Leadership

Leadership Challenge

What have I learned?

I learned that being a leader isn’t always being a leader. A good leader must create an environment that evokes self-disclosure and dialogic communication among all individuals involved. It also must include all types of communication in the workplace: horizontal communication, upward communication, and downward communication. I learned how important it is to listen to other’s ideas and not always carry that “burden” that a leader sometimes does. A good leader is one that creates a vision from all of the individuals involved through the fusing of ideas and creating a vision that is very unique. Being a leader is not a solo effort, for a good leader should engage all individuals involved in decision-making and encourage new ideas.
g
What makes it relevant?

Well, I am in small group communication this semester, as well. So, it is going to be extremely beneficial in my future group work to know how a leader should perform most effectively. Whether I am the leader in that particular group situation or not, I will know how a leader should engage the other members and value their opinions.
In my profession, I am sure there be times when I have to manage or supervise employees. The knowledge of this information can also be applied in these settings.

What else do I need to know?

Concerning leadership, I would like to see examples of situations, in which, leaders have made bad decisions or, in general, have made bad decisions as a leader. Such as Larry Summer’s statement as the former President of Harvard University, “Publically expressing sentiments that women are not good at math and science." He made one statement that got him fired. These are kinds of situations, in which, a leader must be well-versed in, so they do not discuss the issue negatively but somehow know how to turn it around to not create any negative emotions or tension. Seeing examples of more leaders “gone bad” or making decisions that could jeopardize their career, or simply an approach that has been proven to be ineffective would help me understand what not to do in a leader situation.

Struggles are life's lessons

Life is so unpredictable. One never knows what tomorrow will bring. But it is so true that “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” Even the death of a best friend could be a benefit to the survivor. It is so hard to see any positive outcomes out of any form of negativity, for most seem not to look past the moment. So, I lost a best friend two years ago, and it is still not easy at times. However, I have learned to take the many things that remind me of her and cherish those moments that we had to make memories. No one can take that from me, for she always will be in my heart and my memories. Sometimes, it is hard to be thankful for those things because of the selfishness that I exhibit through my want of her to be in my life, now. Men come and go, but best friends are forever, in this case forever in my memory. I will never let the memory of us go, unlike men I had rather forget (some) or let that memory burn. Sometimes I wish she could be here to see what I am doing now. I know she would be so proud, but she is somewhere so much better. Still it is so hard because we were so close, and I guess nobody will ever understand what we went through then unless they were a part of my life. I wrote her a message on thanksgiving on her myspace:

Heyy my sweet candi cane. I miss you everyday girl. I see your picture, hear one of our many favorite songs, or God just places you there, on my heart. I love you girl always and forever. i am thinking of you during the holidays and your family. Be with them in spirit you sweet angel, you! Watch over us and continue to sing and rejoice in heaven with our Lord. We all love you and miss you and your wonderful spark.
i miss you, best buddy, every day but I am thankful that you are in a place free from sin and misery. But then i am selfish at times too. Anyway Happy Thanksgiving, I am thankful that I had the opportunity to be a part of your life.
xoxo always
Leigh Ann :)

If have learned anything from this experience is that God has special plan for all that happens in everyone’s lives. This was one the hardest things I have ever had to go through. Candace died in a drinking and driving accident. I know part of God’s plan was to teach all of those around her how fatal that drinking and driving can be. Most teenagers and young adults do not think about consequences or what could happen. It always seems they are in the moment and that everything will be okay. However, that is so untrue. We never know if have tomorrow or even tonight. I have learned from this accident. I tell people about it, and I even have a speech to my college class in memory of her doing my best to persuade the audience to not drink and drive. She would have wanted people to learn from her mistake. The thing is, I think she really would have chosen to be the one to go if it saved one person. It not only saved one, but it touched many lives, including my own.

But now it is like, God is testing me. So much keeps on happening that is hard, a struggle, a lesson to learn, or a learning experience. As people get older, they do acquire wisdom. They have been through so much that they deserve to be respected for the wisdom and knowledge that they know. At the time that we go through struggles, it is hard them as a learning experience. For instance, I lost my boyfriend, I know that God has such a special plan for me, but it is so difficult to wait for God to reveal that to me. It is just hard losing someone you love and rely on, in a sense. He was my best friend for a couple years, and I felt like he would always be there. However, God has something better for me. This is all His plan, and that is a such relief when I think about like that. God is in control, and he loves me and will show me one day. I just have to wait….

