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).

Framing: What and How to Think

I found myself intrigued by a third case study that was used as evidence that the process of framing actually alters images in peoples' minds when reading or watching the news. Griffin notes the third study conducted by Salma Ghanem for her doctoral dissertation under McCombs' supervision at UT (Univ. of Texas) on page 366. In short, Ghanem analyzed the percent changes of crime concern among Texas residents and actual criminal acts. Concern had gone up even though the frequency and severity of crimes had gone down and realized that the increased salience of crime was driven by the local media. Using the two levels of agenda setting in her study, she tracked the transfer of salience of specific crime attributes as well as the frame of where the crime took place. The frame that crime could 'happen to anyone' was powerful as well the crimes that were 'close to home' versus the ones that happened out of state. The correlations between these media frames and public concern suggest that attribute frames make compelling arguments for people who are exposed to the news.

This case study was interesting to me, because more often than not, when I watch the news, I always find myself thinking how depressing it is with the stories they choose to cover.
I have also fallen for the fear instilled by some of the news stories that some of these crimes portrayed "could happen to anyone" and although that is certainly true, I think that the salience of certain issues is magnified two-fold by the media. I would be interested to see more of these studies conducted in different areas to see if it really holds true.

Important? Says who?

The concept of the agenda-setting theory is a familiar one. As a communication major, although I have no interest in being a journalist, I have heard many times before what the "duty" of a journalist is. I've heard from people who aspire to go into journalism that they wish to 'report the truth, unbiased.' But we all know this isn't true... or at least the case these days. In Chapter 28, McCombs and Shaw developed the agenda-setting hypothesis, believing that "mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda." (p. 359). Everyone would like to think that they are independent thinkers... and for the most part, most of us are-- however the news cues us on where to focus our attention. The quote that I find true is: "We judge as important was the media judge as important" (p. 359). And that is evident by the news channels we watch. Stories are quick and run 15 seconds or so, anything that run 30-45 seconds you know has a little bit more significance based on its length and frequency it appears in the media. It hard to tell whether agenda-setting is more of a positive or negative thing, but I suppose it has both aspects. It's a matter of whose agenda is imposed upon the audience, I find myself always thinking, 'who is this coming from?'

But I think the best thing for us to do is take our information and facts from various sources in order to establish our own "truth" and what's important.

Making Meaning...

According to Michel Foucault, his concept of discourse is defined as the "frameworks of interpretation" (p. 337) in order to make sense of relationships between societal power, communication, and mass media. But Stuart Hall claims otherwise-- he claims that the 'primary function of discourse is to make meaning' in his book Representation. The catchy phrase that caught my attention is the one that is stated in the text: "Words don't mean; people mean." That short statement says a lot to me, because it's something that I also believe. I almost interpret it as words don't mean anything unless there is something/someone to validate it, or back it up. But of course, not everyone is going to interpret meanings in the same way. Stuart Hall's theory is that people learn what signs mean though discourse (through communication and culture). He proceeds to explain how culture works in terms of producing and exchanging meanings, and that people of the same culture are likely to interpret the world around them in similiar ways. This makes a lot of sense considering meanings and signs are learned culturally and through past experiences.

Electronics?

In Chapter 24, McLuhan divided our human history (means of communication) into four periods. However, the one that is most intriguing to me is the Electronic/Digital age, probably because I have been born right into it. But the Digital age is a splint of the Electronic Age, which encompasses a lot. The electronic ages includes electronic media devices starting from the telegraph, telephone and radio all the way through to cell phones, computers, PDAs and MP3 players. I don't know whether I'd be able to function without any of these things because they have become so entwined in our everyday life, as a Global village. Griffin describes a Global village as "a worldwide electronic community where everyone knows everyone's business and all are somewhat testy" (p. 317). It's so true, because who don't you know about these days? Whether it is Joe Schmoe or some celebrity... you can find anything about anyone in the click of a button or quick call. The instant methods of transferring information or communication as changed greatly and continues to change. Everything gets faster, or smaller and that seems to be the direction that electronics go these days. Anything more compact is considered more "convienent" as I know I've seen the beginning of cell phones and computers (how big and bulky they were) to what they are now.... sleek, slim and tiny!

