Dialogue

The final thread reviewed in chapter 36 is Dialogue, defined by Griffin as "transparent conversation that often creates unanticipated relational outcomes due to parties' profound respect for disparate voices" (p. 482). I agree with Buber in the fact that he says dialogue happens in 'I-Thou' relationships, because dialogue is what happens between two people, and you can never predict what is going to be said.

"Dialogue is typically not a way to accomplish a task; what we get is an authentic relationship" (p. 483). To me, this quote best exemplifies what dialogue is capable of achieving. Because it is through dialogue that you get to know one another, understand each other, and build healthier relationships. I know that when I communicate with individuals in some sort of intimate relations, dialogue is really important in order progress and move forward.

Conflict: Good or Bad?

I think that conflict is an area that most people try to avoid because it usually has a negative connotation. However, it can be both good and bad. The text states that "unjust communication stifles needed conflict; healthy communication can make conflict productive" (p. 481). I completely agree. If you can communicate effectively, conflict can be a positive learning experience. Griffin defines conflict as "the struggle between people who perceive they have incompatible values and goals, or competing over scarce resources" (p. 482). Which makes sense. On the other hand, some face-to-face interactions deal with using power to squash conflict instead of working through it. Watzlawick talks of a double bind in his interactional view theory where the 'powerful' or dominant person in a relationship insists that the individual with less power act as if the relationship were actually symmetrical. That is a really unfair type of conflict, which I see in the workplace sometime. For instance, when managers use double standards; when they require everyone do a task, that they wouldn't want to do themselves, but yet claim they are on a level playing field. I've seen this cause conflicts at work.

Motivation

I think that Griffin does a really good job of summarizing things up in this chapter, reviewing all the theories. One of his threads, which reminds me entirely of me, is motivation for communication which he talks about on pages 472-474. He states: "Communication is motivated by our basic social need for affiliation, achievement, and control, as well as our strong desire to reduce our uncertainty and anxiety." (472). He makes it crystal clear that these are the reasons of how and why we choose to communicate. I was able to relate to each of those reasons as it occurred to me that not everyone will have the same reasons, or the same 'amount' of each reason, or even all of the reasons. It could just be one motivating factor for one person and another for someone else. This makes sense for social penetration and social exchange theories, as those involve interpersonal communication, for personal interests.

Depending on what my desire of an outcome is, I may act/communicate differently. Only after this class am I now able to stop and think "what do I want from this?" and choose to communicate accordingly. It's a useful tool.

Feminism Today?

I think that chapter 35 is interesting in the fact that it explores the 'muted' voice of women, the dominance and origin of masculine words and influences, and just the power that men hold in general. I find it funny, that as I'm reading, I realize how much negative connotation the word "feminist" has with it, for people who consider it out of the 'norm'. Also made evident by the definition of the word made by Rebecca West in the example of the feminist dictionary. West defined feminist as "not knowing precisely what feminism was, but only knowing that people called her one whenever she expressed sentiments that differentiated her from being a doormat." (p. 462). Another side note that caught my attention, was how Cheris Kramarae came to be (her name). Because this is something I've always thought of-- whether I would keep my last name or not when I get married. My last name would stop with me if I chose to take my husbands, as my father does not have any sons that will be able to carry on his name. I've heard many stories of debates about why women should take the last name of their husband, rather than the other way around... it's such an antiquated practice... or maybe become what is known as 'tradition' or proper ettiquette. But Kramarae definitely came up with a creative way to solve that.... by combining the two names. Granted, not everyone will have as easy a time creating combined names as Kramarae, but I have also noticed the surge of hyphenated last names these days as an alternative solution. But I wonder......... will men ever take the names of their wives?

Women as a Marginalized Group

Along with the Standpoint Theory, comes the idea of women as a marginalized group. First of all, to elaborate on standpoint theory, I strongly believe that "gender is a cultural construction... gender is a system of meanings that sculpts individuals' standpoints by positioning most males and females in disparate material, social and symbolic circumstances" (p. 443). Men and women are taught by society how they should act based on cultural expectations and treatment. I think we have become so accustomed to it, it's hard to distinguish. Harding and Wood claim that there is a discrepancy found in all societies, and notes that "a culture is not experienced identically by all members. Cultures are hierarchically ordered so that different groups within them have positions that offer dissimilar power, opportunities, and experiences to members" (p. 444). It has been the norm that women have been underadvantaged while men have been overadvantaged in many ways; the workplace being one of them. Statistics show that women working the same position as men, doing the same job with the same experience have earned a significantly different income. Usually white men predominantly have the upper positions of power and wealth.

I do have to say though, I know that we are progressing and moving away from this.... although it still does exist. A really interesting article I came across made me feel good to see, was one in the Wall Street journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122608990529609245.html#project%3DTOP50WOMEN%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

It's about the top 50 women to watch out for who hold executive level jobs, you tells you a little bit about what they do and what companies they work for when you click on their picture. So we'll see how much this really begins to change as time goes on.

Standpoint

Chapter 34 is quite an interesting chapter for me. Just the beginning alone really struck a chord with me because it made so much sense! Griffin defines the concept of standpoint as "a place from which to critically view the world around us" (p. 441) and your perspective, viewpoint or outlook is contingent on where you stand... To me, the idea of this makes perfect sense, it seems that it would be common sense... but when you really think about it-- how many of us really stop to think 'Hmmm, my viewpoint is this way because of where I'm standing [or other words, affected by what I've experienced]' Personally, I'd like to think that I pause to think that, but I know I don't, even though it's completely true. My standpoint completely affects the way I view the world: how I communicate with others and myself. I'm still barely getting used to the idea that not everyone sees things as I see them, or see me as I see me for that matter... but now, I'm trying to keep in mind, that everyone looks at things from their own eyes which can be portrayed differently based on experience.

The example to illustrate standpoint given by Harding in the beginning of the chapter really helps understand the concept of standpoint with the illusion of the bent stick, or what appears to be bent. If you are standing on the other side of the pond, you can see that the stick is not bent at all. But based on my position and location, I'll call things as I see them. But if we open up our minds to realize that there is never going to be ONE way to see things, I think it would open up so much more possibilities/opportunities to understand one another.

Powerful Mass Media

Chapter 29 is a very interesting topic because the concept of the Spiral of silence is a matter that is very real in todays society. People tend to clam up if they are in the minority. I think that the media plays a powerful role in dominating information and opinions, whether it's print or electronic form. An interesting theory is that of pluralistic ignorance which I think occurs more frequently than we think. Pluralistic ignorance is defined as "people's mistaken idea that everyone thinks like they do" (p. 374) due to the fact that the media does not offer the differing viewpoints in proportion to reality of opinions. Noelle-Neumann believes that written word's power to change attitudes could be limited by selective exposure with the abundance of newspapers, magazines and current event material that are available because they could avoid contrary beliefs. But TV itself is extremely powerful, it has an omniscent presence that repeats messages from certain point-of-views and is much harder to escape. This is something I can completely agree with, I do believe that television media is given much more power with its selective exposure of issues. Noelle-Neumann believes the media goes one step beyond agenda setting: "The media in general and television in particular not only tell us what to think about but aslo provide the sanctioned view of what everyone else is thinking" (375).