Proposal: Cristian Church as an Organization

I'll be using the "Cultural Approach to Organization" as my model for this paper. I'll also use my Church as my communication situation. A Cristian - Protestant church, like other churches, does not only compose of the Pastor as the over all leader. It is also intricate like the Roman Catholic Church. There difference is that the R. Catholics territory are wider and the Church that I'll be using as my situation has a limited leadership scope. Here I'll show the similarities of a Christian - protestant Church and those organization we are familiar with, like firms, the University, or the R. Catholic Church. I'll also show what type of culture the Church has, it difference with the culture the other organizations have, and other factor or points that were listed in the model that are also present in the Church.

Hyperpersonal Categories in a Conversation

This time I will site instances to show how the categories work using this saved conversation from a chat room. darkknight_heartrider will be the sender and welhelmina019 will be the receiver.

As explained in my previous blog the sender will make a selective self-presentation conveying all the positive thing to the receiver.

darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: hui
welhelmina019: hey
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: am 22 m from india
welhelmina019: im 17 F from Phil
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: so what r ur hobbies??
welhelmina019: reading book, watching TV,shopping, and cooking ( i guess)
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: guess??ha ha ha ha
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: so not good at that?
welhelmina019: i'm gud at it
welhelmina019: a bit
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: ok
welhelmina019: and u?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: reading books, listening to music
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: and going out for long walks usually alone
welhelmina019: wats it like living in India?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: it would be really fantastic
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: it can not be explained in words
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: one must experience it
welhelmina019: I heard its nice there but aren't there bombings there or something?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: it happened one month ago
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: but not in all places
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: only very few are troublesome
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: but there are lot of places where u find life worth living
welhelmina019: oh i c
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: i mean u will love living here
welhelmina019: wats ur fav movie?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: i like history related and strategic movies
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: all time fav is lord of rings
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: n urs?
welhelmina019: same!
welhelmina019: i like narnia and HP 2 too
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: HP?
welhelmina019: Harry Potter
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: oh..ok
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: did u read the books?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: harry potter series?
welhelmina019: not all
welhelmina019: just borrow books from by bestfrined
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: oh..ok
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: so how many volumes did u read?
welhelmina019: was able 2 read books 1 and 5
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: oh..ok

The receiver, the one who will put all the information together, has the tendency to over-attribute that persona that the sender is trying to convey. As you can see in the next sample the receive seems see darkknight_heartrider as a cool, kind, simple person who is fun to be with and can understand the her or can go with any topic in her mind. They seem to have a lot in common. A persona that may be to exaggerated or very far from the real person.

darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: so what do u do?
welhelmina019: typing my report for sckul while chatting
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: so what is ur report based on?
welhelmina019: cammunication theories....
welhelmina019: i mean communications thoery
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: oh..ok
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: am an aeronautical engineering student
welhelmina019: cool!!!
welhelmina019: wats it about?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: it deals with aero planes
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: each and every part of its manufacturing and running
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: about engines, designing and everything
welhelmina019: oh...really cool!
welhelmina019: u wanna b a pilot after u graduate huh?
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: no..not a pilot
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: aeroplane designing and construction
welhelmina019: i c
welhelmina019: must b hard doing all dat math stuff
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: yeah..a lil bit
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: arent u interested in maths?
welhelmina019: no!
welhelmina019: i hate math
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: ha ha ha
welhelmina019: unfortunatle my course also has math
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: that is my fav subject
welhelmina019: really!
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: dont worry dear
welhelmina019: i suck at it
darkknight_heartrider@rocketmail.com: u r not gonna suffer too long
welhelmina019: lol

The channel, our time, was not limited. Though I was in the net café I was in open time and so was he. darkknight_heartrider was willing to talk for hours but we have to cut the conversation short since it was past lunch time and I haven’t eaten. Fortunately the medium we used can be used in our most convenient time. Having a conversation with darkknight_heartrider is still possible and it’s not a burden to reply to his e-mails since I’m able to use the net any time I have a free time.

My feed back to him would be a sort of mirror or a looking –glass self for him to see how I see him given the positive information he has given to me. This will make him become the person I perceive him to be whether or not he is conscious of it.

Social Information Processing Theory Of Joe Walther (Summary)

Joe Walther explained how users of CMC or computed media communication developed relationships through the Internet while comparing the achieved effects on a face-to-face conversation. He created the theory known as Social Information Processing theory or SIP theory which is consistent with the social penetration theory and the uncertainty reduction theory.

There are two features of CMC that provide as a basis for the SIP:

First are the verbal cues. Walther believes that parties are able to convey social information through a linguistic medium, since all nonverbal cues are not used in CMC, and are still able to fully form an impression to the person through the gathered information. Intent to another person can be expressed through CMC and a relationship can be developed through the medium. Though nonverbal behaviors, self-disclosure, praise, and explicit statements of appreciation, CMC users are able to make a positive impression by reducing uncertainty and drawing close through social penetration theory.