I'm interested to see what the Digital age continues to bring...

Media & Culture--- It is what we make it

The subject of media and culture is one that is very fascinating. The introduction of media and culture helps us understand this by using examples from the movie Blade Runner (which I have yet to see... it sounds interesting from Griffin's description!) But something interesting that Griffin brings up is the concept of hyper-reality: that recurring media images are more real than real. "Our mental pictures of the perfect body, house, meal, vacation, and sexual relationship have been created through exposure to constantly recycled media depictions that have no basis in fact--but it is these images that create our expectations" (p. 309). This is something that unfortunately so true... I think the media portrays very unrealistic images that people strive to attain.... and it's not reflective of what is real, or should be real. Baudrillard stated that "it's not TV as a mirror of society but just the reverse: it's society as the mirror of television" (p. 310). Which is what is exactly happening.... all these shows that have created 'reality' for our impressionable young generations via MTV and all the other garbage reality tv shows. It's crazy how much people believe these shows to be the truth or actual reality.

In closing, Griffin says for postmodernists, it's not an issue of whether the media distorts reality. "In today's world, the media have become reality---the only one we have" (p. 310)

Rational-world Paradigm

Griffin explores Fisher's paradigm shift in Ch. 23, from a rational world paradigm to a narrative one. Fisher discusses how the "Greek word logos originally included story, reason, rationale, conception, discourse, and thought--all forms of human communication" and that "imagination and thought were not yet distinct" (p. 301). So writings of Plato and Aristotle supposedly reflected the evolution from a generic to specific use of logos, from story to statement, referring to philosophical discourse. Rhetoric fell somewhere in the middle of logos and mythos, 'practical speech' that included pure logic as well as the ability to stir up passions and emotions. (p. 301) To me, that's a pretty logical way of explaining he difference between the two.

Fisher describes philosphical and technical discussion as the "scholars'" approach to knowledge, also known as the rational-world paradigm. The text defines this as "a scientific or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes peopler are logical, making decisions on the basis of vidence and lines of argument" (p. 301) There are five assumptions of the prevailing rational-world paradigm:
1. People are essentially rational
(I have to interject my opinion here........ Usually... but not always)

2. We make decisions on the basis of arguments
(I know I make decisions on the outcomes of arguments)

3. The type of speaking situation (legal, scientific, legislative) determines the course of our argument
(How you should speak or present to certain groups)

4. Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue
(how smart you know/sound and how well you do it!)

5. The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

To me, the whole world is a puzzle.... anything can be solved through analysis... it's overanalysis that gets you in trouble! ;)

Victimage

Burke's concept of Dramatism in Ch. 22 was a little odd to me... at least when it gets to the theological terms. Guilt Redemption seemed odd to be included with Rhetoric. It was hard for me to put the pieces together of how it was related, but eventually it started to make sense... and the part of the chapter about Guilt redemption that stuck out to me the most was the idea of "Redemption through Victimage." To me personally, victimage sounds so harsh or even violent of a word. But what's interesting is Burke's theory claims that a speaker has two choices: mortification (confession of guilt and request for forgiveness) or victimage (scapegoating; the process of naming an external enemy as the source of all ills) [p. 293]

Since mortification requires purging through self-blame, Griffin uses interesting examples such as OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton, who have found it difficult to admit to the public that they are the source/cause of their own grief. A good way for me to remember this is through the idea of confession (catholicism)... if you imagine some of the things you may confess to the priest, you may find yourself "mortified" (embarrassed) because there is no one else to take credit except yourself. But as most people know, it is much easier to put the blame on someone else and play the 'victim' hence the term "victimage." You designate the fault to someone or something else. Which has been prevalent in many forms of rhetoric. Again, the examples that keep popping up in my head, are the presidential and VP candidates (politics in general) that use this... only because this is what's currently going on... And the examples listed include things from Al Qaeda, homosexuals, to religious fundamentalists, etc. The term "congregation through segregation" (p. 294) sounds like such a dated idea, but it unfortunately still holds true today:

"The easiest way for an orator to identify with an audience is to lash out at whatever or whomever the people fear" (p. 294) This quote is especially true of politics....

