It most definitely makes sense to look at communication as a pattern of interactions. The book even said “…consist of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time”. This is the summary of the pragmatic perspective.
A prime example to study would be romantic relationships. Often times it resembles a game. For example A girl wants a bracelet from her boyfriend for her Christmas. She may tip toe around directly telling him what she wants, instead she uses nonverbal communication, and this leads to a game. But she tries to find ways to communicate what she wants. And in the end he may benefit by understanding the messages she is trying to communicate and getting her the right gift.
This will make her happy, which may in turn make him happy. This way they both get what they want. This may become an apparent game to the couple after awhile. They will know the rules, regulations and what strategies they can use to get what they want or “win” the game.
Happy Blogging,
ImaginePeace :)
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Good response to your perspective on seeing patters of interaction in communication form. I to have been engaging in a two person game where i have been hinting to my friend about what i am trying to imply without actually saying what i really want. I does become a pattern over time since each character has strengths and weaknesses whe it comes to interacting and individual skills are to be learned. When two people are interacting a pattern is being formed at all times, i can relate to this with your comment on couples sharing hints because my last girlfriend i had was always giving me hints through verbal communication like around Valentines Day or her birthday but she would not directly tell me. Some nonverbal signals that she would use would be facial expressions but usually that would be interrellated with the verbal expressions.
ReplyDeleteRomantic relationships definitely resembles a game. Let's say a guy just started seeing a girl. He has to call frequently enough early in the relationship to communicate interest, but not so much that he communicates "stalker with boundary issues." There's no set rule on how long, but she just can't tell him. That is the rule. Once things are clicking, she has to be careful not to say those three magic words too soon. He doesn't want to feel rushed into making a commitment. To make things even more complicated. People's sexual signals are like snowflakes. No two are alike.
ReplyDeleteRelationships are hard, but the ability to successfully negotiate one requires a different set of emotional and intellectual skills. Your ability to successfully play romantic games tells your potential mates what they need to know.
Hi Onelove,
ReplyDeleteI like your example of the pragmatic perspective. In a romantic relationship it can somewhat be a game where the girl can hint that she wants something or she can tell him straight up. Then the guy can do the same. The game goes on and on for the rest of their relationship. But one thing to consider when talking about pragmatic perspective and romantic relationship: Pragmatic perspective DOES NOT consider the other person's needs or desires. It completely ignores personality and culture because they are irrelevant to the communication. This perspective refuses to question why people do what they do. They just do and that affects the movement of the other player. When a relationship is simple like the girl trying to communicate that she wants something and the guy responds, the pragmatic perspective applies. But in actuality, the guy may never figure it out or doesn't get the right item because the guy never considered her intentions, personality, needs or desire. This is the many criticism of pragmatic perspective. I do sure hope that romantic relationships get easier and more simple; but no, it only gets more difficult the deeper you go.
Signing out,
Events Dreamer