My Communication Perspective

Introduction

Communication is a a complex subject to study. I don't think I had ever thought about the word (or even used it much) until I had entered college. And even then, I only knew it was a field because my all of my advisors happened to be from the Communication Studies department (totally by chance, as I was undecided for a good amount of time). I came to have a basic understanding of communication through an entry level class that my advisor recommended I take to fill out some credits. I'm glad took that class, though.

It took me a while to actually enter the Communication Studies department. I had gone into university hoping to a become a choir teacher. After coming to the conclusion that I would probably not be able to find a job without being able to play the piano, I decided to change to Journalism instead. I enjoyed those classes, but felt like I didn't really want to do that as a job. My advisor, who happened to be the dean of the Communication Studies department, recommended that I try their department. I graduated with my Bachelor of Arts in Communication Studies a few years after that.

I left for Japan shortly after graduating, having somehow gotten a place as an Assistant Language Teacher on the JET Program. I was to work at a junior high school in the city of Kurihara in the Miyagi prefecture. I have spent the last 10 years teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan. However, I have always felt at odds with much of the discourse in that field. It seemed to me that what was being called communicative language learning often clashed with my own views on what communication is and how it works.

My Perspective

When I first began to to study communication theory (in the aptly titled Introduction to Communication Theory) I came across a theory in the textbook called Coordinated Management of Meaning1, which was created by W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen. I don't remember if that was the theory my group was assigned to present on or if I was just drawn to it after reading the textbook. However, it immediately had a strong impact on me. It was only after I came to Japan and started reviewing my communication theory textbook that I would start to use that theory (among others) to more actively inform my practice of communication.

The theory is billed as practical theory, or theory that is designed to inform a grammar of practice. In other words, it is a theory that is to be used and improved and individualized through use in real communicative events. The basic premise is that communication is a dynamic spiraling process of managing meaning and coordinating action. When engaged in communication, people are answering two questions:

What is happening in this situation?

What should we do about it?

Basically, the people in a conversation work together to come to a shared understanding of what is going on. Using that shared understanding, they decide on the course of action that makes the most sense to them. Both the result of these conversations as well as what has happened and what is currently happening within the conversation influence what actions people decide to take. Communication is constitutive in that the way people view the world and its meaning is shaped by the conversations they engage in. Likewise, communication is consequential in that conversations are impacted by past conversations and also go on to shape the possible outcome of future conversations. The past pushes on the present, which is also being pulled on by one's desired future. Choices made in the present go on to shape the future and re-contextualize the past2. If this all sounds complicated, that's because it is, unfortunately. There is never a correct answer to any conversation, and each answer carries its own advantages and drawbacks.

My addition to the theory is that I believe that process to be happening both within an individual internally and between the individual and others externally. Communicating with oneself (intrapersonal communication) involves making meaning and deciding actions based on one's interaction with what I call ambient messages. Pearce put forth the idea that we constantly exposed to communication to the point that we live in communication. Ambient messages, to me, are both messages that were directly and purposefully created (books, videos, etc.) as well as the interpretation of our memories. We negotiate how these things fit into our social world, and the results of that negotiation lead to our decisions in interactions with others.

While my perspective is informed by Social Constructionist ideas, I tend to take a more individual focus. In Social Constructionist thinking, each individual sits at the center of a complex web of relationships and those relationships are what create the individual's identity3. More extreme views position all actions that anyone take as being the result of their relationships with others. This view strips away the agency of individuals and relegates them into no longer being a part of the construction of their social world, a perspective that I share with Pearce4. In my view, it is specifically because we all sit at the intersection of unique relationships that we are able actively use our agency in communication. That comes with accepting responsibility for both the creation of our social world as well as the consequences of our communication (both good and bad).

In My Practice

The perspective on communication that I described above has been key in forming my identity as someone who studies, engages in, and educates about communication. In my English classes, I take the position of using the English language as a medium for better understanding one's thoughts, perspective, and communication. The content of my management classes often focuses on attention to the way conversations within the organization affect the health and effectiveness of the organization. My inquiry-based learning classes are designed to help students critically engage with their own experiences and engage with others about their experience.

Likewise, my communication perspective has influenced the way that I communicate with others. My own development as a Japanese language learner was driven by a sense of unfairness that students required so much energy to speak to me in English but I barely need to think to speak in English. The pattern of communication that gap stood to create made me reconsider for what purpose I was teaching and learning languages. It has also helped me decide in what way I can contribute to the organizations I work with as well as the local community that I am a part of.

If you haven't taken the time to think about your own theory of communication, I strongly recommend it.

Pearce, W. B. (2007). Making social worlds : a communication perspective. In Blackwell Pub. eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA84689802

This is most similar to the view of time presented by William James:
James, W. (1891). The principles of psychology. In Henry Holt and Company eBooks (Vol. 20, Issues 3–4, pp. 27–551). https://doi.org/10.1037/11059-000

Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relational being. In Oxford University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199846269.001.0001

Pearce, W. B. (1994). Recovering agency. Annals of the International Communication Association, 17(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1994.11678874