Theory 10: Muted Group Theory

Analytical Text: Men underestimate women

There is a different when a person who is able to speak and people try to listen to them with a person who can speak and not heard. Similarly, in the case of women, as the opposite sex of men, are considered as muted group as their words and thoughts are not heard. Cheris Kramarae (1974) claimed that whoever is considered as muted; they are seen as black holes to someone else’s life. Kramarae (1974) also see women as a group of people who is at tremendous disadvantage in male dominant world. This shows that there is inequality between two different sexes, where man control the mode of communication and women remained silent in the society. Thus, muted group theory analyze why women are muted in the society and figure out how to make women be heard by men and society.

Men and women both have different perception where they shaped experiences differently and thus miscommunication between two sexes is likely to occur (Kramarae, 1974). The reason for miscommunication is that they both speak two different language and male only talk in dominant way. Edwin Ardener (1970) also finds out the reason for women’s muteness which is due to lack of power in the society since the world is dominated by male. Kramarae (1974) sees language is originally constructed for men. Symbolically, language is a too for men to devalue and oppress women. Men do not accept any other language except the one that they have created.

Furthermore, men do not bother to actually listen and understand what women say because their perception on women’s thought is useless and to think about it is a waste of time. They also do not want to acknowledged women’s language because they are afraid that they have to give some power to women (Kramarae, 1974) Hence, it is unquestionable that men find it difficult to understand when the other groups speak because they do not even make an effort to understand what people actually said. Whereas for women, in order for them to be heard, they struggle to understand how to fit in and speak as what men tend to listen. However, they have to suffer for their consistent effort to be heard and wonder if they said was right.

Juschka (2001) once said that “Maltz and Broker (1982) compare the situation in cross-sex communication with that in interethnic communication, in which communication problems are understood as personality clashes or interpreted through ethnic stereotypes.” Maltz and Broker (1982) also figured out some potential sources of misunderstanding between sexes in terms of language use. One of them is different interpretation of men and women on the meaning of questions. They assume that women use question to preserve the conversation between them but men see questions as to seek for answer and information. Also, in terms of problems sharing and advice giving, women share their problems actually to support each other and listen mutually, however men act as an expert to offer an advice instead of sympathizing others.

However, Em Griffin (2012) once said that “Kramarae thinks Tannen’s apology for men’s abuse of power is naïve at best. She notes that men often ignore or ridicule women’s statements about the problems of being heard in a male-dominated society.”

In conclusion, women is seen as muted group as men underestimate them. Kramarae (1974) discovered that there is miscommunication between men and women because they have different perception about the world and women have lack of power in man dominant world. Griffin (2012) quotes the idea of Kramarae who thinks that Tannen’s naïve apology for men’s abuse of power.

REFERENCES:

Baer, J. (1998). Muted Group Theory by Cheris Kramarae. Retrieved on 14/04/2012 from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Papers/App_Papers/Baer.htm

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8^th Edition. Pp. 460-462, 469-470. New York: McGraw Hill.

Juschka D. M. (2001). Feminism in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Pp. 35. Great Britain.

Theory 9: Genderlect Theory

Analytical Text – “What men say and what women hear”

Deborah Tennan (2002) claimed that communication styles between men and women are different. She described the communication as cross-cultural where men and women speak in different dialect and language instead of viewing it as inferior and superior way of speaking. Tennan also figured out that there is miscommunication between the 2 opposite sex because generally they both use language differently – different purpose. In this case, Tennan’s genderlect theory aims to acknowledge and appreciate the language of the opposite sex and thus men and women can achieve mutual respect and understanding.

Although men and women are seen similar in many levels, but differ greatly in the way they communicate. Genderlect theory reveals how men and women subconsciously communicate in different way as they might simply misinterpret the meaning of the words and actions done by others. This is because they have their own set vocabulary and preferred topics for instance, men focus on report talk (status and achievement) whereas women focus on rapport talk – seek for human connection and share personal feelings. Based on the text of “what men say and what women hear”, it shows a situation when men speak to women and as women hear, they interpret the meaning differently meanwhile men mean it differently and thus it leads to misunderstanding. For example, when women say yes to a man, it means maybe, when women say maybe, it means no and when women say no, it means try harder.

Apart form that, Tennan’s (1992) once said that “These cultural differences include differing expectations about the role of talk in relationships and how it fulfils that role”. It means that individuals need to be what people expect them to be. In other words, it involves stereotyping because the society shapes an individual. It also depends on the pattern on how they are raised. In this case, it involves stereotyping of male and female. Men are expected to be masculine, thus they should to be able to speak in public and taught to fix things. On the other hand, female are expected to make connections and be emotional as well as they are taught to value intimacy – mother, wife and friend.

According to Tannen, she believes that both men and women need to learn on how to speak and adopt in each other’s voice. She further claimed that the effort of understanding the different types of communication between men and women is worthwhile, as it will enhance better working relationships and help reduce misunderstandings and conflicts. Also, when there is a mutual understanding between male and female, it will bridge the cultural gap between 2 opposite sexes.

However, Kunkel and Burleson criticize Tannen for saying that women do better when communicating than me, but they see that both gender place an equally high value on comforting communication. For example, both men and women view a highly person centered comforting messaged as most sensitive and ineffective. They also reject the idea of viewing men and women as different cultures perspectives. They believed that the idea was a myth which had lost its narrative force. Senta Troemel-Ploetz, a feminist scholar, accused Tannen for ignoring issues of male dominance, control, powe, sexism, discrimination, sexual harassment and verbal insults in her book. This is because feminist see men used to dominate women and they do it especially in conversation and women are trained to please where they have to please also in conversations.

In conclusion, Tannen (2002) believes that the best way to describe communication between the genders is in a cross-cultural format. Both genders misinterpret the meaning of the words and actions done by others because they have their own set of vocabulary and preferred topics. It also depends on the pattern established from childhood to adulthood and how the society expects them to be. Tannen also believed that both gender need to learn each other language to create mutual understanding. However, Kunkel and Burleson argued that both gender place an equally high value on comforting and Senta accused Tannen for not raising the issue of male dominance.

REFERENCES:

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication. 8^th Edition. Pp. 435-440, 443-445. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Rowley: Newbury House.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Ballantine.

Theory 8: Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Analytical Text – Curiosity’s leading cause is knowledge

To begin with, when a person first meets a stranger, it is full with uncertainty. Uncertainty is often attached with high level of curiosity at the beginning of interpersonal relationship. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) asserts that a need to reduce uncertainty will help to develop one’s relationship. This theory also claimed that uncertainty will be reduced when a person gain information about that particular strangers. However, different person would have different goals which motivate them to know more about the others. In this case, Charles Berger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory (1975) simply focuses on how human communication is used to gain knowledge and create understanding.

URT perceived that a person could boost his drive to reduce uncertainty through three circumstances – an anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance. This can be further explained whereby a person is motivated to reduce uncertainty if he anticipates in building a long relationship with the stranger. He might also observe and learn how this particular person could benefit or punish him and someone might need to look at the stranger’s unusual behavior which either meets his expectations. Hence, all this three prior conditions are most likely driven someone to reduce uncertainty.

Apart from that, Berger (1975) sees a connection between the eight key variables of relationship development that he proposed and his concept of uncertainty. Berger used this connection to explain axiomatic theory – certainty about uncertainty. He also created 8 axioms from the connection in which he concluded that information seeking and reciprocity have a positive correlation with uncertainty. A high level of information seeking and reciprocity leads to high level of uncertainty. In this case, uncertainty does not reduce as a person seeks for more information and when there is mutual reciprocity whereas the other axioms give an opposite relation. For example, the more similar the individuals are, the lower the uncertainties are.

Based on the text above, it is true that curiosity’s leading cause is knowledge. The reason is that it takes knowledge to understand one’s behavior. It could be passive where he observes the stranger from distant or in an active way where he asked the third party who know the stranger well. Alternatively, he could just directly meet the stranger face to face to know more about each other. Furthermore, regardless of what the axioms are, all of them apply and provide knowledge as well as understanding instead of only reducing uncertainty. For instance, people need to know if they have similarities between them and the more a person’s self disclose him/herself, it signaled that this particular relationship might go on and telling indirectly that uncertainty is reduced.

On the other hand, Kellermann and Rodney Reynolds (1990) criticize some Berger’s idea pertaining the information seeking axiom where they questioned that “wouldn’t you want to know more about someone you like than someone you dislike?”. They also claimed that motivation for information seeking is increased by the anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance. Michael Sunnafrank (1986) also challenged Berger’s conclusion where uncertainty reduction is the key to understand the early counters. Yet, Sunnafrank believes that the expected outcome value more accurately explains communication theory encounters.

