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.