Service-Learning Application Paper

Introduction

According to www.belovedcommunitycenter.org, the mission statement is as follows:

The Beloved Community Center is committed to fostering and modeling a spirit of community based on Dr. Martin Luther King's vision of a "Beloved Community." In this spirit, we envision and work toward social and economic relations that affirm and realize the equality, dignity, worth and potential of every person.

The Beloved Community Center reaches out to the community in many ways with a dream of a beloved community. Every morning they serve breakfast to the homeless to provide this need of food to the homeless population in Greensboro. Also, every Wednesday at 1:00 P.M., the Beloved Community Center holds a meeting open to the public. This is where people can come and discuss issues in the community that are going well or that need attention and bring new ideas to the center. For instance, when I went to a meeting, a professor from Guilford College was present and is planning on involving BCC in her research class. In the past they have worked on the truth and reconciliation project, the civil rights movement, and the 1969 revolt. I would like to become extremely involved with the center, going to all the meetings. The professor (from the meeting) is unsure at this time what they will be doing with the center next semester, but it is a research-based class and the second part of the semester will be directly involved with the center. The beloved community center holds informal partnerships with most universities in Greensboro. They also have a group called New Voice, involving high school students and their parents and also college students. They meet every Wednesday to give them a place to come and be mentored. The parents hold forums at local schools to discuss various issues within the educational system. These are just a few things that the community center is involved in.

During this semester, I have volunteered at the Beloved Community Center. I have volunteered my time at the center, observing meetings, answering phones, and learning about what they do for the community. The project that I primarily worked on was about the 1969 revolt in Greensboro. Before the discussion of the revolt in our class and at the center, I had never heard of the events that took place in May of 1969, so this has truly been a learning experience. My job was to go out into the community and interview individuals that were present during the 1969 revolt in Greensboro at Dudley High School and NC A&T. I interviewed Mr. Brandon along with Mrs. Kinsey. Each experience was different, for Mr. Brandon was at A&T while the revolt was occurring. Mrs. Kinsey lived adjacent to the school during the events. She was able to see the events occurring but was not present on campus to know all the details. She was very helpful though. Through my service-learning experience, I learned dialogic communication needs to be the primary form of communication with the community, and through this technique, involved community members will gain social capital, learn to appreciate differences rather than partake in a judgmental attitude, therefore developing critical ethnography.

Application and Assessment

Communication within the community is so important in Greensboro or in any other community. My service learning experience was a lot different than the typical student’s that went to a school or to a nursing home. My experience involves all of Greensboro, and anyone who wants to be a part of the beloved community center would be welcomed with open arms. They communicate with the community through their meetings every Wednesday that anyone is able to come and speak of issues within the community that concern them. I feel like the most important concept discussed in our class that was applicable to our service-learning situation was dialogue. It was so important to develop rapport at the beginning of the interview by finding some way to relate with one another. Dialogue is not every conversation that we engage in, for it is actually only when we are able to relate to other’s perspective. It is important to know that this relating does not require that one agrees with the other, but it does require the engagement and attention to know why they have the perspective that they have. Communication is a basic concept in keeping a relationship alive and thriving, but unfortunately many communities fail to communicate dialogically. The ability to relate while communicating contributes to this problem. Bakhtin (1981) states,

A unitary language is not something that is given, but is in its very essence something that must be posited—at every moment in the life of a language it opposes the realities of heteroglossia, but at the same time the ideal of a single, holistic language makes the actuality of its presence felt as a force resisting an absolute heteroglot state; it posits definite boundaries for limiting the potential chaos of variety, thus guaranteeing a more of less maximal mutual understanding. (p.xix)

So, the community’s goal should include the ability to communicate holistically and dialogically as a group but seeking uniqueness and individuality, as well. The community must have togetherness, but individuality is greatly valued in any dialogic situation. Coherence is also a term that is involved with dialogue according to Pearce & Pearce (2004) coherence “is used to designate human activity as meaning making, not as a judgment about the success of that process” (p.47).

I will now discuss how difference does matter within community building. I discussed that uniqueness and individuality are important within dialogue, but this uniqueness is not only important within dialogue, but it is important in the community in general, as well. In my service learning experience, I felt that race does matter. I have always been a dominant or majority group, so I do not have a clue as to what it is like to be a minority or treated differently because of my skin. The interview with Mrs. Kinsey was such a learning experience. She was more open with me about race, religion, politics, and her experience. I was not expecting this because I am a young white woman and she is a older black woman. I did not think she would tell me about personal racial ideas or tensions that had happened in her past, considering this was the first time I would meet her. However, she spoke about how she experienced white people not wanted to sit beside her because she was black. But she did talk to me about all these things, and I had never talked to a black individual who was so open and honest. I asked her when people treat you like that does it bother you, and she said no. She turns the other cheek she says and shows them the utmost amount of kindness. However she has been a part of a lot of work within the community, and Allen (2004) states:

Organizations are political sites where members use communication to enact, reinforce, or challenge various power relations endemic to society at large. Moreover, race has been a significant impetus for important developments related to organizations in the United States. (p.82)

Through my experience with Mrs. Kinsey I strongly appreciate people like her. Sure, she would like to not be treated unfairly, but she is genuinely one the sweetest people I have ever met in my life. When she was younger and a nurse working at Moses Cone, she was treated unfairly there, at times. Instead of complaining about it, she showed people through her actions that she would not let anyone get in her way or change her happy spirit.

In words, it is hard to express the gratitude I have for the experience that I have received through this service learning process. I grew up in a house that was on a golf course with everything I ever needed and most of what I wanted. I went to a private school my whole life, and I never really was exposed to the homeless or simply the less fortunate, for, “many service-learning sites place students in contact with a much more demographically diverse population than they encounter on campus” (Soukup, 1999, p.10). I knew that the homeless existed, but I did not know how prevalent it has become. From sitting in on a meeting at the Beloved Community Center, I listened as a man speaks of children without a father. Then these mothers could not support them, and teachers would notice that the kid would disappear or hardly ever come to school. I knew that these things occurred, but I guess I never thought about what I could do to help them from occurring. I have been inspired to volunteer within the community and give back as much as can. I think this would include finding the root of the problem and trying to fix it. I know that I alone cannot do this, but I have a voice. I also would like to give children like this somewhere to come to and study or watch television in a safe place. I want to give them an alternative and keep them out of trouble. Through all this, I really believe that I have accomplished Artz concept of critical ethnography.

In the future, I would suggest to other students to strengthen their critical students understand this concept, then they are ready to engage themselves in service with the community using critical ethnography. Dialogue promotes understanding, relating to differences, and will result in communication dialogically. Artz (2001) argues that dialogic communicating leads to, “special kinds of relationships change, growth, and new understandings are fostered” (p.244). These kinds of relationships are necessary in any all service learning experiences.

I just discussed how important it is to develop dialogue within the community and in developing critical ethnography. Now I want to discuss another important concept, social capital which “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, p. 67). Through my service learning experience I have definitely gained social capital through the Beloved Community Center. I feel that I am now able to further network myself through the center and through the individuals that I interviewed. Reciprocity or mutual benefit is also essential in developing social capital, and I feel like the interviewing that I did was very beneficial in learning how to develop rapport and a conversational quality when interviewing. Also, I feel like many will feel a since of appreciation for the spreading of the history of the 1969 revolt. Hopefully, the word will spread and the community will develop knowledge regarding the events, and people will come together in result developing social capital.

Conclusion

The service learning experience is something that I will continue doing, and the experience did me a lot of service. I learned that, I, as an individual can and will make a difference. I can touch one life within the community and make impact. The goal was to see that, “communication, infused with critical ethnography, gives service-learning a means to encourage students to think critically about structures of power and communication and work collectively and cooperatively for a better world” (Artz, 2001, p.248). I think this I take away from my experience as a interviewer, community member with a voice, and as a genuine citizen, I recognize the faults in our community and want to take part in developing tactics and resolutions to treat the problems that the community still practices. I learned about history, which I am able to appreciate now, and I learned about the inequalities still in our community. Our community, in my opinion, is still a stuck community and will remain in that position because of the people on the margins that refuse to bend or be mainstreamed.

The only recommendation I have for the Beloved Community Center is to be more organized and prompt. Some of the interviewees did not even know that I would be calling. I felt they should have been asked prior to the beginning of the semester. Also, I think it would help if the interviewee’s availability was known and stated to us. Overall, I think that Beloved Community Center has only good intentions, and the center is an asset to our community of Greensboro. I feel they have good ideas and good projects, but they need to be more structured and organized to have a chance to instill the ideas they wish to in as many community members, as possible.

