The Communication Department has a few excellent multimedia presentations available for online viewing, including Sut Jhally on television's exploitation of audience, Lisa Henderson on Queer Visibility and Social Class, and Mark Crispin Miller on electoral fraud and political manipulation.
teaching: July 2007 Archives
I assigned four new and one review article for the final paper for Interpersonal Communication Online. As I prepare to read the students' actual self-reflections, I hope they will make certain connections, and am eager to be surprised by the wisdoms I cannot anticipate.
Buber is definitely tough, dense language and dated, but brilliant. We read Elements of the Interhuman, which is from The Knowledge of Man (1965) [A summary is provided in this application piece on Martin Buber’s Philosophy of Dialogue and the Relationship between Self and Nature.]
I might hope students pick up on the distinction between I-It and I-Thou: "According to Buber, the individual always lives in the world of I-It; the person can enter the world of I-Thou" (Stewart, p. 664). Another important distinction is between being and seeming: "One must at times pay dearly for life lived from being; but it is never too dear" and "We see the forces of real life at work as they drive out the ghosts, till the semblance vanishes and the depths of personal life call to one another" (Buber, p. 672). Later, Buber refers to "the invasion of seeming, and the inadequacy of perception" as two examples of things that "impede the growth of life between [humans]" (675). A third distinction is between imposition and unfolding. Buber characterizes imposing as the act of propaganda, and unfolding as education "by meeting, by existential communication between someone that is an actual being and someone that is in a process of becoming" (675). Finally, they ought to pick up on some of what he says about genuine dialogue, "a turning of the being" (677) by "keeping nothing back" (687): "To keep nothing back is the exact opposite of unreserved speech. Everything depends on the legitimacy of 'what I have to say'" (678). Ideally, students will recognize "unreserved speech" in the section we discussed on the skill of disclosure (when, what, and why not).
A few points I don't expect students to follow up on but which intrigued me involved Buber's criticism that "An effort is being made today radically to destroy the mystery between man and man" (674). I waver on the edges of certain academic circles because I embrace the mystery! And I love Buber's phrase, "imagining the real" (674).
Concerning feedback, I love this book, What Did You Say? by a married couple and an professor I actually took a class from back in the days of earning the MA degree. They say, "the simple, straight interactions do not account for 99% of our time during the working day, because they just happen in a few seconds and then are forgotten. The most complex kind of interactions may account for less than 1% of our interactions during a typical working day. Yet, because we cannot untangle them, or untangle ourselves from them, we find ourselves spending half our time, or more, in such unproductive interactions" (1992, 20-21).
Students will hopefully grasp the definition: "Feedback can be defined as
~ information about past behavior
~ delivered in the present
~ which may influence future behavior."
The brief summaries of Freud's defense mechanisms, the particular defense mechanism of projection, and the concept of the unconscious are useful. We did not discuss them but students may make connections. (I'm a believer, btw, in this contemporary critique and 'rescue' of Freud's unconscious through dialogic repression by Michael Billig).
I often use an activity based on the Johari Window when I teach in the traditional classroom. (I hadn't yet considered how to use it online. Hmmmm.) I particularly like the way the model illustrates a region of ourselves which we might be unaware of, and also that there is a totally unknown zone, which I always explain as a quadrant of capacity (for growth, development, regression (!), etc).
Additionally, systems theory comes from cybernetics (Herbert Weiner), which students might recognize (as a bit of an intuitive leap) from our talk of structure (e.g., episodes) and patterns in what gets said - or even is able to be said. My experiential pedagogy stems directly from the work of Kurt Lewin's action research, "the use of real human learning groups as laboratories in which to study interaction" (p. 16). We did not openly discuss Carl Rogers (scroll down for two charts on positive regard and incongruence) or Virginia Satir's Interaction Model this time around, but both privilege the interactive, cyclical, interdependent and systematic nature of communicating and relating. I don't expect students to cover all of these, just to make connections if the models or ideas help to integrate whatever lessons are uppermost in the student's minds.