In short, uncertainty needs to be reduced to develop a relationship but it often occurs at the beginning of the relationship. Berger’s UR theory attempts to look at how human communication could create person’s knowledge and understanding. URT figure out that anticipation of future relationship, incentive value and deviance could boost the motivation to reduce uncertainty. Berger also used the connection of eight key variables to develop relationship with UR concept to explain axioms theory. However, Berger’s idea on the axiom of information seeking is challenged by Kellermann and Reynolds. Meanwhile, Sunnafrank criticize this theory for seeing uncertainty reduction as the key understanding the early counters as the expected outcome could explain the encounters.

REFERENCES:

Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships: Uncertainty Reduction Theory Then and Now. Human Communication Research, Vol. 13, (1). Pp. 34–38.

Griffin, E. (2009). A First Look At Communication Theory. 7^th Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8^th Edition. Pp.125-136. New York: McGraw Hill.

Theory 7: Communication Accomodation Theory

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) sees that communicative behaviors are adjusted when a person is trying to move toward or move away from the others during the interaction process. According to Howard Giles (1991), he stated that a person tries to adjust his/her communicative behavior in order to accommodate others. Generally, a person seeks to minimize the social differences and find similarities between themselves to interact. The question is that there is times when a person does not adjust his/her communicative behavior during the interaction process? What motivate his/her for not accommodating others? Thus, Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) attempt to examine what motivate the speaker for accommodating others.

A person adjusts his/her communicative behavior to become similar like the other person because he/she desires for the approval of others – this strategy is called convergence. CAT found out that his/her main motivation is to seek for positive respond from other and fulfill the expected identity. Giles and Coupland (1991) believe that it involves varieties of linguistic/prosodic/nonverbal features such as smiling, speech rate, gaze, utterance length in order to adapt each others’ communicative behavior. For example, A and B came from different ethnic group where A tries to speak the way B speak in order to mesh with B whom he/she seeks for approval.

As opposite to convergence, divergence emphasized the difference between the speaker and the other person. Instead of trying to adapt each other’s communicative behavior, the speaker attempt to maximize the social differences between themselves – refer to counter – accommodation. For example, based on the above picture, it shows one person behave differently from the other person. In this case, the big man is bullying the little man with an intention that the little man need to be scared with him. Due to stimulus response, the little man adjust his behavior becoming a scared person instead of trying to seek for the big man’s approval.

Meanwhile, under-accommodation occurs when the speaker is very persistent in using his/her original communicative behavior without trying to adapt each other’s way of communicating. There are also times when convergence move into divergence called over-accommodating. This is where the speaker might have a good intention to adapt the other’s communicative behavior, but they might interpret it differently which make the recipient feels worse. The recipient sees the conversation as demeaning talk. Hence, in some cases, the main motivation for divergence is the need of distinctiveness and the speaker might expect to obtain a negative respond from the recipient.

Nevertheless, Delia and Clark (1977) argued that although convergent communication strategy acts to reduce social differences between individuals, the variability between themselves in extent and frequency of convergence is, perhaps not surprisingly, also apparent, corresponding to socio-demographic variables such as age. Krauss (1987) also argued that it depends on how the message is conveyed or how the message is formulated. He further explained without the addressee that particular message would not exist. But the message, in the concrete and particular form it takes, is as much attributable to the existence of the addressee as it is to the existence of the speaker.

In conclusion, Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) examines what motivate the speaker to accommodate and not to accommodate the recipient. This theory also developed two strategies where a person tries to move forward or away from the others. The two strategies are convergence in which the speaker tries to be similar with the others and divergence accentuates the social differences between individuals. Both strategies have different motivation and different outcomes. However, Delia and Clark (1977) argued that convergence also correspond to socio-demographic factors and Krauss (1987) argued on how the message is conveyed and how it takes as much attributable to the existence of addressee as it is to the existence of the speaker.

REFERENCES:

Berger, C. (2005). Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspective Future Prospects. Journal of Communication. Pp. 415-416.


Giles, H., Coupland J., Coupland, N., (1991). Contexts of Accomodation: Developments in applied Sociolinguistics. Pp.5-30. USA.

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8th Edition. Pp.394-399. New York: McGraw Hill.

Theory 1: Social Penetration

Analytical Text – Social Penetration just like a puzzle

Social penetration generally occurs when the relationship between individuals has developed and the level of communication becomes deeper – it begins from non-intimate level to personal matters. In order to develop a relationship, it takes at least someone to self-disclose him/herself to the others and as the relationship developed, the person tend to reveal more about him/herself both in a conscious or non-conscious level. According to Altman and Taylor (1973), they believe that only through opening one’s self to the main route of social penetration called self disclosure, a person can develop a close relationship by becoming vulnerable to another person.