Second is the extended time. Given enough or extended time of conversation, since face-to-face users are able to get information faster, CMC users can fully create an idea of yourself to the other party. When CMC is used this doesn’t mean that is as firm as a relationship developed through the face-to-face conversation

There are two other sequential factors that contribute to intimacy on the web:

Anticipated future interaction, or how we predict the relationship will grow, is part of CMC in developing the relationship. Chronemic cues or chronemics is the term used to describe how people perceive, use, and respond to issues of time in their interaction with others. It deals with the messages we send with regard to time, a nonverbal cue, and how the receiver would react or perceive it.

Now Walther introduces the term hyperpersonal which labels a more intimate relationship of parties. It has four media effects:

Sender creates an idea to the receiver through selective self-presentation. We usually carefully pick out and send to the receiving party all the good traits, achievement, etc. to make a cyber-image of our self. But the receiver, the one who will put all the information together, tend to over-attribute that persona. Attribution is assigning qualities to somebody or something. Walther introduced the SIDE theory, short for social identity-deindividuation, by Martin Lea and Russell Spears, to describe this attitude. Another media effect is the asynchronous channel of communication, 1 "parties can use it no simultaneously". Since time giving time for each other is a must when you’re in a relationship CMC offers the users to communicate in their own time. Finally we have the self fulfilling prophecy. It’s the reaction or feed back of a 2"person's expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what he or she anticipated". It becomes a kind of looking-glass self or how we see our self through others, a concept of ourselves through them.

An example is if I use the cellphone as a means of communicating. I send my cyber image to the receiver through how I answer questions or give data about my self. The receiver creates an image of use through the use of the details we sent to him. he feed back he gives to me shows how he sees me and, as discussed in the Symbolic Interactionism, we slowly mold ourselves into that person the receiver sees.

Reference:

1 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 151) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
2 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 152) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill

Social Peneration Theory Of Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor (Summary)

Social Penetration Theory by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor aims to explain how closeness in a relationship is developed through social penetration process. They used a multi layered onion to explain a person’s personality structure. To be able to penetrate through the layers, the other party has to disclose and make himself vulnerable. A wedge starts to cut through its layers revealing the individual’s personality. As the wedge cuts deeper the onion skin becomes tighter. In addition, if the wedge penetrates the same area of the onion skin there will have little resistance. Altman and Taylor have outlined four observations in what is achieved when an individual can develop closeness:

1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information,

2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.

3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached

4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.

Let's say it the first day of class. You decided to start a conversation with a girl sitting silently in the corner. you both decide to disclose yourselves, penetration stars. First you talk about your biographical data, preferences, aspirations, and so on. Our decision of disclosing depends on our own perceived benefit-minus-cost-outcome.

Closeness also depends on the cost-benefit analysis. An individual calculates if the benefits overshadow the amount of being more vulnerable. The key concepts of social exchange are relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability. John Stuart Mill adds that, 1 “people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs”. Our decision of opening up depends on our expected benefit-minus-cost outcome.

If, for example, that gurl is too talkative and you feel that she may spill the things you'd say then you'd probably decide no to open up anymore. If, however, you's see her as a trust worthy person who knows how to keep things then you'd open up the other layers to her. the cost of disclosing worth the benefit.

This perceived outcome would only be useful if we compare it with other possible outcomes and weigh which one is better. Social exchange theory offers two standards of comparison. First, it deals with our satisfaction or what John Thibaut and Harold Kelley calls comparison level or CL which is built up by our relational history, people we usually talk with. Experiences and sequence in our conversation, both past and present, or what the person expect on their conversation play a big role in the CL. The second is what Thibaut and Kelley calls the comparison level alternative or CLalt. It shows the relative stability of the relationship of both parties. 2“As more attractive outside possibilities become available, or as existent out comes slide below an established CLalt relation instability increase”. If you meet someone who'd offer better benefits, say one who listen more to you and give you good pieces of advice, then you'd likely choose that over the silent girl.

But Altman thought that the previous ideas he has written would be counteracted so he proposed a dialectical model which assumes 3“that human social relationships are characterized by openness or contact and closeness or separateness between participants.”

It is the same with Sandra Petronio‘s Communication Privacy Management Theory. The theory aims to comprehend how we handle the pressure of revealing and / or concealing private information. It uses rules based on 5 criteria: culture, gender, motives, context of the conversation, and risk-benefit reaction. If a person decides to reveal information to the receiver, how can we tell if he won’t say it to other people? Petrio says it depends on the boundary linkage, the strength of their relationship; boundary ownership, partner’s willingness to keep the information; and boundary permeability, the thickness of the privacy values that parties have built.

If, however, one of them could not keep himself from spreading the information, boundary turbulence arises. If both parties aren’t on the same page or aren’t the same level of confidentiality they’d start revealing the shared private information to other creating discord, confusion, or chaos in their relationship.




