Communication Theory

I read the section "Communication Theory" on pages 467 -470 and appreciated how Griffin outlined the strengths/weaknesses of all theories by sharing Karl Weick's clock to illustrate the trade-offs. One sentence summed it up well: "As you can see, no one position can combine the three ideals, and to move closer to one is to move farther away from at least one other." The three criteria that Karl Weick speaks of for his "Clock Face Model" are general, accurate and simple. If a theory is general and accurate, it cannot be simple. Likewise if it is general and simple, it will be less accurate. And, if it is accurate and simple, it will not be general.

Chapter 36

I enjoyed reading Griffin's "cause for pause" at the end of every thread in this last chapter. He throws in his candid two-cents worth and comments on his own experience or background in dealing with the certain thread.

The one that stood out to me today was "Dialogue," because Griffin admits that he did his best to capture what it really is but struggled because of the complexity and depth of the term. Dialogue as defined on page 482 is " Transparent conversation that often creates unanticipated relational outcomes due to parties' profound respect for disparate voices."

The thing that blew my mind the most was in his "Cause for Pause" at the end of this thread's section when Griffin states that "probably less that 1 in 1,000 conversations would qualify as dialogue." I was surprised by that at first, but not so much as I thought about it further. The US is a very independent culture and sticks to a lot of surface level communication. Only with the people that are truly close to us or people that we have an interest in talking to for some specific reason do we open up and get beyond superficial topics.

I think it gave me a different perspective on relationships as a whole; I bet that if we have more meaningful "dialogue" on a regular basis we would enrich our relationships across the board.

Chapter 35 - Muted Group Theory

This was another eye opening chapter, to again put myself in the shoes of others. Its fascinating that our language is inherently masculine and because of this men control discussion. Even acknowledging the women aren't on a "level playing field" illustrate how the use of language is male-driven in that the phrase is an athletic expression of competitive team sports.

As a guy, I don't even realize that our language is like this, I've been immersed in it so long that I don't know any different. When I take a step back and realize how much of our language discourages women from speaking out in a public setting I understand frustrations that women feel.

Even in the internet, women are subject to the technologically elite who are overwhelmingly male. The hope was that the internet would be a place where an equal voice could be heard, but the framers of the this technology have created it based on masculine standards which pose another hurdle.

Chapter 34 - Standpoint theory

I enjoyed reading about standpoint theory and the author's points about gender viewpoints and women's lives.

I think about life in general and putting ourselves in the shoes of others and seeking to understand their standpoint rather than only our own. It is so easy to get wrapped up in our own lives adn forget that our actions have direct effect on those around us. Maybe good, maybe bad, but always an effect. When you realize the perspective of others I think it gives us a wiser point of view. Not so narrow minded. Our own universe isn't as small as we think when we see through the lives of others. Everyone has a story, everyone has a job to do, everyone has an agenda, and everyone has hopes, dreams, fears. One of the great things about understanding Communication is that it provides perspective for the way we live our lives. All of a sudden we see what humans go through in an effort to understand and be understood.

This chapter was one of those chapters that gives great perspective and insight about the lives of others and again allows to see through the eyes of others.

Chapter 29 - Spiral of Silence

This chapter described what all of us go through to some degree, the desire to be heard and feel affirmed in our opinions, or more so, the fear that we won't be affirmed, therefore we keep quiet. I have been in this situation many times, where I don't agree with what is taking place in a meeting or the direction a group is going. Many times, because a group feeds off each other's energy, a poor decision can be made without anyone realizing what's happening. Instead of speaking up and shedding some light on the poor direction they are heading, I keep quiet instead of going against the tide - until the right moment, that is. When it gets to the point where it is abundantly clear that the group is way off base, I have no issue chiming in. This is probably what the chapter means when they discuss that people will usually speak up if they are a criminal or moral hero - they have other motives besides just saving face amongst group members, so their reputation within that group has no bearing on their opinions.

Chapter 28 - The chicken or the egg

I found Griffin's discussion of agenda setting very intriguing as it has given me insight to some long standing questions I've had - does the public dictate what the media reports on, or does the media dictate what we think. The answer, as described in the text, is that the media inspires what we think about, not what we think.

This economic crises has been a good example of this. The pending disaster was looming on the horizon as people were over extending themselves and properties were being purchased with little or no money down. Then, the loans were re-packaged and sold to other investors as AAA rated loans, leading the investor to believe that they had highly-qualified borrowers on the other end. They in fact did not.

The media has covered this disaster step-by-step and fueled the issue and worries as the situations intensified. Had the media coverage not been so intense, I wonder if we would be in such a mess at this point. There was indeed reason for concern, but because the media pushed the issue so hard and wore down our (the Public) confidence, consumer spending has slowed, the economy has become extremely fragile, and now people are victims of layoffs, a violent and volatile stock market etc. The media is responsible for a lot of the panic, in my opinion. Again, there was legit reason for concern, but the media has created a frenzy that lead to the out of control downward spiral that we have witnessed as of late.

Chapter 24

Toward the end of the chapter, Griffin poses some interesting commentary of Neil Postman's thoughts on technology. He said that Postman "Pondered whether the quest for technological progress was becoming increasingly more important than being humane. He wondered if information was an acceptable substitute for wisdom" (p. 320). I say no, information is a poor substitute for wisdom. The two must go hand in hand. Without wisdom, we have no bearing of how to use the information and information would have limited use. In the "information age," people aren't valued as highly for what they can physically do, but what intellect they bring to the table. Especially in Silicon Valley, information is king. Although technology and better information is meant to enhance our life, I believe, in many cases, it clutters it.

Chapter 22: without identification, there is no persuasion

I appreciated the section about identification, and will apply these ideas in my own life. Persuasion takes place much easier when the persuadee can identify with the persuader. When identification and common ground can be reached, a bond is formed and a shared perspective eases the encounter. However, it only "eases the encounter", it doesn't guarantee that persuasion will take place, because we are still separate and individual. "But without some kind of division in the first place, there would be no need for identification. And without identification, there is no persuasion."

Bring me your comments! Ch. 21

Rhetoric is something that I am very interested in because of its power for change. The presidential debates have been a great display of rhetoric from both sides, with Obama coming off as more well-spoken and polished and McCain coming off as more real due to his concrete language. Obama, although eloquent, seems contrived and well-coached. He sounds so good not saying anything. I am torn between the two candidates right now, don't have any idea who I am voting for. Both have their issues that I do and don't agree with; I am looking for the candidate that can most effectively lead our country out of these historically tough times and carry the torch for America. I am looking for the leader who has the skills and foresight to make the best decisions. Who that is, for me, remains to be seen.

Rhetorically, Obama's eloquence causes me to hesitate, but also encourages me because he displays an ability to be a steward and ambassador of the United States. In an international setting, Obama may present better and facilitate discussion with other world leaders and put them at ease. He has ease in his presentation. McCain is very awkward in his oratory skills and presentation in the public eye. But he doesn't dodge issues the way Obama seems to. I get the feeling he will fight harder for his convictions and the good of the country, but just not look as good doing it.

As potent a tool as rhetoric can be, I'm tired of its prevalence in politics. I think a lot of Americans feel the same way and the politicians know this. They tailor their campaigns to appeal to people's emotions rather than intellect because the average American will not research the issues to exhaustion. They form opinions based on their social groups and sources of media they absorb (tv, internet, etc.) and won't dig much deeper. It seems more like a beauty contest than a true discussion or critical analysis of the issues.

Let me know what you guys think -

Does either candidate display an ability to effectively lead our country?

