I am a believer in speaker-centered communication, which is based in traditional rhetorical theory rooted in Aristotelian ethos/logos/pathos, Enlightenment liberalism, and First Amendment jurisprudence. I am dismayed that this view has fallen from favor in recent decades, because we are all the worse for it.
What a speaker-centered model means (for you non-communications majors) 😜 —
– The speaker is accountable for clarity, honesty, and good faith;
– The listener is responsible for interpretation, but ideally in a context of shared language and logic;
– Miscommunication is a breakdown, not an act of harm.
I reject receiver-centered models which emphasize impact over intent, the role of historical power dynamics in shaping how language is received, and normative claims that speakers should adjust based on the potential for harm—even unintended.
As I say, this view, which was the norm during my collegiate education in the late ’80s and early ’90s, has fallen out of favor. I believe this is one reason why so much of today’s communications are toxic.
My belief in a speaker-centered model informs my view of everyday discourse. It means I believe:
– Intent matters more than interpretation;
– Words are not violence;
– Language evolves but not always for the better;
– Freedom of speech is a core liberal value;
– The burden of communication should not rest entirely on the speaker.
The most common objections to a speaker-centered model:
– Words can perpetuate systems of harm
A: This depends on how words are used and in what context. A word like “negro” may have been co-opted in harmful ways, but that doesn’t erase its once-respectful usage. We must preserve nuance.
– Intent doesn’t erase impact
A: Yes, but impact shouldn’t erase intent either. We don’t treat all accidents like crimes, and we shouldn’t treat all misunderstood words like hate speech.
– Offense is harm
A: No, offense is an emotion. Harm is an outcome. Words may hurt feelings, but they don’t constitute violence. The law rightly distinguishes between speech and action.
A health society needs free and open communication. That means tolerating speech we dislike, examining words in their context, and judging others by their intent—not by public reaction. We owe each other that grace—and we owe it to the truth.