Reference:

1 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 123) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
2 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 124) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
3 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 125) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill

Expectation Violation Theory Of Judee Burgoon (Summary)

Expectancy Violations Theory, is based from an article Judee Burgoon wrote entitled Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Model for HCR which explains how individuals could violate the expectation in an assessed interpersonal distance with the person they are communicating with.

At first she used the term personal space as the 1 “invisible variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that individual’s preferred distance from others”. The idea came from Edward Hall’s coined term proxemics. He claimed that Americans have four proxemic zones:

Intimate distance: 0 to 18 inches
Personal distance: 18 inches to 4 feet
social distance 4 to 10 feet
Public distance: 10 feet to infinity

But then she discarded the idea of a “threat threshold” when she realized that proxemic behavior is part of an interconnected system of nonlinguistic cues. She also edited out some other points that lead to the birth of the Expectation Violations Theory or EVT.

There are three core concepts of EVT. These are: expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence. The term expectancy is used to describe what both parties predict would happen. Expectations arise when our mind automatically process the context, type of relationship, and characteristic of people to predict what they’d do.

Context deals with the cultural norms and the setting of the conversation. Relationship includes 2“similarity, familiarity, liking, and relative status”. It assesses how well you know each other. Communicator characteristics include biography, physical appearance, personality, and the way the communicator communicates.

Violation valence refers to the value we place on a specific unexpected behavior made by any person we are communicating with. This may be positive or negative. Some unexpected actions are easy to identify while others may mean more than we expect them to mean.

Lastly, communicator reward valence refers to our ability to audit or sum up the positive or negative deed and evaluate whether we will reward or punish that person or not. We usually assess people by their features, the nonverbal cues they make, or their verbal replies.

For example, I had a friend when I was in high school. We've been together for two years. On one occasion, one of my teachers decided to have an open forum as a class activity. My friend stood up to talk right after the girl I dislike in class talked, and her topic was faintly about me. I expected that she'd stood up for me but surprisingly she told everyone how she hated my ill-tempered attitude. It would have been nice to tell me what I did wrong but to tell it in front of the class and not privately didn't seem right. To think we'd spend most of our time talking with each other. Her action of talking against me in front of the whole class my expectations was the violation valence. Naturally I'd place a negative value on her. Realizing she wasn't a good friend I decided to cut all my communication with her as soon as I transfered to a new school.

Now Burgoon has created the Interaction Adaptation Theory, an expiation and extension of EVT. She assessed EVT’s single sided view. She used the term interaction positive to describe our ability to adapt to each other to fit our thoughts and feelings with the person’s actions. It’s made up of three factors. Requirements are the basic needs we humans need as seen in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Contrary to these are our expectations as explained above. Lastly are the things we desire or would want to happen.

These factors control what we need, anticipate, and prefer in a conversation. This theory aim to deal with two problems in EVT that Burgoon outlined:

3 “First, EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity that has been found in interpersonal interactions. Second, it is silent on whether communication valence supersedes behavior valence or vice versa when the two are incongruent (such as when a disliked partner engages in a positive violation”




Reference:

1 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 84) Boston, MA: v McGraw Hill
2 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 89) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
3 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p.93) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill

Symbolic Interactionism Of George Herbert Mead (Summary)

The theory entitled Symbolic Interaction was written by George Herbert Mead. It deals with three core principles: meaning, language, and thought.

Meaning is how we act towards people or things with regards to the definition we give to it. They are assigned through language. When we interact with other people – symbolic interaction – with the use of language we give meaning to people or things to communicate or to better understand each other. Symbolic interpretation may also mean a way for us to interpret things around us.

The way we understand symbols are modified through our thoughts or our thought process. Thinking, to interaction theorists, is an inner conversation. Mead calls this minding, a reflective pause or the two seconds halt our brain does when we are constructing what to reply. Thought can also be a mental conversation we hold with others. We unconsciously act how another person we usually have a conversation with would act under circumstances. But we do not become them, else that would be Intrusion of the Body Snatchers, we copy parts of them but not the total person.

Let's take a look at this example. One of the people I usually talk to is my mom. The way she act like taking time to talk to her children, making appropriate decisions by consulting other people, and saying what she thinks is the right thing to me is the meaning of being family oriented , responsible, and being strait forward. I used the language I know and thinking to create and give meaning to her actions.

Through the use of these three core principles we can come up with a concept of our self. When we take the role of another person we can see our self through them.

The generalized others is a term Mead used to describe 1 “an organized set of information that the individual carries in his head about what the general expectation and attributes of the social groups are.” Mead says that we are in an ongoing process of combining the “I”; a driving force that fosters all that is new and forever exclusive, and the “we”; formed only through continual symbolic interaction.

As the general other developed, the individual slowly acquires his own self image, a looking glass self. He takes the role that he portrays through inner dialogs.

My conversations with her created an inner conversation saved in my mind. Slowly I apply thoughts conversation by acting how she'd act in a nearly same scenario happens. I create a concept of my self through the inner dialogues and it's application in my daily activities. but there are more than one people whom i have conversations with. this is just a part of my total self concept.


Reference:

Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 61) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill