Communication does not equal understanding.

(Assignment no.1) By Albulena Rexhepi

BA in Information Management, Copenhagen Business School

Fundamentals of communication 1, 1st quarter paper Class XA Characters: 11263 Assoc.Prof. Mari-Klara Stein October 23rd 2013

Introduction:
In this paper, Ive chosen assignment no.1. I partly agree with this statement. The part where Andersen, M.P. (1959) states that communication is somewhat dynamic, in constant change and shifting in response, I find it relatable. The first part though, where he proposes that communication is a process where we understand each other, I find it difficult to accept, as a whole truth. I would regard it, as more of a plausible truth. I believe that communication does not equal understanding. To communicate is to interact, but to understand takes somewhat time and engagement. Ive taken interest and relevance in the movie, (Nell, 1994) shortly explained, about a person who meets society for the first time, after being raised in isolation, by her disabled mother. After her mothers death, the character Nell is found by Dr. Jerry who is the only person, that chooses to understand the isolated girl, who seems to have a language of her own, whereas the people in society, jump to the conclusion, that she might be crazy and therefore should be put in an institution. Also described in (Griffin, 2012, p.54-61). Thus my point, the normal people around Nell communicated with her, but they did not understand her. To explain this further, I have chosen two different theories to support and explain my statement. Symbolic Interactionism (SI), an interpretive theory of George Herbert Mead, where I also use Griffins(2012) example of the movie, (Nell,1994) and an objective one, Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) by Charles Berger. Both theories, though different in scientific views, offer an understanding of human interaction and our ways of understanding our place in society and identity creation. I will analyze and discuss these theoretical concepts and provide a conclusion to my statement.

Theory presentation and analysis:

Symbolic Interactionism (SI) of George Herbert Mead

Meads, a social constructionist, never wrote down his theory nor published anything until after his death in 1931, his students collected their class notes and conversations, that they had with Mead and published the book Mind, Self and Society in his name. After the publishing took place, one of his students, Herbert Blumer, found a name for the ideas of
2

Mead and called it Symbolic Interactionism. (Griffin 2012, p.54) SI consists of 3 foundational key concepts. These concepts investigate and explain the creation of a persons self and being a part of a larger society by being a social human being. The first premise. Meaning: Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things Blumer as cited in (Griffin 2012, p.55). It is ought to be understood as, it is not what we say that matters, but how we say it and more importantly how we interpret something as individuals and as a society. Something is as real as the majority or culture believes it to be. We construct our own social realities. The example of the movie, (Nell, 1994) is mentioned in this first premise. The examples explain how the different people whom the main character Nell, meets have their own perception of her and ideas in how to treat her. The second premise is Language: We find meaning by interacting with one another and adding interpretation to the situation. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language-hence the term symbolic interactionism. (Griffin 2012, p.56). Language is power, but the ability to use it and interpret the words, means more power. According to Griffin (2012, p.57) a word has a meaning, only if we have a common understanding of it. He uses an example of a ring. A ring is as valuable as we make it to me be. The third concept: Thinking: Blumers third premise is that an individuals interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought processes as cited in (Griffin 2012, p.58.)Having a talk with one self in our heads is considered minding according to Mead ,Mind, Self and Society (1967). Its a natural process to talk and reflect with oneself, before making a decision. According to the ideas of interactionists, humans need social interaction to stimulate their thinking, their mind and use language to interpret messages and symbols. If a human being never had a social interaction, the person will not be able to be a part of the human interaction of symbolism. Though if once stimulated, it will never disappear. According to Mead, what distinguishes us from the animals, is our ability to see things from other perspectives and pretend to take the role of somebody else. (Griffin 2012, p.58-59.)Two more key concepts were added to the first three of foundational concepts. The fourth is the Self: Reflections in a looking glass (Griffin, 2012,p.59) According to Mead, we are able to understand ourselves better, when we put ourselves in somebody elses shoes. Interactionists refer to this mental image as the looking-glass self
3

and believe the core of it to be constructed by society. (Griffin, 2012, p.59 & Blumer,1969 p.2) The theory of SI suggests that we develop our identity and self-meaning by being a part of society and engage in conversations. Mead divides this meaning of self into the subjective self, the unorganized self. The I and the Me, the objective self, when being able to put oneself into other peoples shoes. The I speaks, the Me hears as cited in (Griffin,2012, p.60) The fifth concept is Society: To understand this, one would have to know the meaning of the generalized other. The self-image a person has based on the expectations of society and its reflections on oneself. According to Mead, every person is an individual actor making their own decisions in society. Mead saw these individuals make choices, though aligning with others in society. The generalized other helps us think and shapes the way we interact in society.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) of Charles Berger.