This theory sees people try to predict the outcome of the interaction before the interaction itself takes place. Based on the above picture, it shows that social penetration is like a puzzle game. This is because in a basic puzzle, one is intended to put together all the pieces in a logical way in order to come up with the desired solution. Similarly, in terms of socializing, a person attempts to foresee and understand the profile, pattern and combination of behaviors of that particular person before approaching them. When a person receives a positive respond from interaction with other individual, there is a higher possibility that their relationship might go on. Hence, the growth in relationship will proceed as there is greater mutual openness between the individuals – law of reciprocity.

Altman and Taylor (1975) also stated that the process of social penetration accelerates at the beginning of the stage of a relationship but then it slows down considerably when more private matters are being revealed. The reason for the declining in the speed of penetration is that it involves more risk with vulnerability as a person reveal more personal matters and there is also a societal norms which against form telling too many in rapid period of time.

Furthermore, in order to have a longer and close relationship, a person must observe the degree of self disclosure in a specific area of an individual's life. It might involve boundaries where some personal matters cannot be revealed to another person for his contentment. Just like puzzle, if you cannot find a suitable piece, then the puzzle cannot be solved and completed. Some people get lucky to be able to share their core values and feelings. Those who are able to develop long term, positive reward/ cost outcome are the same people who are able to share important matches of breadth categories - range of areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place.

On the other hand, it is also argued that social interaction involves the continuing interplay or dialectic between forces driving people to come together and to move apart. There are times when people want to be alone and out of contact with others and there are times when others are sought out, to be heard and to hear and to listen. Thus, it shows that self disclosure is not one of the factors that could lead to depenetration – when relationship starts to break down and the withdrawal of self disclosure. This is because social relationship involves the accessibility and inaccessibility of one person to another and there is a desire for social interaction or non-interaction changes over time and with different circumstances. Altman and Taylor (1975) are also criticized for ignoring gender, race and ethnic background as the factors which could influence the level of relationship.

In conclusion, social penetration theory states that as relationships develop, they penetrate deeper and deeper into private and personal matters which exposes vulnerabilities, thus trust has to be developed along the way. According to Altman and Taylor (1973), only through opening and self disclose one's self, a close relationship can develop. In order to develop a long term relationship, a person must also look at the depth and breadth of penetration before further disclosing one's self. However, it is argued that level of relationship does not only caused by self-disclosure, but it could be other factors such as gender and race.

REFERENCES:

Altman, I., Taylor, D. (1973). Social Penetration : The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Griffin, E. (2000). A first Look At Communication Theory. 4th Edition. Pp. 126-135. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Griffin, E. (2000). A first Look At Communication Theory. 8th Edition. Pp. 113-118. New York: McGraw Hill.

Theory 6: Symbolic Interactionism Theory

Analytical Text – The Importance of Meaning

Symbolic intercationism analyse how the society imposed subjective meaning to objects, events, human behaviour and language. This is where the study of symbolic interaction focuses on how symbol can be interpreted into meanings through human interaction. The interactionists also study the nature of human actions and interaction as well as the relationship between individual and society.

According to Herbert Blummer (1962), he claimed that human interaction formed by the use of symbol and signification. He also see human as unique because people interact with each other by defining each other’s action. They do not just simply react to the others’ action instead they try to obtain meaning attached from the others’ action. Alternatively, behaviour is considered as the object and the behaviour is denoted symbolically as a way of interaction which gives meaning.

The interactionists see society as the product of everyday interaction of individuals. This is because they believe that it is individual who shaped the society through his/her behaviour, then, once the society is developed, the behaviour is then organised. For instance, the society is the one who determines which behaviour is appropriate and acceptable and how an individual should behave within a society.

As stated by Blummer (1969), he defined 3 basic principles of this theoretical perspective which are meaning, language and thought. Meaning is the first basis where he believes that human would react to anything which has meaning that the meaning is given by human to that particular thing. For example, an individual categorise human being as friends or enemies. The second basis would be the language where the meaning is derived from or arise when there is social interaction. It means that meaning is attached to human actions which include body gesture and the way people talk. Meanwhile different meaning would be interpreted to that particular action thus interpretive process is needed to modify the meaning depending on the individual’s situation that he/she encounters.

