Dr. Holly Kruse Communication Theory Self & Society Dr. Holly Kruse Communication Theory

Symbolic Interactionism Seeks to understand how humans create symbolic worlds (through language and other symbols) and these how worlds affect human behavior. Views communicators as active participants in social world.

Symbolic Interactionism Influential in communication studies (e.g. in Carey’s work). Rooted in early 20th century Chicago School. Concern with community: made of individuals making choices, acting together to reach societal goals.

Symbolic Interactionism Mead: people act based on symbolic meanings in a given situation. 3 main principles of symbolic interactionism – Meaning Language Thought

Symbolic Interactionism Meaning: Herbert Blumer, “Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things.”

Symbolic Interactionism Language: Herbert Blumer, “Meanings arise out of the social interaction that people have with each other.” So meaning doesn’t arise out of essences of objects.

Symbolic Interactionism Thought: Herbert Blumer, “An individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his or her own thought process.” Interior conversation: “minding.”

Self The Looking Glass Self (Cooley): We can only understand ourselves through interaction with others and seeing selves from their perspective. Happens through symbols (language and other signs)

Self-Concept How we see ourselves; mental representation of who we are. Qualities we think describe us and relationship among qualities. Usually different from how others see us and how we want to present self to others.

Self-Concept Developed through: Social feedback Group associations Roles we assume Self-observation/self-labels Social comparison

Semiotics The study of signs (visual, aural). A way to understand meanings of messages and how those messages make up culture. Looks at: Signs and Texts Codes: systems of meaning Culture: total set of meanings

Culture Culture is a historically transmitted patterns of meanings. It’s a web of meanings that we create and live in as if we didn’t create it. Conveyed by signs Meanings are culturally specific

Semiotics Two authorities: C. S. Peirce (American philosopher, 1839-1914) Ferdinand de Saussure (Swiss linguist, 1857-1913)

Peirce’s Semiotics Peirce’s triangle of meaning: Sign: Something that conveys meaning. Refers to something other than itself. Object: Reality to which sign refers. Interpretant: Mental concept produced by sign and user’s experience.

Peirce’s Semiotics

Peirce’s Semiotics

Peirce’s Semiotics

Saussure’s Semiotics Sign composed of: Signifier: Physical existence of sign Signified: Mental concept related to sign Process is “signification.”

Saussure’s Semiotics

Saussure’s Semiotics Relating sign to external reality not important. Relationship of sign to other signs in system is what matters: what is it similar to? What is it different from?

Saussure’s Semiotics If your language has the word “bush” and/or “shrub,” “tree” will mean something different that if it didn’t. “Mrs” and “Miss” meant something different before “Ms” was introduced.

Saussure’s Semiotics Meanings of signs are arbitrary Otherwise, all signs would be iconic (or “more motivated” in Saussearean system). Relationship between signifier and signified culturally specific.

Other Theories Related to Self Coordinated Management of Meaning Cognitive Dissonance Expectancy Violation

Coordinated Management of Meaning We coordinate our meanings with others in conversation, using rules “Persons in conversation co-construct their own social realities and are simultaneously shaped by the worlds they create.”

Coordinated Management of Meaning We make adjustments because of other person/people: coordinated. We have to adjust our stories to fit with our realities: management of meaning.

Coordinated Management of Meaning Must understand and adjust to context: Specific episode being presented Relationship between people Self-concept of speaker (life scripts) Speaker’s culture

Coordinated Management of Meaning “Loops” in conversation: Strange loop: people locked into destructive pattern Charmed loop: self-confirmatory; system is working well

Strange Loop

Cognitive Dissonance Is the mental state in which people find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold. “Mrs. Keech” example.

Cognitive Dissonance Discomfort created by dissonance makes us avoid doing things that distress us. The more important issue is to us and/or the greater gap between beliefs & behavior… The greater the dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance Hypotheses related to cognitive dissonance: Selective exposure Post-decision dissonance Minimal justification

Cognitive Dissonance Coping with dissonant information: Ignore (“Shoplifting isn’t really stealing.” Justify behavior (“This store is a rip-off and really owes me.”) Change behavior (“I won’t shoplift anymore.”)

Expectancy Violation When what we expect to occur in communication doesn’t happen Originally in non-verbal, but now also in verbal, communication. Valence of violations can be positive or negative.

Expectancy Violation Originally mostly about personal space violations based in proxemics (intimate, personal, social, and public space). We learn what to expect in social contexts and use knowledge to predict how others will act.