Genderlect Styles

I love the Genderlect Styles Theory. I think it is because I see it happen so much in my personal life. The Genderlect Styles Theory describes male-female conversations as cross-cultural communication. This cross-cultural communication is defined as genderlects. The theory holds that neither one is superior, they are just different. The theory examines how women and men differ in communication styles when it comes to public speaking vs. private speaking, when telling a story, when listening, when asking questions, and when in conflict. The best example I can think of is interactions with my boyfriend. We are a lot alike, however, when it comes to communicating we can be on totally opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, when it is just Derek and I, I do most of the talking. However, when we're out for the night or at a party, it's usually Derek doing most of the talking. He's usually the center of attention. Also, when I'm telling a story, it's usually about something someone else did, while he's usually talking about something crazy he did. The last example I thought of is something we fight about a lot. Derek and I have totally different listening styles. When I listen to him, whether we're fighting or just talking, I always make eye contact and provide the feedback cues like "mhmm", or "right." Derek, on the other hand, doesn't do any of that. He insists that he really is listening, however because our genderlects are so different when it comes to listening, we usually end up fighting about it. This is definitely a theory I'd like to study more.

Face-Negotiation Theory

Face-Negotiation Theory is an interesting one. The theory aims to explain how different cultures respond to conflict. Specifically the culture examines the differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The main concept behind the thoery looks at how different cultures "negotiate face". Face refers to how we want others to see us, how we want them to perceive us. Therefore, the theory defines facework as the verbal or nonverbal messages that help us keep and/or gain face. I actually studied this theory in a buisness class I took a couple semesters ago. The example that popped into my head was a specific encounter I had while working on a project with someone from a different culture. The girl paired up with me to work on a project was from China. China is a very collectivistic culture in that they focus on group goals, and are very face-giving. The United States, however, is a very individualistic culture in that we are independent and focused on individual goals, and are usually more concerned with face restoration. We had just discussed this theory a little bit when studying how business owners interact with cross-cultural businesses and some of the problems that can arise. While working on the project, somehow there was a miscommunication between this girl and me, and we both thought the other person was working on the other part of the project, when in reality, we were working on the same part. When it came time to bring it all together, there was a little conflict because no one had completed the second part of the project. I demonstrated my individualistic tendencies by explaining myself, and restoring my face. She, on the other hand, started talking about how our group should have been more organized and how we needed this part of the project to be done, and since there was miscommunication she would go ahead and do the rest of the project. Looking back on it, it's interesting to see how differently we reacted to the situation because we were from such different cultures.

(By the way, we ended up splitting up the last part of the project, getting an 'A', and we are still friends to this day!)

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory

The Anxiety/Uncertainty Management Theory primarily deals with interactions between strangers and some cultural group. The founder of the theory, William, Gudykunst, emphasizes that these interactions are not strictly limited to foreign cultures. This theory can be applied to any situation where one person involved is the "stranger." The theory discusses how during the intitial interactions between the stranger and the ingroup, both parties experience anxiety and aren't sure how they should act. This anxiety is intensified when it involves people from different cultures. The first thing that popped in my head when talking about this theory was when I spent a week in Nicaragua my senior year of highschool. The villiage we stayed in had only seen caucasian people three other times. When we first arrived in the villiage, the tension was very high between the villiagers and the team I was with. The interaction was somewhat awkward, not only because of the language barrier, but also because no one had any idea how to react. Our team was anxious because we didn't know what was acceptable behavior, or how to approach the villiagers, and I'm positive the people of the villiage felt the same anxiety. Also, like the theory suggests, because my interaction with the villiage was an interaction involving two parties from completely different cultures, our anxiety was intensified quite a bit.

Sprial of Silence

The Spiral of Silence Theory is probably my favorite theory out of all the ones we have covered this semester. The theory holds that there is increasing pressure on people to conceal their viewpoints when they believe they are in the minority. It also explains how media accelerates this spiral. The main idea of the theory is that we are driven to keep quiet by our fear of isolation. We are more willing to speak out when we think we are in the majority. Also, the theory says we are more willing to speak out if we are male, young adults, middle to upperclass, speaking to those with similar interests, if we have a high self esteem, or if existing law supports our opinions. I see this theory at work every year of school at the beginning of each semester. When the semester begins, no one knows each other and every one is a little concerned with what everyone else thinks of them. So, when the professor asks a question, if no one else is responding, someone who knows the right answer may still choose to stay quiet just because he or she thinks she is in the minority and is in fear of the isolation that may come with being wrong or some other factor.

