According to Eisenburg, Goodall, and Trethewey, partial, partisan, and problematic (63, 64). In saying this the authors imply that no one theory is the end all, be all to communication. Communication is a complex issue with countless variables at play. Any one theory or research may only account for a few of these intertwined issues. Culture, race, class, power, nonverbal communication, and many other variables effect the communication that takes place ,and therefore the theories which explain that communication. The authors also noted that often those coming up with the theories are white, middle-class, men. This plays into the partiality to which they referred.
Partiality, as defined by the text, only tells a part of the story. Theories that do this do not take into account the entire history of communication. For example what preceded the Industrial Revolution that made such hierarchical work such a shift? If we look into the fact that many people previously grew their own crops and lived outside cities prior to the Industrial Revolution we might see a more complete picture.
Partisan communication is communication in which we tell the what we favor. In this type of communication one may communicate to serve their own best interest. For example white males may create theories that are fair to them and accurately describe their condition but neglect to address the issues in communication faced by people of color, women, and other subjugated groups of people. As the text puts it, all thought is partisan. Since all thought is partisan it is also important to view it as such. No one theory explains organizational communication entirely. No theory is all inclusive for all perspectives. It is with a discerning mind that we must approach theories that explain communication.
Communication is problematic. Because theories are made by people who have finite knowledge the theories are only based on that knowledge base. Such theories will not provide definite answers on how to approach communication. These theories provide but a snapshot of what organizational communication is to one person in one context that has been studied.
Theories as viewed ,as seen by our text, are merely starting points for understanding. These theories are supposed to be used more as tools to develop our own questions than as the answer to everything that is organizational communication. Communication is not finite, its not, unchanging, and it most certanly is not the same for every person. All these exceptions and circumstances are important to keep in mind while learning as well as experiencing organizational communication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find it interesting that all types of communication is partial. No matter how long you talk for or type it will always be incomplete. There are never full histories, no complete stories or anything. Partiality is definitely a good history of organizational communication.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite interesting that the most of the time that people make up these theories are middle aged white men. It is hard to fully get the disclosures we need to know information. How do we know what they interpret is actually correct? It is mind boggling on how many different types of organizational communications there are and how they relate and how they differ.
Cynthia Yee
Like you mentioned, "partisan communication is communication in which we tell the what we favor". I think that we experience partisan communication very often. Theories are created by those who are stronger and more powerful in society and many groups who are not as strongly represented are neglected.
ReplyDeleteFor example, rules regarding marriage may be created by the majority of the heterosexual constituents of a community, which neglect the communication styles and views of a homosexual minority viewpoint.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see that all the public and private organizations around us have been involved in partial, partisan and problematic dialogue/communication because the communication is so situational and contextual.
ReplyDeleteOrganizations are often trying to reach a goal or get their agenda items completed based on their biased view points and knowledge, so I completely agree with the authors that one must take a broader approach in understanding organizational communication.
The way you have broken down the concepts that the author presented, I couldn't help but think about the different communication approaches I used today at work and how my collegues/boss may have interpreted the information from me before they selected their own response approach.
I also decided to blog about this subject matter. I find it very interesting that theory itself contains partial, problematic, and partisan points of view. These issues may seem obvious at first, but after taking a deeper look at what is meant by these terms, one can grasp a good control of notion of theory. After reading your informative blog and the text, I have concluded that theory is just one point of view. Theory is used daily, whether people are aware of it or not. This leads me to wonder if how one person is raised can greatly affect their personal theories in organizational situations.
ReplyDelete