Chapter 5: Symbolic Interactionism
I always had an interest in sociology and considered studying it, but I felt as if God was calling me into communications for some unknown reason. And in a way, this chapter was very similar to something I read in a sociology textbook in my introduction to sociology course a year ago. Now I understand why God has given me a vested interest in communication. Essentially communications is sometimes like applied sociology. And with my dual interest in both fields, I am really beginning to learn and understand like never before.
The concept of the looking-glass self really appealed to me specifically because when I was younger I was called lots of names. My perception of myself began to shift towards what others labeled me as rather than who I was in reality. Once I finally got away from those people, my perception of myself began to change. Thus the practicality of this concept holds significance in my life.
Lastly, the description that is provided on the subjective “I” and the objective “me” really applied to a situation I have found myself in recently. Growing up I used magic to make people smile and once I got to college I used it to make friends. Now people call me a magician, illusionist, wizard and many more terms synonymous with fooling the eye. However, I noticed at my last college that once I stopped being ‘Magic Steve’ and started trying to get to know people without magic, all my “friends” disappeared. Little did I know I had created a really good objective “me” to hide behind when I was nervous to meet new people. In fact, I had created such a good persona that I began performing with confidence for audiences of hundreds of college students. I was so confident that I felt like I could talk to anyone with magic. Conversely, when I tried to be normal “Steve”, the Steve I knew to exist outside of magic, my confidence vanished. In this way, I now realize the difference between the two fronts I had created objectively and subjectively. You could say, after reading this it is easier to understand how I can change my persona to have confidence without a deck of cards and magic overall.
I found it interesting how closely I can the statement, “Persons-in-conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create,” applies to my life. Communications is my fourth major. I started with Landscape engineering and design, then changed interests to aviation to pursue a commercial pilots rating. Shortly after that I realized that my flying schedule and school schedule would not allow me to fly so I changed my major to business and economics. However, it was in the midst of a conversation that I decided to change my major to communications so I could work with people.
Just as the quote implies, I co-constructed my own social reality while in conversation. Consequently, I am also being shaped by the world I created through that decision because I am now taking five communication classes. In other words, I am more or less a product of the world I have created through a conversation and could be considered a social-constructionist of sorts.
Nevertheless, the one thing I relate with the most is how Barnett and Kim Pearce founded the Public Dialogue Consortium. As stated by the book it is based on, “changing destructive patterns of communication in whole communities.” This is one of the main reasons I switched my major. I wanted to help people and I wanted to use communications as a means through which communities and social groups could be changed. After reading the chapter, I have already visited the webpage for the Public Dialogue Consortium and it is something that I will most likely be browsing around on in the future. It is exciting to me to find out that there are other, much more intelligent people, interested in the same things for the same reasons as I am.
It is nice to know that there are terms for the trouble I had with my first roommate when I transitioned to college my freshmen year. As I look back it seems like one of the reasons I had so much trouble with him is from spiraling inversion. At some points he seemed like the most encouraging guy that wanted me to become more like Christ and then at other times he was asking me to keep quiet about his girlfriend spending the night in our room. It was confusing and it led to a lot of uncertainty between us because we rarely talked about it. It makes so much more sense to finally put a name with a situation that I found myself in rather often during my freshmen year.
Since I have been at IWU I have not had much trouble with my roommate although he does stay up a little longer than my liking. I have learned through my last two years in college that there will always be what Baxter and Montgomery call “internal dialectics.” As I mentioned in the paragraph above, spiraling inversion was something I dealt with regularly my freshmen year. Thus it is easier for me to understand and recognize it in others and myself as a result. To a point I think we all have a few hypocritical moments from time to time so we need to forgive each other and deal with those instances appropriately rather than making a bigger deal of it and potentially hurting the relationship as I did my freshmen year.
Lastly I found it helpful that the idea of “stability and change” was addressed on pages 140-141. In the past coming back from college after being away for two years I returned to some friendships that when I left were very strong but became bland after my absence. I was lacking the mystery seeking behavior that I typically had when I was around those people in person. Since coming to IWU I have already made a conscious attempt to keep specific friendships strong and after reading this chapter I have a few ways, (the touch of spontaneity, and occasional surprise), that I can use to make sure that happens.
