Media jurisprudence has similar concepts, such as the jurisprudence of art, the jurisprudence of communications, the jurisprudence of cyberspace, etc., but there is no agreement on the correctness of these titles as independent branches of jurisprudence, and secondly, there is no precise demarcation between these branches. This has led to a kind of confusion in the interpretation of these jurisprudential chapters. Hujjat al-lslam wa Muslimin Mustafa Hamadani, a 4th-level graduate and a PhD in Culture and Communications from IRIB University, has written the books “The Normative Theory of the Beginning of Communication in Lifestyle” and “Methodology of the Science of Principles.” In this special note, he explains the jurisprudence of communications and the territorial and terminological errors that have occurred in this field.
The jurisprudence of communications is the jurisprudential analysis of the communication process; in the sense of explaining the reasoning of the rulings of the components of this process and, if necessary, its entirety. Methodology requires that, like any other science, the jurisprudence of communications should only deal with its subject, namely the category of communications, and that is, communications in its precise, scientific, and thematic sense, and not mix with other topics, especially related fields that are more likely to interfere.
Unfortunately, in the field of communication jurisprudence, this inappropriate mixture has occurred, and what is known today as communication jurisprudence in theological schools is the jurisprudence of radio, television, satellite, and the like; while the media in general, including radio and television, are only a part of the science of communication called “mass communication.” This mistake is of the type of terminological error, the result of which is a territorial deviation in communication jurisprudence and its mixture with aligned concepts.
It is appropriate that jurisprudence, in order to enter into additional areas that have aligned and overlapping families, should not neglect their thematic order and conceptual order, so that firstly the thematic areas of each are determined, and secondly, by moving from the earlier areas to the later areas, jurisprudence should also gradually move towards richer and more complex categories with richer literature. Otherwise, due to theoretical and conceptual weakness, it will never be able to succeed in dealing with these complex issues, or it will fall into the abyss of naivety and submission to the requirements of the additional layer and its possibly non-religious extensions, or it will become stagnant and hostile to all additional areas.
In this short article, first some examples of the aforementioned mixture will be presented, and then this conceptual confusion will be traced to its roots, and in the third section, the boundaries of the jurisprudence of communications with overlapping concepts will be explained.
A: Examples of Territorial Delusion and Terminology in Communication Jurisprudence
Examples of territorial delusion in some of the research presented in this field, namely the reduction of communication jurisprudence to media jurisprudence, which sometimes resulted in types of terminology, are as follows:
The book “Collection of Discourses on Media and Communication Jurisprudence” has raised issues regarding media jurisprudence, such as the jurisprudential ruling on singing and music, dancing and rhythmic movements in the media, entertainment, competitions, media gambling, debates and conflicting opinions, the ruling on apostasy in the media, the rulings on confession, slander and testimony through the media, the promotion of magic and sorcery, the dissemination of lies, debates in the media, etc.; while communication jurisprudence – which is mentioned in the title of the book – includes media jurisprudence. In the classification of the book’s topics, the respected author has consistently spoken of media phenomena, including mass media,[1] and in the conceptual discussions, there is no mention of the concept of communications – in its broad and true sense, not in the common and incorrect sense, i.e., equal to mass media.[2]
The book “Reflections on Religion and Media” considers communications to be equal to media communications and mass communication, and the topics included under the jurisprudence of communications (communications in the realm of belief, freedom of expression, concealment of the truth, etc.) are more similar to the jurisprudence of information and its topics such as the free flow of information than to the jurisprudence of communications.[3]
The author of the book “Jurisprudential Rules of Culture and Communications”, with the phrase “What is meant by the jurisprudence of communications or the jurisprudence of media…”, considers media jurisprudence to be another interpretation of the jurisprudence of communications[4] and in the text of the book he officially uses media jurisprudence instead of the jurisprudence of communications.[5]
Some seminary instructors also use the term “jurisprudence of media” in their courses. In his jurisprudence titled “Jurisprudence of Social Relations”, he has often used “Jurisprudence of Human Relations” and “Jurisprudence of Human Communications” interchangeably.[6] This terminology is due to the lack of territoriality, that is, the lack of demarcation between Jurisprudence of Human Relations, Jurisprudence of Media, and Jurisprudence of Communications. This respected researcher and lecturer has recently changed the title of his course to “Jurisprudence of Social Relations with an Approach to Jurisprudence of Social Networks and Messengers”; that is, he considers communications, especially advanced communications in modern media, namely virtual networks, to be part of social relations!
