Communication as ritual
In the fact that manipulator doesn’t really intend to establish the relationship of trust, closeness, and mutual care implied by the touch on the shoulder. It is therefore not sufficient to say that the buyer is responsible for not being duped. Rather, the seller is the responsible for imitating or initiating a relationship he or she does not really want to enact.
Such techniques can rarely be said to be ethical because they rely on relational qualities that the initiator does not really wish to follow through. If one teaches that these techniques work, one should do in the context of teaching student about the fluidity and defense of relationship as valuable entities with particular qualities, benefit and obligations. But not all persuasion techniques will be the character to falsely manipulate relationship. In contrast, technique of risk communication will be appropriate adaptations to particular relational dynamic in some contexts and inappropriate manipulations in other. The standard of the advancement of mutual care serves is one important key to making such judgment (Noddings, 1984; O’Brian Hallstein, 1999).
The concept of relationality offers the different sort of challenge to those such as Foss and Griffin (1995), who have denied the appropriateness of persuasions altogether. These denials have been based on the belief that persuasion and coercion were impossible to distinguish. But that argument would invalidate in effort at communication whatsoever, because it is as difficult to distinguish when talking to someone becomes persuasion as it is to distinguish coercion from persuasion. As rhetoricians from both the right and left have emphasized, all symbol use brings at host of loadings, interests, ambiguities, and entailments with it. It is impossible simply to mirror, one introduces change in those ideas (even mirroring would introduces change by reinforcement).
The ideas that one could forego persuasion rests on the belief in an autonomous self, and the relational perspective insists that there are no such things. Any two persons are always in some relationship to each other, and any relationship presumes ineradicable lines of influences, usually carried in part through the communicative flows of meaning and confusion that constantly remake the person involved. So one cannot not persuade. Instead, the ethnic of mutual care sets standards for a relationship and for communication for relationship. The older ideas of respect for the other and openness to changing one’s own ideas are part of these standards (Ehninger, 1970), but additional criteria reside in attention to the sustainable quality of the relationship and to support for the other’s needs/desires where that does not violate the quality of the relationship or any of one’s own needs/desired that might be substantially greater. The concept of relationality thus rewrites the agenda for persuasion ethnic in fundamental ways and open a new kind of discussion about goals and standards.
I hope that these examples have provides a sufficient sets of hints as to how thinking of communication as a process of relating should reshape the field of communication studies. Other examples are ready at hand. The study of nonverbal communication should cease focusing on sets of universal gestures, facial expressions, or categories of distance and instead begin to be a full-bodied analysis of how nonverbal factor establish and maintain relationship in different contexts. Small-group and organizational communication already much of the relational about them, but reorienting to relationality as a fundamental quality will allow expansion and deedpening of these tendencies.
In a crucial way, the call to realtionality is statement that it is well past time that communication studies came into its own. For more than two generation of scholarship, communication has been dominated by the Western vision of the individual. In experimental studies, communication studies is still poor relative to psychology because the discipline’s leading researches continue to follow the models and assumptions of psychology—which focus on the individual rather than the relational system in with communication happens. In rhetorical studies scholars have continued to frame studies around the liberal individual—or around bashing the liberal individual—but there has been no alternative framework for thinking about how public or culture communication constitutes human being (only that it should not do so, theoretically speaking). Taking seriously the concept of communication as relating will allow us to take serious communication as a process with a distinctive ontology and unique methods. It will thereby allow us to better understand communication, which means to better understand the human animals who relate, and thereby constitute their being, through such incessant communication.
Notes
1. Wittgestein (2001) initiated this line of thinking of language in terms of use, but this unfortunate choice of the “game” metaphor obscured the more fundamental property of relationality and prevented further development of the concept.
2. The nature of the four basic forces of the universe is consonant with such a view because each of the forces acts over a different distance with a different amount of force, but this merely accounts for why matter is differentially dispersed in the universe rather than being a uniform soup.
3. A third, communitarian, perspective dominates rhetorical studies of persuasion. This perspective is the closest to be relational perspective. There is insufficient space to deal with the differences with enough detail to be satisfying.
Communication as ritual
Eric W. Rothenbuhler
The reality-constituting effect of ritual and ceremony are well known. Saying “I do” in the right circumstances at right moment, to take a familiar example, makes it done and it cannot be undone without a different ceremony in different time and place. The effective mechanism of such rituals is formal communication—people performing symbol according to normative forms to achieve social ands. This structure, familiar from special communication in a special events, is also ubiquitously present in routine communication. The nod, the handshake, and the greeting are small all rituals; conversation, television watching, and news reading also have their underlying ritual structures. In the sense, communication as ritual. In all the small ways that form has consequences and propriety matters, communication as ritual.
“Ritual is the voluntary performance of appropriate patterned behavior to symbolically effect or participate in the serous life.” (Rothenebuhler, 1998, p. 27). The “serious life” is a phenomenological category designating those things treated as more important, more morally freighted, and more obligatory than others within any given context (the term and its use derive from Durkeim, 1912/1995; see also pickering, 1984, pp.352-361; Rothenbuhler, 1998). It is useful to use the term with a degree of relativity, allowing it to designate different things appropriately in different contexts. Compared to sickness and death, for example, who sits where is not the most serious thing. At the funeral,though,mor in board meeting, who sits where is a serious thing. There are right and wrong ways to do it, and seating orders will be take as signs—people will talk about what it means.
Such techniques can rarely be said to be ethical because they rely on relational qualities that the initiator does not really wish to follow through. If one teaches that these techniques work, one should do in the context of teaching student about the fluidity and defense of relationship as valuable entities with particular qualities, benefit and obligations. But not all persuasion techniques will be the character to falsely manipulate relationship. In contrast, technique of risk communication will be appropriate adaptations to particular relational dynamic in some contexts and inappropriate manipulations in other. The standard of the advancement of mutual care serves is one important key to making such judgment (Noddings, 1984; O’Brian Hallstein, 1999).
The concept of relationality offers the different sort of challenge to those such as Foss and Griffin (1995), who have denied the appropriateness of persuasions altogether. These denials have been based on the belief that persuasion and coercion were impossible to distinguish. But that argument would invalidate in effort at communication whatsoever, because it is as difficult to distinguish when talking to someone becomes persuasion as it is to distinguish coercion from persuasion. As rhetoricians from both the right and left have emphasized, all symbol use brings at host of loadings, interests, ambiguities, and entailments with it. It is impossible simply to mirror, one introduces change in those ideas (even mirroring would introduces change by reinforcement).
The ideas that one could forego persuasion rests on the belief in an autonomous self, and the relational perspective insists that there are no such things. Any two persons are always in some relationship to each other, and any relationship presumes ineradicable lines of influences, usually carried in part through the communicative flows of meaning and confusion that constantly remake the person involved. So one cannot not persuade. Instead, the ethnic of mutual care sets standards for a relationship and for communication for relationship. The older ideas of respect for the other and openness to changing one’s own ideas are part of these standards (Ehninger, 1970), but additional criteria reside in attention to the sustainable quality of the relationship and to support for the other’s needs/desires where that does not violate the quality of the relationship or any of one’s own needs/desired that might be substantially greater. The concept of relationality thus rewrites the agenda for persuasion ethnic in fundamental ways and open a new kind of discussion about goals and standards.
I hope that these examples have provides a sufficient sets of hints as to how thinking of communication as a process of relating should reshape the field of communication studies. Other examples are ready at hand. The study of nonverbal communication should cease focusing on sets of universal gestures, facial expressions, or categories of distance and instead begin to be a full-bodied analysis of how nonverbal factor establish and maintain relationship in different contexts. Small-group and organizational communication already much of the relational about them, but reorienting to relationality as a fundamental quality will allow expansion and deedpening of these tendencies.
In a crucial way, the call to realtionality is statement that it is well past time that communication studies came into its own. For more than two generation of scholarship, communication has been dominated by the Western vision of the individual. In experimental studies, communication studies is still poor relative to psychology because the discipline’s leading researches continue to follow the models and assumptions of psychology—which focus on the individual rather than the relational system in with communication happens. In rhetorical studies scholars have continued to frame studies around the liberal individual—or around bashing the liberal individual—but there has been no alternative framework for thinking about how public or culture communication constitutes human being (only that it should not do so, theoretically speaking). Taking seriously the concept of communication as relating will allow us to take serious communication as a process with a distinctive ontology and unique methods. It will thereby allow us to better understand communication, which means to better understand the human animals who relate, and thereby constitute their being, through such incessant communication.
Notes
1. Wittgestein (2001) initiated this line of thinking of language in terms of use, but this unfortunate choice of the “game” metaphor obscured the more fundamental property of relationality and prevented further development of the concept.
2. The nature of the four basic forces of the universe is consonant with such a view because each of the forces acts over a different distance with a different amount of force, but this merely accounts for why matter is differentially dispersed in the universe rather than being a uniform soup.
3. A third, communitarian, perspective dominates rhetorical studies of persuasion. This perspective is the closest to be relational perspective. There is insufficient space to deal with the differences with enough detail to be satisfying.
Communication as ritual
Eric W. Rothenbuhler
The reality-constituting effect of ritual and ceremony are well known. Saying “I do” in the right circumstances at right moment, to take a familiar example, makes it done and it cannot be undone without a different ceremony in different time and place. The effective mechanism of such rituals is formal communication—people performing symbol according to normative forms to achieve social ands. This structure, familiar from special communication in a special events, is also ubiquitously present in routine communication. The nod, the handshake, and the greeting are small all rituals; conversation, television watching, and news reading also have their underlying ritual structures. In the sense, communication as ritual. In all the small ways that form has consequences and propriety matters, communication as ritual.
“Ritual is the voluntary performance of appropriate patterned behavior to symbolically effect or participate in the serous life.” (Rothenebuhler, 1998, p. 27). The “serious life” is a phenomenological category designating those things treated as more important, more morally freighted, and more obligatory than others within any given context (the term and its use derive from Durkeim, 1912/1995; see also pickering, 1984, pp.352-361; Rothenbuhler, 1998). It is useful to use the term with a degree of relativity, allowing it to designate different things appropriately in different contexts. Compared to sickness and death, for example, who sits where is not the most serious thing. At the funeral,though,mor in board meeting, who sits where is a serious thing. There are right and wrong ways to do it, and seating orders will be take as signs—people will talk about what it means.
Categories:
Communication as ritual
Postingan
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar