Uncertainty Communication Status: Theory or Science

In this study, we argue in favor of the thesis that communication as an academic discipline faces many uncertainties. One of these is the uncertainty regarding the status. Some talk about Communication theory, others about the Communication Science, about Communicology, "Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication" (SIC), Communication studies etc. Nuclear question about the status of the communication is: the study of communication is a theory or a science, is a weak cogitative system or a strong cogitative system? We distinguish five causes that determined communication study to remain to this day a weak cogitative system: the effervescence of the theoretical-scientific and practical researches in a knowledge area full of promises; heavy coagulation of a cogitational communication community; refusal of the rule; articulation of communicational thinking as “weak thinking” “weak thought” G. Vattimo); and the delay in the development of the communication ontology. Discipline that studies communication is a weak-cogitative thinking system, a sum of theories but not yet a science. As a set of weak theories, the study of communication is becoming science. In any case, discipline that studies communication is on the way to become a science.


INTRODUCTION
There are significant relational gains which will lead to a scientific community of communication that would communicate well (De la Peza Casares, 2013).
A theory of communication can be based on interpretation, but a science must be objective, methodical, systematically and should allow for verification. L. Duarte and B. Alonso also speak about this; they see the future of communication sciences as "based on objectivity, truth, and empirical verification as the only method of approaching reality" (Duarte L., Alonso G., 2008).
However, at present there is a controversy regarding the status of communication, that status is uncertain (see Kulczycki, 2008; Wedland, 2013).

FIVE CAUSES (A)
The first cause of communication as discipline without accredited title and object is the effervescence of the theoretical-scientific and applicative researches in a knowledge area full of promises. The fourth and the fifth decades of the 20 th Century were the beginning of the

(C)
A third cause is the rejection of the rule. 1940, 1950 meant the beginning of postmodernism. Concordantly, it was a matter about freeing the world from the war pressures and constraints it involved. A great appetite for freedom represented the social background of the time. As a form of freedom, communication found its favorable ground. The freedom to speak and think in terms of a new discipline was however smiting a more influential, more powerful freedom. Postmodernism was an inhibiting freedom for communication. Freedom is decoded, under its practical aspect, as freedom from rules. As James Richard Mensch showed, "the postmodernism period (...) is post-normative", it is a matter of "a post-normative view of self and reality" (Mensch J. R., 2004, p. 1 and p. 283). Postmodernist "post-normative" propensity did the same as the communication specialists to no longer incline easily before the scientific rule to search for the basis, for the integration in knowing the problem worldwide, and to search for a consensus on this basis. Fleeing from norms puts into motion the beginnings of the discipline called "communication".
The unification of the communication "theories" has been attempted several times. It is an unattainable objective. The theories as theories cannot be unified. First of all, because theories are unilateral cogitative constructs, they address just the ontological characteristic of the field (Craig, 2013; also Pavalache-Ilie & Unianu, 2012; Pavalache-Ilie, 2012). Theories arise from perspectives which consensus cannot exist for. Theories could find their convergence in a strong cogitative system, in a strong science, in a strong General Communication Science. To unify the theories is not actually one of the ideals of the theories themselves. It is an illusory aspiration. This convergence ideal could be done only inside a comprehensive science, settled in object and methods. The unification could occur based on a strong ontology, under the conditions of a clear epistemology and a consistent methodology. It is known that several

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Vol. 21
theories individually explaining the ontological, specific elements subsist in a science. We emphasize: theories can be unified in a science.
(D) Fourth of all, postmodernism comes with a "weak thinking". A weak thinking can only cause a weak cogitative system. A paradigmatic science is a strong cogitative compact system. Delia Cristina Balaban considers that the discipline that is concerned with communication is a science; in the study "Development of Communication Science in Romania. Challenges and Perspecives. Professional Communication and Translation Studies, 6(1-2), 3-10" asserts that "Communication Science is a relatively new science" (Balaban, 2013, p. 3). Left free, postmodernism will be driven by originality, pluralism, diversity and extended freedom of thinking, insight, a mix of ideas, categories and concepts. Its weak thinking can only cause theories. Postmodernism cannot generate science; the maximum of its cogitative force can only rise to the level of a theory. Postmodernism produces fascinating, paradoxical, enlightening theories, but it causes theories again and again. By itself, it produces just theories, which is salutary and worth being promoted. However, the conceptual organization of the cognitive and computational experiences is only established as a paradigm in the concept of the cogitative compact science system. Weak thinking must be brought in the convergence of a critical thinking in the area of the same thinking that thinks of the self while thinking (Bârgăoanu, Negrea & Dascălu, 2010). When Jacques Derrida was practically showing the operation of a weak ontology, Gianni Vattimo established weak thinking. Vattimo showed that "weak thought" is based on Martin Heidegger's concept "Verwindung", which means "declination/distortion" (Vattimo G., 2012, p. 46). Declination determines that "One has access to Being not through presence but only through recollection, for Being cannot be defined as that which is but only as that which is passed on" (Vattimo G., 2012, p. 47) (also Bușu & Bușu, 2014). No longer staying determined in presence, the postmodernist cogitative subject sees the world through the lens of a thinking that lets time pass by. Abdicating from seeing the present as present, the reality of the present is noticed subsequently as a delay, as past, as belonging to the past. Abandoning the presence is to abandon the "strong thought, that of deductive coagency", the "strong categories" (Vattimo G., 2012, p. 39 and p. 46). In this regard, Peter Carravetta clarifies several things, by perceiving "weak thinking" as "dissolution of strong thought" and stating that instead of "axioms, principles, strong theories", the weak thinking brings "interpretations" (Carravetta P., 2012, p. 11 and p. 4) (also Wendland M., 2013).

