Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Revolution of Dating Websites
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
The Standpoint Theory and The Muted Group Theory
Compare and contrast the two theories discussed.
From a sociological perspective, people’s social group memberships tend to affect the way they experience and know about the world and also understand the ways in which they communicate with themselves, others and the world. As such, Sandra Harding (Harding) and Julia Wood (Wood) established the “Standpoint Theory,” that claims that to answer many of the questions about how the world works, one has to look at an issue from the standpoint of women and other marginalized groups in society. According to Harding, the perspective from the lives of the less powerful can provide a more objective view than the perspectives from the lives of the more powerful. Even though this theory can be used in inequalities in gender, race, class, and sexual orientation, Harding and Wood particularly focused on the standpoint of women in society. The “Muted Group Theory” was established by Cheris Kramarae (Kramarae) to show that language reflects worldview. The theory claims that dominant group members in society (Men), formulated language to uphold their perceptions of the world and hence perceive it to be the appropriate language for the rest of society. Therefore, according to Kramarae, language does not serve all of its speakers equally, since those who are marginalized in society, particularly women, did not get to contribute to its development equally. Kramarae claims that this man-made language has been constructed to deliberately discount the thoughts and words of women in society, which in turn puts these women into a muted group.
Both the theories facilitated the development of a model that addresses the communicative experiences of those persons marginalized within the structures of a dominant society. (Orbe, 25) Both theories have also largely been used as a feministic theoretical framework to explore the lived experiences of women as they participate in the larger society while having to battle the problem of mutedness. They are used to see the critical differences between men and women that affect their communication. However, the standpoint theory can be only be said to be more of a method of inquiry rather than a complete theory and hence can help to further investigate the muted group theory in various issues concerning women.
What are the epistemological, ontological and axiological similarities and differences in the assumptions of the two theories?
Axiological Assumptions: The standpoint theory borrowed from the proletarian ideas of Karl Marx and hence claims that the perspective from the lives of the less powerful can provide a more objective view than the perspectives from the lives of the more powerful. It also was influenced by George Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionism theory and claims that the idea of gender is a social construction rather than a biological characteristic. The postmodernism of theorists such as Jean-Francois Lyotard, which suggests a critique of male dominated epistemologies also lent a hand in developing the standpoint theory, although both Harding and Wood reject postmodernism’s absolute relativistic ideas. Hence, the standpoint theory can be said to be a product of a patchwork of conflicting ideas, with the stitching that is holding them together being the doctrine, that all scholarly inquiry should inaugurate from women and others who are marginalized. Kramarae was driven to develop the muted group theory based on the assumption that women perceive the world differently from men and that men’s political dominance in the communication structure of the society stifles women’s freedom of expression. The muted group theory also borrowed heavily from the works of Edwin and Shirley Ardener who first postulated that women are a muted group. Edwin likened muted groups to black holes, as they are often ignored, suppressed and deemed unimportant in society and hence the Ardners theorized that mutedness was a result of a lack of power within the marginalized society. However, the mutedness theory does not imply that the muted group is always silent. Shirley argues, that the primary issue with the muted group is, whether they are able to say what they want, when they want to say it, or, do they have to re-encode their thoughts to make them understood in the public domain. (Griffin 495)
Ontological Assumptions: In establishing the standpoint theory, Harding and Wood focus on a method of inquiry based on the standpoint of women who are marginalized and the issues that are affecting them in society whereas Kramarae built on the Ardeners’ work and used it to explore the mutedness of women and how to free them.
Epistemological Assumptions: In focusing their research on women, Harding and Wood base their research from the vantage point of the women. In the case of muted group theory however, Kramarae examines how the communication structure developed by the dominant groups (men in general) have enabled the mutedness of women and other marginalized groups in society.
Do you think that the Internet is furthering muted group communication or constraining it?
I think that the internet is constraining muted group communication. From the muted group theory, I learned that language on the whole is a man-made construction that consistently disempowers non-dominant groups especially women. In the case of the internet, I can say that the same applies as the entire communication structure of the internet, is based once again on man-made language. There is also the issue of technological disparity as well. The internet is not available to everyone. Those who are poor or are from undeveloped countries do not have access to the internet and hence are unable to reach out to the larger society and the people who are able to use the internet are either rich or are from developing or developed countries. Therefore, the internet, more than anything, has only strengthened even more, those from dominant groups while pushing the nondominant groups deeper and deeper into mutedness.