Apart from that, the social construction of society and the importance of symbol causes the interactionist to emphasize that the meaning of "meaning" is the most fundamental.This is because only through human interaction, meaning can be interpreted. But in order to make others understand the meaning, individual also need to adjust their behaviour. The process of adjustment involves the human ability to imaginatively practice other possible alternative lines of action before they act. It can be further assisted by our ability to think about and to react to our actions and even ourselves as symbolic objects.

However, according to Arthur Brittan (1973), he criticizes symbolic interactionism for being too obsessive with meaning. He sees that the social world is too easy to be explained in symbolic analysis. Although the interactionists emphasised that the meaning of “meaning” is significant, social change and social structure are being treated lightly and thus it does not provide the true picture of the society.

Brittan (1973) also criticized that the interactionism supports the metaphysics of meaning. He claimed that it is dangerous that an obsession is made out of everyday life, especially when the perspective comes to give a practical full explanation of human interaction. Norman K. Denzin (1969) claimed that interactionism theory fail to indicate a clear and firm true sources of the definitions of human interaction as well as the meaning in which both are considered as crucial for understanding the nature of human behavior.

In conclusion, both symbol and meaning are seen as one of the important factors that contribute to successful human interaction. Blumer (1962) claimed the three basic premises which are meaning, language and thought. Interactionists believe that society is continuously created through individuals’ interaction. They also emphasize the meaning of “meaning” is fundamental due to social construction of society. However, Brittan (1973) criticizes that the social world is too easy to be explained in symbolic analysis. This is where the social change and social structure are treated lightly and thus it does not provide the true picture of society.

REFERENCES:

Blumer, H. (1962). Society as Symbolic Interaction. Rose. A. M. (Ed.) Human Behavior and Social Process: An interactionist Approach. Pp.319-322. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. PP.3-18. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look At Communication Theory. 8^th Edition. Pp. 54-58. New York: The McGraw-Hill.

Meltzer, B. N., Petras J. W. And Reynolds, L. T. (1975). Symbolic Intercationism: Genesis, Varieties and Criticism. Pp.84-89. USA.

Theory 5: Cultural Studies

Analytical text – Discourse and ideology of man and woman

Discourse can simply be defined as cultural framework. This is where meaning is constructed and interpreted to that particular object or event. Clearly, meaning can only be created through human communication and construction. According to Em Griffin (2011), Stuart Hall (1985) claimed that culture is concerned with the exchange in meaning between society– give and take meanings. He assumed that two people who came from the same culture would generally interpret meaning similarly and they could understand their thoughts and feelings in the way that they could understand each other.  The question is, how did the two people could roughly interpret meaning similarly? The answer is that because there is social construction in making meaning. Since they come from similar culture, they are raised to understand and believe the particular meaning that they shared and thus it indirectly shaped the way they think (Teun A. van Dijk, n.d).

It is related to representation and ideology.  A discourse always has many representations whereas it also involves ideology of people. In the case of the discourse of man and woman, it represents many things depending on what people see, hear and talk about them. For example, a discourse of man represents masculinity, strong and blue. Meanwhile, woman represents its femininity, emotion and pink. In terms of ideology, it is how the society commonly thinks about man and woman in terms of the way they speak, dress and the way they should behave socially. This is because ideology determines what we understand as unquestionable truth and shapes people’s perception. For instance, it is the ideology of woman to become a mother who looks after her children. People would also say a mother as housewife even if the woman has a career. However, people do not say a husband or a father who do not work as househusband.

Apart from that, ideology always involves comparison between the two and this includes the discourse f gender. In other words, it created binary formation where one must be a good one and the other must be a bad one – refer to ideology binary system (Teun A. Van Dajik, n.d). In the context of discourse of gender, man is considered as good and woman is considered as bad. People see man as strong and successful in career and woman is seen as a weak people and unsuccessful in terms of career wise.

However, the ideology in the discourse of man and woman do not represent the whole truth. This is because ideology is only the general human perception in which it does not apply in the cruel reality. Since man is considered good, some truths are left unspoken where man is not always good. In fact, for some cases, man abused his wife and children.

In short, discourse always involve ideology in which meaning are socially constructed depending how that particular society see it. Ideology also involve comparison between the two which is called the ideology binary system (Teun A. van Dajik, n.d). However, the ideology of the discourse do not always represent the whole truth.

References:

Griffin, E. (2011). A First Look at Communication Theory, 8^th Edition. Pp. 344 -349.  New York: McGraw Hill.

Teun A. van Dajik. (n.d). Discourse, Ideology and Context. University of Amsterdam. Pp. 12-13

Teun A. van Dajik. (n.d). Ideological Discourse Analysis. Pp. 143-144.