There are different models and perspectives to explain and examine communication. The Pragmatic perspective examines the systems of behavior, while explaining communication much like a game. Communication can be considered an interaction of interdependent plays. Each communicator is like a player and the success of their team depends on their acts in the conversation. I think that this perspective is an unusual way to think of communication. Though communication can be patterned interaction, interpersonal communication is not a competition. I would consider a debate to be more like a game than a conversation between friends. When people communicate on a personal level the behaviors are unique to the situation and topics can easily change. There is not always a goal to be met other than just talking.
The fact that communication takes a sender and a receiver can make the analogy of a game work. Trenholm explains, " a person can't be a sender without someone to be a receiver, and it is impossible for a receiver to receive a message without a sender to send it" (34). As in a game there has to be at least two to play, and each move leads to a goal. Since I personally am not very athletic or competitive I don't really identify well with this perspective. If you believe more in a pragmatic perspective, then the personality and individual acts of people are not considered important in communication. That is just wrong. Communication is very personal. Our personality shows through verbal and nonverbal communication and can determine the success of our communications.
I have similar opinions on the pragmatic perspective. There are usually winners and losers to games, and it is a competition. I don't feel like dyadic or interpersonal communication has winners or losers. There are several ways in which ones own personality appears in conversation, like whether you are loud or quiet, whether you are shy or outgoing, all of these personality traits become present when you get to know someone through communication. Even though I think personality is a huge aspect to communication, it is not everything. I think the pragmatic persective tries to emphasize that there is more to communication than just personality. Often we are quick to blame a fight or miscommunication on another's personality, when in fact the patterns that led up to that argument might be a better alternative to solve the problem. Instead of just saying "oh s/he's so stubborn and ignorant" you could look at some of the events that led up to the confrontational behavior. Maybe someone has experienced a traumatic event that altered their communication about a certain topic...but we are quick to blame all behaviors on personality instead of using a review of patterns.
ReplyDelete