References
EM Griffin, “A First Look at Communication Theory,” 6th Ed
McGraw Hill, 2005, pp. 495
Mark P. Orbe, “Constructing Co-cultural Theory: An Explication of Culture, Power, and Communication,” Sage Publications, 1997, pp.25
The Spiral of Silence Theory (Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann)
In your own words, summarize how the “spiral of silence” works in human communication processes:
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (Neumann) defines public opinion as "opinions on controversial issues that one can express in public without isolating oneself." She established the Spiral of Science Theory to explain why people often shy away from revealing their opinions/preferences/views, when they feel they run counter to the majority opinion. Neumann believes that human beings have a natural tendency to constantly assess the present and future public mood and are able to make predictions about those moods with accuracy, most of the time. She likens the fear of isolation to the centrifugal force that accelerates the spiral of silence. She draws on Swarthmore psychologist, Solomon Asch, to support her claim. His research found that in group situations, most people tend to accede to the groups’ judgment when placed under pressure. On the possibility that the fear of isolation is a trait peculiar to Americans, Neumann rejects it. Her reason to do so comes from a study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram (Milgram). Milgram conducted a study in Europe and found that just like most Americans, most Europeans too could not stand firm in the face of group pressure. Neumann also rejects the hypothesis that people conform more out of a desire to identify with a winner than to avoid isolation. She believes that people would rather be branded as a conformist or a hanger-on, rather than being considered a deviant on value-laden issues. According to her, only criminals or moral heroes will disregard what society thinks.
Neumann is convinced that the suppression of the minority’s opinions in the spiral of science is caused by media. Because of the influential nature of media (Agenda-setting theory), the media tends to set the agenda as to what the public’s opinion on an issue is, although it may not be correct. Hence, Neumann describes a condition called “pluralistic ignorance,” where people have a wrong idea of what the public’s opinion really is. She believes that the television in particular, is one media whose power of influence on public opinion, should not to be underestimated. In an attempt to describe the extent of the power of television, Neumann claims that she has never found a spiral of silence that went against the tenor of that media. In concurring with Stuart Hall’s pessimistic evaluation of the media’s intrusive role in democratic decision making, she suggests, that media in general and the television in particular, is the authority in giving people a sense of what the public opinion on an issue is. Hence, people can tell when they are not in the same opinion with the general public through information received from the media and so those people will tend not to voice out their opinions. Neumann claims that just because those people keep silent, it does not mean that they will change their opinions to suit the public. The German Public Opinion Research Center developed a “train/plane test” that determines whether people are willing to voice out their opinions. It found, very importantly, that those favoring the majority tend to willingly express their views, whereas those in the opposite court do not. Also, it found that the willingness to speak out depends on whether the future trend will be in harmony with their current views. As such, people feel safe to talk to those who share their same views than those who do not. The test also revealed that low self-esteem will cause one not to talk about his opinions and also, males, young adults and people from middle and upper classes find it easier to speak out. Lastly, the test identified that existing law encourages people to express their opinions when they feel they are in the minority.
Therefore, the spiral of silence can be summed up visually, as the prevailing public opinion being at the top most and widest part of a spiral, which then starts to narrow slightly to the willingness of people to speak out and narrowing even further to the people who perceive themselves as having a minority viewpoint. The spiral then keeps narrowing down further and further as those people perceived to be with minority viewpoint delve further and further into silence, right down to the end of the spiral with the fear of isolation.
Given the current discussions and broadcast of certain issues in connection with the upcoming Presidential elections, to what extent does the spiral of silence theory explain public opinion? Discuss two examples.
Example 1:
When Barack Obama’s (Obama) pastor of twenty years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright conducted radical sermons that caused much public outrage, Obama had no choice but to concur with the public. It can be said that Obama was caught in the spiral of silence where if he had supported his pastor’s comments in any way, he would have had a very hard time winning the elections. Obama can be said to be in the minority and at the bottom of the spiral while the public, with their opinions against the pastor, as being at the top of the spiral. Hence, Obama had to give a speech, where he had to declare in public that he was not in agreement with his pastor’s comments, failing which he may not have a chance of winning the elections.
Example 2:
In another example, it is a well known fact that gun control is a prevailing issue in the US. However, the politicians rarely touch on that topic during the elections, especially senator John McCain. Senator McCain has a strong support from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and speaking for gun control will only result in him losing a very critical support for the elections. On the other hand, while it seems as though the general public are divided by being for and against gun control, the other politicians too avoid bringing up the issue of gun control for fear of rejection by the public, just in case the future trend becomes such that most people’s opinions are opposite the politicians’. Hence, once again, the politicians are caught up in the spiral of silence where they have to succumb to present or future trend of public opinion to win the elections.
