthermore, this historical progression gravitates toward the supression of alternative philosophies of language
and mind, dealing with the very notion of how humans are able to communicate and understand each other. When
confronting these overlapping features, it would be safe to expect some awareness in field that is supposedly
concerned with social studies of communications phenomena. As this is not the case, the present work includes an
attempt to equalize this philosophical problem before returning to its original concern.

1 This term best describes what is generally referred to as the advertising and/or public relations, either as industries or
academic disciplines. Advertising and marketing services is central to the curriculum of communications schools, reflecting
philosophies and methods prescribed by the industry.
6 kernel

In so doing, the scientific genealogy of communications readily emerges, unraveling a moral duality that structures
two opposing versions—behavioral and critical—of the same rationalist2 tradition. On the other hand, this same
route meets one philosophy, many theories and studies that support the development of an alternative approach
to communications. As we shall see, retooling is not only desirable, but necessary. When we bother to scratch the
surface of the world, we will no longer find space for structuralism, prediction or control in the social sciences. That
comes to anatomize the disciplinary matrix3 and critique the modus operandi of the advertising oligopoly, but not to
suggest its replacement through a conspiracy-like call. For either coherency or productivity, one should concentrate
efforts in identifying the knowledge, the organizational basis and the tools required to bridge disciplinary gaps
and prepare the social communicator for the future. In theory, the idea is to conciliate philosophy and practice
of communications, eliminating the press agentry4 and preparing agents of translation.5 With a proper scientific
guidance, the new generations will not only command the labor force swiftly, but may also transform its structure
from within. The events that shaped their minds reprogrammed their worldview, redefining their priorities and
changing their behavior. As a singular, this mutation created an abyss between their instincts and the phenomenal
world. Yet, the subjective side of technology offers the conceptual equivalence they expect, fueling their drive for a
more decent world. We must believe in it because they do so.

In the end, what started as a private attempt to improve performance, ended as a public effort to promote competence
in communications. Of course, this is not a task for one paper and hand. This goal demands a set of principles and
tools that must be as full as the intellectual development of our times allow. If anything, our job is to create a new
context to certify the competence of students and practitioners across the globe.

2 In the Cartesian sense, as further discussed.

3 For Thomas Kuhn, “disciplinary because it refers to the common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline;
matrix because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts, each requiring further specification.”
4 A publicity model, often associated with show business and manipulative techniques, as further discussed.
5 James Anderson’s usage of the term, as further discussed.
 neto 7

Table of Contents

08 Prologue

10 The 1969 Urbana Symposium

12 The Shift of Perspective
14 Some Special Theories
16 The 1969 Urbana Aftermath
18 Poltical Economy of Science
21 Equalization of Knowledge
24 Brands of Morality
26 Dual Basis
32 The Deep Structure
36 The Logic of Clutter

41 Semantics of Reform
48 Desiderata

50 Bibliography

57 Appendix
(not included in this file)
8 kernel

Prologue

This writing is a call for the future of communications1—a near future. It is time to dismiss the skepticism and
reason of modernity and assume the transdisciplinary nature of our craft. Let us all drop our arms and patents;
there is no second-class knowledge. Let us look the episteme, the academy and the industry in the eyes to pose the
questions that matter to expand our horizons of expectations2 and to create what is futurible3 for our professions
and our societies. The fatalism of history is not the outcome of natural phenomena, but of systematic programs to
enforce social control, which were either aided or defeated by the use of communications in some unpredictable
fashion. That is, the patterns of the past are not templates for the present. Conversely, they are parameters that
picture all sorts of meanings, which are subject to change over time. Part of our task as social communicators is to
decode these objects,4 returning constructive messages to society. The other part surrounds the values that grounds
our choices and actions. These too are objects of inquiry that can be addressed in reasonable terms.

The 300 years of modernity, say from 1650 to 1950, divided us successfully: we created nations and territories,
societies and classes, theories and practices, industries and segments and, painfully, the ghost in the machine.5
No matter where we look, we see discipline—conceptual boxes designed to sustain an overarching system of
oppression and coercion to serve the timeless sake of private expedience and maximum profit. As Sherry Turkle
says, “we became the kind of subject that disciplinary society needs us to be.” While thick walls imprisoned
our bodies, thin doctrines constrained our minds. Masters have been cutting throats, hopes and dreams to silent
the voices of those who dared to speak plainly. Fearing the same blades, others devised alternative devices
to circumscribe nature, while still serving their Leviathans.6 Yet, a third group conceived synthetic programs,
consciously aimed to carve out their cubicles in the courts of injustice, as if one could not describe context. Many of
us have solved the puzzles that tore philosophy, science and practice apart—this routine must not go on.

