Page 20 - Communication Processes Volume 3 Communication Culture and Confrontation

Introduction xix

due to their contention to exert over the same field but differently. The
cultural rift is in that difference, a difference that makes sense in the
same milieu of confrontation.
By milieu we understand a symbolic space in which the confron-
tation takes place. It comprises a multitude of isomorphic forms, a
number of sets of related constitutive components of any type, which
on account of their isomorphism can entertain rapport among them-
selves. The possibility of such rapport and connections is what makes
the space symbolic, namely, constructed of elements pieced together,
linked in one way or the other. The space is symbolic on account of the
nexus that prevails between all the components.
By isomorphism we understand a logical link, a semantic affinity,
a structural correspondence, a logical connection that explains for the
possibility of dialogue, contention, reference, borrowing and reinter-
pretation between the various forms, levels and domains. Without such
isomorphism, no interaction would be possible. There is no dialogue
between idioms that semantically have nothing in common.
The concept of isomorphism proves helpful in this regard to
understand three general features that constantly characterize the
cultural forms studied in this volume. These features ought not to
stand as stumbling blocks against our effort of insight to their nature
and communicational function. They are, on the contrary, essential to
processes of interaction and interbreeding that is—shall we emphasize
it again—essential to the civilizational progress of humankind.
First, it is particularly relevant to recognize that each symbolic device
is permanently subject to the demands of environmental changes, the
urge from within, of internal expectations at variance with established
norms, and the challenge of external counter-currents and alien pres-
sures. All cultural forms and meanings are a mix resulting from the
interplay of a complex historical dialectics. The strength of an individual
or collective cultural configuration—its capability to meaningfully and
purposively confront these changes, survive and progress—is a function
of their competence to reconstruct and integrate the alien within their
own symbolic systems.
Second, one may be struck by the performative nature of popular
cultures. here, we roughly use the term ‘popular’ in reference to cul-
tural forms that originate from, and are specific to, powerless social
sections, such as the working class in industrialized societies, and in
those cohesive communities grounded in ‘traditions’ that circulate by