Definition of communication (week 3, post #3)

Communication is a complex process, and it is difficult to define it. A reasonable definition of communication would need to cover at least the situation where a person intends to convey information and a person receives information as a result (whether or not is intended). There are also many types of communication (or miscommunication) where a person attempts to convey information, but it is not received or has no impact. For example, advertising attempts to stimulate a response on the part of the audience, but in many cases it seems unclear if the messages are even received. Nonetheless, this could be an important form of communication even if only a small percentage of the audience reacts to the stimulus. There are also many situations where a person derives information or reacts to a stimulus even when nothing was intended to be communicated. For example, there are many situations where a person’s appearance conveys a message to others that was not intended (for example, that the person is sloppy or lazy).

Each of the models in Chapter 2 is useful in describing some aspects of communication. The psychological model seems the most robust, since the messages that are meant to be sent and the information that is received are the result of mental processes. In particular, this model seems more appropriate for predicting responses to advertising and mass media. The psychological model is criticized for focusing on the individual and ignoring cultural context. However, culture impacts a person’s psychology, so cultural aspects could be incorporated into the model to some extent. Extending the psychological model to incorporate cultural aspects from the social constructionist model seems to be a good direction for developing a more complex model of communication.

The pragmatic perspective

The pragmatic perspective looks at patterns of interaction between people. People communicate by making individual “moves” like a game.
Communication clearly includes aspects that are like a game and that result in patterns of interaction. In communication, like a game, every move generates verbal or nonverbal responses. For example, physical appearance, facial expressions or gestures can trigger thoughts that lead to specific verbal responses.
However, this model only explains some aspects of communications. The pragmatic approach focuses on the moves and structure of the game itself. Other aspects are ignored, such as the personality of the people playing the game. Communication is also influenced by outside factors and is much more complex than a game based only on “moves” between participants. Psychological and cultural factors also play a major role. The emotional and verbal responses that are triggered by a “move” depend on the psychological profile of the participants and the cultural rules. For example, in the Polish culture, people kiss each other during greetings. It is considered a friendly gesture. In American culture, kissing may trigger a different, possibly negative, response. The pattern of behavior is difficult to understand without knowing why people react the way they do and the social and cultural context in which they are reacting. In communication the players and rules are constantly changing and it is hard to really understand what game is being played. Also, many aspects of communication, like mass communication and advertising, seem more difficult to model as a game based on individual “moves” and are more easily understood in terms of the psychological and cultural factors that influence the reaction of the audience.

Social constructionist perspective (post #4)

From the social constructionist perspective, we “build worlds” by creating a collective representation of reality. Rather than experiencing the world directly, our perception is shaped by our society and culture. Our culture determines what things are significant and how we process and respond to them.

For example, the culture in the United States often focuses on the individual rather than the community as a whole. Our culture makes individual success and individual beauty significant. This focus has had both positive and negative effects on our society. On the one hand, this focus has led to materialism and unrealistic standards of beauty and success. Many people may feel lonely and unhappy, because they do not feel that they meet these standards individually. On the other hand, there is an emphasis on equal opportunity and individual freedom that permits people to pursue the “American dream”. This has led to greater individual freedom and opportunities.

In some cultures, the community is emphasized over the individual. The culture in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, emphasizes religious and social rules over the individual. For example, the way that women behave and dress and the roles that they are permitted to play in society are restricted in ways that would be completely unacceptable in the United States. However, there is a different social construction and view of reality. People in those cultures may feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves. The culture has made this more significant than individual freedom.

Bacon's perceptual bias analysis

Francis Bacon discussed four categories of distortion in human communication: Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, Idols of the Market Place and Idols of the Theatre. I grew up in Poland under communism and saw many examples of these idols in public communication.

“Idols of the Tribe” are errors based on human tendencies generally. One of these tendencies is to believe that there is something greater than oneself. For example, a child tends to believe that her parents never make mistakes. In Poland, the government tried to convey a sense that the communist system was greater than the individual and that the government was always right. Triumphs were celebrated (and in some cases manufactured) and mistakes were never admitted.

“Idols of the Cave” are errors based on an individuals own tendencies and experiences. In Poland, an individual’s views of communism often depended upon whether they were raised by parents who were official communist party members, whether they went to certain schools and whether their families attended church.

“Idols of the Market Place” are errors from imprecise language. The use of distorted language like “comradeship” and “equality”were used to mask a system that was quite the opposite.

“Idols of the Theatre” are tendencies based on systems and ideas that have been accepted uncritically. Communism was propped up by “Idols of the Theatre”. Communism was taught in the school system without question or criticism. Military parades and other propaganda events were used to show the strength of the state. When protests and economic shortages unmasked the truth, the illusion quickly disappeared and the system collapsed.

Does an orator have to be morally good?

I disagree with the Greeks’ belief that an orator has to be morally good to be a good public speaker. A message may be bolstered by its truth and goodness, but history is full of examples of great orators who used their powers of persuasion for evil purposes. Adolf Hitler is a primary example of someone who was very effective at public communication, but morally corrupt. He was able to use rhetoric, symbolism and propaganda to rally an entire nation to an evil purpose. His ability to persuade so many people to follow his cause is perhaps more impressive given that the cause was based on principles that are not true or morally good. Rather, he had to overcome truth and morality in persuading others to follow him. If a message is based on truth and morality, it should be easier to communicate and require less skill as an orator. A message based on falsehoods and immorality, on the other hand, may require greater skills of persuasion, and even manipulation, in order to convince others that it should be followed. Based on an example of Hitler and his ability to persuade I think an orator should be morally good to send the right message to the society.

Discussion # 1 The speaker I admire

While primarily an entertainer, I admire Dr. Phil McGraw’s public communication skills. He is able to engage with his guests while also effectively communicating with his audience. He is able to guide the discussion to demonstrate his points and convey his message. His power of persuasion comes from a combination of ethos and logos. His own personal character gives him credibility. He combines this credibility with basic, common sense logic to provide a compelling message. While he is often sympathetic, he does not primarily appeal to the emotions of those with whom he is trying to communicate (although he may appeal to his audience’s emotions to keep them watching). He is willing to challenge his guests to “get real” and take ownership of their own self-destructive behavior, rather than appealing to their emotional desires.

My own ability to persuade comes primarily from logic and reasoning, and fits well within Aristotle’s classification of logos. However, my focus on logic can also be a weakness at times. I may feel that my position is logically correct, so it should be obvious to my audience. I may overlook the emotional response of those I am trying to persuade.