I found a lot of irony in this chapter after realizing that it applies perfectly to the blind date I went on last Friday night. After we met at McConn and start walking, conversation seemed stagnate and awkward. I was unsure what I was getting into by starting up a new friendship with someone I knew so little about. As the date continued, the conversation seemed to follow Berger’s 6th axiom about similarities; it states, “Similarities between persons reduce uncertainty, while dissimilarities produce increases in uncertainty.” After a few minutes of conversation we realized that we both juniors, we both love sports, and were homeschooled until high school. And after realizing we had so much in common I felt more comfortable knowing we had a few shared interests and experiences.
It is also really interesting to look back at the communication patterns throughout the date in comparison to Berger’s different axioms. You could say I was nervous about being nervous. As a communications major I have a tendency to talk more when I feel the nervous. However, as the conversation continued and I started to talk less, it felt as if overall communication between us increased. And as the conversation increased I felt more and more sure that this was more of a good idea than another stupid college student decision. And looking back on this inference it is pretty apparent that I was also falling under Berger’s 1st axiom as well as the 6th.
Looking towards the future I feel like this chapter ruined me, but it ruined me in a good way. You could say I am so used to not knowing the axioms that I never really thought about the different types of communication between two people that are meeting for the first time. Now whenever I meet someone I wont be able to keep myself from looking at each interaction with an axiom perspective. To a point it feels like I am cheating by knowing what increases uncertainty and what makes two people feel more comfortable in their first moments. Regardless, I am happy to have read the chapter so that if there is another date, I will be able to use Berger’s axiom’s to keep make sure uncertainty does not dictate the outcome of the experience.
Application Logs
Chapter 6: Coordinated Management of Meaning
Chapter 9: Uncertainty Reduction
Chapter 11: Relational Dialectics
Chapter 15: Elaboration Liklihood Model
In high school I was never an advocate of group projects. There was always the person who did all the work. No matter what subject it seemed like every group I was in had the same type of people. There was the hard-worker, the visionary, the skeptic, and of course the “let’s just call it good” person. However, several of the groups I was in had several characteristics from the functional perspective on group decision-making.
The hard-worker is typically really good with analyzing the current problem, the visionary tends to be the goal setter, and the skeptic is really good at analyzing the alternatives and weighing the pluses and minuses. Unfortunately, just because a group may have these individuals does not mean that they will do what they are good at. In my case I tended to be the hard-worker or the skeptic, but most of the time I would be the one doing most of the work and would spend too much time on each project because I had no process to follow.
After this mornings discussion and reading the textbook in more detail it is evident to me that this theory is not only applicable to group work but also to many individual projects. This morning it seems like many groups had one or two lead speakers, so if I can in the future be a lead speaker and follow this theory then it could potentially increase efficiency in the projects I am involved in. Not to mention, being a lead speaker allows you to shape the communication type in the decision-making groups. With this in mind, it makes practical sense to be a lead speaker in groups in the future rather than sitting back and staying quiet because you can shape the communication patters and follow the four functions to create efficiency and quality.
One of the coolest parts I took from this chapter was the difference between central routes and peripheral routes. I never realized that I use peripheral routes so often. By using peripheral routes I have started to come to conclusions about things/people based on my initial inferences. In doing so it feels like I am using objective elaboration to work from the bottom up. Nevertheless, what I was really doing was biased elaboration by thinking about things in a predetermined manner based on the peripheral routes I am so used to using.
I have noticed that all my communication classes challenge the way I see things. In my media and society course we have recently been talking about how we tend to support things that resemble our values. So if our peripheral routes are the “shortcuts” we take to evaluate the rejection/acceptance of messages then it is likely that those shortcuts are based off of our values as well. For example, how do we decide what information is important? We take in hundreds of messages a day and after filtering we are left the messages that have meaning in our lives. And since meaning is based off our values it is safe to say that our peripheral “shortcuts” are based off our values as well.