(E)
The fifth cause is the delay in the development of the communication ontology. Weak thinking deprives ontology significantly because, above all, it does not see well and directly the existence and existences. Weak thinking shapes a compliance schedule, where a "weak ontology" results from: "The program of weak ontology holds that such change in the way of thinking about the fundamental traits (even simply descriptively, or typical) of Being will have important consequences" (Vattimo G., 2012, p. 47). A weak ontology is an ontology that does not see well the field which it is responsible for. It is that which is on the verge of losing it after seeing it. Without an ontology settled in its own responsibilities, a theory or a weaken science. Already imposed or in the process of consolidation, theories-sciences likely to have "weak ontology" will be unable to theorize, categorize, conceptualize, in order to be fully acceptable. As Peter Carravetta notes, "weak thought can show the way to a contemporary understanding of hemeneutics, theories of knowledge, ethics, and discourse" (Carravetta P., 2012, p. 2) (also Babrow Of course, no ontology is perfect. All indexes of categories and concepts have questionable parts, and some ontological models are contradictory. All ontologies are imperfect. Most of them have specific problems that are solved by applicative or technical- Volume 21 scientific research. The weak ontology of communication has however structuring difficulties: the patterns are common and divergent, the theories are many and unclear, some concepts are not thoroughly grounded, the network of categories is not articulated in a coherent whole within one science. Out of these, theories are the weakest and most toxic part. The multitude of theories is what undermines the consolidation of a unitary understanding of the communication process, of the basic ontological elements. This is why in 70 years a theory or a communication science difficultly, troublesomely and ambiguously creates a tradition (Dâncu, 1999 At the level of axis 1 (the ontological axis), there have been registered effects that clarified that we currently have a "weak ontology" in communication. A higher level effect of the "weak thought" is, as Peter Carravetta says, that "most forms of theorizing cannot find a credible legitimization" (Carravetta P., 2012, p. 2). The multitude of communication theories and traditions is explained through the lack of "credible legitimacy" on behalf of each individual (Radu, 2012; Abrudan, 2013; Borowski (b), 2013).
A paradox of the communication discipline (of the "communication science", of the "communication theory", of the "communication studies", of the "communicology") is that there was no-one to give legitimization to some theories that could have been legitimated. In other words, the institutionalization was not produced, not because the theories of communication would not have been valuable and appeared as not having "credible legitimacy", but because there was no one anymore to give them legitimacy. And, more specifically, in writing theories, specialists had no more time to give legitimacy to others' theories (Fârte, 2004;Grant, 2007;Maior, 2009;Cobley & Schulz, 2013). Strangely, the history of the communication idea shows that communication specialists do not communicate well towards communication. They do not communicate well with each other. From a cluster of creditable theories, but without many specialists to credit them, strong theory/science/communication studies or a communicology could not be created and cannot be created too soon. Surprisingly, we have many specialists in a given field, but the community of scientists in a field lacks the shaping influence. The scientific paradigm is established by the community of specialists (Rus, 2004

CONCLUSION
Not being based on a strong thinking, communication remains an amorphous construction as a discipline. By looking from afar, the impression is that communication specialists theorize excessively. Following a thorough analysis, the first impression is however confirmed: in the International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Vol. 21 universe of communication, theorization is done excessively. Weak thinking, based mainly on interpretation, theorization, is descriptive and typical, too mobilized in the inscription of types and models. The scientific and institutional destiny of communication has been seriously affected by weak thinking. Status of communication changes radically: the study of communication is on the way to become a science.