Further Discussion

One concept in which I feel can use further discussion is gender roles as a performance in society. I know the book covers it, but felt as if we could have discussed it more in the blog postings. Gendered roles in societies, not just our own but all around the world, fulfil certain roles and acts in communication. I feel as if people get treated differently, worse or better, because of their gender, and in certain societies, if they are themselves, then their lives would be much different than if they were in the United States.

I think the book, as well as a couple more postings, should have asked questions like "how would being a homosexual affect your 'role' in society? i.e. would you have to hide who you truly are to land a dream job, or can you allowed to be yourself without any consequences? What about if you lived in another country? Compare and contrast homosexuality within two distinct culture." Especially now, in an age where people are allowed to be themselves, but still have to watch who they around certain people. It's a minority group, and one I feel should receive more attention to break down the stereotypes and tensions with the rest of the world.

What I have learned

I've taken a couple of classes similar to this one, but the one thing that I learned, like, really, learned that I've never even heard of before was the models: social constructionist, pragmatic and a little bit more of the psychologist model. I knew that the concepts within them, and communications modes had to be apart of a bigger group, and I was right. It further opened my eyes to the ways we communicate and how communication shapes or is either shaped by our words.

My favorite thing about the class was learning, and the blogging. I know I missed quite a few comments, and a blog or two, but blogging was easy for me to do (pending work). The least favorite thing... was the blogging and quizzes. I'm so used to logging on to D2L and going to the discussion in order to post my questions. My other online class does it, so I kept forgetting to do it on here (hence the missed blogs). The quizzes also made me a little angry. I didn't like how I couldn't review which answers I got wrong. As I was taking the quizzes, I would have the book with me since the questions were so specific. And I would get a couple wrong every now and again. It wasn't that I got it wrong, but I would have liked to have seen why I messed up (either reading comprehension or accidentally marking something wrong) that way I could learn from my mistakes and fix it in the future.

That is the only think I would improve about the class: being able to see which question I got wrong so I can learn from my mistakes or question the coding of the answer and possible have it fixed if it wasn't wrong and I could back it up with what the book said. Maybe the option is there and I'm just stupid, but with all the other classes, it would automatically pop up and show me which ones I got wrong and show me the score at the bottom.

Most Interesting Concept: Dress

The concept that I found the most interesting in class has been those on nonverbal communication, specifically dress and clothing. I know I ranted about it in the first posting, but it boggles my mind how people do not think that what you wear conveys a message about who you are. There are even shows about it (TLC's What Not to Wear happens to be my personal favorite). The second part to this concept, which people either forget or do not realize, is the location in which the outfit it being worn. Most (hopefully none) people would not attend a black-tie event in yoga pants and a tank top. Or, a wedding in jeans (unless it is super casual and you confirm it is okay ahead of time). What people wear is only half of the issue - where they wear it is more important.
I don't know. I find it easy and logical (though I am often told by my boyfriend to either dress down or up, pending the company we are in), but some have serious issues. And I'm not talking about whether the shoes you wear look good. I'm talking about clothes that do not fit right (too tight or too baggy can tell others you are not confident in your body, there for lack confidence in other aspects of life), or provocative clothing at work/church/kids events (low-cut shirt, hot-pants, etc., can tell other you have another agenda for other than the duties you are there to perform; seducing the boss, not being religious enough, or inappropriate for kids). Either way, people should watch What Not to Wear... or read a chapter on nonverbal communication about dress.

Mental Sets

Within chapter 2, I found the term of mental sets to be interesting. Mental sets, as Trenholm (2011) states, "consists of a person's beliefs, values, attitudes, feelings, and so on" (p. 25).  The person's mind sets determine how they interpret the messages they are receiving. Mind sets can either make communication with another person more or less effective, pending on how similar their mind sets are.

I found this concept to be interesting because I have actually come across both sides of the spectrum. When the person I am talking with has a similar mind set to me, it's like I do not have to try so hard to persuade them because we think the same way. On the other hand, I've gotten really frustrated when talking with a friend who has completely different mind sets than me because we see nothing the same way. The best examples, for both the positive and negative, is religion. If you agree with religion, then the conversation is easy and no questions are asked. But when the minds are different, conversations about religion can, literally, start wars.

Pragmatic Perspective

It does make sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction. All communication is based on the other person's first communication. When people ask "how are you?" most people don't say "purple, size 2 please." They respond with "I'm .... how you are?" There are rules to communication of how to respond to another, rules that are learned through cultural interactions.