You could say my message elaboration skills were terrible and now after recognizing that I am inclined to ask myself what my peripheral routes are based on. The theory overall is useful in the future in that it helps us be more aware of what routes we take to end up at specific conclusions. Media literacy can be an overused term, but to a point I feel like out of all the chapters we have covered so far this one is most helpful in becoming media literate. It completely changed the way I look at my thought processing habits and tendencies. More specifically, it wrecked my perspective of my own communication; it wrecked it in a good way.
Chapter 17: Functional Perspective On Group Decision Making
First of all, I found it a bit ironic that this chapter talks about metaphors. Since I am doing several class projects on metaphors I was really interested to hear what Geertz and Pacanowsky had to say about cultures as a metaphors. Nevertheless, the concept of ethnography almost resembles a sports team and its members. For example, every player on a baseball team has a specific role. And regardless of that role, a player has his own ideas of what role he plays. He also decides how significant his role is to the team but this is all subjective. (e.g. a player that plays the designated-hitter role may assume he plays the role of the best hitter. Thus, he may choose to think his position is very significant to the team’s success. What he does not realize is that he is in that position because he is actually the worst fielder).
On a baseball team, or any team for that matter, there is a sense of community. There is something about several guys coming around one specific organization, or field in this case, for a specific purpose. This creates community among teammates. And within any community there are bound to be stories told; it is how we communicate. One of the all-star players might tell a story to one of the young guns about something that happened in prior years and how he dealt with it, this is an example of a corporate story. Personal stories are also often shared. In college guys like to talk themselves up by talking about how many homeruns they hit or how many no-hitters they threw in high school. These stories put them in favorable light with others because it is then assumed that they are a good ballplayer. Lastly, collegial stories are also a big part of any team. There are bound to be conflicting personalities and with that conflict comes the collegial stories most often referred to as gossip.
This chapter surprised me in how relatable it was to the different groups and sports teams I have been a part of. Regardless of the team, there will always be rules. Stories are always told whether they are corporate, personal, or collegial. And through the ethnography of specific cultures or teams, we can see how people view their role and provide a thick description that underlines the actual roles of those people.
Chapter 19: Cultural Approach To Organizations
When I was 18 I took what I considered to be my first real job at a landscaping construction firm. It was the stereotypical business in which I had to deal with an unequal distribution of power and rights between the older workers and the newbies. My experience overall is really relatable to the Critical Theory of Communication in Organizations because I noticed several meanings that were subtly produced by the corporation. For example, I had to deal with a lot of bullying from one of the older workers. He called me names everyday and the other workers did nothing but laugh at me.
According to our text “language does not represent things that already exist; it produces what we believe to be ‘self-evident’ or natural.” I did not necessarily see bullying as self-evident, but after a while I thought it was my own fault I was bullied in such a way. Because of this, I worked harder to try to gain the other workers respect, but I was actually falling into a form of consent in which the bullying made me work harder so other workers did not have to work as hard. In this way my situation was just as mentioned on the course website; I was “unknowingly accomplishing the interest of [the] other [workers] in the faulty attempt to accomplish [my] own interests.”
Though I considered myself on good terms with the overall management, they did very little to prevent bullying in the work place. To a point they almost looked past the bullying as long as the violators got the job done. In the managerial system there was a literal hierarchy however. There were the owners, then the designer and construction chief. Below them were the crew foremen; below them were the experienced workers that could use the bobcats and brick saws. And finally, at the very bottom, were the people in my position. I did not realize it until now, but the forms of control and managerial system actually kept me from saying anything and I kept quiet until I finally resigned so I could go to college. It was exactly like Deetz said, “Choice is often limited to loyalty or exit.”
Chapter 21: Critical Theory Of Communication in Organizations
This fall break was great, but little did I know I used persuasion several times on my visit to Kansas. I flew from Chicago to Kansas to visit my old college to see several old friends. Unfortunately, I needed to find a ride, a place to stay, food to eat, etc. So what did I do? I used persuasion to take care of myself.
Rather than using coercion, I used a combination of manipulation and persuasion. I asked an old friend to pick me up from the airport and take me back to the school using the positive reward that it would be “just like old times.” But due to my prolonged absence and desire to see as many people as possible, I knew the statement above was not completely true. In this way, I used reward of recreating the past as a positive reward to manipulate him to come to the airport. However, I combined this with persuasion stating several times that if he could not pick me up I could find someone else.
