Abstract

In the ‘realist’ view defended by Sánchez and Campos (2009), communication is a biologically based behavioural phenomenon that communication science should endeavour to describe and explain as accurately as possible. Although this rationale for a biological-behavioural science of communication makes sense to me on its own terms, I will argue that an intellectual discipline that intends to cultivate the social practice of communication (i.e., a practical discipline as proposed by Craig 1989) unavoidably confronts normative and interpretive problems of praxis, as well as empirical and technical questions, and cannot, therefore, be reduced to an exclusively biological-behavioral science. Does this argument entail a categorical rejection of epistemological realism? Mats Bergman (2012) has criticized what he sees as my tendency to describe my pragmatist, social constructionist stance in communication theory as if it were incompatible with realism. Referring to the ‘habit-realism’ of Peirce and Dewey, Bergman claims that I don’t necessarily need to reject this broad realism, which can embrace a moderate constructivism. Reflecting on Bergman’s critique, this article reviews his account of habit-realism and considers what difference it would make for a practical discipline of communication to embrace pragmatist realism as opposed to an anti-realist constructivism on the one side, or an anti-constructivist realism like that of Sánchez and Campos on the other.