The lady looked at us and said, "let's pause for a moment and open up the discussion, if any one of you would like to say something about how you feel about this issue, I'd invite you to so!"
I paused, thought of what I wanted to share, and raised my hand.
I opened my mouth. Stuttered, tears spilled over and I became so choked up no other words came out except for "Oh I'm so sorry... please excuse me a minute..."
The room grew deadly quiet as the moderator tried to comfort me, everyone stared. It was not how I had imagined it in my head.
~~~
So on a whim, and looking to make some extra cash, I spotted an ad on Craigslist for an Asian-American Focus Group that required two hours of time on a Saturday, paid $50 and food would be provided. Never one to turn down food, I called the listed number. The woman over the phone asked me questions to make sure I matched the profile, and then asked a series of questions that provided clues to the nature of the focus group, without explicitly telling me what it was. She wanted to find out where I stood on social issues, and whether I'd be open-minded about hearing from those who stood on the other side. "Of course!" I said, "I would LOVE to hear their argument."
That Saturday came, and I found my way to a nondescript building in Pasadena, and met others who'd responded to the ad. There were only 7 of us, all Asian-American women and between the age range of 21-early 30's. Most were still in school, with the oldest being an attorney.The moderator, a kind-looking woman in her 40's handed each of us a stack of papers, I quickly flipped through the pages and enjoyed an inner chuckle and a swell of confidence. It appeared we were going to be discussing marriage equality today.
Now marriage equality, those words hadn't meant too much to me 5 years ago. I'd no real ties to the LGBT community, but 5 years ago I attended my first rehearsal with Vox Femina Los Angeles, an all-women choral ensemble whose focus was on giving women of all backgrounds, sexual orientation, voice. Following the two and a half hours long rehearsal, a friend of mine who'd joined the group with me that season, she and I walked to the parking lot, and in hushed tones, put our heads together and giggled, "sooo... who do you think was a lesbian?"
Looking back, and knowing what I know now, the way we looked at our now-friends then almost resembled how one would imagine an exotic species of animal. It was our first encounter with a group of grown women, some of whom were lesbians, and there was a very human reaction of being uncertain of the unknown, a curiosity. My friend and I had cast the women as "they". The "lesbians". We scratched our heads and wondered who was "butch" and who was "lipstick," terms we'd learned from the media and who knows where else.
Aided by a shared love of music, the process of becoming one with the group was ginger, slow, and organic. Until one day, the mystical "they" were just my friends. They saw me grow from a 25-year-old not-quite-sure-who-I-am into "yes, I am a woman." They were my friends who experienced the same joys, heartache, illnesses, unnecessary drama as any of my other friends.They were my friends who taught me how to be friends with women.
Without knowing I'd done so, I'd arrived at my focus group with the women in Vox by my side. They were there when I answered every question, when I abruptly burst into tears as I tried with my might to share their stories. The incredible women with their incredible families. Women, who even with strong support systems, have had to wait for their turn at the altar. My friends are young, my friends are old, my friends defy every stereotype that I had in my mind when I first met them. My friends are women, personified.
~~~
The panel ended soon after that. I left, drained.
Later, I felt an enormous sense of relief, as if I'd passed a test. My tears somehow assured me that what I felt for my friends were genuine, that my pursuit of equality for my friends was on the right course...
I told this story in a class, more tears were shed, but my professor found my tone preachy. I understand... but I'm glad I did it. I will keep telling their stories because whereas I found a cause, my friends have lived it. They continue to live it. Everyday.
[Drafted in 2011, posted 11/14/14]
14.11.14
6.11.14
We're up to 31,000...!
Creepy...! Must figure out who is looking, and what they/you are looking at...!
In the meantime, here's some food for thought --- a brief introduction into what's been twirling in my head, before I fully hop onto my soapbox.
Oftentimes I see memes or posts on social media and credible sites with this tagline: "What Other People Think of Me is None of My Business."
