Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Symbolic interaction and family
Families influence behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Symbolic interaction and family
The Interactional view is based on systems theory and was developed by Paul Waltzawick. Waltzawick was a part of the Palo Alto group because he was one of twenty scholars and therapists who was inspired by, and worked with anthropologist Gregory Bateson. The Palo Alto group does not focus on why a person acts a certain way, instead the focus is on how that behavior affects everyone in the group (Griffin, 2012, p.182). “Family system is an autonomous, mutually dependent network of feedback loops guided by members’ rules; the behavior of each person affects and is affected by the behavior of another” (Griffin, 2012, p.182). The Interactional view theory postulates that relationships within a family system are interrelated. The theory infers that relationships do not come together or fall apart because of one individual. A popular song, “Stick to the Status Quo”, reflects the theme of the theory. In essence, everyone needs to continue playing the role they are use to; if they do, then things will not change and everything will continue as is. Sticking to the status quo can also be referred to as homeostasis. A keen analysis of the Interactional Theory places my mother and I at the heart of the theory.
As I examine this theory I realized that my mother and I have established a “status quo” for as long as I can remember. She was the strict parent, very dictatorial in a number of ways, and as long as I did as I was told, all was well. As the years progressed I realized that miscommunication is bound to take place. “Miscommunication occurs because people are not "speaking the same language” (Communication Pragmatics). This often becomes evident in my family when my mother tells me to clean my room. In my mind, she means that I should c...
... middle of paper ...
... rules and creates its own reality"(Axioms of communication). The four axioms that Watzlawick focuses on are one cannot not communicate, content plus relationship equals communication, the nature of a relationship depends on how both parties punctuate the communication sequence, and all communication is either symmetrical or complementary.
Works Cited
Axioms of Communication. (n.d.). Axioms of Communication. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://cailinburke.blogspot.com
Communication Pragmatics/Interactional View - Interpersonal Communication Context. (n.d.). Communication Pragmatics/Interactional View - Interpersonal Communication Context. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpe
Griffin, E. (2012). The Interactional View of Paul Watzlawick. A First Look At Communication Theory (Eighth ed., pp. 181-190). New York: McGraw-Hill.
In sociology, the interactionist perspective tends to use the “micro'; approach, where smaller groups of individuals are studied. The interactionist perspective views society as countless encounters between human beings and everyday social activity. The fact that an interactionist would make a study based on everyday, example by example cases separates them from the other perspectives, which tend to look at the larger scheme of things. Using the above approach to the study, there are three particular questions that this article answers. First, why do individuals do the things they do? Second, do people always mean what they say? Finally, how is society experienced (what was the difference between black and white experience while shopping for a home?) The following will show how the article answers the previous three questions.
Miscommunication is a struggle that lives within the world everyday. Being able to understand what another person is trying to convey is an essential part of the way humans interact with one another. When a message is not translated correctly from person to person conflict arises and heated battles rage within a relationship; whether it is a mother and daughter, or two quarreling lovers, or strangers upon the street. All humans are created differently, with diverse upbringings, perspectives, and mindsets. Particular forms of communications may mean different things to various people. When talking about the concept of miscommunications, one must also address the concept of communication itself.
From an interactionist perspective, it is not the structure or system of society that creates and shapes our thoughts, actions and behaviour, rather we create society through our constant action and interaction with each other. This is why it is a social action, rather than a social system approach. This is why it is a bottom-up rather than a top-down theory. Interactionists are interested in how people attempt to make sense of the social world, how we try to interpret other people's behaviour in order to discover what that behaviour means. The interactionist approach is a micro approach - it looks closely at the day-to-day, face-to-face interactions that people have with each other and at how people attempt to negotiate a shared view of reality.
Symbolic interactionist’s like to understand the world through understanding the specific meanings and causes that society attributes to particular events. When analyzing health and illness symbolic interactionist’s like to look at individuals or groups and how they give meaning to their particular illness. Then they take that information and see how it affects their relationships with others and how it makes them view themselves. The symbolic interactionist theory also claims that we socially construct health and illness much like we do with race. For instance if someone spends his days staring at the sun and goes blind people blame him for staring at the sun. They believe that if they do not engage in sun staring then they will not go blind. The same reasoning usually follows people who get lung cancer or AIDS. The person is blamed for having the illness regardless of how they got it; people assume the sick brought it upon themselves.
