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.