Cultivation Theory (Gerbner) & Agenda-Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw)
Cultivation Theory (Gerbner):Axiological Assumptions:
Gerbner claims that people who use television heavily tend to believe and perceive the world as scary and mean. Since the television is the dominant force in shaping society, he considers the television as society’s storyteller, which gives society “a coherent picture of what exists, what is important, what is related to what and what is right.” (
Ontological Assumptions:
George Gerbner established the cultivation theory to show that heavy television viewing makes its viewers perceive the world as mean and scary.
Epistemological Assumptions:
To find out if the level of dramatic aggression is on the rise, Gerbner first did some preliminary research to gather knowledge on TV’s violent content. He conducted a content analysis of violence on TV where he found that the cumulative portrayal of violence varied very little from year to year (
Agenda-Setting Theory (McCombs & Shaw)
Axiological Assumptions:
Piggy-backing on the Watergate incident, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw believe that “mass media” have the ability to bring forth to public agenda, items of news that are considered important on the news agenda. However, they do point out that such an attempt is not deliberately done by “mass media.” The only reason why “mass media” seems influential is because people in general look to the media to decide what issues they should focus their attention on. Hence, it was these underlying beliefs that spurred McCombs and Shaw to establish the agenda-setting theory.
Epistemological Assumptions:
McCombs’ and Shaw’s established the agenda-setting theory to show that media agenda influences public agenda, particularly during election campaigns. This theory has two distinct features in that it acknowledges the power of the press while still maintaining that individuals act on their free will. The two researchers set off to test their hypothesis that the theory predicts a cause and effect relationship between the content in the media and voter perception.
Ontological Assumptions:
McCombs and Shaw set off to test their hypothesis during the 1968 Presidential race between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. They did so by conducting a content analysis of a mix of nine broadcast and print media that were sources of political news. They then measured public agenda by asking undecided candidates what they thought were the key issues in the campaign. The result of the content analysis and the public agenda were then compared only to find that both the media agenda and public agenda were almost perfectly correlated. However, the problem with this research was that correlation does not mean causation and hence the research did not prove that it was media that affected public agenda. However, a strong research done by Iyengar, Peters and Kinder confirmed that media agenda does indeed influence public agenda, hence validating the agenda-setting theory.
Do you agree with the notion that TV has ‘the power’ to help create a reality of a more dangerous world for a heavy viewer (from Cultivation theory)? Why or why not? Explain.
Yes I do agree. While media literate people may be conscious to effects of media, the same cannot be said about those who are not and are uncritically taking in information from media. There are many people out there who do believe and are influenced by the media. Certainly TV programs like “Everybody Loves Raymond” or “FRIENDS” may not be taken seriously by heavy television viewers. However, the power of news programs and even late night talk shows cannot be underestimated. Let us suppose that CNN were to tell a lie and announce that the world was coming to an end and that we need to be prepared to die, I would think that viewers would not doubt the information they received and would probably act on it and panic. Hence, I believe that this concurs with the idea that TV has the power to create a reality of a more dangerous world, especially for a heavy viewer.
Give an example of agenda-setting in which the media agenda has affected public opinion and priorities. Explain.
Many viewers of the “Oprah Winfrey” show are women. In her show, she talks about issues that are supposedly of greatest importance in our society. One of the episodes aired talked about some women in
Face Negotiation Theory (Stella Ting - Toomey )
In your own words, summarize the nature of face work and its relationship with conflict negotiation:Stella Ting - Toomey (Toomey) established the “Face-Negotiation” theory to explain how culture affects the way conflict negotiation is performed. Particularly, the theory relates to conflict negotiation with regards to face work. In order to predict the type of conflict management to be used in a conflict negotiation situation, Toomey identifies the related four concepts linked in a chain. The first link identifies cultures as being either collectivistic or individualistic. Three distinctions are made to differentiate between the two cultures and they are how each member of the culture perceives self, goals and duty. Collectivistic cultures value collective needs and goals (a “we”-identity) while individualistic cultures value individual needs and goals (an “I”-identity).
The next link identifies the types of self construal. Toomey recognizes that people within a culture can differ from each other relative to the importance they place on individual self sufficiency or group solidarity. These differences are termed “independent self” and the “interdependent self” respectively. The independent self is more self-face orientated and is more prevalent in individualistic cultures while the interdependent self is more other face orientated and is more prevalent in collectivistic cultures.