This objective regarded theory aims to predict and explain how in every relationship no matter the closeness of it. It began with two strangers meeting and using communication to reduce uncertainty. It was developed by Charles Berger in 1975. He believed that people find uncertainty uncomfortable and aim to reduce uncertainty in every new interaction. According to Berger, it is a normal thing to have doubts in the prediction of new encounters. URT aims to create understanding by collecting information and knowledge through human communication. URT tries to help understand, the various stages one goes when communicating with a stranger. The amount of information sharing one makes, depends on the level of the encounter one is at. There are two ways of uncertainty reductions, one is that deals with behavioral questions. The cultural norms in society, for example, how do I greet this person? Do I bow? Shake hands? And so on. The second kind of uncertainty emphasized on the cognitive questions, focusing on getting to know who the person is as an individual. Bergers theory focuses more on the second uncertainty reduction rather than the first. As an objective theory, URT uses scientific methods to explain the concept of uncertainty reduction and relationship development. Berger has chosen eight key variables to explain the degree of new encounters and called them axioms. Here lined up, in the right order of the development
4

of a new encounter.1) Verbal Communication 2) Nonverbal Warmth 3) Information Seeking 4) Self-Disclosure 5)Reciprocity 6)Similarity 7)Liking 8)Shared Networks. (Berger C. R, Calabrese R.J, 1975) Axiom: a self-evident truth that requires no additional proof (Griffin,2012.p.127) To give a more logical force to the uncertainty axioms, Berger wanted to make sense of these axioms and chose to pair them, to make an extra insight into rational dynamics. The combined axioms yield an inevitable conclusion when inserted in the well-known pattern of deductive logic. If A=B and B=C then A=C.(Griffin,2012,p.129). In total there are 28theorems of the combinations of axioms. If used in a schedule, one will be able to predict the outcome of a new encounter.

Discussion:
Both SI and URT offer an understanding towards human communication. SI appealed to me, because of its humanistic approach, towards a better understanding of interaction between humans. Whereas URT captured my interest, by its claim of the uncomfortability of the uncertainty people feel, when meeting strangers. Do we really feel more comfortable when we know more about a person? Or are there other aspects involved? Sometimes one meets a stranger, but feels an immediate connection with that person. Whereas, other times one knows a lot of facts about a person, without really understanding them. SI suggests that interpretations are personal and bias, therefor they create their own social reality. People interact daily, though the interpretations of an episode or a symbol create the meaning of it, which are products of the culture and society one has been brought in. Therefore communication does not automatically equal understanding, since understanding requires more than just interacting with someone. URT suggest the use of the axioms to understand human relationship development and motivation better. Though, not taking in consideration a misuse of the axioms. By that I mean, that some people suggest, that the more we like a person, the more information we seek, whereas URT suggests that, after reducing our uncertainty with a stranger, we stop seeking information. Dr. Jerry did not stop wanting to know more about Nell. (Nell,1994). Since communication is hard to pin down to one concrete definition, it is even harder to write about it in a five page paper. Theories are guidelines
5

towards a better understanding of people, though never cold facts. Human behavior can be predicted and explained, to a certain degree. Background, culture, language and so on, need to be taken in consideration. Communication and understanding can be defined and described in many ways and I take liberty in expressing my lack of ability to deepen my research statement in this particular paper.

Conclusion:
Communication is essential in a society. Does it change? Yes. Is it dynamic? Yes. Does it shift in response? Yes. Does communication mean understanding? Not necessarily. It might take us from A to B, but understanding requires more than that. It takes engagement and proper interpretation of different perspectives. Getting from A to B is simply adequate for some people. But for the character, Jerry in the film, (Nell,1994), it wasnt enough, to just put Nell into an institution. He chose to want to understand her, even though it took great effort and time to do so. People around Nell communicated with her, thus a huge lack of understanding her, was a mere fact. SI helped me, support my claim that understanding is bias and not an evident truth. URT contributed to the fact that we seek information to get more knowledge, thus increasing the chances to be able to understand. Think about it, when communicating with a person, one collects facts about that individual. Without wanting and choosing to interpret those facts and give them meaning, it would merely be communication and not understanding.

Reference List:
Andersen,N.P. What is communication? Journal of Communication,9 (as cited in Dance,F.E.X.(1970).The concept of communication. Journal of Communication,20,201-210,here:204).

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Theory, 1, 99-112 George Herbert Mead, The Social Self journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific methods. Vol.10, 1913.p375 Griffin, Em, A First Look At Communication Theory, 8th Edition., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2012

Herbert, Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism, 1969, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,USA

Mead,George Herbert, Mind,Self,Society: From The Standpoint Of A Social Behaviorist, paperback edition, The University of Chicago,1967.p.174

Movie: Nell,1994,Egg Pictures, Twentieth-Century Fox, USA