I would recommend students to get involved and make a difference in their communities because we are future. Most people have something they feel like they are good at, whether it is sports, communication skills, or simply that one has a gift with children. I would tell the future students to find this niches they have and use them to benefit the community. Oh, I know, us college students are so busy. Well, I know we are busy, but we can still spare an hour or two a week to make a difference in the community that we live in, or make a difference in one child’s life. It’s worth it, I built social capital, and I feel good about it, and I hope I did a lot of good, too. But it makes us realize how lucky we are, and that we can make a difference. One voice is appreciated, and individuality is essential in community building through dialogue. We are communication specialists and must put our skills to use within the community and benefit those that we can reach and surprisingly be benefited, as well.

"Home Is Where The Heart Is"

All my life I talked about how much I wanted to move away from the little town of Fuquay-Varina to somewhere far, far away. So, when I was ready I transferred to UNCG. Two and half years ago I felt excited about moving to Greensboro to go to UNCG, but I have always missed all my friends and family back home. Still, to this day, I feel alone in Greensboro. I do not have the support system that I once had in my little town.
I have my wonderful doberman/german shepard mix dog named Lady. She is my best friend. Dogs are so much more than some people think. She has the ability to feel the time when I get lonely. We go to the park; she loves the dog park. I love her, and I know that God sent her to me knowing how much she would mean to me, how smart she would be, and how perfect she is for his child, me!

However, unfortunately sometimes is she not enough. I miss the affection when I am upset, I miss the hugs and comfort of my loved ones. Sooo much has happened in the past month that has been hard, but everything that has happened to me has taught me a lesson. God wanted to get my attention, and He got it. I do not know where he will lead me upon graduation, but I hope for a little while it is with my friends and family in Fuquay-Varina, because "Home Is Where The Heart Is."

Exactly where I am suppose to be won't take much time for me to figure out!

Relational Dialectics Improves marriage!!

Introduction

Communication is a basic concept in keeping a relationship alive and thriving, but unfortunately many relationships fail to last. The ability to relate while communicating contributes to this problem. One relates when they understand and listen to the other person’s perspective. The more intimate one is with another person, the more problems or conflicts they could have that pull them apart. Marriage is another level of intimacy, as couples learn to relate and love the uniqueness of one another. Leslie Baxter (2004b), the primary founder of the theory known as relational dialectics, believes relational communication can be understood by examining the oppositions in a relationship, the core concept being that within contradictions there is “a unity of opposites” (p.183). There are three main relational dialectics or contradictions within this theory. The first dialectic is the connectedness versus separateness, which can also be described as independence versus dependence. The second dialectic is openness versus closedness, which can also be described as the amount of information one wishes to keep private versus the amount one wishes to disclose. Lastly, the certainty versus uncertainty is deals with the spontaneity of the activities in the relationship.

It is important to communicate dialogically about these tensions, knowing that there can be contradictions, but with the willingness to relate and continue dialogue knowing there will be dialogic flux. Marriage is the classic venue for tensions (or the interplay) which dialectics utilizes. Braithwaite (2006) agrees stating:

For example, marital couples in the United States appear to make sense of marriage as a

relationship framed into two competing discourses: a traditional ideology in which obligation, responsibility, and institution feature prominently; and an ideology of individualism in which individual wants and needs are privileged. The particular dialogic dance of these discourses organizes a given couple’s meaning of their unique marriage. (p.133)

So, these discourses or contradictions are not negative. They are competing discourses that change over time and are unique for different couples. What this theory establishes is that this interplay is essential for individuals to be happy in the relationship.

Marriage is a context that has not been looked at much exclusively within relational dialectics. However, one study, Relational dialectics and management strategies in married couples by Hoppe-Nagao (2002) is a primary and reliable source. In the research of this article they look at two dialectics, and do not discuss the certainty and uncertainty dialectic with the couples interviewed. Also, they interview couples that have been married five years or less. Overall, “Themes of the autonomy-- connection dialectic included contradiction, togetherness, independence, and comfort. Themes of the openness-closedness dialectic included were perception of shared intimacy, fear of vulnerability, and desire for increased interaction” (Hoppe-Nagao, 2002, p.142). These findings are important, but they do not answer an overall question about marriage. Meaning, marriage usually last longer than five years, so I looked at the changes of dialectics over time in my research.

