Language Exercise: When Rules Collide

Episode: Henry and I were seated on bench in a park talking about the possibility of living in Britain and how it would be like. Relationship: We have just become friends for about one month and hence we try to have our discussion carefully, not wanting to offend each other even though our opinions are very different. Henry thought that people there are “self-absorbed and will hardly notice you are new” due to a competitive culture. My view was that the people are not much different from U.S since “no one gives attention to strangers”. Identity: I perceive myself as empathetic and one who upholds grace over other qualities.  This came out in the conversation more so when we delved into the country’s political system. Henry perceives himself as person who is logical as compared to my illogical empathy.

Culture: while discussing life in Britain, our approach was from Americans points of view, and who have little knowledge about the country. We had different approach during the conversation since we argued from different contexts. I seemed to lean more on how the politics in US and Britain are fair similar as people from the two countries experience similar social and economic problems. Henry is quicker to point out the callous nature of our politics where there is huge class gap in terms of race and social aspects.  I quickly realized that we can’t have a meaningful conversation about Britain without engaging in divisive politics. For both of us, identity level is where we experienced misunderstanding in our conversation as each had different views and facts on how life is in Britain.  The episode level regards the communication behavior pattern and the various ways in which people have a consistent conversation. As a dynamic and transactional process communication is a constant movement where the participant moves back and forth with no clear path to this process (Creede et. al 2012).  While discussing the issue with Henry, it was not clear where the conversation begun or ended and so there was punctuation which decided the starting, middle and end of the episode. For both Henry and I, punctuation led to very different meanings.

In communicating together, people create a reality and get to be shaped by that reality. The use of the words self –absorbed and empathetic in the conversation further led to lack of a consensus but rather they highlighted the divergent views held by both of us. The rules involved in this conversation were constitutive, where the message has different meaning in this context.  Henry used constitutive rules so as to enhance the understanding of what he meant by the notion that people in Britain are self-absorbed. On my part I used the regulating rule to assist in regulating the statements in the conversation so that it stays within a normal conversation. Given that the conversation could not lead to consensus, it was abandoned altogether as the best solution.

 In order for people to understand one another while communicating, it is vital that they understand the roles used by others. This will help the other parties as being respectful and trying to make meaning of the message being delivered. Increasing sensitivity to these rules can be accomplished through having an interpersonal meaning where the people are coordinated in the conversation (Duck & McMahan, 2014).

References

Creede, C., Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Gallegos, P. V. (2012). The reflective, facilitative, and interpretive practices of the coordinated management of meaning: Making lives, making meaning. Madison, N.J: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2-3

Duck, S., & McMahan, D. T. (2014). Communication in everyday life: The basic course edition with public speaking. 38-39