Go ahead and try it, type that in under Google images and you'll find that Coco Chanel's been quoted as having said this, as has Dr. Wayne Dyer, the self-help guru, as has Simon Cowell, just for good measures. From my search I also found that it's a title of a book that was published in 1988, which I now feel obligated to buy a used copy to see if I can understand the original intentions. This way I can find out if it does lie in contradiction to what we then do upon others when it comes to relationships, which is to assert our wants and expecting the other to modify their behavior to suit ours. It seems a double-standard... and I hate double-standards.
Think for a second. If both people in the relationship truly believed in this idea that we should fully embrace who we are, and love ourselves, our minds, bodies, flaws, strengths, etc. which is the essence of this saying... does it not fly in the face of other self-help, motivational and relational coaches who speak of the need to assert oneself by voicing our needs and articulating these thoughts to our partners? Are we not expecting our partners to acknowledge what we've said, and beyond that, to then make appropriate adjustments? In other words, try reversing the roles. If your loved one speaks to you earnestly about something they felt with regards to your actions or words having a certain influence, are you so sage that you say to them, "Thank you for bringing them to my attention, I will take them into advisement..." and... that's it? It's either my business or it's not is what this the tagline is telling me... but isn't it at least KIND OF my business? Especially if I am potentially unintentionally being inconsiderate or thoughtless? Is it not possible that I AM capable of having flaws? Can I NOT feel complimented if what they think of me is positive?
I am no cynic, nor am I anti-self-help-like things... but the simplification of these ideas drive me just a teeny bit crazy.
Thus, food for thought. More on this later. I also don't want to be accused of simplifying something that could be more complicated than what I've synthesized in one paragraph.
Have a good weekend. :)
In the meantime, here's some food for thought --- a brief introduction into what's been twirling in my head, before I fully hop onto my soapbox.
Oftentimes I see memes or posts on social media and credible sites with this tagline: "What Other People Think of Me is None of My Business."
Go ahead and try it, type that in under Google images and you'll find that Coco Chanel's been quoted as having said this, as has Dr. Wayne Dyer, the self-help guru, as has Simon Cowell, just for good measures. From my search I also found that it's a title of a book that was published in 1988, which I now feel obligated to buy a used copy to see if I can understand the original intentions. This way I can find out if it does lie in contradiction to what we then do upon others when it comes to relationships, which is to assert our wants and expecting the other to modify their behavior to suit ours. It seems a double-standard... and I hate double-standards.
Think for a second. If both people in the relationship truly believed in this idea that we should fully embrace who we are, and love ourselves, our minds, bodies, flaws, strengths, etc. which is the essence of this saying... does it not fly in the face of other self-help, motivational and relational coaches who speak of the need to assert oneself by voicing our needs and articulating these thoughts to our partners? Are we not expecting our partners to acknowledge what we've said, and beyond that, to then make appropriate adjustments? In other words, try reversing the roles. If your loved one speaks to you earnestly about something they felt with regards to your actions or words having a certain influence, are you so sage that you say to them, "Thank you for bringing them to my attention, I will take them into advisement..." and... that's it? It's either my business or it's not is what this the tagline is telling me... but isn't it at least KIND OF my business? Especially if I am potentially unintentionally being inconsiderate or thoughtless? Is it not possible that I AM capable of having flaws? Can I NOT feel complimented if what they think of me is positive?
I am no cynic, nor am I anti-self-help-like things... but the simplification of these ideas drive me just a teeny bit crazy.
Thus, food for thought. More on this later. I also don't want to be accused of simplifying something that could be more complicated than what I've synthesized in one paragraph.
Have a good weekend. :)
2.11.14
29,840 views and counting...
What.
There are 29,000+ users on Google+?
Who's looking at my page?
Are YOU looking at my page?
Who ARE you....? :)
So yes, color me surprised when I saw that I had that many views of my Google+ page.
It's rather odd to think that while I am open to posting my thoughts on this particular format,
that there are actually those who might actually read this.
Anyhow, I've a real entry that I'm marinating on, and it deals with this idea of
"What others think about me is none of my business," that I hear thrown around.
I've some thoughts about this and other fun self-empowering quotations so will get to it very,
very soon.
For now I'll simply say, drop a line in the comments section if you DO happen upon this entry.
Would like to know when and if I'm having a conversation, as opposed to simply a monologue.
Have a good one! Take care of yourself! Smile!
There are 29,000+ users on Google+?
Who's looking at my page?
Are YOU looking at my page?
Who ARE you....? :)
So yes, color me surprised when I saw that I had that many views of my Google+ page.
It's rather odd to think that while I am open to posting my thoughts on this particular format,
that there are actually those who might actually read this.
Anyhow, I've a real entry that I'm marinating on, and it deals with this idea of
"What others think about me is none of my business," that I hear thrown around.
I've some thoughts about this and other fun self-empowering quotations so will get to it very,
very soon.
For now I'll simply say, drop a line in the comments section if you DO happen upon this entry.
Would like to know when and if I'm having a conversation, as opposed to simply a monologue.
Have a good one! Take care of yourself! Smile!
16.9.14
2:14am we meet again
Tempted to begin a new blog titled, "Chronicles of Higher Teaching: Accounts of a Freeway-Flyer."
The reality of adjunct teaching finds one commuting between multiple campuses in order to have enough teaching assignments to qualify as working full-time. However, that distinction doesn't carry an overwhelming amount of weight since individual campuses calculate its own course load... so full-time just means you're REALLY BUSY without the benefits of those who are actually full-time faculty members. Chuckle.
For one who has historically been a bit of a commitment-phobe when it comes to employment, I am perfectly content working semester-to-semester, or only part-time, if it means I have extra time to pick up another 4 hobbies. However, once I commit, I am COMMITTED. So students, if you're reading this, fear not, like I said in class, I'm here to make sure you get your money's worth when it comes to learning in my classroom. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time, right?
But back to my point, the part where I find myself hired, as of this week, by three different campuses. Three different sets of thrilling challenges, three diverse population of students, and three avenues for me to explore. The prologue to my chronicles have thus been written: She came, she saw, she liked what saw, and it was good.
2:22am, time to turn in so I can wake up to polish up the lessons for the day. I do hope the weather cools sooner than later, Hot Elliptical is not quite the same as Hot Yoga, at least the latter is planned...
Have a good week!
The reality of adjunct teaching finds one commuting between multiple campuses in order to have enough teaching assignments to qualify as working full-time. However, that distinction doesn't carry an overwhelming amount of weight since individual campuses calculate its own course load... so full-time just means you're REALLY BUSY without the benefits of those who are actually full-time faculty members. Chuckle.
For one who has historically been a bit of a commitment-phobe when it comes to employment, I am perfectly content working semester-to-semester, or only part-time, if it means I have extra time to pick up another 4 hobbies. However, once I commit, I am COMMITTED. So students, if you're reading this, fear not, like I said in class, I'm here to make sure you get your money's worth when it comes to learning in my classroom. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time, right?
But back to my point, the part where I find myself hired, as of this week, by three different campuses. Three different sets of thrilling challenges, three diverse population of students, and three avenues for me to explore. The prologue to my chronicles have thus been written: She came, she saw, she liked what saw, and it was good.
2:22am, time to turn in so I can wake up to polish up the lessons for the day. I do hope the weather cools sooner than later, Hot Elliptical is not quite the same as Hot Yoga, at least the latter is planned...
Have a good week!
20.4.14
Yo Yo Ma.
The last post was written 24 hours ago, just failed to press the Publish button. I thought I might as well supplement with today's entry. Fair warning, this entry has absolutely diddly squat to do with Foucault and what he says about knowledge and power.
I've been listening to Yo Yo Ma's Bach Cello Suites on a loop. My soul resonates with every articulated note. It's almost like a call-and-response.
[I looked up Paris earlier this evening. Cobble-stoned streets, cute apartments for rent. Maybe.]
Melancholy.
As I use to do, and less so the past few years, I went back through my archives. I hadn't meant to. But reading old correspondences from almost five years ago... just... made me feel, so... aged. I remember the voices so clearly. I remember how we felt. The energy. The eager anticipation. The collective looking-forward. Easy conversations with the recognition that this, was serious. The start of a new relationship. Always the new relationship that I wished would be my last. The falling in love. Thinking everything they had to say was the most interesting thing I'd ever heard. Having everything you say BE the most interesting thing they heard that day. The sobering realization that it was too late to turn back. The glee that followed.