Agenda Setting Theory

The Agenda Setting Theory is a theory I've never heard about as a theory before, however the main idea of it was discussed a lot when I was a student in the Journalism program. The theory holds that the media acts as the mediator between what is going on in the world and what we think is going on in the world. The media has the power to influence what we think about and how we think about it. The theory also explains that we tend to view something as important if the news is treating it with importance. The first example that popped in my head was the coverage on Anna Nicole Smith. Although it was tragic what happened to her, I would argue that her death did not demand the broad spectrum of coverage that it received. I would also argue that half of the people that saw it as important only did so because the news outlets put such an emphasis on it. This theory makes me wonder if our media outlets emphasized more global issues, such as what is going on with the AIDS epidemic in Africa, if our society would have different priorities.

Cultivation Theory

Cultivation Theory is the idea that television is our society's storyteller, and because of that, it has a strong presence in our culture. The theory, developed by Gerbner in 1976, says that people who consume a lot of TV are more likely to adopt a perception of reality that is communicated through the television. The theory also involved the "Cultural Indicators Project" which works to index TV violence. It also outlines different types of TV viewers such as light vs. heavy. What I thought was the most interesting part of the theory was that people who consume large amounts of TV are more prone to develop "mean world syndrome." They see their chances of being involved in some violent act as very likely and generally mistrust people. I think this theory is applicable to today's society in so many ways because our society is such a media consuming culture. The first example that popped into my head is one of my friends who watches a lot of Lifetime Television. Lifetime is a channel primarily geared towards women and airs a lot of movies dealing with abuse or harassment from men. Because she watches so much of this channel, she is convinced she will be part of some violent act, like getting mugged. Personally, I think she is paranoid. However, she's a great example of the theory at work in real life.

Dramatism

Dramatism is a very complex theory with a very interpretive perspective. The basic idea is that everything in life can be viewed as drama, complete with a plot, actors, setting etc. It also describes three lenses with which we can view life: identification, dramatistic pentad, and guild-redemption cycle.
The idea behind identification is that if there is no identification (the audience doesn't connect with the speaker) there will be no persuasion (you won't successfully persuade the audience.) The best example of this I could think of was when I was sitting in a lecture my freshman year at Malone College, and the professor was going on and on about Shakespeare and something I wasn't really interested in. Then he explained how as an undergrad he hated studying Shakespeare, especially the play we were looking at. He told a story about how someone explained it to him in a different way, and afterwards he fell in love with it. After he told that, I identified with how, yes, I hated studying it, but the second explanation definitely cast a different light on the play.
The idea behind the dramatistic pentad actually sets things up as five elements of drama: the act, the scene, the agent, the agency, and the purpose. It helps to discover the motivation behind the speaker. A good example of this is when in one of my politics classes we were told to look at speeches this way when studying them. For example, when President Bush was speaking, we had to set the speech up as who was talking, what was happening, where it was taking place, how it was happening, and why it was happening. Doing this made it easier to understand why something was happening.
We didn't spend any time studying the guilt-redemption cycle in class, but basically it says that the purpose behind all public speaking is to get rid of our sense of guilt that is part of human nature.

Cultural Approach to Organizations

The Cultural Approach to Organizations Theory says that culture is the organization, created by the members of that organization. The illustration given in class was that culture is like the water fish swim in; it is all around. An example of this theory is best illustrated by the restaurant that I work in. I work as a server and also a cook. Even though I serve and cook for the same restaurant, the cultures of both jobs are completely different. When I am cooking, I am part of the "line", and the cooks on the line are very laid back and we spend a lot of time joking around. If someone was to walk in the kitchen one night without any prior knowledge of our culture, they would probably be uncomfortable. It is the same concept with the servers at the restaurant. We have a certain flow that each of us understands. We know what each other means when we refer to the third room as "old smoky" or the back workstation as "the hole." Each culture is created and maintained by those of us in it.