National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (Phase II)"

Stewart Clark
5 years ago
Views:

1 Lecture 22: Dialectical and Dialgic Theries f Relatinal Cmmunicatin The previus lecture discussed sme theries that explain the rle f cmmunicatin in the frmatin f interpersnal relatinships. This lecture takes the discussin a little further in the same directin and discusses sme mre theretical explanatins fr the rle f cmmunicatin in interpersnal relatinships. Dialectical Thery (Baxter, 1988, 1990; Baxter & Mntgmery, 1996; Cissna Cx & Bchner, 1990; Rawlins, 1992, in Rss & Andersn, 2002): Merriam Webster Dictinary defines the wrd Dialectic r Dialectics as...discussin and reasning by dialgue as a methd f intellectual investigatin; specifically: the Scratic techniques f expsing false beliefs and eliciting truth. The dialectical thery prpses that...relatinships result frm the interplay f perceived ppsite frces r cntradictins, and frm hw relatinal partners negtiate these ever-changing prcesses. Accrding t this thery the interactants in any relatinship bring with them ppsing pints f view and the relatinship between them is a result f the cnfrntatin f these ppsing pints f view and the cmmunicatin episde surrunding this cnfrntatin. Accrding t the Dialectical Thery, relatinships are nt linear, but cnsist f scillatin between cntradictry gals r desires. (Gamble & Gamble, 2002). When ppsing gals cnfrnt each ther, dialectical tensins are created. Sme examples f these dialectical tensins are: Cnnectin vs. autnmy: This is similar t the examples discussed in previus lectures. Hw cnnected shuld we be t the relatinship and t the ther interactant, and hw autnmus r independent shuld we be f the relatinship? Predictability vs. nvelty: Hw predictable shuld the cmmunicatin in a relatinship be and where and hw shuld ne intrduce nvelty? Openness vs. privacy: Hw pen shuld we be with the thers in the relatinship and where shuld we draw the line and redefine ur wn private cmfrt zne r bubble? Dealing with all these tensins and discussins abut them intra and interpersnally define the relatinship and the shape and frm it takes.

2 Dialgic Thery (Andersn, Cissna, & Arnett, 1994, in Rss & Andersn, 2000): The Dialgic Thery prpses that a persn des nt and cannt develp an identity except thrugh cmmunicatin with ther scial beings. Accrding t this thery, human relatinships are a result f dialgue r the dance f messages between tw r mre human beings. This thery als prpses that identity, language, and cmmunicatin reside in the between, the regin f human existence that links self and thers. This means that the essence f language, the ntin f identity, and the cmmunicatin episde are external t human beings. They are present smewhere between the interactants, utside f the interactants themselves. As has been discussed earlier, language, is a result f cmmn understanding f the wrds that are used. Identity is a result f ur perceptin f urselves within a scial cntext (which is external t us), and cmmunicatin (the interplay f message exchange) between tw peple happens utside f their individual selves, smewhere in the space between them. This thery has been furthered by several key ideas: Philsphical anthrplgy (Buber, 1958 & 1965) Persn-centered apprach (Rgers, 1959) Hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1982) Let us discuss each f these in detail: Buber s (1958 & 1965) Philsphical anthrplgy deals with the relatinship human beings develp with thers in their envirnment in and thrugh dialgue. Buber (1958 & 1965) talks abut the fllwing types f relatinships between tw peple: I-Thu attitude is the tendency f a persn (an individual with his/ her unique traits) t invite and allw dialgue with anther unique individual. (Buber, 1958, in Rss & Andersn, 2000) I-It attitude assumes that thers can be treated as bjects, as things that can be cncisely described, measured, manipulated, and accunted fr. (Buber, 1958, in Rss & Andersn, 2000). Buber (1958 & 1965) feels that the abve are accmplished thrugh the fllwing types f dialgue:

3 Genuine dialgue: Genuine dialgue refers t the dialgue cnducted with a genuine intentin f establishing a living mutual relatin between the interactants. In this kind f dialgue, mutual cnnectin between the interactants is the nly gal, and the cmmunicatin rules and rles f the interactants are negtiated thrugh feedback t reach a mutually suitable, cmfrtable cmmunicative psitin. Genuine dialgue is a very effective tl in enhancing cngeniality in the wrkplace. Genuine dialgue treats the ther as a human being and manifests itself in the I-Thu type f interactin. It helps reduce pwer distance between interactants and facilitates the exchange f affectin r genuine warmth between the interactants. Technical dialgue: Technical dialgue refers t dialgue that seems t be genuine dialgue, but is actually designed nly t achieve a specified end thrugh bjective cmmunicatin. In this type f dialgue, the persnal gals f ne r all f the interactants are paramunt, and there is nt much negtiatin f rles f the interactants. Technical dialgue is what happens when teams are at wrk, especially when they are n tight schedules, trying t get things dne. This helps reduce wastage f time, and achieve gals. In mdern day parlance, technical dialgue is als a favred frm f prfessinalism where ne is expected t cmpartmentalize what ne feels and what really needs t be dne t achieve gals. Mnlgue: Mnlgue, as the term suggests, refers t ne sided cmmunicatin. The persn engaging in a mnlgue usually des nt expect a respnse. Instructins are a frm f mnlgue, where the peple receiving instructins r directin are just expected t fllw what is being said withut questining. Mnlgue manifests itself in the I-It type f cmmunicatin where the ther is expected t be a machine r an inanimate bject that is suppsed t fllw what is being said withut analyzing r thinking abut it. Mnlgues are very effective tls fr increasing pwer distance and maintaining discipline. All the abve have a place in frming varius types f relatinships in the wrkplace. Rgers (1959) Persn Centered Apprach (Rgers, 1959, in Rss & Andersn, 2002): Rgers (1959, in Rss & Andersn, 2002) prpses that

4 relatinships can be built effectively thrugh free interactin thrugh effective dialgue, which in turn rests n: Cngruence: Matching f the inner experience f the interactants with their uter behavir Psitive regard: Acceptance/ regard: Genuine acceptance f the emtins and perspectives f thers Empathy: Trying t feel what the ther interactants are feeling with the explicit intentin f understanding their pints f view. Rgers (1959, in Rss & Andersn, 2002) feels that the nly way f establishing genuine relatinships is genuine cncern fr and bnding with ther interactants. And this can be accmplished nly thrugh pen dialgue in which the wrds and nn-verbal signals are chsen carefully, keeping in mind the psitin(s) and cmfrt level(s) f the ther interactants. Hermeneutics (Gadamer, 1982, in Rss & Andersn, 2000): Hermeneutics is the study f develpment f interpretatins as a result f peple s encunters with written and ral texts. What we read and hear is interpreted by us thrugh ur wn filters. These interpretatins and meanings may be: Reprductive: listener s (r summarizer s) recreatin f meaning f the spken (r written) wrd. Reprductive meanings are attempts at the exact recreatin f what has been read r said. Prductive: Prductive meanings deal with meanings that emerge as a result f cntinuus analysis f what has been written and said. These meanings may r may nt be cngruent with reprductive meanings. Gadamer (1982, in Rss & Andersn, 2002) believes that these meanings are influenced by Linguisticality r the characteristics f the language being used. Gadamer (1982, in Rss & Andersn, 2002) believes that the language we use shapes the way we think. Language in sme ways limits what we think abut r hw we think abut things because there are nly s many wrds that can describe nly s many cncepts (Sapir-Whrf Hypthesis). But there may be s many cncepts and ideas and feelings that we perceive that we may nt be able t describe in the language we use r the language the ther peple we interact with understand. This results in the interdependence f cmmunicatrs with the

5 Cnclusin: language they use. The issues that remain unexplained may create misunderstandings between the interactants and may shape their relatinships with each ther. The interdependence between cmmunicatrs and the language(s) they use and understand, in turn, influences hw they perceive and cntribute t the relatinships they establish and maintain with thers in their envirnments. The theries discussed in this lecture explain hw dialgue r an exchange f messages between the interactants shapes their relatinships. Dialgue frms the basis f what happens in ffice envirnments. Prviding directin t this dialgue can help achieve rganizatinal gals mre effectively. On the ther hand, misunderstandings as a result f misinterpretatins during dialgue can result in majr prblems in the wrk envirnment. The next lecture discusses the Dramaturgical Theries f Relatinal Cmmunicatin and their implicatins in a multicultural ffice envirnment. Questins: References:

Introduction to the Ethics (Overview of Major Theories- Part I)

Introduction to the Ethics (Overview of Major Theories- Part I) Intrductin t the Ethics (Overview f Majr Theries- Part I) Ahmed Kulanić Chapter Overview Intrductin Review f ethical theries Mst everyne shares cre values, desiring Life Happiness Intrductin Ability t