Wistful.
A longing for simpler times that at the time they happened, were not simple.
A wish that we had held onto the eagerness of each other. That we had remembered that we'd thought so highly of each other. That we had known the depth to which we'd enjoy one another.
A dream that the conversation will pick up where it had trailed off somewhere along the road. Little by little. Where it had been absentmindedly left behind...
Tired.
Yet like a metal rooster, ever hopeful.
I've been listening to Yo Yo Ma's Bach Cello Suites on a loop. My soul resonates with every articulated note. It's almost like a call-and-response.
[I looked up Paris earlier this evening. Cobble-stoned streets, cute apartments for rent. Maybe.]
Melancholy.
As I use to do, and less so the past few years, I went back through my archives. I hadn't meant to. But reading old correspondences from almost five years ago... just... made me feel, so... aged. I remember the voices so clearly. I remember how we felt. The energy. The eager anticipation. The collective looking-forward. Easy conversations with the recognition that this, was serious. The start of a new relationship. Always the new relationship that I wished would be my last. The falling in love. Thinking everything they had to say was the most interesting thing I'd ever heard. Having everything you say BE the most interesting thing they heard that day. The sobering realization that it was too late to turn back. The glee that followed.
Wistful.
A longing for simpler times that at the time they happened, were not simple.
A wish that we had held onto the eagerness of each other. That we had remembered that we'd thought so highly of each other. That we had known the depth to which we'd enjoy one another.
A dream that the conversation will pick up where it had trailed off somewhere along the road. Little by little. Where it had been absentmindedly left behind...
Tired.
Yet like a metal rooster, ever hopeful.
You say 4:05am, I say time to write a post.
Let's just cut to the chase: 3 weeks until Comps. Let's not kid ourselves. We're in the trenches.
As such, this morning's topic of choice is :::drum roll:::
Rhetoric & and its relation to audiences. Why? Well I'm glad you asked, that's because it's the intersection I studied today. And in order for the information to sink just a bit more comfortably into my short-term memory, I'm going to synthesize it here, with a quick discussion on rhetoric according to Herrick (2009).
[Segue: I threw a fit for about 3 minutes earlier today complete with kicking a box in my study and a surprising shout of "LIFE SUCKS!" that startled no one but Duke. Although even he was only half-startled given my odd hours and strange behaviors these days. But yeah, life is not splendid at the moment and except for periods of glee when I'm occupied with work or with social gatherings, I am not un-depressed.]
Herrick defines rhetoric as the "systematic study and the intentional practice of effective symbolic expression" (7).
Rhetorical discourse boasts six features:
1. Planned
2. Adapted to an audience
3. Shaped by human motives
4. Responsive to a situation
5. Persuasion-seeking
6. Concerned with contingent issues
Most of these are self-explanatory, or which I can elaborate on fairly easily, but Audience requires its own spotlight, because as Herrick notes, "Rhetoric stresses commonality between a rhetor and an audience" (10).
On this topic, from the classical tradition we have an obvious choice in Aristotle, who in Book II of Rhetoric, not only identifies three very specific audiences in his discussion on forensic (jurors), deliberative (legislators), and the epideidic, explores the roles of the audience as well as the characteristics held by those who sit in the audience. To the former, Aristotle believes audiences are responsible for holding the rhetor accountable for what they say. Whereas the rhetor seeks to persuade the audience through the artistic proofs of appeal, audience is still the one who must grant that they have been so persuaded. One key feature of argumentation under the topoi of logos is the employment of deductive reasoning, specifically with the use of the enthymeme. Enthymeme are considered rhetorical syllogisms, which are "arguments built from values, beliefs, or knowledge held in common by a speaker and an audience." This is clear when we consider that while a syllogism may be structurally sound, the conclusion will be false if the premise is false, namely if the audience is not "in on the joke," or in agreement to the unspoken premise.
[Segue: I've decided to hand-write the comps, because typing out answers will take too much time. I'm more fluid with a pen.]