Tom Isgar's piece, On Responsibility, Or, "Who's Responsible Around Here Anyhow?" will probably resonate in reference to the small group projects, but I hope students grasp its application to the entire class. "...participants are first and foremost responsible for themselves" (p. 4) "...responsibility for learning and for conduct is shared by the participant and trainer" (p. 5). I wonder if anyone will note the example of an instrumental relationship and connect it to the conversation held during the presentation on Communicating with Friends and Family?
Isgar's piece is in Reading Book for Human Relations Training, Seventh Edition, along with another article by Ronald Lippit, The Circular Process of Social Interaction, which details how "individual's self-image and attitudes toward others condition what happens in any given interaction. In other words, people respond to someone largely on the basis of how he behaves toward them; and his behavior toward them is produced primarily by his attitudes toward them and his feelings about himself" (p. 75). Again, plenty of connections with structure.
Finally, the students were to review the introductory reading from W. Barnett Pearce on the differences between the transmission model of communication and the social constructionist model.
Finally, I hope students will return, somehow, to the definition of interpersonal communication given by our textbook's author, John Stewart:
Building off of the last batch of postings (so I can get this done in a timely manner), let me respond to your answers on the questions about standpoint theory, speech communities, and evidence of socialization in our discussion about gender and communicating with intimates.
Concerning Standpoint Theory, Geoff and Tim nail the transmission model implications of approaching communication challenges on the basis of gender. [Note: "As distinct from 'sex' (which is biological), gender usually refers to socially/culturally constructed (invented) characteristics which are then attributed to the different biological sexes. If sex is 'female and male'; then gender is 'femininity and masculinity'.] Geoff wrote, “The communication happens and the message is transmitted with an already implicated reason for that message and is not constructing new meaning but rather the meaning is in the message, it is stationed there.” This is important to realize, otherwise, the very fact of reading about so-called (!) feminine and masculine “standpoints” reinforces these distinctions: talking about the differences has a way of making the differences “more real.” In fact, Tim and David both show this, Tim by stating that he does believe in differences between women and men, and David by applying one model (transmission) to men and another model (social construction) to women. Now, try to follow me here, because this is an example of how the two models interact with each other:
Allison and Erin both recognize the social construction implications. Allison: “Men and women are often brought up and taught these standpoints from an early age,” and Erin: “Standpoints are formed by the environment you live/grow up in.” Exactly. And so the theory (standpoint) reinforces the message of gender difference, as David says, “I separated males and females by the standpoint theory,” and Tim asserts, “there is a major difference between how males and females communicate to one another.”
But hey, let’s check this out against our own reality! There are no patterns of gender differences identified in our class, nor in the stories of a heterosexual and gay couple having communication difficulties! So where is the support for gender standpoints? I think some of you named evidence of social change: the norms for your age group (mostly traditional college-aged) are different, and standpoint theory by itself only reinforces the old, transmission model. “You were socialized like this so you must communicate in these ways.” I am not discounting socialization (please!) but I am questioning the presence of an article based in a theory (standpoint) that is obviously a transmission model in a textbook that purports to support the new social construction model? It is evidence of how tough it is to bridge the “distance” from the familiar and traditional to the new and different even though the “new and different” is actually already operating in your own communication!
Where do I read this evidence? Several of you (Ajia, Geoff, and others) note that being of a common age might contribute to similarity in your analyses of the stories. Allison describes most of the responses being “somewhere in the middle,” a middle that David labels, “gender neutral.” Geoff also suggests that there are norms of communicating with each other here in this class that are similar because of this class, and therefore indicate our own small speech community. So, what are we going with this standpoint information? One thing that struck me, is that the Presentation Team chose different stories for the activity. I wonder how responses might have changed had the story been the same, and only the genders changed. Would this have brought more heteronormativity to the fore? I suspect so…
As to the concept of a Speech Community, the definitions I read were fine but there was trouble when people tried to apply the transmission and social construction models. This is a case of both/and. Speech communities exist because the same meanings are transmitted consistently across generations, speech communities continue because the repetition of the transmission creates social reality. Dawn quoted Erik’s definition: " The transmission model is the linear progression of communication, genders learn to communicate and interpret a message a certain way depending on their speech community." This is exactly what I want to problematize by analyzing the implications of reading standpoint theory in this class. Are we reinforcing gender messages against new social constructions that allow, recognize, and create new possibilities?
Meanwhile, as I work/write my way toward engagement (!) with the Engaging Communication Team (whose Presentation I messed up the most), I want everyone to notice how nonverbal communication has been present in all the topics this week, how gender worked it’s way into the nonverbal presentation (many examples of boyfriends, for instance), and how “engagement” may – perhaps? – have occurred in the topics where it was NOT the topic of conversation but nonetheless is (and will always be) the means of conversation.
[Note: The structure of the class has shifted by the time I write this. Now, instead of me (as teacher) presenting information for the students; the students are presenting information for each other - and me. Structurally, I tried to run three simultaneous "conversations" (three team presentations, each on a different topic). It might have worked, except that I got content mixed up between two presentations, confusing everyone (including myself!)]
Delivered to the class approximately June 26:
Ok folks, I haven’t decided what to do (or how to respond) to my huge botch-up by mixing the Engaging Communication and Communicating with Intimates Presentations. David had a creative solution, though, using the readings from Engaging Communication to analyze the intimate communication between partners in the story he read.
I need to write a bit about the Ahmed Khan reading selected by the Presenters for their Presentation on Nonverbal Communication and also will incorporate a few comments from those of you who just answered the Team’s question about why we misunderstand each other so often.
Khan’s very first sentence gives away the exact, “old” model that I have been (desperately!) trying to teach you to recognize (and ultimately figure out how to “move” away from toward the “new” model about which this entire course revolves. Can you guess, already, where I am going? I certainly hope so! If not, I do have to wonder – what are you inhaling? How are the nonverbals of communicating monitor-to-monitor coming across to you in such a way that you continue (?) to “miss” The Point?
I’m not quite as frustrated as I probably sound. Sure, I am a little bit – we all are. And this idea of interweaving three presentations clearly exceeded our collective capacity to manage it well (although I am so impressed that everyone has found ways to “hang in” and “get through”). So, what does Khan say? “Communication, one of the basic needs of human existence, can be defined as the transfer or exchange of information between entities.” Really, I want to fall out of my chair with the OBVIOUSNESS of the transmission model! I do actually know how it was possible for no one to catch this, or – if you did notice – to choose not to critique it. First, it was assigned. (That means it must be “good,”, eh? It must be “right”?) Second, it is written. There is a common bias (fostered by education all our lives), that anything written is somehow “more honest, more ‘true’” than things that are said. When you think of lying, do you think of someone writing lies, or of telling them? I am NOT, by the way, accusing Khan of lying! No no no! Only that his conception is rooted in a model of communication that in and of itself leads to most misunderstandings between and among people.
I know that many of you are actually “on” to this, but somehow the overt connection, or the writing of the connection with words that explicitly name the way that the assumptions of “transmission” are (shall I be blunt?) at fault (if we are going to assign blame – which is not actually my goal, nor my belief, but is a more simple way (?) to try and sink the point enough that it anchors in consciousness awareness).
Taking the last five posted comments (answers to the question about the reading), I will show you where/how you are getting it. Because even though I am concerned that after eight units this knowledge is still so elusive, I know the challenge of the task; you are not just learning “new” information, you are also being asked to unlearn what you have previously taken for granted. This is not easy. So, kudos and congratulations to everyone just for trying!
Natalie and Geoff both say misunderstanding occurs because we do not “correctly employ” or even “use” the methods we know. Of course, I am asking – what are these “methods”? Which are “the ones” that we could “use properly” that might actually reduce misunderstanding across differences?
If we accept the fact, as Brett writes, that language is not static, that “There are no definitive boundaries” between or among “language systems, whether verbal or nonverbal,” could we not then begin to believe, and – furthermore – to act on the belief that meaning cannot BE “in” you, or “in” me, or “in” what I say, or “in” whatever nonverbal signal you give off, would we not eliminate many of the sources of misunderstanding? Doesn’t misunderstanding usually come from the assumption that I know?
