| [ |
mood |
| |
 thoughtful |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
"the seer's tower" - sufjan stevens |
] |
so, comm theory. i mentioned it previously. kate and i went to borders and for whatever reason i found myself in the mood for theory. not so much to do the homework, but to talk about it. it's all interesting stuff to learn and discuss, but i don't want to be a communication theorist.
i guess it's kind of hard to write out all the thoughts i have on the subject.
i was in the middle of a chapter about relational dialectics and as i was reading, two women sitting to my left were talking about one of their relationships. i admit i couldn't help but eavesdrop. evidently one girl was seeing some guy, but their relationship was undefined and she was unsure about his level of commitment. at one point she said "maybe i should just ask him" and i wanted to be like ohmygod, do it or else things could get completely fucked up later. not that i would know or anything.
back to dialectics. it talks about the tug-of-war between intimacy and independence in close relationships - whether they be friendships, family, or romantic. this contradiction exists in all close relationships; however, instead of this being a constant struggle, "from a relational dialectics perspective, bonding occurs in both interdependence with the other and independence from the other" and that "one without the other diminishes the relationship." does this include the idea that that this tension can also diminish the relationship? that is to say, sometimes independence is too strong a force.
something else i found interesting was the idea of aesthetic accomplishment: "a momentary sense of unity" or a "mutual sense of consummation, completion, or wholeness" - emphasis on the word momentary. i'm just going to go ahead and keep quoting the book. "it is a fleeting moment that can't be sustained. but memories of that magic moment can support a couple through the turbulence that goes with the territory of any close relationship." if you're not reminscing about anything yet, i am surprised. i know it brought me back.
i'm not really going anywhere with this; it's all up for interpretation (because it's an interpretive theory - get it?). points to ponder, i suppose. i'm going to bed before i start going on about symbolic interactionism and phenomenological tradition.
oh, just kidding. writing that last sentence got me thinking about it. herbert blumer said that "humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things." symbolic interactionism. not only does social interaction influence meaning, it also influences our sense of self.
on our recent exam we had an essay question that asked about certain stories (i.e. the jungle book) that featured human characters raised by animals, and how those characters had developed a sense of self.
but the theory says "without talk, there would be no self-concept, so one has to be a member of a community before consciousness of self sets in." but being part of a community of animals, having no contact with other humans, would this development really be possible? it blew my mind. do animals - the ones who have no interaction with people - have a sense of self, or just basic survival instinct?
the major critique of symbolic interactionism is that it's too broad. i agree. it spans things like self-fulfilling prophecy to creating reality to symbol manipulation... too much to cover at this particular point in time. i mean come on, it's 1 am. and because it's so late, i am leaving phenomenological tradition alone. this entry already makes no sense.
|