Public Rhetoric

So... something I've noticed in all our quizzes, as I'm sure some of you have as well.... is that we are quizzed on the little snippets that proceed a new topic of chapters. So I thought I would include some information on the "Public Rhetoric" that comes before chapter 21. Because something from it will likely show up on the quiz.

This section served as an introduction to Aristotle and the study of rhetoric. "Aristotle defined rhetoric as 'an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion.' " but Griffin uses the term public rhetoric to refer to a speaking context in which the speaker has an opportunity to monitor and self adjust to the response of his immediate audience (p. 276). I'm trying to discern the difference, but Griffin's is much more detailed in terms of what one should expect with public rhetoric. There are five parts (divisions) that the Greeks and Romans used when studying rhetoric (also known as the five canons of rhetoric):

1. Invention - ways to find convincing arguments
2. Arrangement - organization to have desired impact
3. Style - using appropriate language and diction
4. Delivery - combination of voice and gestures
5. Memory - mastery and rehearsal of content

These seem to be general rules that sound all too familiar. These are things I remember from my public speaking class, in order to have a successful or efficient speech. It's a combination of all these things that make a great speech... which, depending on the type of speech you are trying to deliver.

In this case, what I've come up with--

Basically, persuasive speech = rhetoric

Participation from Everyone!

In Ch. 20, another element Griffin focuses on is Deetz' theory in regards to participation. Deetz views participation as a 'stakeholder democracy'; democratic participation allows for better citizens of a community as well as choices. Participation is defined as "the process by which all stakeholders in an organization negotiate power and openly reach collaborative decisions" (p. 270). The way I view the meaning of 'stakeholder' is someone who holds a stake... in essence, someone who has say in something. Deetz lists specific groups of stakeholders who should have a say in how a corporation is run for different needs:

• Investors
• Workers
• Consumers
• Suppliers
• Host communities
• Greater society and the world community

This reminds me of topics we are learning about in my Management & Organizational Behavior (BUS160) class... we have studied corporations who have allowed for a complete open door policy, making everything known among including "inside information" such as financials, and say in what was going to happen much like the example given of Saturn in our text. Everyone had equal opportunities to obtain information, and learn to do something new everyday if they desired. ANd employees were generally happier. The story of SRC where the janitor confronted the manager about the balance sheet and warned him against having 'all his eggs in one basket,' thus causing the company to diversify, stick out through the recession and expand. In most corporations, you would NEVER see this happen. But it proves that given the opportunity, anyone could contribute something if given the chance. Stakeholder participation can really make a difference.

Corporate World takeover?

Ch. 20 really grabs my attention by depicting the use of the movie Erin Brockovich. That was a movie that I have seen and liked, and although I knew that was based on a true story, to see it in a published 'matter-of-fact' summary in a textbook paints a much clearer picture for me. I am able to understand how a major corporation can and has affected people by the choices they make. Multinational corporations have become entwined, or as Griffin put it, "encroached upon every area of life outside the workplace" (p. 262). Corporations have colonized our way of living.

Deetz says that corporations "control and colonize" modern life in ways
that no government or public body since the feudal era ever thought possible.
(p. 262)

This statement really makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering corporations such as AT&T, Time Warner, Disney and Microsoft. These handful of companies own a large percentage of wealth and resources, having the ability to influence masses. Who hasn't heard of these corporations? Disney for instance, has controlled and colonized millions of children who grow up influencd by their fairy tale stories, characters, and even the by-products of young Disney stars. Notice how much control Disney exerts on their young stars and tight of a rein they keep? Do the stories of Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus or any of those teeny boppers ring a bell anyone? Disney is known to run a tight ship (I have a friend who's company paired up with them to promote "Enchanted" and she informed me of all the restrictions and regulations they had)... therefore with their strategies they are able to rake in the millions.

What is Culture?

