The pragmatic perspective says that "communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time" (32). This means that with this perspective, people develop their communication in a game-like way. It's all about making certain moves and getting certain reactions. Over time people develop a patterned interaction based on the games they've played numerous times.
Communication is like a game because it focuses on sequences. Our text used the game of Chess as an example. When one person makes a move that causes a sequential response from the other person and that dictates what move they are going to make. This action is repeated over and over again. To understand the game you have to look at it from the beginning to the end, just like to understand a conversation you would have to look at it from beginning to end.
Critics of the pragmatic perspective say that communication does not work like this because it does not take into account the influences of other things such as culture and personality. "Pragmatists steadfastly refuse to ask why people act as they do. They dismiss factors such as intentions, desires, and needs" (35).
Friday, February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that to understand a game you have to look at it from beginning to end. But, to take the analogy a bit further, you must also know the players and their history. I think this approach is flawed because it dismisses the very factors that lead to breakdowns in communication. For a couple who is constantly arguing, one cannot simply look at one argument and find the problem. The root might be something historical, and event that took place long before this one argument.
ReplyDeletePragmatic theorists focus on the interaction, not personality. I think that in limited setting this approach can be successful in relieving conflict. For example, in arguments between school children or adults fighting over a parking space. In a sense isolated instances where the parties don't have any pre-existing relationship whose problems stem much deeper than the conflict at hand.