Review of Class

I liked the way the weekly assignments were designed. I can explain my reasoning for my answers to the questions whenever I had time within each week. I am also able to read other people’s comments on the same questions and see different perspective. There is also the chance that someone commented on my post and then I learn about that person’s views on my stated answers, which again lets me see a different perspective, thus expanding my own perspective. I also think that it’s great that there are many useful and active means of contacting the professor and having questions answered on a more one-to-one basis. As for improvement within the class, I do not think that there are huge problems that need to be. Everything seems satisfactory, but revisions on the instructions to make them clearer, and looking over the course schedule would help make things easier for us as students. To me, it seems that the instructions are not as clear as they could be, and the schedule appears like there are too many “weeks-off” that are too close to each other and within the later part of the course as opposed to being more spread out. Of course, there are probably reasons behind this, due to the professor’s other possible scheduling conflicts and such.

Concept that needs more discussion

I think that how the self-concept is constructed needs further construction. There was not much discussion about interpersonal communication’s self, a topic that includes the looking-glass self-concept. One constructs a view of oneself through the numerous interactions within the course of an individual’s life, and the continuously knowledge that gets built up after each new experience. If parents and others tell one specific girl that she is beautiful continuously, praising her and spoiling her, that girl may deem herself as beautiful. This then raises her self-esteem and self-confidence in herself as a beautiful person, which should normally garner attention and thus influencing her daily behavior and attitude. This may include activities such as spending more time and money on herself with the reasoning that it is worth it. She may feel inadequate about other traits other than her beauty if the dialogues of her interpersonal relationships are solely centered on beauty rather than intellect, athleticism or other traits. Thus she may solely focus on keeping that beauty or enhancing it, feeling that this beauty is the one good trait that she has. There are many ways in which the relationships that one has affects how one sees oneself and also the world and thus behave within that reality.

Most Interesting Concept

The most interesting concept that I encountered from the class is would be nonverbal communication’s chronemics. I knew before that nonverbal communication is important as well, considering the impact of first impressions and how verbal messages are interpreted differently based on nonverbal cues. However, I had not given a lot of thought about how present and future time may affect human behavior and thus used as nonverbal messages. There is the dimension of psychological time orientation, involving the way that an individual may think about time, view time as, and experience it. One may focus on the present or the future, or even feel anxious about time obligations from both time perspective categories. There is the way that bodies may influence the nonverbal behaviors that one exhibits, the biological time orientation. Finally there is the cultural time orientation where one’s culture influences the perspective of time. Time is important and how one views and spends it determine how one acts within a daily basis.

11/15-11/21 #3: How Media Affects-Hegemonic Messages

Within the section, “What media messages do to receivers”, Trenholm discusses the effect and possible change that occurs from being exposed to and absorbing these media messages and what they are saying. One of the ways that media affects audiences is through hegemonic messages that silence the powerless. In this manner, media controls what is heard and what is not, what to think and what not to think, making the audience only aware of what the powerful want the audience to see, looking and following the status quo, and not what the powerless and weak have to say or what is truth instead of misrepresentations. There are cases where the media illustrates an inaccurate picture of the world, making it seem as if what is shown in television shows are the norm. Hegemonic messages also creates a hierarchy of power, in which powerless voices stay powerless, in fear of repudiation and retaliation, thus making Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence, where ideas that are popular are expressed, those that are not and are of the minority remain silent.

Within hegemonic message, there are cases where the audience is left unaware of a powerless party, due to the media’s control of those voices. For instance, an incident of hegemonic messages and how messages or lack of messages affect the audience, US involvement with Laos during the Vietnam War with its massive bombings and its “secret war”. Within this secret war, despite the signing of the Geneva Treaty that made Laos a neutral country during the Vietnam War, the US went ahead with their secret plans to deal with possible infiltration of the Communist half of Vietnam that was backed by the Soviet Union. By their actions, they left the indigenous populations of Laos to deal with thousands of bombs that they are still dealing with after a few decades, and most of the population left unknowing of this poor and despairing situation. In fact, the US would not be aware of it without the presence of incoming refugees from Laos within the US.