Chapter 20

The idea of workplace democracy like an ideal situation, however I am a believer in the phrase "If you build a horse by committee, you'll end up with a camel."
I was frustrated in reading the "Strategy" and "Consent" sections of the text due to their enlightening of the struggle that goes on between the managerial side and the employee side of an organization. It's interesting that most employees don't even realize that they are subject to an oppressive company attitude. That's what's great about studying all of this is that we now realize that we have a choice - to be a cog in the machine or to be our own machine. Therefore, as I've said before, I still think that one is only a victim if they let themselves be. The voice of the workers are definitely important and the idea of having happy workers to build a better product rings true, but it isn't an employers job to make an employee warm and fuzzy. It is his job to make a better product, and he has hired employees to make that product. The employees realize this, also, or they wouldn't have signed up for the job. A manager does have the duty to provide for the employees so that their needs related to doing their job are taken care of, and to provide a standard quality for all, but at the end of the day responsibility comes on the shoulders of each individual. If management tries too hard to cater to the needs of employees it may backfire, because there is no way to please everyone. So, total democracy in the workplace is a nice thought, but in the end I wonder if it would do more harm than good.

Chapter 19 - Culture of an Organization

This chapter resonated with me easily because of my involvement with a commercial real estate brokerage firm for 2 years, prior to coming back to SJSU. All of these pieces described in the chapter applied easily to my experience.

I was interested in the section "Can a manager be an agent of cultural change?" because I've always been interested in what makes a good manager vs. a poor one, in respect to the employee's perspective. "Managers may articulate a new vision in a fresh vocabulary, but it is the workers who smile, sigh, snicker, or scoff." This happens because "shared interpretations as naturally emerging from all members of a group rather than consciously engineered by leaders." It seems that based on this chapter, a manager has little to do with the culture of an office, and no matter what an manager's efforts are, the employees will generate their own cultural reality.

Chapter 18 - What groups produce

If effective groups must analyze a problem, set a goal, identify alternatives, and evaluate those positive and negative characteristics, what then are they accomplishing? What is their product?
According to Poole, groups produce decisions. The duality of a group structure means that decisions both effect the group and are affected by the group. Stability and change are a product of the duality of groups. These decisions reinforce the group as well as alter its structures altogether.

Chapter 18 - The big picture

I like the way Chapter 18 ends, where Griffin brings it all home with a common sense idea of what we should take away from all of this. On p. 244, the comparison of different types of people sums it up best:

Some people make things happen.
Some people watch things happen.
Some people have things happen to them.
Som people don't even know things are happening.

Then, he encourages us to Step up from a passive role to having an active voice within your group.

I couldn't agree more with his words of wisdom. Especially during this time of the election, and as we as students move on to bigger and better things. Employers definitely do not want a passive, meek person to fill the needs of a company. Even if you don't have an employer and are going the entrepreneurial route this applies all the more.

This chapter came across a bit dry to me, so I'm glad I ran into these last words to put it in perspective. In the last paragraph of the chapter on page 245, Griffin concludes "Adaptive structuration theory may not be playful, but it holds out the satisfying promise that every group member can be a player in the process of what the group creates."

Chapter 17 - Group Decision Making

Reading chapter 17 opened my eyes in regards to many of the issue that groups face to reach an agreeable decision. So many times a group will get ahead of themselves because they all feed off each others nervous energy and the decisions that end up being made are completely counter-productive.
First things first, the analysis of the problem is key. Without understanding what everyone trying to accomplish, all work is futile. The problem provides the starting point for the map of how to get things done.
Second, by setting goals, the group can pul together for a cause and understand where they are headed. If analyzing the problem is the starting point, the goal would be the destination.
Third, identifying alternatives will let the group voice individual opinions. This where the strength of a group shows itself because no one person can know everything. With different minds at work, alternatives can be explored and the end result should be stronger because of it.
Lastly, when a group evaluates their alternatives, they can work out the bugs of certain ideas and dismiss others, ultimately reaching the best solution.

The Fleeting Moment

Chapter 12 describes dialogue as an "Aesthetic Moment" on page 162-163, and defines it as "A fleeting sense of unity through a profound respect for disparate voices in dialogue." This boils down to the fact that no matter how precious or profound a moment may be, it will pass. This makes me sad when I think of the romantic times my wife and I have shared, or that my son is now 5 months old and these moments are gone forever, but happy because we still have a lifetime to create new ones. Every step of the way has its own joys and excitement.