Overall it seems evident that I used a form of Aristotle’s Five Canons to take care of myself rather than having to spend the money on my needs. I used invention to come up with the idea and benefits of visiting my former college. I used organization to arrange in order the benefits to my friends of helping me. (e.g. if they give me a ride or let me stay with them it makes it possible for me to visit and hang out with them again). The style I used was also a form of persuasion. My language made it seem as if I could not visit without their help. I used memory by reminding former friends of how it used to be when I was around and how much fun we would have if I came back. Finally, I used delivery effectively by coming across as very excited but worried about fulfilling the things I needed in order to come. You could say I used persuasion to take care of myself the entire trip. I did pay for some gas and meals but I am convinced that I could have traveled with no money and still had a ride, place to stay, and food to eat, simply through the use of persuasion.
Chapter 22: Rhetoric
Dramatism is easily defined as focusing on the role of the critic and their responsibility of uncovering a speaker's motives. Through dramatism we can understand a speakers motives through the application of three key concepts: identification, dramatistic pentad, and Burkean rhetoric. Identification focuses on common ground between the speaker and the audience. The dramastic pentad focuses on the relationship between the variables of act, agent, purpose, agency, scene. Burkean Rhetoric focus on
Today I found more than one application of this theory so I thought I would go ahead and share both. First I realized that a good friend was a perfect example of the principle of victimage just recently. While I was visiting his house over the weekend there was an incident in which his dad suggested he apologize to his sister for arguing over whether or not they should go to church the next day. Consequently my friend unknowingly used Burkean rhetoric in his response. He said, “Why should I apologize? I did not do anything wrong. It’s stupid that she doesn’t think we should go to church.” It follows the notion that all motivation behind his rhetoric was to purge any guilt. He thus used a devil term when he included the word “stupid” in his defense. Ultimately even though he did not realize it at the time he was using dramatism to justify his thoughts, actions, and motives.
Chapter 23: Dramatism
Chapter 25: Media Ecology
This theory certainly reminds me of one of the videos I was required to watch for a mass communication class I took my freshmen year. Both the author of the theory and the speaker in the video talked about how the electronic age has significantly shortened our attention span. The Internet and the availability of information have created a society based on instant-gratification. We want everything now. And if not on the whole society I can certainly testify that it has had a big effect on my life. Before I was exposed to the Internet I had no trouble reading books, especially books for pleasure. However, now that I am so used to the Internet and the ability to receive information instantly, I now find it hard to concentrate on reading just one thing because I am so used to scanning for specific information rather than just reading to read. A good piece of evidence showing the decrease of the attention span is any modern movie. Just count the cuts in each scene and how often editors will cut out minute details because they assume the reader does not want to see that.
The way the theory explained the different cultures that have come along was really insightful. It helped me understand why my parents were always trying to get me off the computer and outside when I was younger. They saw all the dangers that came along with the changing of cultures: decreasing attention span, more time on the computer and less exercising, and the ability to create ones own reality thus creating less respect for others like oral cultures did. This theory not only explains the decreasing of the attention span over time but rather it explains the ways in society has changed our culture.
Chapter 27: Cultural Studies
Hall suggests that those in power of the media typically use it to support their own values and cultural beliefs, and at first I believed that in general this was a myth. After looking at the way American media is used I was beginning to think that no specific culture or belief was held up in American media; however, I soon realized that American media also follows this principle. According the textbook’s definition of Democratic Pluralism, “[the idea that] society is held together by common norms such as equal opportunity, respect for diversity, on person-one vote, individual rights, and rule of law [is a myth].”
You could say that I thought American media reflected no cultural when in fact it is reflective of a very specific culture. In general I have noticed that most Americans believe that America is bigger than most other contents. We have a self-inflated ego that is heavily due to American media. Titles of TV shows certainly don’t help either. Shows like America’s Got Talent, American Idol, and American Ninja Warrior, give us reason to believe that everyone wants to be American when in fact most foreign students at IWU would tell you that there are better countries like Germany, France, and Spain. I learned in a sociology class that some Americans cannot even locate America on a world map. This is all due to the idea that America is better than everyone else and this comes directly from Democratic pluralism.
Chapter 29: Cultivation Theory
One of my life long dreams has been to attend a baseball game at every baseball park in the MLB. A few years ago a friend of mine took a trip out to New York to see a game at Old Yankee Stadium before the final season and destruction of the historic park. When he got back I asked him about his experience and if he also had a chance to visit Shea Stadium as the Mets were moving to Citi Field after the end of the season. Unfortunately, he said his family decided not to go to Shea Stadium because the subway was really “sketchy.” Due to cultivation theory, he had fallen into believing that because it was dark and they were in a big city that it was very likely his family be in danger of violence. Another reason they decided to not to go to a game at Shea Stadium was because his sister and mom were with them. In other words, he believed that his family was in even more danger because they had females with them. This follows along very closely with cultivation theory since my friend’s beliefs may have been a little bit over-exaggerated.
Cultivation theory suggests, many people believe there chances of being involved in a violent act is 1:10 whereas in reality the chances of being involved in such an act is around 1:100,000. Another misconceptions is that females are in more danger than men. Overall, my friend’s beliefs, though they may have been over-exaggerated, are actually very similar to the affects of cultivation theory.
Chapter 32: Face Negotiation Theory
I find it very ironic that we are going over this chapter just after I finally decided to face the conflict I am going through with one of my professors. I am not getting a very good grade in his class; however, I am naturally inclined to act as though everything is great. After being very successful with my academics at my last school, I am worried about how other students view my academic reputation. Just like Ting-Toomey says, “Face is a universal concern because it is an extension of self-concept,” therefore I want other people to view me as a smart and accomplished so that it is easier for me to view myself that way. When the professor treats me like I am stupid, other students in the class may begin to look at me in a similar way. You could say my situation, and desire to be viewed as smart and accomplished, follows Ting-Tommey's model that assumes “people from a given culture construe their self-image consistent with the collectivistic or individualistic nature of their society.
I’ve noticed that my professor prefers Ting-Tooney’s concept of “Dominating” when it comes to conflict; thus, I have started to deal with conflict through “Avoiding” because I feel so intimidated. One reason why I might feel so intimidated is based on Tooney’s concept of differences of power. According to Ting-Toomy, these difference “complicate things.” Although, it seems like I am most likely a product of Tooney’s idea that those raised in an individualistic culture tend to “turn aggressive” when faced with conflict while collectivists “typically go for avoidance.”
Chapter 34: Genderlect Styles
Both this chapter and the class have helped me become significantly more self-aware. When I began my freshmen year of college two and a half years ago one of my friends told me, “you talk about yourself a lot.” I was surprised at first. However, this is when I first begun to realize how I fall into the masculine gender more than the feminine. At this point, I realized how much I did talk about myself. I would often, but subtly, brag about the different languages I had experience speaking, the different countries I’ve been, my skills, and what I enjoy. I took very little interest in other people, that is, until my friend made this aware to me.
Though there are some traits in the masculine domain I disagree with, most of what is mentioned as masculine is a good description of the way I act. I typically enjoy being assertive, I absolutely love public speaking, and when I speak in public I often speak in declaratives. You could say this morning was an eye opening experience, but overall it was very helpful in becoming more self-aware so that I can strengthen my weaknesses and become more aware of my strengths.
Chapter 36: Muted Group Theory
It was really interesting to hear how other people felt muted in class this morning. However, I’ve seen several similarities between this morning’s class, the theory as described in the textbook, and in real life. For example, this morning the women talked mostly about how they were muted by men. The book also talks about how the difference between genders adding something to the muted group theory, but I have also witnessed this first hand. I’ve over heard girls talking in McConn about guys and how the girl was muted because of them. Unfortunately, I think this becomes a “go to” answer for many women.
I wonder if this simply contributes to the argument over gender-issues and equal rights. One of the most common answers I’ve heard recently to any problem a woman faces is something like, “Oh, you’re sexist!” Yet this doesn’t help anyone, because in telling a man he is sexist for muting a women simply turns things around and mutes the man by labeling him as a sexist. Ultimately, someone gets muted. Even if it’s unintentional, when genders clash, chances are one of them will be muted.