I started earlier to write about why it is so hard for you to notice and/or respond (write) in such a way that shows the “new” social construction way of thinking about communication. I want to encourage you all to revisit the early reading from Pearce, because he writes about the limitations of the English language, as a language, in trying to express where meaning comes from. Heather captured this notion, somewhat, in her discussion of the role of personality in communication with her boyfriend: “qualities which we have developed throughout our lives limit our abilities to resolve situations and communicate better.”
This course has brought “the limits” – of our language (English) and our habits (of assuming there exists “a right meaning” that can be simply “moved” from me to you, or you to me) into our faces. (Much more intensely than I ever imagined; I most certainly did not plan for or ever desire as much confusion and stress as has been generated.)
Ok, let me take one instance from Khan’s article and show you how the transmission way of thinking is expressed. He writes,
“For instance, if you nod by moving your head up and down, in India it means a concurrence, a "yes," whereas the same gesture in, say, Kuwait would mean the exact opposite, a dissent, a "no."
How can this not be true, not be “right” as a way of explaining a nonverbal mode of communication? Because Khan says “it means.” He writes that it is the head nod that “has” meaning. He shows that a head nod can mean different things in different places among different peoples (different cultures, different languages) but he does not say why or how, only that ”it is.” (If we were actually in a classroom I would probably be jumping up and down or rolling on the floor – literally – to emphasize this point: head nods ”have” NO inherent meaning! The “meaning” is not “in” the nod. The meaning is “in” the ways that people within certain cultural/linguistic groups have interacted with and interpreted “head nodding” in relation to whatever is being nodded about!
So, one the one hand, yes, it can be very simplistically said that a certain nonverbal gesture “means” something in a given context, but it is false to assume that just because a historically or traditionally generated meaning is characteristic, that this meaning is either always true or unchanging. This is the linguistic counterpart to stereotyping. Instead of assuming that a person of this or that “type” must be this or that way (a stereotype), we assume that this or that word or gesture must be this or that meaning.
We misunderstand because we refuse to believe, or to develop and use the skills based on the belief, that we are the ones creating meaning right here and now.
Steve sent this a while back (I'm behind the times) about the cyberattack on Estonia, Digital Fears Emerge After Data Siege in Estonia.
Reading this now (six weeks after the event) coincides with a student-selected reading on Deception, Betrayal, and Aggression by John Stewart and Carole Logan, p 415-427 (8th Edition, Bridges Not Walls).
A recent story (ten days ago), relates how the EU is responding to the attack: Attack on Estonia puts cyber security on EU agenda. Interestingly, just over one year prior to the attacks, an initiative on internet security was announced: "Launch of CERT Estonia will increase internet security." Sometimes you gotta wonder if human relations just comes down to a game of chicken.
I got way behind on posting about the progress of the online course I'm teaching on interpersonal communication. Bummer. :-/ Anyway, for the first time of the term I am not putting most of my energy into putting out fires, but am actually able to participate constructively (at least in my own mind, ha!) with the conversation that the students themselves are actively co-creating. Yahoo!! :-)
The first assigned reading chosen by this Team is Taking Responsibility Without Blaming by Jeffrey Kottler. The Team asked students to describe a recent conflict, in accordance with the notion of "conflict" presented in this reading. I responded this morning:
Hey you all,
So, I'm hoping to get a bit more evidence that the information in the assigned reading is actually being applied to your conflicts. They are so varied! I have read introspective descriptions (self-reflection) ranging from some acknowledgement of mutuality to various forms of blaming (self or other). What I would like to see is more engagement with what Kottler describes as "the reciprocal nature of interpersonal difficulties" (p. 487).
Kottler does not use the labels of "transmission model" or "social construction", but he is writing about these mental constructs, arguing that humans do not follow linear causality (such as occurs in physics, where one action transmits (!) to another), instead,
"...human behavior is best described as being based on 'circular casuality.' What this means is that unlike the physical world, where it may be determined that one thing causes another, which in turn causes something else, human interactions are both causes and effects of what transpired previously" (italics in original, p. 487-488).
Doesn't this look like the social construction model? Of course it does! It is!
As the Team moves us into the next assigned reading, please consider what it means - in terms of how you communicate - to proactively accept responsibility.