Moving toward the Modernists, we have Kenneth Burke, although it may be a good idea to reserve him to bat cleanup when it comes time to write my rhetorical criticism of whatever artifact. Nevertheless, a quick and very easy connection to draw between Burke and audiences can be found in identification, one of the tenets to his logology. As quoted in Herrick, Burke observes that "you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his" (A Rhetoric of Motives, 1996, 55). Identification is also derivative of the Catholic idea of consubstantiation, or the taking of the body an blood of Christ, in that identification means an exchange of essence with one another, thereby establishing a mutual recognition. A rhetor, in order to achieve their purpose, must be able to establish identification in such a way. Through some type of mean. For example, in visual communication, identification may be achieved through the use of recognizable symbols that inspire certain emotions or joined meaning. This ties back to Burke's most well-known articulation of the definition of human: "Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection" (Language as Symbolic Action, 1966).
Finally, we have Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca's discussion on particular and universal audiences. To P&O-T (to save time), "all argumentation aims at gaining the adherence of minds, and by this fact, assumes the existence of intellectual contact" (The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 14). They chose to use argumentation as the topic of discussion given the context of the times, where rhetoric had been reduced to being talked of as mere fluff, so they wanted to reframe the discussion in an attempt to revive rhetoric. Returning to their definition of the nature of argumentation, where essentially it means there is no argument if there is no one we're trying to convince, they propose the two types of audiences. Furthermore, they state that the quality of the audience ultimately determines the quality of rhetoric. In this vein, it sounds similar to the Aristotelian proposal of the responsibility of the audience.
Tomorrow, I will wrap up audiences and continue with a discussion on the functions served by rhetoric, it's another set of six. And then we'll take a look at the relationship between rhetoric and power. Did someone say Foucault...?
Time to pass out so I can wake up to study some more.
As such, this morning's topic of choice is :::drum roll:::
Rhetoric & and its relation to audiences. Why? Well I'm glad you asked, that's because it's the intersection I studied today. And in order for the information to sink just a bit more comfortably into my short-term memory, I'm going to synthesize it here, with a quick discussion on rhetoric according to Herrick (2009).
[Segue: I threw a fit for about 3 minutes earlier today complete with kicking a box in my study and a surprising shout of "LIFE SUCKS!" that startled no one but Duke. Although even he was only half-startled given my odd hours and strange behaviors these days. But yeah, life is not splendid at the moment and except for periods of glee when I'm occupied with work or with social gatherings, I am not un-depressed.]
Herrick defines rhetoric as the "systematic study and the intentional practice of effective symbolic expression" (7).
Rhetorical discourse boasts six features:
1. Planned
2. Adapted to an audience
3. Shaped by human motives
4. Responsive to a situation
5. Persuasion-seeking
6. Concerned with contingent issues
Most of these are self-explanatory, or which I can elaborate on fairly easily, but Audience requires its own spotlight, because as Herrick notes, "Rhetoric stresses commonality between a rhetor and an audience" (10).
On this topic, from the classical tradition we have an obvious choice in Aristotle, who in Book II of Rhetoric, not only identifies three very specific audiences in his discussion on forensic (jurors), deliberative (legislators), and the epideidic, explores the roles of the audience as well as the characteristics held by those who sit in the audience. To the former, Aristotle believes audiences are responsible for holding the rhetor accountable for what they say. Whereas the rhetor seeks to persuade the audience through the artistic proofs of appeal, audience is still the one who must grant that they have been so persuaded. One key feature of argumentation under the topoi of logos is the employment of deductive reasoning, specifically with the use of the enthymeme. Enthymeme are considered rhetorical syllogisms, which are "arguments built from values, beliefs, or knowledge held in common by a speaker and an audience." This is clear when we consider that while a syllogism may be structurally sound, the conclusion will be false if the premise is false, namely if the audience is not "in on the joke," or in agreement to the unspoken premise.
[Segue: I've decided to hand-write the comps, because typing out answers will take too much time. I'm more fluid with a pen.]