In our own lives, it is important to make every moment count, treat it as if it were our last so that we don't regret one thing when our life is over. Life is so short, and these wonderful, "aesthetic" moments are makes it all worth living.

Social Information Process Theory

One of the big themes of this chapter is that Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is vastly impersonal as compared to face to face communication. The author argues that so much gets lost in translation when communication is typed or displayed through the means of a computer. When face to face, a conversation is filled with non-verbal cues galore, the inflection of someone's voice, the look on their face, body language, etc. Over the telephone one at least has the sound of someone's voice to work with. Any misunderstanding can immediately be cleared up because of the instantaneous nature, but in written communication all non-verbal cues are lost. People's interpretation of written text can be grossly misinterpreted. Negative feelings can result from these misunderstandings, leading to further inflamatory conversation.

I have been developing a website for some time now related to one of my biggest passions - baseball. The biggest challange and my biggest goal is to convey myself in a manner where there is no misunderstanding whatsoever of my intentions - to pass the passion of the game onto future generations. It can be a daunting task, but the amount of time and energy that is going into will be well worth it in the end. The static "Coming Soon" page is here. I hope that nothing is lost in translation when it is finally launched and everyone that reads it will be inspired in some way.

An alternative metaphor

Professor Cyborg posed an interesting question while commenting on another blog in regards to Social Penetration Theory - "Could you come up with an alternative metaphor for the theory?"
Her own view point was that of a maze. I liked where she was going, because there are indeed a series of channels, turns, dead ends, etc. that we all go through to become more intimate with anyone we come in contact with.

So, without any further ado, here's my attempt at a metaphor. The first thing that came to my mind was a high-tech, ultra high-security skyscraper with many levels and hallways and many office suites within each level, each with a different level of security.

In this building, everyone has access to the lobby but they have to get past the security desk to get to the elevator. If they do something stupid or alarming (like waving a gun around or hassling other people in the lobby) the security throws them out, and they are on the "blacklist" - meaning anytime they come around again the alarm sounds and they are watched like a hawk. In real life this would equate the initial interaction and weather or not you decide to continue the interaction. Those that do not resonate well with you or do something to immediately break your trust, you will be more wary of.

If you get past security in this building, that means you have been cleared and everyone that has been cleared gets a card-key to swipe upon entering the elevators. When you swipe your card, the security system knows which floors you are allowed to enter and which ones you are not. The higher the security clearance level equates to the higher the intimacy level. Likewise, on each floor, the different offices have different security levels.

This office-building metaphor works because we all have many, many people coming in and out of our lives all the time. Each person has a different role (office) and different level of intimacy (security clearance). We are always evaluating and re-evaluating our intimacy level with people based on our interactions and it is ever changing. The office building metaphor is similar to the onion in that there are levels, but takes it a step further because there is a constant flow of many, many people in and out of our life and we are monitoring each one's level of security clearance constantly.

Axioms

Berger's axiomatic theory is very in depth and thorough, capturing the way we interact within ourselves based on the cues of others. In short, it is intense! As I read each axiom, I caught myself saying for each one "I do that." When I was finished reading all 8 axioms and thought about how much information Berger covered, then I was amazed that we do all of this in a matter of seconds. Our cues come at us instantaneously and we react/adjust just as fast.

I thought the differing perspective of William Gudykunst and his Anxiety/Uncertainty Management theory was interesting also, that we seek for "effective communication rather than closeness or relational satisfaction." I wonder if each theory has its place. When I am speaking to an audience or speaking up in class, the goal is definitely clear communication. When I am 1 on1 with someone, I think relational closeness is the goal.

I think in the end we all have a goal of communicating clearly so we are properly understood, and to do so in a manner where our anxiety or uncertainty level is is at the lowest level possible. No one likes to feel awkward. Its crazy that we go through all these mental gymnastics without knowing it to reach our goal.

Think before you speak - The Comparison level

The social penetration theory is one that I was familiar with from past Comm classes and can easily relate to my own life, but this chapter shed some new light on it for me. The first new idea was within the metaphor of the onion. Although I had heard this metaphor before, I just now picked up on the notion that when intimacy penetrates layers, it becomes easier to re-penetrate a subsequent time. I suppose its something that I've experienced all my life, personally and with other people, but just never thought about it to realize the fact of it. Once layers are peeled away, a person is exposed forever. Sure, you can retract and try to re-establish these layers, but ultimately privacy is gone and privacy would have to be re-established over a period of time and with new life experiences.

The second principle that I have never realized but participated in is the comparison level principle of human behavior. I realized from this reading that I am always evaluating every situation unconsciously to make the best decision, whether it is to open my mouth and say something, put my hand in a beehive, or whatever, I am evaluating what the best possible outcome would be, what is the worst, and based on that information, should I do it? Although all of us do this to some capacity, I am still amazed that many seem to exercise this principle less than others. The wisdom of "think before you speak" illustrates this very well, and I am a big fan considering the situation, people and surroundings before acting. Basically, every action we make has a consequence - it could be a good consequence, or a bad consequence. The extra little effort to deduct an outcome always benefits any situation.

Polar Opposites part 2 - Finding Common Ground

Week 2, 3rd Post

In revisiting Chapter 4, I think the author rounded out the chapter with a great topic to round out the second week: Common Ground.

Griffin devised a chart where each quantitative theory has a parallel qualitative one. Some of them were a stretch, but it gave me a glimpse that the two ends of the communication spectrum can live in harmony and even thrive off of one another. One cannot live without the other.

I have always been a dreamer and completely bought into the notion that you can achieve anything you can dream. I've proven myself right on a couple of occasions, which fuels my future dreams. However, no matter how big or intricate my dreams might be, the most efficient way to achieve them is to 1) decide what I want, 2) CREATE MEASURABLE STEPS, and 3) take the first step!

Anytime I get one of my big ideas and I set off without a plan, it may not fail completely, but it will most definitely be a road with a lot of potholes. My dad is the objective one between the two of us, I operate mostly out of gut feeling. He has taught me the value of quantifiable steps to achieving a task.

Being objective is something I have to practice, it takes effort to make my dreams quantifiable. On the other side of the coin, I know there are a lot of people with an affinity towards the quantifiable aspects in life with zero imagination whatsoever. We need each other.

But as I mentioned in my post "Polar Opposites," it starts with the big idea, then resorts to finding a way to make it a reality. It takes an almost blind ignorance to accomplish some dreams. If we always gauged our dreams on quantifiable probability, nothing great would ever get accomplished - few risks would ever be taken. We would give up before we began. It must start with the idea and the passion. Is passion quantifiable? I don't think so.

The Self Fulfilling Prophecy

In chapter 5, I was intrigued by the notion of the "Self Fulfilling Prophecy" and how our mental state can indeed dictate the outcome of any given situation.

Our "generalized other" is a very powerful tool for success; where the chapter uses examples of how a negative consequence could be a result of self fulfilling prophecy or generalized other, what about a positive result? Couldn't a positive viewpoint of what the world is expecting of you push you to fulfill a great accomplishment the same as a negative one?

I believe it can. When you look at inherent characteristics of the most successful people in our society, they have a generally positive outlook, are eternally optimistic, and instead of sulking in the face of adversity and asking "why me?" they take action to better the situation. They realize that they are only victims if they let themselves be.

In some regards, the generalized other may be a hindrance in and of itself. If we are too wrapped up in other's expectations, we'll lose sight of the task at hand. I can see where the generalized other can become quite debilitating.

However, when we realize the power our mental state and create a positive situation for our generalized other, our self-fulfilling prophecies may come out more favorable.

Polar opposites?

Week 2 Thoughts, Chapter 4

After reading about the "Seven Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory," there were two that jumped out at me as complete opposites, even conflicting. This could largely be because I can completely relate to one of them, and the other makes me break out in a cold sweat.

The first theory of interest was the "Socio-Psychological Tradition." This is the theory where scholars "believe there are communication truths that can be discovered by careful, systematic observation...that predict when a communication behavior will succeed and when it will fail" (Griffen 42).

Although I have not yet taken the "Quantitative Communication" class, I have a hunch this tradition is the foundation from where quantitative analysis is founded.

This is the theory that I have no affinity towards. While I know I use many of the statistical and quantifiable findings in my own life, my perception of the world is mostly in terms of feelings and a person's story - the things that make us human...which brings us to the contrasting tradition I spoke of:

The "Phenomenological Tradition."

In this tradition everything is in the eye of the beholder and "an individual's story is more important - and more authoritative - than any research hypothesis or communication axiom" (Griffin 49).

With these traditions being on such opposite ends of the spectrum, is it possible for them to coexist?

Absolutely. As I read further (when I turned the page), I found figure 4-3 entitled "A Survey Map of Traditions in the Field of Communication Theory." It is pictured as an intertwining spectrum of the 7 traditions, with "Socio-Psychological" on the left side and "Phenomenological" on the right.

Polar opposites? It looks that way.

But, interestingly enough, one cannot exist without the other. In fact, one depends on the other.

I would have drawn the spectrum the opposite way, with Phenomenological on the left, because I believe all theory, qualitative or quantitative, stems from this.

It was said in my Qualitative Communication class that through qualitative observations, quantitative scholars get their motivation to quantify it, duplicate the results, and predict based on those findings. I can't remember the exact language or who it was that said it (I will find out), but the thought is fundamentally the same. Basically it means that as humans we feel it first, then we ask why and seek to answer that question.

I know that I am inherently wired toward the Phenomenological, but am excited to dig other traditions on the spectrum and combine small quantifiable proof to support my qualitative hunches.

Sources: Griffin, Em "A First Look at Communication Theory, Seventh Edition."

Why an Odyssey of Communication?

As a Communication major at SJSU, I am realizing that I couldn't have chosen a better focus of study for our information-heavy times. I originally chose it back in 1999 as a student at Pepperdine University because I am very much a people-person and enjoy communication on many levels. Today, in 2008, as I work toward finishing this degree, it is a completely different major than it was 9 years ago because of the prevelance of internet activities. We cannot survive or be a contributing member to society without having an intimate knowlege of the internet.

What's more, I am thrilled to be learning the tools to be a contributor of information rather than just a consumer of it.

"Commodyssey" represents the journey that started in 1999 at Pepperdine, continued in 2000 at Mission College, in 2001 at UC Santa Barbara, through an academic hiatus to persue 2 different career endeavors and finally rounding out at SJSU to finish a major that I couldn't have predicted to be so influential.


COnsider the Meriam-Webster breakdown of the word "odyssey." Note the final definition....


ODYSSEY
Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural od·ys·seys

Etymology:

the Odyssey, epic poem attributed to Homer recounting the long wanderings of Odysseus

Date:

1889

1 : a long wandering or voyage usually marked by many changes of fortune
2 : an intellectual or spiritual wandering or quest

While my personal communication journey is mainly an intellectual one, I see simililarities between trek of Odysseus to get back home and my own to finish my degree.

Odysseus' hardships and continued setbacks were opportunities to halt the journey altogether. He could have given up at any time and forfeited any chance of seeing his family again. He made the choice to press on; he never gave up, realizing the prize.

My choice is two fold:

-To finish this degree because I believe that I will be better equipped to face our current world
-To do so in a manner that I may be a contibutor rather than simply a consumer


My academic hiatus has allowed me to appreciate this opportunity so much more and have a perspective that never could have been realized without taking it.

I am thrilled to be right here, right now, and will be taking full advantage of my prize at the end of my journey.

Fall 2008 Comm 101 at SJSU

This is my first post on Commodyssey marking the start of my journey through San Jose State's Comm 101 online course.