The word culture can take on so many different forms and meanings... depending on its context. In Ch. 19, Geertz and Pacanowsky take a look at culture from a symbolic approach, 'considering culture as more than just a single variable in organizational research:'

"... From our point of view, culture is not something an organization has; a
culture is something that an organization is" (p. 251)

This quotation alone really resonated with me because it reminds me of something I learned while at San Diego State about culture. The concept of culture is defined as "systems of shared meaning" (p. 251). I believe I mentioned this is myComm scholar, but a lesson I learned at SDSU while taking a sign language course, was the fact that I was not only bi-cultural, but tri-cultural. My mother is Vietnamese and my father is European (Caucasian), so when people asked me about culture and background, those were the two things I identified with. Growing up in a household where I learned sign language (probably as my first language if not simultaneously with English), I never thought anything of it. I grew up my whole life knowing my parents were deaf (which was different from everyone else), and that was that. I attended deaf functions, knew my parents' deaf friends, but I still maintained my relationships and identity with hearing people. It wasn't until I took a sign language class, learning from an "outsiders" perspective how much "culture" existed among the deaf. Deaf culture was in fact existent, however since I was immersed in it my whole life, it had never occurred to me that the "shared systems of meaning" were significant in that it created a subculture in itself based on the language, structure, understandings, experiences and perceptions of deaf people. It was as if a light bulb went off in my head seeing it from a different point of view. And I'm glad it turned on!

Use and Abuse of Rules & Resources

The use and abuse of rules and resources in a small group setting is something that is inevitable. Rules are defined as "propositions that indicate how things ought to be done or what is good or bad" (pg. 240). Resources are defined as "materials, possessions, or attributes that can be used to influence or control the actions of the groups or its members" that individuals bring to the group (p. 240). The only way that that a group can implement rules and utilize resources are when they can come to a decision as a group. If a group is not cohesive, or cannot come to a consensus, it will be hard to enforce any rules. Group members may not want to contribute their resources if there are no rules present. For instance, the book gave an example of Michelle the 4.0 GPA student who may get frustrated with the way the group functions, and not want to bring her knowledge (resource) to the group. I can relate to that situation because there have been times in groups where there are no rules and nothing is getting done or moving forward, and I've been hesitant to contribute all my ideas because you don't want to be the one carrying all the weight of the work. But at the same time, you don't want the group to fail. I think most people have had experience of consensus or majority rules for leadership styles in terms of making decisions/rules. If resources are effectively and evenly used/distributed, then there should be no cause for abust.

Interaction vs. behavior

In Ch. 18, Griffin talks about Structuration according to Giddens "the production and reproduction of the social systems through members' use of rules and resources in interaction"(237), but what I find interesting about Gidden's use of the word interaction, is how he defines it in contrast to the passive term behavior. Griffin notes that "the word interaction signals his [Giddens] belief that people are relatively free to act as they will" (237) which I believe to be true. Griffin then defines the word interaction as "intentional acts of group members who are aware of what they are doing" (239). Behavior can be learned, and by this I mean become a habit, with or without being aware of what's going on. But interaction requires full attention to interact and react to each other.



I find that I have a really hard time working in a group where there's no interaction going on, because you have nothing to go off of, there's no free flow of ideas. I'm currently in BUS160 (Fundamentals of Management and Organizational Behavior) and that class revolves around working in groups. There have been times where I've been in groups that don't interact... and it makes it difficult for me to give ideas without feeling like I'm forcing it when I'm not getting any feedback. And then there are times when there's too much interaction, or moreso when everyone wants to get their ideas to be the 'answer,' or as I like to say, too many Queen Bees... aka 'too many cooks'..... :) So there are two sides to interaction I suppose

Role of Communication

In chapter 17, there is not a concept per se that stood out to me, but a whole paragraph rather, about how communication scholars believe that discussion among group members has an effect on the quality of group decisions.

Traditional wisdom suggests that talk is the medium, or conduit, through
which information travels between participants. Verbal interaction makes
it possible for members to (1) distribute and pool information, (2) catch and
remedy errors, and (3) influence each other (227).

This traditional view of communication reminds me very much of this class itself. Although we are not in a typical classroom setting where we are able to verbally interact in order to transfer information; we are able to freely write to convey ideas (distribute and pool info), agree or disagree with each others' posts (catch and remedy errors), and get clearer pictures or ideas from one another (influence each other). Griffin states in the text that Hirokawa believed that "communication plays a more active role in crafting quality decisions... regards group discussion as a tool or instrument that group members use to create the social reality in which decisions are made (like social constructionists)" (227). Although we aren't necessarily making decisions in this class (with the exception of our decision to disclose information), our discussions are used as instruments to help us understand our social reality.

Axioms: Not communicating

A topic that seemed to pertain to me from Ch. 13 falls into the axioms of interpersonal communication. Although I feel that I am someone who likes to 'thoroughly' communicate, I have to admit that there are times that I feel I cannot communicate. And often times, it is because of the Symptom strategy. The symptom strategy is when we "ascribe our silence to something beyond our control that renders communication justifiably impossible: sleepiness, headache, drunkeness, etc." (p. 171)

I don't ever think of it as "I'm so _______ that I'm going to use it as an excuse to not communicate..." but often times, it does control how we are in the 'mood' to express ourselves. Watzlawick claimed that the symptom strategy suggests that "I don't mind talking to you, but something stronger than I, that I cannot blame, prevents me". I often find at social gatherings, if I've had a few drinks, and I'm feeling tired, I sometimes start to socialize less... and at that point, I'm usually not having fun, although I don't usually admit that to people that ask. But to be courteous, i usually just explain that I'm tired. But the people usually will call me out and say it looks like I'm not having fun... Which shows that your nonverbal cues give away answers too.

Tug-O-War

I find the dialectics which affect relationships in chapter 12 really interesting. These are factors that I have come to know through experience, but to read it in text book makes it so much clearer to understand. The Integration / Separation dialectic on page 157 is defined as "a class of relational dialectics that includes connectedness-separateness, inclusion-seclusion, intimacy-independence, and closeness-autonomy." The example given of playing tug-of-war fits perfectly, because relationships are a constant pull back and forth. But if one side wins, or the other side stops pulling... all is lost (in terms of the relationship). Baxter and Montgomery hit it right on the nose when they said:

No relationship can exist by definition unless the parties sacrifice some
individual autonomy. However too much connection paradoxically
destroys the relationship because the individual identities become lost
(p. 157).

I have experienced this myself in relationships... it's a very fine line of balance when it comes to submersing yourself with someone while keeping your own identity. I think a lot of relationships go through this phase where you start to put the "we" before "me" and although sometimes it's good for the relationship, but a lot of times it's not, it becomes stifling. A good way to look at it is being parts to a whole, that function together but can still function on its own. It's hard to remember, that it was your individualness that attracted each other in the first place.

CMC Relationships

This whole world wide tanglement of a web took interpersonal relationships to a whole new level. I remember when I started to become of 'dating' age, when the whole AOL chat and 'You've Got Mail' was taking society by storm. I'll admit, I've been involved in that scene of developing an anonymous "pen pal" or chat buddy and looked forward to chatting with them all the time. I vaguely remember how I used to even get in touch with people whether it was via chat room, or random profile searches where you looked for something you had in common. Walther draws this from SIDE Theory, an acronym for Social identity-deindividuation. Basically meaning, when most CMC relationships begin when parties meet in online groups/chat rooms based on a common interest, and assume that others are like them (p. 145). I do feel that these common interests are overexaggerated, because since you don't have other cues to go off of, you can only grasp on to what you know, or what you're told based on how the other person presents themselves. It's a scary thing... but like Joe [from You've Got Mail] said "this not knowing has its charm" (p. 141) which is probably why some people enjoy the adrenaline rush of the unknown...... until they've had their share of disappointments.... ;-)

Coping with Uncertain Responses

While reading Chapter 10, I thought the plans they had laid out to cope with uncertain responses was rather interesting (begins on page 129). Message plans are basically a sequence of actions that may be taken in order to achieve goals. The strategy I found most common, or at least have witnessed in several instances, is 'Hedging'. Griffin defines Hedging as a "use of strategic ambiguity and humor to provide a way for both parties to save face when a message fails to achieve its goal" (pg. 131). I'm sure many of you have witnessed this as well. How many times do you find yourself in a conversation with someone who uses ambiguous words when telling you something because they are not sure how you will respond, or even more so, when people try to play it off as a joke when you don't respond favorably. I've heard "I was only kidding!" as an excuse to save face so many times, especially when you know they weren't.

Social Penetration

The concept of Social Penetration is defined as the "process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability" (p. 114). This process is important because it explains how closeness develops in relationships, which most people encounter at one time or another. Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor (both social psychologists) explain that relationships [i.e. best friends] proceed when they moved in "a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes" (p. 114). It's been so long since I've gotten to know my best friends, so I don't remember how our relationships began, but I can relate the social penetration theory to myself at work with my co-workers.

Personally, I think it's a very fine line of what people should disclose at work in terms of their personal life, and I'm sure most people feel this way, especially when they start a new job. There's 14 of us, 6 of us are women and over the past year I have been here, I feel very close with my CFO and Director of Administration. They've made me comfortable enough to start disclosing details about what was going on with my life (family and personal relationships), yet we have been able to maintain a professional relationship as they have gotten to know me. I remember a couple months ago when we hired a new Executive Admin, I was afraid of how she'd fit into our office and how comfortable I would feel talking to her. But as time passed, and we got past the superficial information exchange, we began to have a higher level of self-disclosure. We are getting to know each other on a personal level and enjoy disclosing information to each other, beyond the "how was your weekend" type of thing. Obviously, we are probably not going to consider each other best friends as we are co-workers and still keep that level of respect for each other, but maybe it's a perk of working in a small office and having another person to confide in :)

Thought Processes...

Week 2 BLOG #3



In chapter 5, Griffin reviews Herbert Blumer's theory of Symbolic Interactionism and this chapter is particularly interesting to me because I am a firm believer that effective communication is contingent on how individuals interact with one another and that it is two-way. One of Blumer's premises includes the thought process of 'taking the role of the other,' and that "the individual's interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes" (p. 62). I know that when I am communicating with others, the way I interpret their words or actions (message) is affected by what or how I think of the sender of the message, the context of the message, and whatever other thoughts I may have. As I have mentioned before, I tend to 'think' a lot, and Griffin states that "symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation, and Mead called the inner dialogue 'minding' defined as an inner dialogue used to test alternatives, rehearse actions, and anticipate reactions before responding; self-talk" (p. 62). I've never thought that when my thoughts are going, as a 'conversation' with myself, but it makes sense because I often do think of possible alternatives, anticipate responses, etc. in my mind before making my next move or saying my next words.

However, I do think that there could be a point where you are thinking so much about your thoughts, and taking the role of the others where it could possibly be detrimental to your communication... or moreso inhibiting. I recently was learned of a concept called "mindfulness" where by being mindful, you can try to center yourself and not let your thoughts get the best of you if it does begin to affect your communication or thought processes... this kind of delves into the realm of psychology... but I still found it really interesting. I don't want to go off on a tangent, but if you're interested in learning about it: www.mindfulness.com

Back to Griffin and Blumer, it's mentioned that "we naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a diffucult situation" and I think that's very true... but we also have friends as sounding boards (at least I know I use them) to help us gain perspective of the other and validate whether your "talk" with yourself really makes any sense :)

Culture Industries

Of the seven traditions of communication theory, the Critical Tradition had my mind going about something that frequently occurs. The Critical Tradition views "Communication as a Reflective Challange of Unjust Discourse." In all honesty, when I think of communication, politics isn't the first thing that comes to mind, yet when you really think about it, how could it not be? This theory is based on the historical principles of Karl Marx and the critique of society. In this modern day and age, especially with the elections coming up, you frequently hear about the unequal distribution of wealth and benefits and all those kinds of things... some people are aware of it, some are oblivious to it.

Griffin describes the critical theorists who recognized "the same pattern in modern Western democracies where the 'haves' continued to exploit the 'have nots.' " (p. 48) and analyzed the discrepancies of the claimed "liberal" (democratic) values that we supposedly had, when the system of power was clearly unbalanced. Upon reading that, and interpreting that the concept of Culture industries I feel that the two are inextricably linked. Culture industries are defined in the text as: "Entertainment businesses that reproduce the dominant ideology of a culture and distract people from recognizing unjust distribution of power within society; e.g. film, television, music, and advertising" (p. 49). And I recall always thinking about how much the mass media affects people, especially our youth. For those of us who follow People magazine, or any other celebrity crazed form of media, I think we are sometimes distracted by all the materialistic things some people strive to attain creating this "ideal" life they would love to have... Ah, the life of a celebrity.... :) In reality though, the entertainment industry does create a distraction, thus the point of entertainment. I just hope that it doesn't masquerade the facts and make people forget about the reality of unequality.

Week 2 #1: Source Cred

In chapter 4, one of the first traditions Griffin explains for Communication Theory is the Socio-Psychological Tradition where communication is monitored by interpersonal interaction and influence. Influence is something that affects individuals and the choices they may make. Many people, including myself, is easily influenced by something or someone who is believed to have a high level of source credibility. Griffin defines source credibility as the "audience perception of the competence and trustworthiness of a speaker or writer" (pg 43), which greatly affects opinions. I had never realized that there were two types of credibility, expertness and character, but that makes sense (discovered by the Yale researchers). The experts obviously know what it is they're talking about and those with [good] character are believed if they are sincere enough.

The experience I've had with source credibility that comes to mind is from the time I worked at MAC cosmetics (I know some of the ladies will be able to relate; Guys, you can just pretend you can relate). Spending a few years working for MAC (or just retail in general) there were things I noticed about the consumers as well as some of my employees. First of all, I'm going to share a secret with you MAC shoppers, but not ALL the MAC artists know what they're talking about. Well, I should rephrase that: Not all the MAC employees we hire start out as experts. I remember my first day, a customer asked me what lipstick would look best on her, and I was thinking "I have no clue!" but I was regarded as an expert because I was the one behind the counter. However, I noticed that most, if not all of the MAC employees were considered credible sources of information because the way they were often perceived by customers. The most typical scenarios:

1) The customers loved the way way their makeup looked (they looked like experts doing it-- customers wanted their makeup to look "professional" like the artists'.)

2) They [MAC employees] sounded like they knew what they were talking about (there was a new hire I had that had limited product knowledge and was horrible at applying makeup... but she was good at sales and made everything sound good!)

And lastly-

3) the customers that came to the counter who don't fit in the above mentioned groups that didn't want to be "sold" or look made up, but judged the retail artists' sincerity (character) and established the artists as credible who are 'honest' and not trying to sell or make you look like them.

I don't want to mislead anyone in any way, I'm not saying that MAC artists are bad, or don't know what they're talking about and trying to sell you a bunch of unnecessary things, many of them are "Artists" and are experts at what they do (there's a reason their makeup looks the way it does). I just recall how it was when I was a consumer and what I thought, and then eventually became a retail artist myself and observed what was perceived to be credible. I witnessed the influence of source credibility from both sides. :)

-J

Words & Symbols

So from the first chapter... a thought/concept that really resonated with me was from page 8, where Griffin notes that "Words and symbols are polysemic--they're open to multiple interpretations."

I couldn't help but think how true this really is... I think there have been many instances in my life (especially lately) where I interpret something entirely different than someone else interprets it. I mean, really to the point where I try to look at it from every which angle, but will still see it through my "lens" and see it my way. I have definitely tried to become more understanding and get it through my head that not everyone will see something as I see it, and see their point of view, to the point where I am REALLY overanalyzing... I am so guilty of doing that! My friends give me a really hard time about it and tell me I think too much..... I like to think of it as being "interpretive." :) Maybe I'll start telling them I'm a "Rhetorical Critic." That has a really nice ring to it. ;-)

First BLOG

Hello fellow COMM 101-ers!

I must say, I'm a little intimidated because although I'm fairly computer literate, I've never caught on to the whole BLOG frenzy... it seems really interesting though so I'm really looking forward to this semester.

A little bit about me: I'm a COMM major/Business minor, technically in Junior standing, coming from De Anza and before that SDSU. I took a little detour from SDSU as I started working full time for MAC cosmetics as an assistant manager, but now full-time at a Venture Capital firm (complete change, I know, but now I have my weekends back so I can't complain there) I still do makeup as a "side" job, so I manage to keep pretty busy. But I am determined to finish at SJSU via night and online classes. This is my first semester attempting 3 classes instead of my usual 2. So wish me luck!!

Looking forward to interacting with all of you!!

~J