The third link involves recognizing the kind of face works people of different cultures and self-construal use, depending on the situation. Toomey describes face as “the projected image of one’s self in a relational situation.” (Griffin; pp 444) The first is “self-face” which refers to the preservation of one’s own face in a conflict negotiation. The “other-face” refers to preserving the face of the other party in a conflict negotiation. “Mutual-face” occurs when there is equal concern for both parties’ image. “Face restoration” is a strategy that involves repairing the damage to one’s own self image after it has already been damaged. Lastly, “Face giving” occurs when one party deliberately tries to enhance the image of the other. Toomey explains that “self face” and “face restoration” are typical strategies used in individualistic cultures while “other face” and “face giving” are typically techniques used by collectivistic cultures.
The final link in the chain has got to do with specific conflict management styles that can be predicted based on cultural, self-construal and situational contexts. The eight styles are “avoiding” (withdrawal), “obliging” (giving in), “compromising” (negotiation), “integrating” (problem solving), “dominating” (competing), “emotional expression,” “passive aggression” and “third-party help.” Toomey predicted that while collectivistic cultures would prefer the styles of ‘avoiding,” “compromising,” “third-party help” and “integrating,” individualistic cultures would prefer “emotional expression,” “passive aggression” and “dominating.” Toomey’s and Oetzel’s conflict management model also predicts, that in a high “other face” concerned situation, collectivistic cultures tend to use the “obliging” style and the individualistic cultures the “passive aggression” style. In a high “self face” concerned situation, the collectivistic cultures tend to use the “integrating” approach and the individualistic cultures the “dominating” approach. Therefore, in order to understand the type of conflict management styles to be used in a negotiation situation, it is crucial to identify the type of culture, the self-construal and also the context of the situation, and understand the interconnectedness between them.
To what extent does your cultural background and identity affect the way you negotiate conflicts?
Traditional Indians value their face a lot and in any negotiation situations, if I want the other party to oblige, giving concern to the “other face” is extremely crucial. Toomey and Oetzel identified three ethnically aligned conflict management styles and hence, coming from an ethnic Hindu/Indian background, I have found myself having using the third-party help style to manage conflicts in family situations. For example, when I had to negotiate with my father to allow me to pursue further education instead of getting married, I had to convince my mother and also his best friend to try to negotiate with him. Doing so gave my father an opportunity to save his face since it seemed as though he only allowed me to study because my mother and his best friend said so and not because I demanded as such. However, in my university situation where I have to constantly negotiate with people from individualistic cultures, I find myself using other types of conflict management styles. When I have to negotiate work load among group members for a group project, I tend to use the compromising style while when it comes to negotiating with the professors for grades or extra credit, I find myself using more of the obliging style to negotiate. Hence, depending on the cultural and face saving concern of the situation, I would determine the appropriate style of conflict management to apply.
Cultural Studies of Stuart Hall
Are mass media powerful ideological tools?Stuart Hall claims that mass media maintain the dominance of the powerful and the exploitation of the poor and powerless. Hence, the primary goal of Hall’s Cultural Studies is to empower people who have been disadvantaged in terms of being able to participate in and/or affect society. Hall defines ideology as “those images, concepts and premises which provide the frameworks through which we represent, interpret, understand and ‘make sense’ of some aspect of social science.” As such, Hall believes that mass media plays huge roles in constructing the very framework which people depend on to make sense of reality. But how does mass media do that? The Frankfurt School theorists speak of culture as being manufactured and sold to the masses by the corporate industry. Hence, in reality, it is the corporations that control the mass media, that create the frameworks through which we represent, interpret, understand and ‘make-sense’ of reality. This certainly does make mass media a powerful ideological tool.
Being communication students, we are taught fundamentally that words and signs contain no intrinsic meaning and instead, we learn meanings through constant discourse. As such, living day to day in this era, there is no way that we can avoid the mass media. Each minute, we are confronted with mass media messages, or rather ideologies, that we may be consciously or even subconsciously be taking in. For example, the media often depicts women as being slim and looking flawless and hence uncritical consumers of such an idea would no doubt feel that in reality, that is how all women are supposed to look like as well. This is very often the reason why many women suffer from bulimia or anorexia while attempting to look like the women in the media. However, even though I do mostly agree that mass media are powerful ideological tools, I also believe that with critical consumers of mass media, the power of its ideologies will fail. And, as more and more people get educated about the mass media effects, there will come a point in time where the mass media will lose its power in framing people’s minds.
