Week 3 - Useful Concept

A concept I enjoyed reading, although short, was the paragraph on criticizing the pragmatic model. It follows too closely to the systems theory, which I learned in Comm144, Organization Communication which I took a couple of semesters ago. Systems Theory in a paraphrased definition states that every (person) is part of a machine and in order for that machine to operate correctly, each part of the machine needs to do its part. If there is a weak part or a part that is not fully operating correctly in the machine then the machine falls apart. This theory looks at people as things and basically have a linear look on what people can and cannot do. It is so old fashion and closed minded, it is mind-boggling to know there are people who still think that way when it comes to people.I enjoyed reading that small paragraph because everything that it had stated was exactly almost what I wrote in my second question and also mirrors my true feelings on the subject. The pragmatic model and systems theory belong to a communist country, which we are not. (No offense to those who feel communism is great, but the fact is, history proves communism fails…it is impossible to have doctors and comic book cashiers make the same wage, it just does not work.)

Week 3 – Pragmatic Perspective

According to Trenholm on page 32 of the textbook, the Pragmatic perspective is when communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time. Scholars who are more pragmatic will claim that communication is a game.
Trenholm says the way communication is like a game is that there are “players” and there are “moves” that each player will make. Each move will then require another move and then another then another. Just like chess, depending on what your move is, will determine my next move and vice versa. The key is that each player needs an opponent, there can be no game without an opponent. Also, if the opponent who is playing the game does not make a “move” that is still considered playing the game, that means the opponent is refusing to move or chooses to forfeit. Each move has a meaning behind it, ignoring, laughing, crying can all mean different things whether they are sincere or a disguise to trick someone. Regardless, when two people are communicating they are playing a game of give and take and each “move” is determined by the last move their “opponent” made. Although some scholars feel that this is an appropriate way to look at communication, it is more than just a game.
What makes communication not like a game is the emotions hidden and the nonverbal cues that cannot be seen or figured out. Pragmatic communicators disregard the “why” and the “how” and only look at the “what,” “where” and “when.” Intentions behind each action does not get considered and what happens outside the box is not even thought of. If someone simply ignores the other person, that does not mean he/she is forfeiting his/her turn to make a move and therefore loses. When someone ignores someone or thing it can mean that they are trying to save a relationship by not saying anything to further escalate an argument, or they are simply tired and does not want to continue with a conversation. Just because someone will make an attempt to compliment someone or to give them a hug, it does not always mean they want to go on a date with them, use them for money, suck up or have sex with them, which is constantly mistaken and that can be because of “the game” that is being played. Intentions can be hidden, and can only be deciphered if analyzed passed “the game.” It can easily have all the intentions of something positive in the long run, but if it is taken the wrong way then the nonverbal cues serve no purpose in “the game” that we play when we communicate.

Week 3 - Social Constructionist Perspective

The Social Constructionist Perspective according to Trenholm on page 30 of the textbook is, "communication is a process whereby people in groups, using the tools provided by their culture, create collective representations of reality.

The way we "build words" in our culture is through the people around us. According to Trenholm, if the people around us talk one way about the earth, it is natural for us to take that as fact and think of the world the same way even though it may not be truth. Mentalities and attitudes are caused by the social culture we are exposed to as children all the way until we reach high education assuming each person does obtain that opportunity.

In the culture that we live in today as college students in the San Jose area and including the people of the entire Bay Area, we feel as a whole that gay marriage should be legal. College students in different parts of the country might feel that gay marriage is disgusting and against God's will. The reason for that is because of the different areas we live in, that is why our cultures clash. When a college student from a conservative area has been raised to believe one way, it is hard to open their mind to something they are not used to. The same goes for liberal areas that are used to being so open minded, when someone is in an area where there are more rules, he/she will feel uncomfortable.

This causes disagreement between people and this can lead to much more. Since there is a split between the people of the United States, let alone California, about something like gay marriage, there will never be true happiness among different cultures. This does not go for just gay marriage, it also goes for legalizing marijuana, bearing arms, legal drinking age, legal driving age, health care, abortion...the list goes on. As long as the people of different cultures continue to disagree about just about everything that is supposed to bring us together, there will be not such thing as happiness among different cultures.

Renaissance

A concept that got me very interested was on page 8 and 9 of the textbook. The Renaissance and Medieval period was a very interesting time. I did not know that kings, queens and priests were illiterate and had to hire professionals to explain laws and religion to them. I wonder, if any professional dictator said the wrong thing on purpose to a king, queen or priest and then it would get passed on to the people and then through time, that made up thing becomes fact. This makes me wonder how much of what we know about religion is false caused by an unethical dictator.

Orators

I agree with the ancient Greeks and feel that an orator should be morally good. For many years in Greece the people there were illiterate and they had no other way to learn about anything besides trusting what the orator told them. On pages 8 and 9 of the text, Trenholm talks about the Renaissance and how even priests were illiterate and had to hire professional dictators to teach them about religious dispensations. During this time, preaching was very important and if a priest needs a professional dictator to teach him about the word of God, then it would be unethical to tell a priest the wrong thing because then he would preach it out to other people and then it just branches off from there. The connection between goodness, truth and public communication is if something is told publically to people that is true then only goodness will come out of it, at least for religion and laws.

Admired Speaker

In my life I have experienced a number of great speakers. The most recent person that I heard give a speech and felt was a great speaker was my manager at my work. I would say there is a combination of both pathos and logos in my manager's style of speaking with a twist of ethos depending on what he is talking about. He uses logic to explain why certain things are important and what it can lead to and how it benefits us as sales associates. His ability to arouse emotions in us gets us motivated to accomplish the goals he sets for the department. If I had to pick which of the two he is more focused on in his speaking, I would say it is his logos. Everything he says and tries to explain makes perfect sense when he speaks whether it is one on one with an associate or it is to the entire department or even the whole store. I feel that I use logos a lot when I speak to customers or when I am having a friendly debate with family and/or friends. It mainly comes from when I am speaking with a customer where I use the most logos and throw in some pathos and ethos as well to give it some flavor. I do my best to explain to the customer the benefits as to why he or she needs to get a certain accessory to go with his or her purchase and why the extended warranty is worth the extra money in the long run. Since every customer is different, I sometimes need to take a different approach when trying to sell the same stuff to different people. I think that when I also use ethos and pathos I present an image of credibility to the customer and that usually helps closing the sale. As for my manager I think that Aristotle's classification scheme seems to work for my manager in his style of speaking. Besides, he makes nearly six figures a year and I am pretty sure he did not get promoted and got to where he is now without his speaking abilities helping him along the way.