Blog Seven: Self and Identity

The idea of performative self really resonates with me as I often hide my true self from those I am not comfortable with and "put on a show" for others in an effort to maintain a certain image.  Duck/McMahan say, "...people have a sense of their own dignity and image- the person they want to be seen as.  That is part of what gets transacted in everyday communication." (pg 134)  This means that our identity is influenced by society and we strive to reflect whatever image we feel is acceptable to others.  This depends alot on context or setting as we act certain ways depending on where we are, who we are with, and our relationship or desired relationship with the people we are interacting with.  I know that when I speak to my friends, my identity is less constructed and more natural because I know that they already accept me, whereas I may be more likely to "perform" on an interview to create an image of professionalism.  I think that the idea of performative self ties in with the transactional nature of communication.  When we conform or play a part to coincide with society's expectations, it says something about what the "norms" of that particular society are.  Our identity is altered in different situations and can reveal our comfort level, desires and relationships with others.  In other words, performative self communicates an extra meaning and is therefore transactional.  It proves that identity is constructed by society and that individual behavior in different situations propagates certain standards.

Blog Six: New Authors

Something that is really important to me as a communication major is the idea of how and why communication fails at times, why there are misunderstandings and why it is hard to open up to others.  Basically, my interest lies within the relational function of communication and it's ability to shape the nature of relationships.  I found some authors that focus on self-perception and the idea of how we perceive ourselves influences our relationship with others, non verbal communication as being just as effective as verbal, self disclosure in determining relationship quality and how we can improve our ability to communicate and therefore improve our relationships, and achieving relational satisfaction.  The authors are:

Mariann M. Morry
Mie Kito
Laura K. Guerrero
Kory Floyd
Julia T. Wood
Daniel J. Canary

Blog Five: Active Listening

After reading about active listening and the need to critically process and analyze what we are listening to, I realized how many advertisements make fallacious arguments.  Duck/McMahan say that these arguments "appear legitimate but are actually based on faulty reasoning" (pg 105).  This means that the arguments seem logical on the surface to someone not actively listening, but if we critically listen to the statements being made, we would realize that the arguments break the rules of logic and are not in alignment.  I think that the new AT&T commercial uses the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument in that it shows a woman dropping her phone and meeting a man who helps her to pick it up and because of this incident, she becomes a professional ballet dancer.  The storyline essentially puts forth that because the woman dropped her phone, which happened before, the after result of her becoming a professional dancer was caused by this.  Obviously, other factors would have contributed to her success, yet the commercial uses AT&T and the cell phone as leading to changing the woman's life.  The commercial also shows false alternatives and presents only two options for the woman, these being that she can "rethink possible" with AT&T and make all of her dreams come true, or she can be stuck daydreaming about her goals.  This is shown as the commercial uses a split screen effect to show her life with AT&T and her life without it. Clearly, with hard work and talent, the woman could reach her goals on her own and not have just the options of failure or success based on which cell phone company she uses.  I had seen this commercial many times before, but never thought to question the reasoning used until reading Duck/McMahan's chapter on listening.  This chapter really resonated with me and rethinking advertisements has made me conscious of the irrational arguments that the media makes and more aware that hearing is not the same as listening or critical listening.

Blog Four: A Methodological Note

"A Methodological Note" made me question what is and what is not, and how our reality and perception of things is constructed.  H.L Goodall is quoted as saying "there are multiple copresent realities" and that experience is "socially constructing as well as socially constructed."(pg 2) I took this to mean that everyone constructs their own reality and that things that the majority see as "fact" have been constructed as such, and that other people in other societies or cultures may view the same concept differently, meaning there can be multiple realities for different people.  I agree that the poetic essay in a way escapes defining things and basing everything on fact because often the poetic essay, like a diary, is written from a subjective standpoint.  If I am writing in my diary about an event that happened, my take on it is going to to be different from another persons because I shape my reality based on who I am and what is important to me in particular.  A diary is not a bunch of "knowns" or "facts", but rather an individual's perspective on events.  There is not one reality, but many, due to every person being different and having different values.  I think that "A Methodological Note" ties together with the idea of symbols and signs because symbols are abstract and can only mean something once people agree on and socially construct that meaning.  Just as the meaning of symbols is constructed, so is our reality, largely based on ourselves and society and able to vary depending on who we are, where we live, what we believe etc.  In my opinion, we shouldn't just accept what history and society has laid the foundations for, but we should be able to think and challenge theories and "facts" because communication is about our interests, our values and out beliefs.

Blog Three: Signs Among Cultures

From the models of meaning discussed in Fiske's chapter 3, I've come to see that, regardless of the different names assigned to each component, there is one overall explanation for the triangle of meaning.  My interpretation is that there is a sign which stands for something and directs us to another meaning that we recognize.  Our perception of the sign and what deeper meaning it refers to depends on the society in which we live.  As we discussed in class, the signified, or concepts that we derive from the same signifier, or sign, can be completely different depending on our culture, background, geography, age and a number of other variables.  This means that our interpretation and assigned meaning to the same or similar things can differ due to these factors.  While reading, I remembered a few signs that have completely different connotations in different parts of the world.  The thumbs up, for example, is associated with positivity and encouragement in our culture, because this, as Fiske says, is "the agreement among the users" (46) in our society.  In Iran, however, society assigns an extremely negative meaning to this sign and thinks of it as referring to something obscene. Similarly, the swastika, in Hinduism and in many Eastern religions, relates to the creation of the universe and is a holy symbol, whereas Western civilizations relate it to the nazi party and destruction.  I think that a sign is simply a sign until people associate some sort of meaning to it, therefore, creating a relationship between what is represented and what it represents.  I disagree with Saussure's idea that the meaning we find in a sign  is determined by the meaning in what the sign does not represent (Fiske, 45) because I feel that we can not assign meaning to something based on what it is not, unless we already have an idea of what it is and what it means.  I think the two are related but that the actual meaning we derive from a sign allows us to eradicate other potential meanings.  

Blog Two: Accommodation

In class we talked about communication's need to create a common understanding and to elicit a response.  Chapter 2 discusses how we tend to alter our communication in order to do just this.  I never realized how true it is that we adapt how we says things and what we say to maximize understanding.  Duck/McMahan say that we change the way we say something "to suit an audience or to see changes in feelings or in the relationship that occur during the course of the interaction" (44), meaning that we expect to get a certain response from those we communicate with, and in order to achieve this desired reaction or understanding, we modify our communication to better fit who we are and our relationship to who we are speaking with. I think that this further emphasizes the idea of communication being a relational process because we alter it to accommodate others.  A shared understanding of one another allows a relationship to form and can signal each person's social standing within the relationship.  I feel that I tend to converge and change my way of speaking rather than diverge.  Being a student and on my way to joining the professional world, I try to speak on the same level as professors and employers in an effort to be taken seriously.  My goal is that others understand that I want to be seen as an adult.  This chapter has made me realize how constructed our communication processes can be and their basis on our own image, the image we want others to see, and the relationship between ourselves and others.