Satir breaks down communications, the giving and receiving information, into 2 categories; the denotive and the metacommunitive. Congruent communications occurs when the denotive message (the meaning of the words spoken or articulated) is the same as the metacommunitive message (messages about the message). Incongruent messages are present when the denotive and metacommunitive messages are different. Incongruent or dysfunctional communication occurs when there are different cultural meanings, different perceived meanings, and differing connotations and overgeneralizations. Dysfunctional communication in families often plays out within these 4 attitudes. The super reasonable attitude struggles to take ownership, being able to explain away every situation. The irrelevant attitude avoids dealing with the situation by making it irrelevant or changing the subject. These two attitudes Similar to the super reasonable one the blamer always knows who or what is at fault. Usually it will be the placatory who is at fault because the placatory in an attempt to bring peace will take the fall. Each of these attitudes exude lack of self-esteem.
This theory has been subject to many articles and studies in the communication and social departments. Indeed, studying this theory can help us understanding human relations in interpersonal communication. Each of us has been one day confronted to uncertainty, whereas in initial encounters, or moving to a new a new place, or beginning a new work.
Throughout the semester, we have studied numerous communication theories. Their purpose is to help understand exactly what happens when we interact with others. We might not necessarily agree with all of the theories, but the idea is to develop tools to evaluate situations we may encounter. Often, when the theories are explained in the readings or lecture, it is beneficial to apply the concepts to a "real life" situation. Using this approach, I will use a situation that many of us have faced, or will face, and analyze it according to a particular communication theory.
The main criticism of interactionist theories is the fact that, although they focus on meaning of the actor, they fail to explain how actors even create these meanings in the first place. However, in contrast to this, the labelling theorists which use interactionism as a basis, such as Cooley’s (1922), are often criticised for being deterministic, due to the fact that they try and say our actions are shaped by the way others label them, instead of us taking responsibility for our own actions which may lead to negative consequences. Blumer (1969) built on Mead’s ideas, helps to strengthen his ideas, it builds on his basic idea’s whilst also adding his own, which, makes the theory more credible. There are, of course, limitations to Goffman’s ideas, although, they are useful, there are limitations. The idea that during interactions, everyone plays the part of both actor and audience, fails to point out the fact that interactions are often improvised and unrehearsed, without prior thinking of our reactions. This suggests that interactionism lacks structure as a theory—there is also evidence to support this from Larry Reynolds (1975). A study was conducted in which 124 interactionists, of which, 84 responded, were asked to identify the concepts they felt were essential in theories, 38 chose ‘role, 37 chose ‘self and 37 chose ‘interaction’.
West, Richard, & Turner, Lynn H. (2000). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield publishing.
In its most basic form, communicating involves a sender who takes his or her thoughts and encodes them into verbal and non-verbal messages that are sent to a receiver. The receiver than decodes the messages and attempts to understand what the sender meant to communication. The communication is completed when the receiver transmits verbal and nonverbal feed back to indicate his or her reception and understanding of the message. This process takes place within a context; also know as rhetorical situation, which includes all that affects the communication process such as the sender-receiver’s culture, the sender-receiver‘s relationship, the circumstances surrounding the sender-receiver’s interaction, and the physical environment of the interaction.
Griffin, E. (1997). A First Look at Communication, Third Edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Griffin, E. A. (1997). A first look at communication theory (3rd ed). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
A family system consists of more than one person, they form the most close and personal of groups. Every family has guidelines in place that govern its function and there are behaviors with this informal group which makes them distinguishable from other groups. Every family member plays a critical role in the system. As such, it is not possible that one member of the system can change without causing a ripple effect of change throughout the family system
The opportunity for universal application of the Communication Accommodation Theory gives the field of Communication Studies a method of objectively analyzing conversational strategies and motivations both of which are considered to be overwhelmingly subjective. The ways in which communicators of different cultures perceive one and other [as individuals or members of a group] varies greatly even in a two-person interaction. The number of cultural identifications one certain individual might possess may be numerous, and already makes structured analysis of their communication choices in an interaction difficult. By guiding the process of conducting research with CAT, researchers are able to analyze the communication behaviors of any set of cultural communicat...
D.E. McFarland defines communication as, “Communication may be broadly defined as the process of meaningful interaction among human beings. More specially, it is the process by which meanings are perceived and understandings are reached among human beings.”