Last one!…almost (Interbeing)

The summaries and analyses of Hahn’s article “Interbeing” and Postman’s “The Communication Panacea” showed contrasting approaches to looking at the communication process.  Swabbies said in their message “Seeing Your Communication is Realizing your Communication,” that they have learned to “visualize the inter-being of events and things as a sort of giant Venn Diagram with equal interlocking sections between the forces and influences involved.”  Memphisburns in “A walking talking example” describes Postman’s theory’s main statement:  “He said that, ‘communication is most sensibly viewed as means through which desirable ends may be achieved.”  They offer many insights into Postman and Hahn’s articles, included several similar comments on how classmates chose to work with others based on common interests and goals.

Shinyginger added that “Neil Postman mostly discussed concealment of thoughts and feelings in more emotionally charged situations.”  The responses to our team’s project show that these theories are both legitimate and intriguing.  In retrospect, I think overall that my analysis on critical discourse theory was more focused on the ideas form Hahn’s article “Interbeing” in that my analysis focused more on the dynamics of the comments and the analysis thereof then on the idea of the consequentiality of said communications.  In that comment I stated that I thought readers of our project were “able to apply the ideas of our presentation to society in general, and analyze the connections between the communication process, consequentiality, and the discourse present in our project.”  I believe the interbeing of all the cumulative events/actions is most evident in this my analysis because my descriptions involve the dynamics of the communication rather than the actual goals the interlocuters may have.

Take a Little Journey…

Potential topic: “The Consequentiality of Emotions in IPC”

I first started thinking of this as a potential topic beginning with my reading an interesting passage by Stephanie Kent on anticipation as a factor in the outcome of IPC.  Steph writes in the last part of the second paragraph of the entry :

“In terms of communication – particularly in terms of the relationships that communication makes possible – anticipation can be divided into two broad categories, which (for simplicity’s sake) I will call “negative” and “positive.” In other words, I can anticipate the worst and craft my communication to either defend against ‘the bad’ or offensively assert ‘the good’ (roughly, what I desire); or I can anticipate the best and design my discourse to minimize ‘the bad’ and emphasize ‘the good.’ (Of course I am proposing these categories as extremes as ends of a continuum along which each of us fluctuate depending on a wide variety of factors – mood, energy, investment, personal history, amount of knowledge/experience, cultural background, etcetera – and all of these in relationship with the circumstances of the immediate situation itself.)”

(URL:  http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/audience-to-imagine-or-ignore/)

I found this idea interesting.  Our “attitude” and exact emotional outlook can have a huge effect. This passage and the idea of anticipation and the process of how our “exhalations” are distorted from what we “want” or how we feel about an impending interaction emotionally might be interesting to explore more…

In terms of our emotions and how others perceive us I was then drawn to a particular passage where getoutakingshous said:

“Sure, you can say what you feel and what you want to achieve, but that is not the same as communicating it. Communicating something makes it possible for your audience to feel the same feelings you feel about what you are trying to communicate. And in order to do this, it takes a lot of practice and dedication.”

(URL:  http://www.reflexivity.us/blog/archives/2008/03/a-conversaton-w.html#comment-242316)

This idea relates to what Steph says above, there is a consequentiality (I think) to how our emotions filter our “exhalations” and being aware of the emotional consequentiality of what we say.  The interplay with our emotions and how they effect our perceptions of others and at the same time how we think others are perceiving us is intriguing.  Being aware of the consequentiality (or our impression thereof) can also mold how we approach the situation.

This led me to another interesting tangent I found in AP1115’s comment, which I think could illustrate the consequentiality of emotional trials on group dynamics…

Ap1115 says “I think that the more a group undergoes together the more of a cohesive unit it becomes. By employing this methodology on our group it gives the group a way to bond together to deal with a certain goal, and problem (confusion, ambiguity, etc) together.”

(URL:  http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/reversing-the-relative-neglect-of-group-member-training/#comment-1077)

Similarly, ontherecliner says

“Like others have mentioned I do think we have become more comfortable with eachother, and the group seems to be working better overall. I also feel there is still confusion every class, but I dont feel that is a bad thing because I think it means we are doing new things and moving on.”

(URL:  http://aplaceinspace.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/reminder-after-dachau/#comment-1017)

Perhaps if we look at consequentiality as having two facets in terms of communication, providing a consequence good or bad to avoid where we must consciously keep in mind a complex interplay of emotional responses; or as being purely a fact or the general nature of the interaction itself.  Do our emotions themselves have consequentiality? Yes, but to what extent?  Is it more about the group mentality (or are the parts implied here…)?  Maybe we could also look at the consequentiality of group interaction on individuals’ emotions and “exhalations” as well.

7:1- Defining Ourselves

The message of the article “Meaning and Values”- by G. Corey & M. Schneider-Corey is that we need to question our values and beliefs and realize the ways in which these ideas effect our relationships.  The authors talk about how “the paradox of our contemporary society is that although we have the benefits of technological progress, we are still not satisfied.”  (86)  We still search for the real meaning in life and the answers to the three questions the author poses: “Who am I? Where am I going? Why?” (87)  The authors give many suggestions and questions for you to ask yourself; very deep questions on our identity, sense of self, religious views, etc.  By questioning your values and beliefs the authors suggest that we can achieve personal growth.  Among suggestions for personal growth were: “…finding hobbies that develop new sides of [us]…initiating contact with others…doing volunteer work…pursuing a spiritual path that is meaningful to [us]…sharing some of [our] dreams with a person [we] trust.” (93)

These ideas are interesting and considerate of the many emotions we experience.  The process of questioning our selves through social interaction and growing as individuals is very important.   However the authors point out that “although self-acceptance is a pre-requisite for meaningful interpersonal relationships, there is a quest to go beyond self-centered interests.” (87)  Here the idea that we should strive to collaborate and be open to others’ ideas/values/beliefs is reiterated.  I think the ideas and suggestions in this article apply to the group work setting in that we have an opportunity to grow through our experience communicating together.  We are exposed to more diversity and able to challenge our selves.  The communication process within our group will perhaps expose some of the contrasting sets of meanings or beliefs we have and allow us to gain new perspectives.

The article by Rodriguez entitled “Hispanic” is about the way that cultural groups are generalized and how the author has struggled to realize his identity within American society.  He talks about the way that people of many diverse descents have been lumped in the category of “Hispanic” and that he feels like their cultural identity and self-awareness is blurred in the process.  The author also has many issues with the way that “proper” terminology for denoting different races is designed.  The introduction to this article says: “Rodriguez is writing how he defines himself and how he and other people like him are defined by the people with whom they communicate.” (109)  This related to the other reading from this section, describing the link between a self-concept and communication. The complex questions of cultural identity presented by Rodriguez are very interesting and might provide the group with topics for discussion and a way for us to think about ourselves as part of society and a larger culture that we may not be aware of.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!