One annoying outcome of communication's diversity is an on-going indentity
crisis about what "correct" academic focus would integrate the discipline, accom-
panied by periodic attempts to change the major professional association's name in
order to secure better public relations in the academic community. I am tempted to
suggest that we follow the example set by the Linguistic Society of Paris when it
resolved the heated controversy over the origins of language in 1866 by simply
forbidding any further discussion. The "appropriate" focus, of course, depends on
the scientific or humanistic perspective from which one defines communication; and
the merit of a name (and the concept to which it refers) depends on the quality of
scholarship supporting it.

Diversity need not lead to fragmentation, and it is not inherently bad. A multi-
plicity of epistemic perspectives within a theoretically sophisticated and mature
discipline can provide an enrichment of knowledge. Numerous general, thematic,
and contextual theories within a field can enhance substantive research. However,
similar metatheoretical variety is not desirable within one's effort to establish a
theory. An integrated theoretical framework of some sort is essential to set guide-
lines from which to examine a specific topic or context in a coherent fashion.
Otherwise, the conceptual divergence of unexamined metatheoretical assumptions
about a particular phenomenon, such as intrapersonal communication, may yield
logical inconsistencies and invalidate any progress in theory construction. Rhetoric
has been around for centuries and has a developed theoretical foundation, but
intrapersonal communication is a relatively new phenomenon for speech communi-
cation study and still lacks the grounding of a sound theoretical base. The recency of
our attention combined with the near absence of any pertinent general theory to
guide us explains why little, if any, organized intrapersonal theory has been devel-
oped to date. This book is intended to provide a base of knowledge and integrated
theory to which intrapersonal communication scholars can respond in their attempts
at further explanatory theory.

In 1986, Charles Roberts presented a petition to the national Speech Communi-
cation Association's (SCA) Legislative Council asking it to create a Commission on
Intrapersonal Communication Processes, thereby recognizing intrapersonal as a
topic of substantial study within SCA. As a member of the council that year, I
remember the discussion about whether or not SCA should endorse such a focus.
One older council member harrumphed and dismissed intrapersonal communication
as "just thinking," inferring it really was not appropriate for communication schol-
ars to think about thinking! The council decided, however, that if our colleagues
wished to think about thinking, listening, or any other communicative process
within the individual, then SCA should facilitate their efforts. Establishing the
Intrapersonal Commission demonstrated the interest of many scholars in the topic;
however, it did not follow that a consensus existed on how to investigate or even on
how to define intrapersonal communication.

The following chapters are an attempt to present interaction, thinking, and talk-
ing on the level of the individual in a theoretically integrated way using a view
derived from George Herbert Mead and L. S. Vygotsky. This sociogenetic perspec-
tive mandates an emphasis on social interaction; the developmental nature of mind;

-x-