Moving toward the Modernists, we have Kenneth Burke, although it may be a good idea to reserve him to bat cleanup when it comes time to write my rhetorical criticism of whatever artifact. Nevertheless, a quick and very easy connection to draw between Burke and audiences can be found in identification, one of the tenets to his logology. As quoted in Herrick, Burke observes that "you persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his" (A Rhetoric of Motives, 1996, 55). Identification is also derivative of the Catholic idea of consubstantiation, or the taking of the body an blood of Christ, in that identification means an exchange of essence with one another, thereby establishing a mutual recognition. A rhetor, in order to achieve their purpose, must be able to establish identification in such a way. Through some type of mean. For example, in visual communication, identification may be achieved through the use of recognizable symbols that inspire certain emotions or joined meaning. This ties back to Burke's most well-known articulation of the definition of human: "Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection" (Language as Symbolic Action, 1966).
Finally, we have Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca's discussion on particular and universal audiences. To P&O-T (to save time), "all argumentation aims at gaining the adherence of minds, and by this fact, assumes the existence of intellectual contact" (The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 14). They chose to use argumentation as the topic of discussion given the context of the times, where rhetoric had been reduced to being talked of as mere fluff, so they wanted to reframe the discussion in an attempt to revive rhetoric. Returning to their definition of the nature of argumentation, where essentially it means there is no argument if there is no one we're trying to convince, they propose the two types of audiences. Furthermore, they state that the quality of the audience ultimately determines the quality of rhetoric. In this vein, it sounds similar to the Aristotelian proposal of the responsibility of the audience.
Tomorrow, I will wrap up audiences and continue with a discussion on the functions served by rhetoric, it's another set of six. And then we'll take a look at the relationship between rhetoric and power. Did someone say Foucault...?
Time to pass out so I can wake up to study some more.
19.3.14
A break from Comm Theory...
There's something beautiful about the way we love a person.
No amount of theory, rationalizing, insight, and experience can fully explain why we feel what we feel. I'm sure there are precise sciences to how the brain is stimulated, and what triggers the body chemistry, but to break it down to an exact formula takes away all the mysteries that are every bit as real.
The images that self-selects to surface, the moments that come to mind, the things that come back in slow motion. I suppose in the end, these are the times we remember and live for.
I'll end this with an excerpt from Sarah Kay & Phil Kaye's exquisite poetry:
...Love arrives exactly when Love is supposed to.
No amount of theory, rationalizing, insight, and experience can fully explain why we feel what we feel. I'm sure there are precise sciences to how the brain is stimulated, and what triggers the body chemistry, but to break it down to an exact formula takes away all the mysteries that are every bit as real.
The images that self-selects to surface, the moments that come to mind, the things that come back in slow motion. I suppose in the end, these are the times we remember and live for.
I'll end this with an excerpt from Sarah Kay & Phil Kaye's exquisite poetry:
...Love arrives exactly when Love is supposed to.
And Love leaves exactly when Love must.
When Love arrives,
When Love arrives,
say, “Welcome, make yourself comfortable.”
If Love leaves,
ask her to leave the door open behind her,
turn off the music,
listen to the quiet,
whisper, “Thank you for stopping by.”
Even when it ends, I'm thankful every time it stops by.
12.3.14
Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider, 1958)
In 3 months, I will be taking the comprehensive examination that will determine whether I shall become Sensei Chee, or Come-Back-in-the-Fall-and-Try-Again Chee...
:::chuckle::: but REALLY :::weak nervous laughter:::
So just now, having had a glass of wine (which always helps), I've decided that I will utilize my blog as a place to study, by a theory a day. Or a concept a day. Or a scholar a day, possibly two when I start panicking. I will do what I would have students do should I teach Communication Theory one day and how I've been taught, and that is first, by examining the theory itself and addressing its salient tenets, assumptions, and finally by applying it to real life situations through the theoretical lens so we have a better understanding of how it functions. Because let's be honest, why do we study communication theory at all if we cannot somehow make it meaningful to our own lives?
Today, we will talk about what is quite possibly my FAVORITE communication theory: Fritz Heider's (1958) Attribution Theory. I'll explain why it's my favorite shortly.
Quick segue -- CLEARLY I'll sound a bit lecture-y/dry/academic during these posts, so pardon my occupational psychosis (Kenneth Burke, from some year which I will identify when I get into Burke). As for any glaring grammatical mistakes or typos -- that'll be the wine ($8 from Costco - 2011 Casamatta Bibi Graetz, only a 86.8 average review from cellartracker.com)
Let's get started!
This theory, which falls under the context of "The Communicator," (I'll explain the contexts in a separate post) is one of the theories that tries to explain why we as people, do what we do (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 84). It's a theory that helps us figure out the cause behind people's behaviors, including our own.
Heider cites multiple causal attributions people make and outlines them as such:
We explain behavior in one or more of these ways and we also decide whether it was deliberate, or unintentional and making a decision. We also make decisions as to whether the actions are due to internal or external forces. In other words, attribution is the process of our drawing inferences (Griffin, p. 137).
The process of attribution has three steps --- incidentally, everything in communication or perhaps the world, tends to occur in threes. I've not looked into this, but I enjoy it nevertheless ;)
Alas, my progress has been tempered by pleasant distractions -- the application AND further analysis for this theory will continue tomorrow.
Sneak peek at how attribution theory can be applied: "Ugh, my students are not completing assignments, it must mean they're not motivated, and simply don't care about college nor their education." vs. "Man, I have too much work, I really try, but I just cannot get the paper done so I'll just go in and ask for an extension, professor so-and-so will totally understand. I'm a good student after all. It's very clear when I DO participate."
Wink. And, Day 1. Wrapped. :)
:::chuckle::: but REALLY :::weak nervous laughter:::
So just now, having had a glass of wine (which always helps), I've decided that I will utilize my blog as a place to study, by a theory a day. Or a concept a day. Or a scholar a day, possibly two when I start panicking. I will do what I would have students do should I teach Communication Theory one day and how I've been taught, and that is first, by examining the theory itself and addressing its salient tenets, assumptions, and finally by applying it to real life situations through the theoretical lens so we have a better understanding of how it functions. Because let's be honest, why do we study communication theory at all if we cannot somehow make it meaningful to our own lives?
Today, we will talk about what is quite possibly my FAVORITE communication theory: Fritz Heider's (1958) Attribution Theory. I'll explain why it's my favorite shortly.
Quick segue -- CLEARLY I'll sound a bit lecture-y/dry/academic during these posts, so pardon my occupational psychosis (Kenneth Burke, from some year which I will identify when I get into Burke). As for any glaring grammatical mistakes or typos -- that'll be the wine ($8 from Costco - 2011 Casamatta Bibi Graetz, only a 86.8 average review from cellartracker.com)
Let's get started!
This theory, which falls under the context of "The Communicator," (I'll explain the contexts in a separate post) is one of the theories that tries to explain why we as people, do what we do (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011, p. 84). It's a theory that helps us figure out the cause behind people's behaviors, including our own.
Heider cites multiple causal attributions people make and outlines them as such:
- Situational -- being affected by the environment
- Personal effects -- influencing things personally
- Ability -- being able to do something
- Effort -- trying to do something
- Desire -- wanting to do something
- Sentiment -- feeling like it
- Belonging -- going along with something
- Obligation -- feeling you ought to
- Permission -- being permitted to
We explain behavior in one or more of these ways and we also decide whether it was deliberate, or unintentional and making a decision. We also make decisions as to whether the actions are due to internal or external forces. In other words, attribution is the process of our drawing inferences (Griffin, p. 137).
The process of attribution has three steps --- incidentally, everything in communication or perhaps the world, tends to occur in threes. I've not looked into this, but I enjoy it nevertheless ;)
- Perception of action -- the other as the causal agent; "I saw that"
- Judgment of intention "You meant to do that"
- Attribution of disposition "You're a horrible person"
So how we arrive at such decisions Heider says unsurprisingly, tends to be biased, especially when it comes down to our judgment of others as contrasted against our own. He identifies the following tendencies:
- We tend to hold others more responsible for negative results than for positive results.
- We tend to hold others more responsible for not trying than for incompetence.
- We tend to hold others more responsible when they aim to improve a position than to avoid loss.
- We tend to hold others more responsible for their outcomes when we fear the same thing could happen to us.
- We tend to hold others more responsible than we hold ourselves *DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT*
Alas, my progress has been tempered by pleasant distractions -- the application AND further analysis for this theory will continue tomorrow.
Sneak peek at how attribution theory can be applied: "Ugh, my students are not completing assignments, it must mean they're not motivated, and simply don't care about college nor their education." vs. "Man, I have too much work, I really try, but I just cannot get the paper done so I'll just go in and ask for an extension, professor so-and-so will totally understand. I'm a good student after all. It's very clear when I DO participate."
Wink. And, Day 1. Wrapped. :)
24.2.14
GREAT
I just realized I repeated the same sentiment in my latest post that I'd written two posts ago.
I'm getting to the age where I'm starting to repeat myself. Dear. Lord.
I'm getting to the age where I'm starting to repeat myself. Dear. Lord.
23.2.14
The Terrible 32's
The cohabitation with those who are not my age has been my single greatest challenge and in so many ways, my source of relentless joy these past few years as a graduate student.
A few nights ago when I spoke to my mom over the phone, I told her, "Well yes, I get frustrated sometimes when they don't listen to what I have to say, but I know that if I were to go back in time, I probably wouldn't listen to me..." she laughed.
I've realized that I nag. I can be short-tempered. My patience can be worn down and out. I dispense advice and am amused and irritated and exasperated when they're not taken. I also know that I care FAR less if at all about justifying my positions and why I do or say things, and when I'm questioned, I'm less than inclined to explain it, because the consequence aren't as important to me. I no longer feel the need to be liked or to extend myself beyond what it is I already have internalized and do.
I am also very very tired and know that I just need to let things, and let people be.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I'm playing StarCraft again. It's a good reprieve from everything else, but I don't think it's conducive to a good night's sleep. Nor is it good for grading papers, or for passing my comprehensive exams.
Speaking ofthe dirty C word (Comprehensive exam); it doth appear I'm headed for a Ph.D. program. I'm still letting that sink in, and am wondering if I'm doing the right thing or if I'm biting off more than I need to chew. Not what I CAN chew... but if I need this degree. I've a hunch I need to do it, and I've yet to turn down an opportunity or not followed a hunch.
I was called fearless a few months ago by a friend. I was surprised. I don't think of myself on those terms, and I do have fears.
~~~~~
I am looking forward to a graduation trip. At this very moment, all I can think of are the islands of Greece, bronzed skin, fresh cocktails, with the distinct white buildings of Santorini as my backdrop...
Did I mention I was tired...?
A few nights ago when I spoke to my mom over the phone, I told her, "Well yes, I get frustrated sometimes when they don't listen to what I have to say, but I know that if I were to go back in time, I probably wouldn't listen to me..." she laughed.
I've realized that I nag. I can be short-tempered. My patience can be worn down and out. I dispense advice and am amused and irritated and exasperated when they're not taken. I also know that I care FAR less if at all about justifying my positions and why I do or say things, and when I'm questioned, I'm less than inclined to explain it, because the consequence aren't as important to me. I no longer feel the need to be liked or to extend myself beyond what it is I already have internalized and do.
I am also very very tired and know that I just need to let things, and let people be.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I'm playing StarCraft again. It's a good reprieve from everything else, but I don't think it's conducive to a good night's sleep. Nor is it good for grading papers, or for passing my comprehensive exams.
Speaking ofthe dirty C word (Comprehensive exam); it doth appear I'm headed for a Ph.D. program. I'm still letting that sink in, and am wondering if I'm doing the right thing or if I'm biting off more than I need to chew. Not what I CAN chew... but if I need this degree. I've a hunch I need to do it, and I've yet to turn down an opportunity or not followed a hunch.
I was called fearless a few months ago by a friend. I was surprised. I don't think of myself on those terms, and I do have fears.
~~~~~
I am looking forward to a graduation trip. At this very moment, all I can think of are the islands of Greece, bronzed skin, fresh cocktails, with the distinct white buildings of Santorini as my backdrop...
Did I mention I was tired...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)