I like the analogy of communication being a game - especially as chess. There is no way that communication isn't like a game. One person says something, and the other reacts depending on what was initially said. I also liked how the book said you cannot not play, because even if you choose to not play, you are making a conscience decision of making the move of "passing" or "forfeiting" your turn. On the other hand, it is different from a game in the sense of there is no official start and end, and there is no winner or loser. Most communication is like the middle of the game, where the interesting move happens.

Building Worlds

We "build worlds" through communication by speaking about the world. Once we start speaking about the world and pass that information on, then we soon begin to believe that is how the world works without thinking twice or questioning the information given to us. Some ideas that we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures is the idea of the "American Dream." Our culture teaches us that through hard work and dedication, everyone will be able to get an education, get married, find "the" job, have a nice house with a white picket fence, and live happily ever after.

I think these concepts contribute to our success by creating an idea to strive for. Since we speak about the world in a certain way, we see it in the same way without thinking twice, and in doing so, strive to make it the way we talk about so much. Like the American Dream. We talk about it, we don't question it, and we work our lives away trying to obtain it.

Performance Research

I have always found performance as a research quite fascinating. I never thought a performance was anything other than entertainment until I took a performance as a practice course. Knowing that every performance has an underlining reason behind it makes critiquing it more exciting. If I wanted to study some aspect of deception, I would pose the question "How does deception in the musical Sweeney Todd advance the characters' relationship with one another?" I love the musical, and if anyone has ever seen it, the whole play is about deceptions of the character to obtain their goals, all of which are different.
Of course, judging by the question, I would choose the performance research method. This method would be the best, in my opinion, because I am framing a research question around the performance of the characters within the play. Since it is a performance, I would also be critiquing the characters choice within the play about the forms of deception and adding depth to the meaning of the play as well as the specific characters involved.

Ethnographers Dilemmas

Ethnographers face many dilemmas while trying obtaining information for their research. First, if the researcher goes undercover without telling the participants involved, they face the dilemma of becoming attached to the persons they are studying, then feeling guilty or betrayal for publishing parts of their research. On the other hand, if they tell the people they are studying them, and taking notes on their behavior, they persons involved with study will behave differently, and the ethnographer will not obtain correct information about what they are studying because the persons may not be truthful. Also, any informants that are interviewed may not credible, because they could be bias against the subject being analyzed.

I don't know if there are any good ways to resolve these dilemmas. The only thing I can think of is being strong while immersing yourself within the project, and try to be as unbias as possible. If they cannot take emotion out of the research, then they should publish their finding anonymously.

Cyber-Relationships

I have made a friendship that exclusively exists in cyberspace. Though I no longer speak to him, we started talking because we were playing a game on pogo.com, cribbage I think, and we started talking about where we were from. He was from Canada, then we started talking about hockey (which I love)... and the next thing I know, we are messaging each other every time there was news about our hockey teams.

Cyber-relationships are different from face-2-face relationships because, at least in my case, I couldn't tell how old, this person was, if they were male or female, their ethnicity, and therefore, didn't judge them on their looks, but rather what we had in common. There was nothing sexual about the relationship and how the relationship progressed was based on our common interests. At times it was difficult because I couldn't tell his meta-message through visual and vocal cues. Overall though, it was like a face-2-face relationship, except everything said had to be direct.

McLuhan

I agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message. I have always believed that how the message is transmitted, whether it is written, over the phone, or in face to face, has a different impact on the person receiving the message, even though the message would be the same every single time. It seems weird, but different mediums have different effects on people.

The idea that television is a "cool" medium, that is the viewers have to fill in the details, is an amazing way to think about message-medium transmission. How often have you watched a television program and not like it for some reason, but you knew that the narrator was doing all the work for you? For me, it has happened three times this week. Television was not implemented as a way to be told what to do, or demand the view be cognitive while watching. Television was invented as entertainment for people to relax to, or now-a-days, be background noise.

When we watch television, we are not just listening. We are taught that communication is 10% verbal and 90% nonverbal. The 90% is what makes television interesting. Sometimes we are not paying attention to the words being spoken (Kate Upton commercial anyone?), but just watching it, filling in the details as we see fit. With television, we are simultaneously engaged and mindless at the same time.

Ch. 7 concept: Interdependence

A concept in which I liked in Chapter 7 is interdependence. Trenholm (2011) states that "interdependence... means that separate individuals have become a functioning whole" (p. 166). I love this concept because, if anyone has ever worked in a group project, or has had a conflict at work, the moment interdependence is established, is the same moment in which people behave and treat each other as equals, rather than as individuals. I am currently working on a group project, and until today, we had no idea what we were doing, who was doing what, and what the end result of the project was. Now, after a meeting, we are functioning like a clock. Our normal two hour meeting was only held for thirty minutes, most of which was silent, because we were all functioning as a whole, rather than many. It is an exhilarating feeling, and one in which I relish. No conflict, no miscommunication, no he-said she-said, just work and everyone contributes without people talking behind their back. Love, love, love this feeling, and I am so glad that the feeling actually had a name!

Relationship roles

I think the most difficult pattern to change in a relationship would be the rigid complementarity. Being in a state where one person takes orders and the other gives them seems to be natural in our society in every part of life except for our personal aspect; excluding those in abusive relationships. Those within an abusive relationship often have a hard time leaving because they are being controlled rather than in a relationship. Kind of like the parent and child roles, but rarely do people question their one-down role.

I would say the most damaging would be the competitive symmetry. competition everyday would take so much energy out of the person, they would no longer be in a romantic relationship, but rather a friendship, and eventually that friendship is going to crumble if one is the one-up role more than the other.

Finally, the submissive symmetry would be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved. At least in the competitive symmetry relationship someone is pushing you to be your best, in the submissive symmetry no one cares what you do, and both parties are not supporting each other as they would do in a real relationship. I think a healthy relationship is a healthy balance of all three.

Attractiveness

Let me see, what characteristics/behaviors have lead me to judge others as unattractive. Well... first and foremost: clothing. I have seen men who have stains on their shirts, dirt on their pants, and unkempt hair, who have not just worked in their back yard. If you can't take care of yourself, how are you going to take care of me when I need it? Second, they have to be smart. If I cannot hold a conversation with them, on MANY levels (because I love to learn and talk about everything... and everything is not an understatement either), you're out. I need to be intellectually stimulated. Third, I need to laugh. I love to laugh. I have made myself laugh so hard that I cry; and that was over a thought I didn't speak out loud. Basically, I need someone who is the male version of me minus the emotional and nervous breakdowns. Oh wait... I have one! *phew*

And yes. I was just reading Duck's attraction filter theory to my boyfriend, and I realized that we have gone through all four of Duck's filters, which is probably why we have lasted for so long. I can't remember if I have ever eliminated someone by using a sociological or pre-interaction cue only to reconsider them based on interaction and cognitive cure. For me, I use the filter backward; I need to know that we have similar interest and engaging conversation before putting in time and effort into a relationship.

Individualism

I really like the concept of individualism, partially because I have lived that life style my entire life. Like the book states, I have been "encouraged to make [my] own decisions, develop [my] own opinions, and solve [my] own problems" (Trenholm, 2011 p. 335). Even though my life is so centered on myself and my well-being, I have often thought of what is right for the group before putting myself first. At work, I am always asked to stay late, because 9/10 times, I will. It's partially because I need the money, but mostly I stay because the store needs me. Someone will call in sick and there will be little to no coverage during our busiest hours, and I feel bad.

I also have injuries to my back, neck, and left arm, but every night that I work late, I still fill the water and break down pallets, resulting in lifting over 1000 pounds throughout the night. I don't mind though; it helps the store out, which allows my boss to give me more hours, and I then earn more money in return.

Wait... never mind. It is for my own well being. Me first. I win.

Rationality, Perfectability, Mutability

I do not believe in the three premises. They seem a little... odd to me.

Rationality Premise
Believing that people will find truth through "logical analysis" and that "the average person can be trusted to make good decision," makes no sense to me. Have you met the average person? The average person will have tried several types of drugs by the time they are 21, and have had at least one run-in with the law. The average person is not capable of good decisions; if they were, we wouldn't have a million laws in place, like wearing your seat belt (come on really? The average person wasn't wearing it, so they made a law to NOT MAKE YOU DIE).

Perfectability Premise
That people are born in sin? We are not in the 1700s. I do not believe in god, like the premise states: is based on the old Puritan idea," and therefore believe this is the worst premises I have ever heard. Despite the foundation that we have a seperation of church and state, both seemed to be based on this premise. Some religions do believe that you have to work to become good. Most politictions have to fight to show how good they are.

