Communication Theory Lecture 5 PDF

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 5 – Relational Dialectics & Media Multiplexity Theory  0 1 Relational Dialectics of Leslie Baxter & Mikhail Bakhtin  Relational Dialectics: Introduction Leslie Baxter's theory of relational dialectics treats talk as the essenc...

Communicatio n Theory Lecture 5 – Relational Dialectics & Media Multiplexity Theory  0 1 Relational Dialectics of Leslie Baxter & Mikhail Bakhtin  Relational Dialectics: Introduction Leslie Baxter's theory of relational dialectics treats talk as the essence of close ties. Relational dialectics: The dynamic and unceasing struggle between discourses about interpersonal relationships. Over the past three decades, Baxter and other scholars have embarked on an ambitious research program to chart the tension and struggle that occurs whenever people talk about interpersonal relationships.  Discourses That Create Meaning 1 The central concept of relational dialectics theory is discourse, or "streams of talk that cohere around a given object of meaning." Social media hashtags are an excellent way to see discourses in action. #MondayMotivation.  Discourses That Create Meaning 2 Many discourses follow a constitutive approach. Constitutive approach: The belief that communication creates, sustains, and alters relationships and the social world; social construction. Baxter says this constitutive approach "asks how communication defines or constructs the social world, including our selves and our personal relationships."  Discourses That Create Meaning 3 The constitutive nature of discourse can be observed in how relational partners talk about their similarities and differences. We may think similarity (regarding attitudes, backgrounds, and interests) causes relational closeness. However, Baxter and other theorists believe that the meaning of difference and similarity emerges through the discourses voiced by the partners. Dialogue versus Monologue 1 To help make sense of the world of discourse, Baxter draws heavily on the thinking of 20th century Russian intellectual Mikhail Bakhtin. Bakhtin's philosophy criticized monologue. A mode of talking that emphasizes one official discourse and silences all others. Bakhtin embraced dialogue. A process in which unity and difference, in some form, are at play, both with and against one Dialogue versus Monologue 2 Baxter believes we speak with our partners in utterances or conversational turns. Baxter refers to all of these discourses spoken across the relationship as an utterance chain. Utterance chain: Discourses spoken across a relationship, including words spoken before and those yet to come.  Three Common Dialectics that Shape Relationships 1 Three discursive struggles / competing discourses. Integration–separation: A set of discursive struggles regarding independence versus interdependence; freedom versus intimacy. Stability–change: A set of discursive struggles regarding routine versus spontaneity; traditional versus novel. Expression–nonexpression: A set of discursive struggles regarding transparency versus secrecy; privacy versus disclosure.  Three Common Dialectics that Shape Relationships 2 Discursive struggles: Two or more discourses compete for dominance over meaning. Internal dialectics: Discursive struggles played out within a relationship. External dialectics: Discursive struggles played out between a couple and their community. Figure 11.1: Typical Dialectical Tensions Experienced by Relational Partners  Integration and Separation The struggle between integration and separation shapes all relationships. Children and parents may especially struggle with this dialectic during the college years. The discourses of integration and separation address a pair's inclusion with and seclusion from other people in their social network, especially after marriage.  Stability and Change Relationships become bland, boring, and, ultimately, emotionally dead if there is no variety in the relationship. There needs to be a mix of certainty and uncertainty in a relationship. The external version of certainty–uncertainty is conventionality uniqueness. Discourses of conventionality consider how a relationship is similar to other relationships, while discourses of uniqueness emphasize the difference.  Expression and Nonexpression The discourse of expression clashes with the discourse of nonexpression. American discourses about relationships often prize openness as the route to enduring intimacy. Other cultural discourses warn people to keep silent about their opinions on sex, politics, religion, and other controversial topics. Couples and families face choices about what information to reveal or conceal from third parties.  How Meaning Emerges from Struggles between Discourses 1 Family talk reveals relationships in constant flux as some discourses move to the center and then recede to the margins. Dominant discourse: Talk that is central and prominent, with power to define meaning. Marginalized discourse: Talk that is peripheral, lacking power to define meaning.  How Meaning Emerges from Struggles between Discourses 2 Baxter identified two patterns of talks that position a certain discourse as dominant or marginalized. Separation: Voicing different discourses at different times. Interplay: Voicing different discourses at the same time.  Separation: Different Discourses at Different Times Baxter has identified two typical patterns of separation: Spiraling inversion: Switching back and forth between two discursive struggles, voicing one and then the other. Segmentation: A compartmentalizing tactic by which different discourses speak to different aspects of the relationship.  Interplay: Different Discourses at the Same Time 1 Baxter's four forms of interplay: Negating: Mentioning a marginalized discourse to dismiss it as unimportant. Countering: Replacing expected discourse with alternative discourse. Entertaining: Recognizing that every discourse has alternatives. Transforming: Combining two or more discourses into something new.  