Also, many academics who do not specialize in communication sciences have equated this knowledge with media. [7]
B – Causes of confusion in the terminology and scope of communication jurisprudence
The author believes that this terminology and scope confusion, which has led to the identification of communication jurisprudence with media jurisprudence, and in other words, the reduction and limitation of the very wide scope of communication jurisprudence in media jurisprudence and the birth of children (mass media jurisprudence) before their parents (social relations jurisprudence and communication jurisprudence), has three causes:
In Iran, communication science is mostly considered equal to the media, and existing works and translations also indicate this;[8] while according to Figure 1, media analysis is only a part of communication science called mass communication, and intra-individual communication and then interpersonal communication are the foundation and root for group and mass communication.
The demands of the Islamic regime of Iran from the seminaries are limited to the discussion of media jurisprudence.
Due to the previous demand of the government, the seminaries have been introduced to the science of communication, from its media aspect, through the Islamic Republic Radio and Television Faculty in Qom. Many of the authors mentioned in the first paragraph are also lecturers, researchers or guests of that faculty.[9]
C – Demarcation of communication jurisprudence with related jurisprudential fields
The confusion of communication jurisprudence with related fields may occur in two ways: one with earlier related topics, namely social relations jurisprudence; and the other with later related topics, namely media jurisprudence. Explanation: Today, more attention is paid to social jurisprudence and media jurisprudence, and media in the common terminology of jurists includes radio, television, satellite, and the like; but communication jurisprudence is not a field distinct from these two, to the extent that sometimes communication jurisprudence is reduced to one of these two and considered equal to them. This assumption is not correct; because radio, television and the like are only examples of media, and that too in a specific field of communication, namely mass communication; and media, in communication terminology, is: any medium that is a means of communication, whether in interpersonal communication or other communication. For example, in interpersonal verbal communication, language is a medium; and in mass communication, radio and television are the media;[10] therefore, communication based on mass and group media is a specific type of human communication. According to this analysis, the jurisprudence of mass and group media will also be later than the jurisprudence of human communication. On the other hand, communication science itself emerged later than the sociological and psychological sciences and the social sciences related to the human psyche and social behavior in order to develop and expand interdisciplinary fields using these central themes and many other sciences such as linguistics and semiotics, etc., and as a result, communication jurisprudence will also be later than the social sciences and social relations.
The final conclusion is that, on the one hand, communication jurisprudence is later than social relations jurisprudence, and on the other hand, it precedes media jurisprudence. Until social relations jurisprudence is formulated, communication jurisprudence will not be realized, and until communication jurisprudence is realized, media jurisprudence will not be born, and even if it is born, it will have a weak and sick existence that suffers from numerous theoretical and conceptual weaknesses; because media jurisprudence is ontologically later than communication jurisprudence and feeds on it; therefore, it is necessary for jurisprudence to first analyze human social relations in the real and real world, and then the phenomenon of human relations in areas more fundamental than mass communication, namely interpersonal communication, and then group communication in the real space, and in the next stage, mass communication, namely current communication in the context of modern mass media (such as television and radio), and finally, current communication in the context of modern interactive media (such as the Internet and social networks). Of course, digital media (current in the context of mobile and virtual space) are both interpersonal, group and collective. All of these components are also under the jurisprudence of society, but they are not equal to it, but are only a part of it.
In diagram number 2, this order is shown, as well as other aligned jurisprudences that are under the jurisprudence of society but have no hierarchical relationship with these areas. In this diagram, the aligned areas but have no hierarchical relationship are drawn in light color, and a few empty circles also symbolize areas that may be added and be part of the jurisprudence of society; such as the jurisprudence of urban development and the jurisprudence of driving and traffic.
Diagram No. 2. Jurisprudence of Communications and Related Concepts (Source: Author)
References:
Akbari, Kamal; Reflections on Religion and Media; Vol. 1, Qom: Armaghan Hayat, 2014.
Husayni, Sayyid Ali; Jurisprudential Rules of Culture and Communications; Research Institute of Culture, Art and Communications, al-Imam al-Sadiq University; First Edition, 2017.
Muhsinianrad, Mahdi; Communication; Vol. 15, Tehran: Soroush, 2015.
Mu’tamad Nejad, Kazim, Mass Communication Media, Vol. 6, Tehran: Allamah Tabataba’i University Press, 2007.
Nahavandi, Ali; Collection of Discourses on Jurisprudence of Media and Communications; Vol. 1, Mashhad: Publications Published by Astan Quds Razavi, 2019.
October 7, 2018; School of Jurisprudence website, Ayatullah A’rafi’s Extracurricular Course:
http://www. eshia. ir/feqh/archive/text/arafi/feqh_ejtemaei/97/970717/.
[1]. Ali Nahavandi, Collection of Discourses on the Jurisprudence of Media and Communications, pp. 14 and 15.
[2]. Ibid., pp. 18-24; 47-69.
[3]. Kamal Akbari, Reflections on Religion and Media, pp. 17-21.
[4]. Sayyid Ali Husayni, Jurisprudential Rules of Culture and Communications, p. 16.
[5]. Ibid., pp. 43, 55, 54, 64, 74, 88, 123, 165178, 185, 194.
[6]. October 17, 2018; School of Jurisprudence website, Ayatullah A’rafi’s extracurricular course:
http://www. eshia. ir/feqh/archive/text/arafi/feqh_ejtemaei/97/970717/.
[7] . For example, the international conference “Prophetic Knowledge and the Challenges of Today’s World” which will be held in lsfand 1401 in cooperation with several scientific institutions at Allamah Tabataba’i University in Tehran, has several themes, including the discussion of communications, in which communications are considered to be completely equal to media, and the subthemes of communications are introduced as follows:
Prophetic Knowledge and the Challenges of Today’s World in Mass Media
Prophetic Knowledge and the Challenges of Today’s World in Social Networks
Prophetic Knowledge and the Challenges of Media Terrorism
Prophetic Knowledge and Professional Ethics in Media
Prophetic Knowledge and the Social Responsibility of Media
Prophetic Knowledge and Media Rights
[8]. For example, it is enough to look at the book Culture of Social Communication Sciences: Media Management, Social Networks, Journalism…, where even its title shows that the author considers communications to be equal to mass communication. Also, the topics of the book Sociology of Communication (Principles and Foundations) by Dr. Sarukhani are limited to the sociology of mass communication, not all areas of communication. Jean Cazeno also wrote a book with the French title “La societe de l’ubiquite; communication et diffusion” which means “The ubiquitous society; communication and diffusion”; but unfortunately, this book was translated and published in Iran under the title Sociology of Communication, which is an incorrect translation. Of course, after about ten reprints of the Persian translation of this book, the translators changed its title to The Ubiquitous Society (An Introduction to the Sociology of Communication), although this title is also inadequate. The book “Communication theories: origins, methods, and uses in the mass media” by James Tankard and Werner Joseph Sorin was also incorrectly translated under the title Teoriy of Communication and has been a textbook in the field of communication for many years; While this book is purely about theories of a specific area of communication, namely mass communication, and the correct translation of its title is: “Communication theories; origins, methods and applications in mass media”. Of course, some works rarely cover broad topics of communication and are not limited to mass communication; such as the book Communication Science written by Dr. Mohsenian-Rad.
[9]. In the meantime, there are exceptions; for example, the perception of Mr. Yusuf Zadeh, Islami and Ghamami of the subject and aspects of communication in the book “Introduction to Mass Communication from the Perspective of Islam (The Ideal Media Model)” is correct.
[10]. Kazem Mu’tamad Nejad, Mass Communication Tools, pp. 54-69.