Mutability Premise
I'm not even sure if I understand this one completely. From what I gather, this is what our culture does. It shapes who we are and believes we can improve ourselves through "physical and psychological circumstances." As in school, higher education, working out, and I would even argue surgury. One, surgury current falls in-line with our enviromental factors, and two, it improves our physical circumstances, even though we didn't work for it.

There ya go.

Creatures of our Culture

Ruth Benedict (1949) states that we are "creatures of [our] cultures ... its habits are [our] habits, its beliefs [our] beliefs, its impossibilities [our] impossibilities" (Patterns of culture, p. 2), and I agree - to a point. Yes, we are shaped by our cultures, and everything that we deem moral, immoral, right, wrong, good, bad, is what we learn through the society in which we live. How did those learnings first come about? Someone said, yes, this is what we should do, and from there it was up to the rest of civilization to either follow, break, and remake certain rules.

Everything thing that I have learned has been from my American culture. More percisely though, my Northern-California culture (we are so different from everywhere else). I had a friend in Canada, and one of the first things I asked him was "do you guys say "eh" in every sentence?" He replyed, "eh, dunno. Do you guys say "like" in every sentence?" To which I replied, "Like, I don't know." The only reason I remember that conversation: it was the first time some one asked me about my speech habits and how it pertained to the "silicon valley-girl talk." Did I grow up speaking like that? No. My dad was strongly against it. How did I learn it? My culture told me "you live in silicon valley, you are supposed to, like, you know, talk like this, ya know?"

China was different. New York was different. Tahoe, Reno, Vegas, Oregon, Washington, was different. Their cultures, though not every far away, is completely different from the one that I grew up with.

But...

We can change it. Everyday we see people who are "weird," but only to us. To them, they are normal. How can we change being "creatures of our culture?" By not assuming that everything we are taught, shown, or heard is the "right" culture to live by. If we have a open mind, and take everything that we learn and make a giant stew out of it, ladle that up, then we will be a mish-mosh of culture rather than meat and potatoes. There will be no difinitive line that says "you are from X" but a mix of "X, Y, and Z." Which I believe to be the better culture anyways. There will be no misunderstandings or offending someone of a different culture, because we will have some knowledge of "theirs" as well as "ours." Yes, there will still be a culture, but only one, so... everybody will be the same.

(I know it sounds like a Marx's Communist version of culture, but I think it is the only way to break the limits of cultures by elimnating them or condensing them into a singlarity.)

Perception

I don't know how people can perceive someone without judging them. To perceive someone is to become aware of, notice or understand them through the senses. Maybe for a split second we are "just" perceiving them, but when our mind takes over, there is a whole lot more that goes on without our knowledge. We perceive what the person is wearing, doing, saying, and (in some cases) if they smell nice or not. As soon as their attributes hits our sense, our cultural beliefs and norms take over.

They have a Louis Vuitton bag, which signifies money. You catch them mid-sentence talking about clubbing seals. Someone bumps into your car, leaves a dent, and then walks aways. There doesn't necessarily have to be an interaction with an individual to judge them. Judgements are not always right, and our cultural beliefs can trick us into judging someone wrong, or unfairly.

So, let's go through the list, one by one, and see how perception and judgement go hand in hand, shall we? (By the way, all the examples above either happened to myself or someone I know.)

1. Louis Vuitton: initial perception is observing in the bag, which your mind then relates to money. People get angry and assume this person gets everything they want. In reality though, it was a gift from a friend. The real kicker? It was a knock-off.

2. Clubbing seals: My friend and I were talking about a documentary we saw about people clubbing baby seals for their fur, and I said, "Yeah, let's go club some baby seals!" What they did hear was the discussion of "who the hell even tells someone about that? Do they say 'wanna do something fun?'" ... this girl thought I was being serious then yelled at me for being insensitive. I didn't have time to explain that I was against it and couldn't believe that people actually do that.

3. Car dent: Walking my friend to her car during a break at work, some person slammed into her car, then took off. She, of course, yelled obscenities at the guy, called him a jerk, then we saw that he was chasing a run away shopping cart with his kid still in it. Yea, we felt bad about that one. The kid was alright though. No worries.

See, we might be able to perceive someone without judging them, but in order to do that, we cannot have any cultural knowledge what so ever. Our knowledge is what allows us to judge others. Even if we are saying that they are nice, we are still judging them.

Gender Language

First off, I have a qualm with the book in this area. I've studied a lot on gendered and cultural communication and it boggles my mind when people interchange "gender" and "sex," as the book did. Most of the time, with the exception to the area on masculine and feminine language traits, the book used "gender" instead of "sex." For those of you who do not know the difference: gender is what we perceive ourselves to be in relation to sexual orientation and communication styles (masculine or feminine); sex is our physical/biological attributes that tell us if we are male (penis and testicles) or female (vagina and ovaries). Henceforth, when I mention "men and women" I will be referring to the stereotypical SEX  portrayal of men and women, and all comments will be generalized.

Now, in regards to the question, yes I do believe that the men and women use language differently. I've read many studies (including Tannen who is mention in the book) about inflection, tone, proximity, social settings, non-verbal, and (of course) verbal differences between men and women. Most women tend to speak in inflections (raising of the voice at the end of a sentence) while men tend to lower their voice. The other day I was tried and helping my boyfriend pack for his camping trip with the guys and I told him that his phone was still in the bed room and to not forget it. Well, because I was so tired, I naturally added an inflection to the last word, and he actually had to ask me if I was asking him or telling him (I tend to have a more masculine style of speech so it confuses him when I ask questions sometimes).

Non-verbally, men tend to stand taller in a group and rarely face each other directly. Even if they are face to face, they are slightly turned out either with their shoulders or feet. Men are taught at a young age (from observing their fathers), close contact with someone of the same sex is not "manly" and that intimate boundaries should be shared with loved ones (I know, proximity is a whole other area). Women, on the other hand, need that close proximity to create a bond and show that they trust one another, hence the heads practically touching when they are leaned forward in conversation.

Chapter 5 Concept

Dress is one of the most interesting concepts in chapter 5. At least to me. Most people do not realize that what you wear conveys more than "just clothing." The book's example is one of business/courtroom attire, but there is so much more than just business. In particular, young ladies. What people my age wear is a huge tick for me. Why do women dress like they are hookers and then get offended when people stare? When they wear low-cut shirts and short skirts, they are sending a certain message about who they are, and what intentions they want for the day (or night).

In April when I was at my conference, there was a young lady, about my age, in a very low-cut, cleavage-baring top, a mini-skirt, and high heels. She expected us (as the audience) to trust her credibility in knowing that she knew what she was presenting. Her clothes on the other hand, conveyed a message that she was not intelligent or scholarly in any way (at least not at the higher education level).

So please, wear appropriate clothes for the situation. If you want people to look at you, then by all means, wear little to no clothes. If you want people to trust that you are dependable and knowledgeable, then be a little more modest and Google what you should be wearing for that particular situation.

Audience Adaptation

I have always been fascinated with the audience rather than the speaker. I find myself looking around, seeing the reaction of the audience. It is something that I have always done, and now being a communication studies major, I know why I look around and gauge the audience more than the speaker.

The speaker is nothing. Without and audience, there is no need for the speaker, and the speaker is not worthy of the attention of the audience if what they are saying is not connecting. I have been in a couple of situations while giving a speech, and noticing the audience is either disinterested, confused, or appalled in what I am saying. I remember in a history class, we were only allowed to use facts and first person accounts. I, wanting to push myself (and my teacher's buttons) decided to choose an era which as fascinated me since childhood: the holocaust. I have a morbid sense of humor to begin with, but I picked first person account that put the Nazi's in a good light, and some of the prisoners in a bad one.

I know it doesn't seem right, but I was trying to push myself into thinking outside of the box. That sentence is me trying to adapt my story to fit my audience (you) into thinking in a different way while keeping you interested. And that is also what I said mid-way through my speech when I noticed a very big guy clenching his fist. I am only human. I have fear, and I was (slightly) afraid.

I also noted that these were not norm cases, and there is both good in evil, and evil in good. Which is what my whole speech was about. Now, I understand how it is offensive, but I was in a safe, classroom setting, presenting exactly what I was assigned. I would have not presented this in a meeting with Holocaust survivors, because the speech was not made for that audience... and I would have probably been killed.

Speaking without an audience in mind is not speaking. It is mindless ranting. A speaker without audience is just a person talking to themselves for no reason. But a speaker must adjust their content, vocabulary, hooks, tones, even speech patterns to accommodate those who really matter: everyone else but themselves.