11/15-11/21 #2 : Medium is the Message

I do agree with McLuhan’s statement that medium is the message. I think that the media format that one uses to send the message is what initially brings an audience to listen, see and receive the message. Although the message may be important, presentation and its aspects affects who will be the audience, how well the audience will pay attention and listen to the message, how they might react and respond to that message, and whether the context and intent of the message will be understood. For instance, as McLuhan infers, television is a cool medium based on the scale, diversity, and impact of this medium that presents the message. Television, as Trenholm stated, “in terms of media penetration… ‘is the most mass of all mass media’…[fulfilling] many functions for its viewers…” (2008, 316). Not only are there networks that specifically cater to a particular interest, such as fashion, cooking, and the news, but televisions hold such a wide range of audiences and as well as penetration into the everyday household, captivating many generations. It is because television has both visual and auditory means of presenting messages that may be more powerful than simply one means. Television also provides a wide array of how to send the message; for instance, political issues could be discussed explicitly as in news programs and reports, or it could be woven into a television show aimed at entertainment, such as the Simpsons. The message is important, as it is what is trying to be stated to the target audience, but its medium is what helps in making that audience aware of that message and its intent.

11/15-11/21: Cyber-Exclusive Relationships

Ever since the internet boom, people can chat, take classes and even meet people online, so it is no surprise that there are people who have made friendships that exist exclusively online. However, I am not one of those people. In my opinion, cyber relationships are tricky since there is lingering uncertainty about these relationships despite methods to ensure the safety of the creation of these cyber relationships. As cyber relationships have taken a massive hold of society, it is apparent that there are methods and measures to ensure safer means of creating a cyber relationship, but there is still a level of uneasiness with the unknown, especially since there are dangerous people lurking cyberspace where they may wear a friendly and assuring mask to lower one’s guard, lulling a person into a false sense of security and ease. Then afterwords, there are still dangerous things that could happen, even if it is a relationship in cyberspace, afterall, what can happen in cyberspace. This is for the context of certain situations in regards to friendships that are existent only in cyberspace, so this view does not apply to all relationships that exist in cyberspace since I have taken online classes before, and have used Blackboard for its online chat rooms, making peer relationships as well as student-teacher relationships, as I have with the blogs, emails, and yahoo messenger used for this particular class.

Still, exclusively cyber relationships are not for me. In addition to my distrust of these type of friendships, relationships that exist solely within cyberspace do not really work for me, especially on a long term basis, which is what I would like within my friendships. I personally like to have face-to-face interaction within my personal relationships. Computer-Mediated Communication is great for supplementing the relationships that I already have, especially when we are too busy or too far away to meet, but there is something about face-to-face relationships that seems unfiltered and unhindered by faulty internet connections, and the flat and sometimes smudgy computer screen. I am not opposed to these cyber relationships since others’ perspectives are different, but for me in general, relationships exclusive to cyberspace does not work for me.

Wk 13.3 Looking-Glass Self

The concept of the looking-glass self is vital in understanding the construction and development of self. One’s self-concept is built upon learning about oneself through one’s interpersonal relationships, especially within interactions with those others who may “appraise” that person, which forms who one is: good characteristics, bad faults, where one fits into society. When someone gives a comment to a person about an aspect of that person, one would tend to begin take notice about that aspect and react accordingly. As Trenholm notes, this begins a cyclical process as one’s response triggers additional reactions from others, which may reinforce the idea that one is this, thus building up one’s self-concept. Parents may tell their children that they are smart, or that they are pretty or give them complements about a certain aspect, and from this positive reactions and given attention, these children may play up these characteristics and within this cyclical process, gradually enforce that particular aspect of themselves within their self-concept. The concept of the looking-glass self is interesting because just as one gains knowledge and understanding of the world through learning, especially from our important others and society, one also learns who one is through interactions within one’s interpersonal relationships.

Wk 13.2 Attraction: Who I Notice and Who I Don't

We all have certain lens that we look through to determine what things are to us, which includes who are the people I notice, and how and which people are appealing or unappealing. For me, I usually judge people by their superficial attractiveness, friendly demeanor, polite behaviors and level of more easy-going presence, which clearly indicates who I find attractive and so the characteristics and behaviors that I find unattractive include rude back-talking and snide remarks, a seemingly inability to talk, cold and unfriendly mannerisms/behavioral tendencies.

