Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Pragmatic Perspective
In a way it makes sense to think of communication as a patterned interaction. In relationships we tend to build patterns when communicating. The way I talk to my mother when she yells at me, is the same way every time. The way my mother yells at me when she is mad is the same every time. By us making these acts between each other we are interacting. Communication is like a game because their are two or more players involved when communicating. Like the book states there are "partners" and these "partners" make moves like in a game, which in communicating it is known as an act. These acts result in playoffs which result in the partners becoming interdependent. There is no "I" in team. Therefore the team depends on everyone, just like in communicating you are communicating with another person, you can't just depend on yourself. In soccer I can't win a game without the help of my other teammates and the goalie. When I communicate I can't make a point without the other sides opinion/argument. Otherwise I'd be arguing with myself. However, communication isn't always like a game. Sometimes there's serious issues and it's not all fun in games. When communicating people take in their surroundings and who their partner is. It a game, players aren't interested in where there playing, there main focus is on the game and where their partner is, not who they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed your post. I liked how you related it to your own life and the ways you interact between people in your life. It is true that we develop patterns for the way we communicate with people and I think we need to be aware of the ways we communicate because they are not always effective. I do also like how you related communication to soccer. As you said communication is not something you do alone. You can't succeed at communication without the help of your "teammates".
ReplyDeleteI could definitely relate to your post, since I've had more than my fair share of arguments with my mother.
ReplyDeleteBut I also really thought your point about how you need an opponent to argue with was very interesting. While the U.S.' political polarization can be kind of frustrating at times whether you're on the left or right side, it's important to know that your opposing side helps you realize what you don't stand for and what you will argue for.
For example, most liberals would argue for gay marriage, and most conservatives would argue for traditional marriage; each side uses the opponent's point of view and dissects everything that's wrong with it. In a way, I can see that debates are like a team working together, just in different directions.
I enjoy your example of your mother yelling at you. One thing to consider about communication is the patterns that differ depending on who you are with at the time. I find it safe to say that you probably do not communicate with your mother in the same manner that you would communicate with your friends. The patterns that develop from how you portray yourself to different people is always intriguing to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your example of "there is no I in team." Indeed, communication is a two way street, unless you're standing in a mirror having a conversation with yourself, in which case there is probably another problem you need to be focusing on rather than your communication.
Chivista,
ReplyDeleteI think you hit all the main concepts each question. Going down the line, the pragmatic perspective does make sense to some extent as a patterned interaction. I personally don’t believe this is the case all the time, but there are certain examples where patterns are in play. I like you example to show how communication can act as a pattern. I like how you gave the example of soccer in relation to communication resembling a game. I gave an example of baseball in comparison to communication resembling a game. However, I think certain games are not always fun and can be serious as well. I found myself to have a difficult time with part of the question as well. Otherwise, solid job on the discussion.