In what ways and in what degree is the post 9/11 media coverage (re)producing the chill of constraint?
Many researches have been done to prove that media coverage often interplays with public reaction. For example, a study conducted by McComas, K., and Shanahan, J in 1999 suggests that using media to dramatize environmental problems will be the key to raising public awareness, knowledge and action among people. Their paper titled “Telling Stories about Global Climate Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles,” was addressing the problems with global warming and how they could get people to do something about it by simply dramatizing all the negative effects of the environment on television.
As such, we can apply this very same idea to the coverage of post 9/11 in (re)producing the chill of constraint. Much of the post 9/11 coverage emphasized U.S as being the authority on the international stage and constantly vilified the enemy. Most of the coverage also involved shifting the blame away from U.S and portraying U.S as the victim rather than the transgressor. There was much coverage about the prowess of the U.S army and also much stories about patriotism. The media also portrayed anyone who protested against the war as being not patriotic to their country and hence their coverage was downplayed and degraded. Even though there were varieties of avenues to gather news about 9/11, all of the avenues seemed to be singing in chorus with the same kind of coverage/messages, as Hall put it, “the chill of constraint.” This ultimately left the unthinking consumers of the media messages feeling like that there was no other choice left than to war and to oppose the war would deem them as unpatriotic.
How might one 'decode' the post 9/11 media text in oppositional ways?
One might decode and oppose the post 9/11 media text by being stubborn in resisting the dominant ideology presented by the media and instead translating and consuming the media text in a way that is more agreeable to their own interests. According to Hall, there are three ways this can be done. Firstly, the consumers of media text can coincide the preferred reading with their own reading. Secondly, the consumers can digest the essence of the ideology in general but oppose its application in specific cases. Lastly, the consumers can be media literate and see through biasness presented in the messages and develop an organized effort to find the true meanings of the messages.
Refernces
McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling Stories about Global Climate Change: Measuring the Impact of Narratives on Issue Cycles. Communication Research, 26, 30-57.
Retrieved February 10, 2008, from SAGE Premier 2007
The Adaptive Structuration Theory (Poole)
Summarize the AST Theory:
Marshall Scott Poole established the adaptive structuration theory (AST) to respond to two issues existing in the social structure of small-group communication. The first is the issue of group stability versus group change and the second is the dilemma of free will versus determinism. Poole’s theory is centered on the idea that every member of a group is responsible for the creation and recreation of the group structure through their interaction of dynamic rules and resources. Poole created his theory based on the key principles in Anthony Gidden’s macrotheory of structuration. Gidden believes that people, in general, act out of free will and that the social structures that they create are dynamic. Poole applied these concepts and named his theory as adaptive structuration as he noticed that members of task groups deliberately adapt social structures to accomplish their decision-making goals.
The AST suggests that whenever members of a group interact, they have an effect on the group structure. This is not intended to mean that interaction causes change in the group structure since the very same interaction could occur to keep the structure of the group unchanged as well. AST also goes on to explain how group members are akin to skilled and knowledgeable actors who tend to raise issues of morality, communication and power in every group action. Poole notes that even in small-groups, communication does matter and that the AST has a critical edge as well. The AST suggests that groups go through a process of appropriation based on its members’ personal relationships and topic expertise so as to arrive at a decision. Poole went on to apply the AST on how groups use computerized group decision support systems (GDSS) to make group decision-making more effective and efficient. He believes that GDSS gives all members of a group the equal opportunity to participate and allows for anonymous idea generation and balloting, hence avoiding the issue of group-think. However, Poole warns that while the GDSS should ideally be used to fulfill the goal of the group, it could also be abused by some members to thwart task accomplishment for personal goals.
Compare the AST with the Cultural Theory:
The cultural theory can be compared to the AST in terms of how group members interact and achieve goals. If the cultural theory were to be applied in a small-group setting, it would suggest that groups interact symbolically, rather than verbally. Hence, by creating shared meaning and beliefs through the use of metaphors, narratives and/or rituals members of a group would be able to work for the interest of the group rather than indulging in group-think. The adaptive structural theory however, suggests the importance of verbal communication instead of symbolic communication. There one aspect that both these theories can be said to be similar would be that both suggest that rules and proper structures do exist in any group situation although; in cultural theory they are established symbolically rather than verbally as in the adaptive structuration theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)