Conversely, our task is to enjoy the present degree of scientific freedom, keeping in mind the short radius of human
knowledge. More than half a century has passed since the second cognitive revolution7 took place, which is a
quite reasonable time to digest the combinatorial challenges that lie ahead. Even so, critical work asking for new
standards of both intra- and interdisciplinary communications remains untouched. In a four-dimensional world,
there is no blank slate—we know what we know. Our field has been testing both ends of every spectrum: hard and
soft sciences, analytical and continental philosophies, pure and applied theories, written and oral verbiage, universal
and particular axioms, general and specific labels, and the list goes on and on. This stretching, however, has proven
inefficient. Repeatedly, when in advantage, each side has fallen into the traps of distrust: innuendo, inappropriate

1 Meaning, the modern academic field or discipline.

2 For Stephen Toulmin, this term refers to “the beliefs that shape our historical foresight... our Erwartungshorizonten.”
3 Toulmin explains that Bertrand de Jouvenel coined the term referring to ‘available futures’ as those we can create, since he
believed that humans have a limited capacity for prévision sociale.
4 In a metaphysical sense.
5 Gilbert Ryle’s description of René Descartes’ philosophy of mind, as further discussed.
6 A mythological monster; a metaphor that titled Thomas Hobbes’ book, which was part of an influential political and social
theory where nation-states required the full authority of sovereigns.
7 Referring to Noam Chomsky’s scientific achievement. Second, because “it recapitulated the first cognitive revolution of the
17th century”, according to Chonky himself.
 neto 9

literalism, willful misinterpretation, special pleading and the like; then, paradoxically, the default excuse emerges:
“This is a moral issue that creativity must overcome.” Comfortably though, instead of so doing, we return to our
corners to sharpen our swords. With little surprise, whether during political or scientific revolutions, the outcome of
this childish pattern is invariably dogmatic: different means for the same end—power.

When we isolate this problem, several questions arise at once, but the central one must be: Is it possible to create
humanistic, ecological and productive communications within a new philosophical framework? Here we have two
options. The first is to publicize the meaning of the Kuhnian revolutions after all, and spend another 300 years
charging materialists,8 even knowing they were orchestrating ‘in the name of God.’ This route, as Richard Rorty
puts it, will lead us “to write footnote after footnote to Plato and Aristotle”, as well as to Michel de Montaigne,
Julien de La Mettrie, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Paul Feyerabend, Stephen Toulmin,
Noam Chomsky and others referenced throughout this work. Then, while we witness more blood shedding and
disgrace, we may devise a novel cryptanalysis of the mind, even knowing the limits of vision and the presence of
the self. Lastly, when we can fund a decent laboratory, we may applaud the oligarchs’ apparatus to persuade our
best talents and ridicule our lifetime achievements. As we shall see, this is no apocalyptical exhortation: this is a
prospect for a novice in the field of communications. Alternatively, we can create a generative scientific pattern. This
time, we can address the practical problems of humanity, narrowing the gaps between philosophies and practices of
communications. It will require a convergent corpus of knowledge and a high degree of idealization coming from
as many minds as this work can appeal to—minds that are willing to free themselves from all sorts of prejudice
(notably nationalism, race and creed).

At this special moment, we do not need parties or streams of thought: we need a planet, so we must realize what
we are. The reality is that many of us have the will, some of us have the resources, but very few have enough
persistence9 to develop productive science. Such framing will lead the discussion of an alternative route for social
communications, craving for further guidance, interaction and development. This is the essential element of my
ideas and the restless concern of this work. As we begin, this shall be clear.

Marcelo Neto
Boston, Massachusetts
December 7th, 2009

8 Those who hold that matter in the only substance there is, so all things would be products of material interaction.
9 In contemporary methaphysics, persistence deals with the problem of “how objects persist through change [over time]”, as
Roxanne Marie Kurtz describes.