2). Consider
the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication
as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is
it different from a game?
I found the pragmatic viewpoint of
interest because I’ve often been quoted as saying, “No answer is an answer.”
And it turns out, I’m correct, although many have made argument with me, otherwise. Now, according to our text, I have the facts to back up
what I have always insisted is true:
“According
to the pragmatic viewpoint, the smallest significant unit of communication is the
interact, which consists of two sequential acts….every action is important. Every
player is affected by what another
player does…. [they] need each other if they are to play [communicate]….If a
friend promises to write to you and doesn’t, his or her silence speaks louder
than words.…it is impossible not to communicate, just as it is impossible not
to behave” (32).
I’m not convinced communication is a
patterned interaction, as yet, though. I
need more insight into this school of thought before drawing a conclusion. I do, however, see communication having some
semblance of a game. The speaker says
this; the receiver does that. The
speaker says this; the receiver does that, back and forth like a tennis match. Regardless,
of whether the speaker and receiver have knowledge as to what to expect from
the other, some interplay of action, verbal and/or non-verbal is continuously
occurring. I think the interpretation of
what either sender or receiver may do or say, can be predictable depending upon
the intimacy level shared within the relationship.
At the same time, communication can
be said to be different from a game, because while there are perceived rules of
engagement similar as in a game, participants do not have to play by those perceived
rules for there to be communication. Whereas; in a game if someone does not
choose to play by the rules the game is, most often, over or does not occur at all.
The way you described it was so clear and concise. Thats how I will start looking at communications, there is no real answers so to say. There are various way to communicate however it being a pattern or not does not prove its definition of communicating. This whole class is opening my mind up to various perspectives and like you I too need more insight to the school of thought before drawing a conclusion. There is no point in communications where the game is just over because their is no rebuttle so to say. It is not necessary for it to be an A/B/A/B/A conversation style. I don't believe there should be rules to communication, it is just a form of expression. We shall see over the semester if my view changes at all.
ReplyDeleteJohn: Thank you, kindly. I pleased you found my post "so clear and concise," and that the course is opening up various perspectives to you. I'm confident we will be learning extensively in this class. I agree, communication does not require an A/B/A/B/A style to be communication. However, I feel strongly that instead of calling for "rules" in communication, it is prudent for there to be awareness through observation, and guidelines for effective communication which mirror healthy, constructive, respectful boundaries of all parties. Additionally, I believe we will all see that communication is much more than "just a form of expression" as the semester progresses. Thanks,again,for the post. :)
ReplyDelete