Duck’s Filtering Theory makes sense to me, because typically we tend to make judgments of people based on what we see, whether it is their looks and appearance, the behaviors that they exhibit, or what others may say about them. One tends to take notice of people that they see enough to think that those others look familiar. So after one takes notice of those people, one tends to gradually look deeper at those people, finding people

Along the lines of Duck’s theory, I have eliminated people using a sociological/pre-interaction cue before I reconsidered them based on interaction and cognitive cues, since it seems easier to talk with people who look familiar and appear to be people that I would be able to talk with. However, within my experiences and understanding, appearances are deceiving since appearance is not everything and that there are so many people within our society that one has not noticed or met. People that I thought that I would not be able to hold a relationship became my friends. One cannot judge a person by how they appear to you, one can only judge after getting to know a person.

Wk 13.1 Dysfunctional Rigid Role Relations

Within these rigid relational patterns of dominance, rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, and submissive symmetry poses problems and damage to the relationship, especially if these roles make the people within the relationship feel strained, hurt and resentful.

In my opinion, of these three patterns, the one that would be most difficult to change would be the rigid complementarity, especially if that role has been enforced for over a period of time. The reason that I say this is because typically, these roles are formed within interpersonal relationships that have built over time, thus enforcing the idea of playing one’s suited and given role. This then builds up and culminates into a serious dysfunctional pattern since the problems occur after a long period of time when either partner becomes tired of always playing their one-up or one-down roles.

This rigid complementarity role may also be the most damaging for the self-esteem of the individuals within the relationship. Although a submissive symmetry may be damaging to the individuals’ self-esteem, due to the problems that occurs within this relationship (ex. an inefficient cyclical pattern of giving the other control, forcing the other into an uncomfortable position, having an unending pattern of self-enforced ideology that the other is better or that one is worse), the rigid complementarity pattern is worse in damage, especially for the submissive role, because those with the one-down role may feel that they do not have the right or capability to say anything, contribute to the relationship or take control of an aspect of the relationship. They may feel that they are unable do something other than letting their “better” dominant partner take control. As for the dominant role, they may feel that they have to take control because of an implied responsibility, thereby unintentionally giving immense pressure due to this role and causing unneeded worrying about their own capability to be in control always.

For the role that may be most damaging to interpersonal relationships, the most damaging in typical interpersonal relationships would probably be the competitive symmetry because both people are trying to take control and be the dominant control. This therefore creates frustrating strain on the relationship, an overwhelming and overly-competitive atmosphere, and a ceaseless fight of control over aspects of the relationship where one may feel that it would be an unacceptable loss for one to lose control of an aspect of this relationship, even if one partner does not have particular attachment for controlling that aspect. It may mean that each partner is unnecessarily competing with each other over who is in control over all things within the relationship, despite that there may be workable compromises.

Wk 9.3 Culture and Language Style

Within the previous readings, there was information about language and culture, particularly the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, where language reflects our culture and our thoughts, behaviors and values (in other words, our culture) are affected by language. As Trenholm states, “if we think and remember linguistically, then it stands to reason that the nature of our language affects the nature of our thoughts” (75).

In line with this idea, the general concept of culture and language style is relevant and interesting. The different ways that we speak across cultures each emphasizes what is valued; if a particular thought or idea is important within a culture/community, then this idea will be linked to and easily represented by a word, especially if the culture attaches a particular connotation to that word. This is why learning different languages may be frustrating and hard since there may be certain words that are not easily translated from one language to another since meanings and connotations may not be easily translated. There are also specific words that exist in one language but not in another, such as the basic Spanish language where there are two words for fish, one specifically for eating and the other one for the general idea of fish. There is also the example from Trenholm with the Japanese word, amae, where it contains connotations and meanings that are more that its English “translation” of dependence; as stated within the text, “…it is a highly assumed, reciprocal relationship that blurs the distinction between…work and the interpersonal realm” (355).

There is also the fact that culture influences semantic content (words grammar, written and oral language) and pragmatic rules (the way we organize and present our words within different contexts, language styles, speech forms, what and how we speak, the meanings of different speech forms). Culture also affects the meaning of nonverbal language as well, as seen within past readings. Language contains a representation of their respective cultures, where it expresses their beliefs and shows the “filters” that these individual communities are looking and perceiving through.

Wk 9.2 Rationality, Perfectibility and Mutuality Premises

I can believe in rationality and mutability practice, but I think that rather than believing in the actual premise of perfectibility where people are innately evil at birth, I would think along the lines of being born neutral and doing good things and behaving with effort and control, we can be good or “redeem” ourselves for the bad things that we may have done.

In terms of social institutions and practices based on the three premises, for the perfectibility premise, with this belief that people are born evil but can redeem themselves by putting the effort and control, there is the idea of using community service as a part of a convicted sentence, equaling to a way to repay to society for one’s crime, creation and enforcement of laws (prohibitions, limits) and religion.

The social institutions and practices that are based on the rationality premise, the belief of the capability of discovering the truth through logical analysis include the areas of government, law and economics, as well as seen within free enterprise, investigative/enforcement services, individual rights that include the right to vote and free speech, and trials by jury.

The mutability premise states that human behavior is shaped by environmental factors, and the social institutions and practices that are based on this idea include the idea of universal education, child and social services, desire of universal health care, services from community service centers and such.

Wk 9.1 Creatures of Culture

I agree that we are “creatures of our culture” where one is shaped by one’s own learned culture. As one grows up, family, peers and society in general teach us what values should prized or not, how to behave within different situations, what meanings or expectations are derived from messages or from people, what is polite and what is considered rude or taboo, and other such things. Therefore, as we continue to repetitively continue our learned patterns from our culture, we tend to instinctively confine ourselves to our particular beliefs, habits and concept of reality and impossibility.

In order to break through the constrictive limits of our respective cultures, it is important to understand that there are vast and different yet acceptable and “right” ways to live and understand the world. Other vital points are that we must always be open-minded, non-judgmental, striving to learn more about what’s beyond our individual “world”, thereby learning how to interact in a way that is respectful to their culture and their identity, especially as we are likely to be in contact with various cultural communities.

Wk 7.3: Concept: Object Language

Object language, “all intentional and unintentional displays of material things…”, the implicit messages that one gets from the materials that one possesses. In a way, objects can send a message of who a person is, enforcing the idea that ‘We are what we have’. Clothing is a very known ideal of how materials can construct a particular interpretation. However, built environments and the elements of size, materials, linear perspective, lighting temperature, noise, and overall sensory stimulation are not exactly things that one immediately thinks of when thinking of nonverbal communication.

This is an interesting concept because when we think of nonverbal communication, the extent of object communication would be the clothes that one wears. However, considering the impressions gets from materials, for instance, built environments, the buildings that we see can influence how we think, whether about what we should wear, what services are within that building and if it is good, how to act, or even if we are the type of person that would be allowed in. Materials can give us the impressions of power, different types of feelings and atmospheres, and the people who may own these materials. Certain factors of materials can make people tense and uncomfortable, and relaxed and at ease.

Wk 7.2: Cultural Meanings and Nonverbal Messages

Languages within cultures vary, where meanings are determined differently between these different cultures. Nonverbal messages also follow suit as different values may determine certain acts as one thing or another, whether insulting or not. An example would be the “ok” open hand sign. Typically within the United States, this would signify agreement and is generally holds a positive meaning in this culture. However, within areas in South America, this is a derogatory gesture, interpreted as insulting and demeaning, something that one would not want to see in this part of the world. Another nonverbal message with different cultural meanings would be eye contact. In the United States, keeping eye contact is a sign of confidence, self-esteem, listening and understanding, generally a good thing to repeat and enforce. However, this same gesture may be deemed as arrogant and disrespectful in Asian cultures, such as Japan. There is no solid attached meaning to words and likewise, actions; nonverbal language and messages may be symbolic, with its meaning being shaped by culture and its ideology, values and way of life.

Wk 7.1 Nonverbal Messages: Did I Interpret That Correctly?

Nonverbal messages are ambiguous because of the possible contrast between our interpretations of the nonverbal message and the state of the person who is “sending” that message. Nonverbal messages are commonly used within each of our lives and in which many have encountered a form of misunderstanding due to misinterpretation. There was one time when a group of us were working together for a presentation, I asked a person about whether she would send her allotted part of the powerpoint presentation to me by a certain date, just for clarification. She was nodding her head and saying yes, but she did it in such a rushed and hurried manner that unfortunately, I interpreted as her being annoyed, mean, and someone who didn’t want to do her work. However this nonverbal message that I received was interpreted out of context, particularly of her situation. Summarily put, it seems that she had to be somewhere else really soon, thus she had to be in a hurry. I really did misinterpret her as being rude when she really was just focused on going somewhere and getting there as quick as she can.

In order to increase the accuracy of people’s interpretation of nonverbal messages, one should employ caution in interpreting this type of messages, since these are messages that are being sent, unintentional or intentional, based on a person’s circumstances/situation, personality and physical state, which may change the meaning of the message. It may be an unconscious action or habit instead of a deep and purposeful message, so it is important to understand that the message sent may not be as one interprets it, to not be conclusive after one receives the message as well as that all nonverbal message should not be read as something that has deep meaning each and every time this nonverbal message may be “sent”. One can employ strategies by becoming more aware, analyzing the person and the context of the situation to see whether it is caused by the immediate physical conditions or the person’s personality and situation, as well as employing the use of verbal clarification.

Wk 6.1: Perceiving without Judging?

It is impossible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them because this is a process that we unconsciously and consciously do in order to create an understanding of our world. As we continuously gain new experiences and information, we tend to create schemata to make the learnt information and knowledge become applicable to the new or incoming information. This, thereby, creates an integral “system” identification and organization, where we may tend to create unfair judgments and instant characterization without taking to account individual differences that changes our idealized representations of a certain kind of person (personal prototypes) and the characteristics that we habitually notice of others, partially due to appearance (personal constructs). We may also fall into acting upon scripts or representations of sequences of action, where we unthinkingly act upon routine, thus pushing us into “mindlessness and repetitive routines” (Trenholm, 51).

To counteract faulty perceptions, judgments and categorization, we must enact mindful processing; in other words, becoming more mindful of our actions, habits, and such, thus improving awareness, creating new understandings and creating more fair judgments. We can also improve our interpretation of the world, since our individual judgment is not the “right one”, rather it is important to understand that we can be confused about a message or misunderstand what someone is trying to communicate. Therefore, we should utilize a perception check to state our interpretation as well as ask and clarify what the other is trying to say, thus minimizing misunderstanding and problems that may occur due to faulty judgments and differences in understanding the message communicated.

Wk 6.2 Talking: Girls and Boys

Gender does play a role in how men and women use language and overall communicate differently. As we grow, we are influenced by the gender expectations that society has built and support, thus also affecting our use of language within different areas of our lives, from our socialization within groups, intimate interactions, and overall use of communication. As Trenholm points out, boys and girls have different patterns and manners of using language that generally fits what is expected from different genders: boys are supposed to be strong, authoritative, and “masculine”; women are to be nurturing, supportive, sensitive, encouraging and “feminine”. Thus language would often reflect these expectations.

For example, within a conversation between two women, there may be frequent verbal exchanges and conversations as well as an inclination for more intimate, close topics of conversation that encourages exposure of emotions, feelings and insecurities. In contrast, a conversation between men may be more limited in terms of explicit conversation/verbal exchanges as well as having less of a tendency to go into a conversation that deals with emotions and other “in-depth” topics, usually going for a wide breadth of public matters. When they do speak, there is a less likely chance that men will use “confirming verbal language” that indicates listening while the other is talking.

Another example would be when discussing a problem. If one discusses a problem with a girl, then the response would deal more with comforting and supporting the other person, dealing more with how the person is feeling, rather than the actual problem. Women would most likely use encouraging language while the other is talking, saying “right,” “sure,” “I know” and other little words that confirm that they are listening throughout the conversation. If that same problem was discussed with a guy, then the response would most likely be a more authoritative and straightforward answer, suggestion or stated solution for the problem that could be used, thus dealing with the literal meaning of the message.

Wk 6.3 Listening: Interpretation

Within the process of listening, one needs to determine what the person is saying, thus assigning meanings to the words, actions, tones, and sounds that the other person is making. Simply put, we are to interpret what the other is communicating. In determining meaning, we base our interpretation on our individual past knowledge, social understanding, and experience, which then determine what it means to us. Thus, one’s interpretation of a person, event or thing changes the value and meaning place onto a specific thing, depending on the individual’s mindset and circumstance. Interpretation is how one categorizes what one experiences, whether it is typical, good, bad, strange or such.

As Trenholm fully discusses, we structure and organize the sensory data and information into clear images and words. As we are continually exposed to this information, we then “impose stability on what we see”, thus understanding the existence and presence of what we see and hear, even if we do not physically see it during a moment in time. Lastly we give meaning to what we see, determining its characteristics, identity, value and what it “states”.

Although this process is regularly and unconsciously done in order to understand the world and live in it, this process involves complex organization to guide us within the world. Therefore we are able to make judgments about people, events and the general world, especially as we build upon our schemata or mental guidelines to “identify and organize incoming information”, based on shared social understanding, past experiences, and current knowledge (Trenholm, 50). Interpretation is important as it tells us how we, as individuals view the world, thus indicating that there are many different ways to view the world, therefore we must be mindful that people may interpret the same thing differently that we do.

Wk 3.2 Communication as a Game: The Pragmatic Perspective

The pragmatic perspective focuses on the systems of behavior within the communication that is taking place. To be more specific, “communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time”. In other words, this perspective specifically looks at the series of actions and behaviors where communication is taking place. The analogy that this perspective resembles is of a game.

So, in terms of the analogy of a game, as a player, one must know and understand the series of actions and reactions that lead up to the current situation as well as how to anticipate and make the next “move”. In a given situation, one takes a type of action; then, depending on the person’s action, the other responds in a particular way, the person responds to the other, and this cycle tends to repeat. Therefore, one must understand how interactions work and how to communicate in those reactions; in other words, one must understand the structure of the game and how it works. So communication is like a game in terms of how people become interdependent as each person is affected by the other within the interaction through each others’ actions. As a result of continuous interactions, people then “work out the rules” as people find out which actions and moves work and does not work for them, what works and does not work for the other, which works for neither or for both; thus people can “get something out of playing”, whether the payoffs are winning or losing.

However, communication is not like a game, as there are individual differences through personality and cultural background that plays a role in communication. Communication often requires many different ways of interpreting the actions taking place. So, the pragmatic perspective simply focuses on the patterns of interaction, rather than the intent, cultural context, understanding, needs and desires that are “outside of the game”.

Wk 3.1 The Social Constructionist Perspective

In the social constructionist perspective, communication is a means for creating and building the world and thereby understanding that world and how to function within that world. Within this perspective, people build up their sense of what is good and acceptable and what is not good and acceptable through interacting and communicating with others.

For instance, within the Individualistic classroom culture within the US, students, as individuals, are enthusiastically encouraged to speak up, freely raise their hands and promote discussions. This action can be interpreted as another means of being individualistic, since it promotes the student as an individual contributor worthy of individual recognition. As a result, certain students may have individual attention and recognition. This may make them happy and proud, especially if these students are openly and publicly praised by the teacher.

In contrast, within collectivist cultures, it is more acceptable for people to fit in with the crowd, to not stand out, thus fitting with their common saying about hammering the nail that sticks out. Therefore, their classroom settings would also follow suit as students are encouraged not to freely participate within the classroom setting or call attention to themselves. So one would typically not see students raising up their hands or voices, nor would one see a particular student in that culture making contributions to the lesson. Thus, if a situation where to occur when a student calls attention to his/herself, the others would look down upon that student, and the student would more likely feel embarrassment and shame, rather than pride.

It is significant to know how the same symbols, the same types of acts have different meanings and significances within different cultural societies. It is also important to understand this perspective since one action could accidentally offend a person from another culture and cause unnecessary conflict.

Wk 3.3 Ethnography of Communication

Dell Hymes presents a structured and systematic form for observing, describing/explaining and organizing communication, specifically components of communication within a given setting. This method of observing communication behaviors is Hymes’ general means of doing an ethnography of communication.

Within this type of ethnographic study and observation, there are the levels of contexts for observing the communication, from a general speech community to the small speech acts that contain individual meaningful, purposeful communicative acts that display a small part of activity that the speech community may be holding.

Within these contexts, an “ethnographer of communication” , may observe different elements of communication within the specifics of a speech community. This includes the situations or the setting/ scene of the interaction, norms or the rules regulating that interaction, and the participants or the people in that communicative interaction.

Observing this spectrum of communication within a specific group uncovers the differences in speaking, talking and overall communicating based on the circumstances and factors of a specific speech community and its communicative components. It shows that the same type of communication could be identified extremely different within two separate communities.

