How might Tannen critique Ting-Toomey’s Face Negotiation Theory?
Ting-Toomey came up with face negotiation theory. This theory assumes people in all cultures consider the presentation of their face. The theory infuses conflict within the framework of the context, which explains why people of different cultures manage conflict differently. Within the context of the theory, Ting-Toomey highlights that the existence of different cultural values help in solving conflicts, and face concerns and needs of communicators influence these conflictual episodes. Concern on the key features of this theory raises questions among many researchers. The interfacing of conflict and face that Ting-Toomey uses in explaining her theory has raised concerns for further investigation. Among the people who may raise concerns is Tannen.
From the onset, the theory bases differing experiences and perceptions of people within their respective cultures. The author uses this basement in laying out the main objective of her theory. However, in deeper details, sometimes the cultural dimension that people use may not explain the differences in cultures. This lays the foundation of Tannen controversy concerning the interpretation of cultural differences.
Focusing on the conflict solving technique that the theory suggests, Tannen questions the nature of gender concerning the context of the theory. For instance, a study showed that men appear to be more indirect in their conflict style, within the context of the theory. On the contrary, Tannen proposed that men are more direct. Focusing on this text, does it mean that men appear to be indirect on one context of conflict and direct in another area? The theory assumes this controversial topic within its context. People may not behave differently with concerns to their gender imbalance. The strategy people use to solve conflicts does not require a certain culture rather depends on the attention of the holder.
Which has a greater impact on communication—culture or gender?
Culture and Communication
Hosfstede, a researcher, identified four basic dimensions which people may compare culture.
a)Power distance – this explains the extent that members of the society who are less powerful can accept that distribution of power is unequal.
b)Masculinity – explains the clear definition of sex roles with male values of possession, money, and success being dominant.
c)Uncertainty avoidance – explains the how ambiguity makes people feel threatened.
d)Individualism – explains how individuals relate to one another.
The above dimensions may be used in explaining the relations culture has to communication situations. Individualism, as explained by other scholars, is a crucial variable across cultures with respect to communication. Additionally, it represents a significant variable in comprehending interpersonal and group communication. Within the culture, which value individualism, people integrate with each other and value their self-interest. On the contrary, individuals with collectivists’ cultures relate to wider collectivities and themselves as integrated with the whole. In addition to this view, other researches considered culture as high or low context, within which they give information that interpret the meaning to an event. In line with this, vital interpersonal and communication behavior relates to patience, empathy, and subtlety within the high context and straight talk, honesty and assertiveness within the low context. In addition to this, face-negotiation theory explains the cultural differences in communication. Face Work uses face strategies, verbal and non-verbal communication, acts of self-presentation and impression to facilitate interaction. This explains the importance of culture to communication.
Gender and Communication
Gender may also have an impact in communication. This relates to the collective factors, which influence receptiveness and expression of characters between both genders. From a general view, masculine people tend to dominate the feminine people in conversation.
In conclusion, culture has more impact in communication than gender.
Do you believe that the world is a mean place? Make sure you answer this based on information from Cultivation Theory
Within the context of cultivation theory, people believe that the world is a mean place. This phenomenon is called mean world syndrome. The term describes how mass media presents contents of violence to viewers making them believe that the globe is more dangerous than it appears. In other words, the phenomenon concludes the cultivation theory.
Cultivation theory is a theory, which explains the long-term effects of concentrating on media reports. Within the context of the theory, more people spend time believing media reports. With this notion, they tend to believe everything portrayed to the viewer from the media is true. Constructing this theory, Gerbner and Gross researched on the effects of media concerning the audience idea and perception of life. The conclusions that most people believe in what they see on television and other media brought the mean world syndrome, which explains the belief of how dangerous the world is than it may appear.
After the conclusion of the cultivation research, theorists who wrote the theory judged that viewing of television is attached to long-term effects to the audience. The prolonged concentration on media news may lead to induction of a paradigm explaining violence in the world. Within the context of the theory, audience may either have a general belief about the world or have certain attitudes towards the world. The viewers who fully concentrated on TV most of their time may believe that the world on television accurately depicts the real world. This notion of the real world within the view of the television explains the cultivation of attitudes based on original attitude within the society. Media will take advantage of this attitude to explain how the world is mean. From the perspective of attitude and beliefs, the theory suggested that those viewers who concentrate more on media are most influenced in thinking that the world is a mean place.
Are you a heavy viewer or a light viewer? And do you agree with Gerbner that this affects whether or not you view the world as a mean place?
I am a light viewer. Nevertheless, from the perspective presented by Gerbner on cultivation theory, the entire documented context does not actually present the real life. I would acknowledge the theory for the immense information on the impact of television to viewers’ public opinion and perceptions. The theory helps in explaining how the public relates many things and links them to a pragmatic and relevant source. By applying this theory in practice, people can identify countless messages that direct out attentions in a way, which lacks diversity and depth. Nevertheless, the theory does not distinguish other main media outlets that people receive information, but only gives credit to television. While these other media emphasize on negative racial stereotypes, other source gives people accurate information concerning the world. Cultivation theory only focused on the amount of time spent watching television, but did not consider the heavy viewers who follow CNN briefings or Discovery channels that air news without stereotypical motives. Information aired on television only represents a small perception of social reality. Contrary to this, other sources, which give, major contribution to life exists in abundance.
Additionally, cognitive explanations for how images from television affect the perceptions of people fail to exist. The assumption of relative stability in the content of the program provision portrayed by the theory fails to give concrete evidence supporting the applicability of the theory.
Within the literature of the theory, Gerbner concludes that the effect of television to heavy viewer’s beliefs over the world is small but significant. Given the popularity of television and even the exposure of light viewers, getting visible confirmation of effects at all is noteworthy. Thus, the identification of the pattern for small but steady disparities between light and heavy viewers may give contradicting information.
What does the study of corporate communication culture has to do with communication theory?
Communication theory is a field that gives guidelines on the processing of information, integrating the same with the human process of human communication. On the other hand, corporate communication culture comprise of intangible aspects that a company or organization possesses. Within the context of the theory, every individual have his or her own culture that is specific to itself. The parties involved are aware of the norms and unwritten expectations that will run the corporations. Nevertheless, corporate culture can be destructive or beneficial. This depends on the philosophy of leadership that present itself within the corporation.
In studying corporate communication culture, people always integrate the factor of communication theory due to various reasons. To begin with, communication holds the role of lifeblood for any corporate culture. Communication has the responsibility of delivering information, providing inspiration and serving accountability. Corporations comprise of people who need care and attention in everything they say. Additionally, people always feel respected when they get the right information from the corporation. The provision of the right up-to-date information helps in improving on the productivity of the workers within the corporation.
Thus, the main aim of communication in corporate culture is to help define what the culture entails. Communication theory within the corporate culture plays the role of correcting wrong perceptions and inspiration of members within the corporation to continue performing better. Communication within the corporate culture helps in promoting a culture, which is full of peace, trust, and confidence among workers and management. This will lead to a positive environment which people find comfortable when working on various tasks.
Considering the above beneficial of communication theory to the working conditions of the workers within the corporation, the culture within the corporation has to use the communication in order to achieve their goals better. The use of communication culture helps in keeping the people within the corporation, the management, and the outside world together, thus working as a group.