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. ;-)