Wk 2.2: Orators: Morally Good?

As an orator, one needs to have appeal, charm and charisma, and some sound reasoning. However, these qualities of an eloquent public speaker do not have a strong correlation to being a morally good individual. There are ways in which the audience can be persuaded and convinced by a speaker who may not be morally good, such as using a vigorous style that plays up an emotional appeal, which can fool an audience into thinking that something is good, when it is really not. There have been numerous examples throughout history that have shown powerful leaders and orators who have created strong regimes, persuaded numerous people to follow their ways, which have fuelled cruel, hateful and morally wrong courses of actions. These include the most notable Hitler, and Mussolini.
The connection between goodness, truth and public communication is that there is no strong connection. There is only judgment based on the circumstances of the situation, since the context of the situation determines whether public figures are good and truthful, and communicating such.

Wk 2.3 Modern Period's Four Approaches of Study

The modern period’s Douglas Ehninger and his identification of four approaches towards the study of rhetoric is an interesting concept within Chapter 1, since these approaches highlight the idea that there are different, interesting ways in which communication can be interpreted and understood. Through the classical approach, past insights from the Classical Period and its rhetoricians are adapted to modern times. Communication’s writing and speaking as an art form, focusing on the problems of style and eloquence, followed the belletristic approach. The elocutionary approach focused on the canon of delivery, designing elaborate and artificial systems of instruction in which speakers could improve their skills in presentation, both verbally and nonverbally; it ultimately caused a bad reputation towards the study of reputation, since its lead to a rigid style that strayed from a natural, spontaneous and appropriate means of speech delivery and presentation. The psychological or epistemological approach used a more scientific means of studying communication. This approach focused on understanding the relationship between thought and how people are able to affect and influence another through communication, most notably speech; this direction of rhetorical study focused and emphasized the significance of the relationship between the sender and receiver within communication, where the receiver of a message engages in the creation of meaning.
These directions of the study of rhetoric highlighted the change of the ways in which communication was understood, bringing about the different views of the study of communication, and eventually leading into the contemporary views of communication.

Week 2.1: Speakers' Power

There are so many speakers that we have encountered throughout our lives, some of which are truly memorable, based on their ability to persuade, instruct, intrigue and simply to speak clearly and effectively in front of an audience, whether simply a few people or many. One of my most admirable speakers that I still remember is one of my high school’s teachers, Susana Garcia. Within her regular classes, she was energetic and enthusiastic, which was contagious. She spoke in a manner that reflected her character: down-to-earth, friendly, and sincere. Within our graduating ceremonies, as a representative of the teachers, her congratulatory speech both invoke tears and warmth as she gave us her best wishes, hopes, and treasured memories to become our foundation for tomorrow. Her speaking power seems to come from both ethos and pathos, though she did speak in a style more aligned with ethos, personal character.

As for my speaking style, my persuasive power comes mostly from my logic and sound arguments, logos, though ethos may play a slight role in persuasion, based on conveying my trustworthiness and good character. As Aristotle believed, his classification scheme does still work and apply to one’s persuasive power and the contributing personal qualities, since convincing someone requires sound arguments, reliability, and an appeal towards the audience.

Introduction

Hey there! Welcome!

As you probably already know, I will be known by my alias name, scorpiochild2803. As you can guess, based on my alias, I like astrology, superstitions and horoscopes, though actually believing in them is a completely different and separate matter =D ). I also like to make jewelry, bake, cook, talking with friends, and spend time with my large, extensive extended family, including ten kids that I see often, from the ages of 6 months to seven years.

Well, despite the very rough time that practically everyone, if not, then everyone is going through with the budget cuts, it's great to be here, and again, welcome to my blog =)

I am starting my fourth year here at SJSU, and I am a Comm major. I chose this major for its vast, relevant and broad applications within our society, since communication is inevitable and present within our lives. I also wanted to become a better communicator with a better understanding of the world and how to interact within it as well as a greater knowledge of communication in general. So far I have taken a variety of interesting Comm courses, starting with Comm 20, which was nerve-wrecking since public speaking is not my strong point. However, I have gained a lot of knowledge on speaking and communicating effectively within different settings and hope to learn even more.

I am looking forward to the new semester and this course with you all!