Did you mean that?

The Intentionality Debate Some communication researchers have strongly favored the view that only intentional behaviors are communicative. Miller and Steinberg (1975): "We have chosen to restrict our discussion of communication to intentional symbolic transactions: those in which at least one of the parties transmits a message to another with the intent of modifying the other’s behavior…By our definition, intent to communicate and intent to influence are synonymous. If there is no intent, there is no message."

They argue that only intentionally sent and accurately received messages can be called communication.

On the other hand, for instance, Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson (1967) state that: “you cannot not communicate.” This way of thinking reflects the notion that all things could be considered communication. According to this way of thinking, when two people are together, they constantly communicate because they cannot escape behavior. Even silence and avoidance of eye contact could than be considered communicative. One can say nothing and still say something. Adherents of this theory believe that anything we do, including ignoring or refusing to speak to another, is communication. This greatly broadens the definition of communication, making it virtually synonymous with behavior.

Although this line of thinking has enjoyed much popular support, it is potentially problematic for those of us interested in communication theory. To be fair, one of the original proponents of the “you cannot not communicate” arguments later recanted her original thinking by concluding that “all behavior is not communicative, although it may be informative.” So, perhaps they where just a littebit right, but certainly not all!