Ethical Reflection: Martin Buber’s Dialogic Ethics Baxter noted in her book Voicing Relationships that Martin Buber's ethical approach is particularly compatible with relational dialectics theory. Buber's ethical approach focused on relationships between people rather than on moral codes of conduct. Buber's two types of relationships are as follows: I-It relationship: We treat the other person as a thing to be used; created by monologue. I-Thou relationship: We regard the other person as the very one we are; created by dialogue. Critique: Aesthetic Moments, Yes; Aesthetic Appeal, Perhaps Not Baxter offers relational dialectics as a sensitizing theory. Relational dialectics theory does stack up well as an interpretive theory on all six criteria: New understanding of people. A community of agreement. Clarification of values. Reform of society. Qualitative research.  0 2 Media Multiplexity Theory of Caroline Haythornthewaite  Media Multiplexity Theory: Introduction Media multiplexity theory rests on a consistent empirical finding. The stronger the relational tie we have with a person, the more media we use with that person. This theory arises from the cybernetic tradition of communication theory, which means it considers how information flows through networks. Mapping Our Social Networks 1 Tie strength: The degree of connection between people, determined by the amount of time spent together, emotional intensity and intimacy, and willingness to exchange resources. Weak tie: A relationship involving a small investment of time and emotional energy, such as an acquaintance. Strong tie: A relationship involving a large investment of time and emotional energy, such as a very close friend. Figure 13.1: A Social Network Map  When Are Strong Ties Weak, and When Are Weak Ties Strong? Strong ties aren't always good, and weak ties aren't always bad. Strong ties come with a big weakness—they're redundant when it comes to accessing information and resources. Quick access to diverse resources is one strength of weak ties. Bridging ties: Weak tie relationships that enable information and resources to pass between groups of people.  The Five Propositions of Media Multiplexity Theory Proposition 1: Tie strength is positively associated with media multiplexity. Proposition 2: Communication content differs by tie strength rather than by medium. Proposition 3: Tie strength and media use cause one another over time. Proposition 4: Changes in the media landscape particularly influence weak ties. Proposition 5: Groups have hierarchies of media use expectations.  Proposition 1: Tie Strength Is Positively Associated with Media Multiplexity Haythornthwaite’s initial research focused on how students in online classes used email, instant messaging, telephone, and internet-based communication. In the current COVID-19 pandemic world, she would have surely included text messaging, Zoom, and social media. Media multiplexity: Strongly tied pairs use more media to sustain their relationships than do weakly tied pairs.  Proposition 2: Communication Content Differs by Tie Strength Rather than by Medium Samuel Hardman Taylor speculates that some couples who limit certain topics to certain media can do so because of affordances. Affordances: Properties of the channel that enable or constrain actions. Haythornthwaite first developed this proposition when examining relatively private channels, not the public communication afforded by technologies like social media.  Proposition 3: Tie Strength and Media Use Cause One Another over Time According to media multiplexity theory, over time, media use and tie strength cause each other. Weak ties are uncomplicated and don’t need many channels to sustain them. Strong ties require more media to orchestrate their varied and interdependent connection.  Proposition 4: Changes in the Media Landscape Particularly Influence Weak Ties Media multiplexity theory recognizes that sometimes we lose the ability to communicate through a channel. Reasons could be a pandemic, students graduating and moving elsewhere, or relocation to different cities. Such changes influence weak ties more than strong ties. Only one medium sustains weak ties. Strong ties have built-in redundancy that can withstand the loss of a medium. They tend to communicate through several media.  Proposition 5: Groups Have Hierarchies of Media Use Expectations Media use expectations shape interpersonal groups as well as organizational ones. Hierarchy of media use expectations: Group norms that guide which media are used with all ties and which are reserved for strong ties. For example, some students use "public" channels for group projects (weak ties), but "private" channels for relational maintenance of friends (strong ties).  Ethical Reflection: Turkle’s Reclaiming Conversation The connectivity provided by mobile technology has unanticipated negative consequences for the health of interpersonal relationships—particularly our strong ties. (Sherry Turkle) Mobile phones can be linked and liked by hundreds of weak ties wherever we go, 24/7. They are engineered to hold our attention. They act as a distraction and deflect from that which makes us truly human—conversation, intimacy, and empathy. In the language of media multiplexity theory, Turkle questions whether this focus on weak ties is worth the toll it takes on our strong ties.  Critique: Strong on Simplicity, Weak on Explanation and Prediction Media multiplexity theory is new but has a sizeable following. Greatest strength: Relative simplicity. It makes a simple, straightforward empirical claim. Weakness: Explanation of the data. Haythornthwaite isn't clear whether other sorts of interpersonal relationships differ, or if the effect of media use on tie strength requires a longer span of time to detect. Media multiplexity might not occur in certain types of relationships. Despite the need for better prediction and explanation, the theory has demonstrated practical utility.