This theory proposes that change, contradiction, praxis, and totality are normal functions of relational interactions that are sometimes overlooked. Until this theory, contradiction had a negative connotation, but in relational dialectics, “contradictions are inherent in social life and not evidence of failure or inadequacy in a person or in a social system. In fact, contradictions are the basic ‘drivers’ of change, according to a dialectically perspective” (Baxter, 1996, p.7).

Relational dialectics theory is within the paradigm of the interpretive theories, so the evidence provided by these theories is from lived experience. One comes to the conclusions or truths of this theory by constructivism. Dialogue is very essential in this stage because it symbolizes two or more perspectives fused together. Within a marriage if a couple is unable to fuse or relate with one another they could fail in their marriage. Dialogue can be “characterized by the simultaneous fusion and differentiation of voices. To engage in dialogue, participants must fuse their perspectives to some extent while sustaining the uniqueness of their individual perspectives” (Baxter, 2004b, p.181). Notice the example of “unity of oppositions” (Baxter, 2004b, p.183) within the quote. In a marriage this may be the most important quality to continue the marriage. Through my view of my generation, uniqueness is not yet fully appreciated. In my research, the longer people are married, the more tend they appreciate one another’s differences or uniqueness, but they still fuse together on issues such as finances. The three dialectics in this theory will be evaluated through married couples that I interviewed, personally. Interviewing is a primary way that scholars and researchers use to gather information about this theory. How do relational dialectics manifest within the relationship of husbands and wives?

Theoretical Application

Relational dialectics are a part of any human relationship that exists, so these dialectics are present within several types of relationships including roommates, siblings, parent/child, or married couples. Married couples are an interesting way to learn about dialectics, dialogue, and the ongoing tensions in relationships because two people have chosen to be together and may very well be in the most intimate type of relationship that exists. Since the context of my research is based on married couples, interviews were the technique used to research and understand, by lived experience. Therefore, interviews were the most appropriate data collection method. I interviewed five couples at different stages of their marriages: The Smiths married 1 ½ years, The Sandersons married 10 years, The Rogers married 25 years, The Wrights married 30 years, and the Roberts married for 49 years. In my interviews, I discussed the three main dialectical fluxes: connectedness/separateness, openness/closedness, and certainty/uncertainty. I asked the couples where they felt they fell within the spectrum of dialectics and how the dialectic fluxes have changed over their marriages. Then we discussed how they negotiated these tensions.

Within the separateness/connectedness dialectic, it seems that the one bench marker in typical couples is the arrival and release of children into the world. All couples except the newlywed couple (because they do not have children) felt children changed this dialectic, significantly. First of all, it means the couple is unable to do as many activities independently. It is more obvious that the couple will not have as much time alone together. Independent activities are somewhat diminished, as well, and one example that Mrs. Sanderson posed is that she had always wanted a screened in porch, so she could sit outside and read a book. She claims that she has finally got one but is unable to utilize the porch because her daughter keeps her occupied. She is not claiming this is a bad thing, but that it is something most individuals do not think about when your child is born or prior to the child. Most couples do spend time together with the child at this point, but also spend time apart, mostly, at work. This is another example of this dialectic. I have found in my research that too much work can contribute to dialectic fluxes and tension. Work is often something that takes away from the togetherness of a relationship. Two couples that I interviewed claimed that they worked too much at the beginning of their relationship, and that they were separated too much from their families, and one even said he would take that back now. So, the independence dialectic is greatly affected by children in a good way and increases the “we-ness” of the couple. It changes the amount of independence one can have, but a child is a blessing. So it brings the couple into a deeper understanding of one another in a familial sense.

Within the openness and closed ness dialectic most couples claim they are more open, but there is still must be a level of privacy within some domains of the relationship. However, most couples agreed that most women tend to be more detail-oriented, not leaving out very many details in their dialogue. It was also agreed that if a spouse knows that the other one does not care about a specific topic, it was either not discussed, or details were not included. Details are often the private or closed part of the dialectic, and this how most married couples keep the happy medium between what they disclose and what is kept private. However, it was agreed that finances, health conditions, work, and any serious issue was a very open dialectic. Upon interviewing the Rogers, they explained how trust is interwoven within this dialectic. Trust is essential to a marriage, and these partners do not keep anything important from one another. In this dialectic togetherness was more prevalent than individualism, so the interplay was not as present in my interviews because the couples are together on the important issues, but know that details are not always necessary for the smaller issues. Just think about what could happen if it were the opposite, now that would create interplay on the continuum. So, trust is underlines this dialectic, meaning, there must trust in order to be happy in the amount a partner decides to disclose.

The last dialectic of the theory is known as certainty versus uncertainty. Most couples are certain about their daily routine during the week, but as they get older they retire and this tends to change, somewhat. A routine is an example of certainty within the relationship. The uncertainty or spontaneity is the wow factor a relationship exhibits. Most couples claimed to be more spontaneous at the beginning, but as the relationship progresses there was less spontaneity. I would say that the level of uncertainty is higher at the beginning of most marriages, and then again once they hit retirement because this enables them to have the freedom to be spontaneous.

The last topic discussed with the couples was how they negotiated tension and what method was used most regularly. I explained the term dialogue, and most couples agreed that dialogue generally was secondary to an argument when used. When a disagreement occurs, tempers flare, conflicts arise, and most of the time these couples tend to separate if this happens. Then when they have cooled off, dialogue can occur. They dialogue by respecting and listening to one another and relating to the perspectives of each other. But, most of these couples strategically respond through all methods of selection and compromise. In my research only one couple reframed, “the process of not looking at the dialectical tensions as opposites, but rather considering the concepts to be along different dimensions” (Hoppe-Nagao, 2002, p.148). This is the most productive and beneficial way to negotiate because the relationship will become more balance, and the couple will show togetherness.

Most agreed that they select one or the other or neutralize and compromise with one other. All couples interviewed seemed to not have a high degree of tension or change, but they agreed that it does exist. Also, tension is not necessarily a bad state of being. Disagreements will happen when living with someone, and this is known as conflict. In relational dialectics, tension is the interplay between the two contradictions. Yes, it sounds quite negative, but it is not, it is normal and healthy and part of what makes the relationship grow. The negotiation of tension or conflict can result change or stagnation. It depends on the method or technique used to negotiate. Selection is often used because there is not a way to compromise. For example, one spouse wants to the children to celebrate Halloween and one does not. Either, one celebrates or they do not. This is probably why selection is the most popular method of negotiation. Compromise is always great too because the couple can fuse the ideas of one another, but keep there own individual uniqueness. Lastly, dialogue should always be interwoven within any technique used. The relating of dialogue should be foundational for a married couple.

Theory Evaluation

The functions of a theory are generally to predict, explain, and to control and sometimes even transform. Upon researching the theory, I feel like I could predict benchmarks of tension, of a typical couple and be able to predict major changes within dialectics in married couples, so I definitely believe that the theory has this ability. The theory also controls and explains by, “(a) its ability to be heuristic, enabling us to see relating in a new light; and (b) its ability to render intelligible the set of practices known as relating” (Baxter, 2004a, p.17). So, it is different type of predictability than the scientist might imagine. They might say, well it is not concrete, but to an interpretivist it is very useful and gives people the ability to make propositions, most importantly.

Scholars have debated relational dialectics as to whether or not it is really even a theory. Baxter (2004a) is often asked this very question, and she claims, “Relational dialectics is a theory in that it is a set of propositional assumptions and core concepts whose purpose is to render intelligible relational communications” (p.17). Thus, a theory can only be categorized as a theory if it is an inter-related set of laws or general principles or propositions of some aspect of communication behavior. Baxter clearly states how she believes that it is indeed a solid theory according to these qualifications. Even though there is some debate over relational dialectics being a theory, it is a theory because it has a set of propositions that relate to communication behavior. From my research I can make propositions and some predictions, but it would difficult to say that every couple, for instance, uses dialogue secondarily.

I feel that relational dialectics theory is very useful in life. So, it has utility especially within my context of married couples. It is useful because I feel like I have much more knowledge of dialectics. Any person that learns about the theory can utilize it by applying to their marriage or other relationship. The theory is something I did not know existed until this project, and I believe the knowledge I have acquired will benefit me in my future marriage. Also, it is useful to know that contradictions are normal and should not always be taken as a negative problem.

The theory also provides utility by learning about the tensions. I think it is fun and interesting to think about the dialectical tensions of a relationship. Some of the people interviewed did not think about how dialectics existed. When I discuss the interplay it seems on a surface level like conflict. However, the tension described is not of a negative intent. Sometimes couples do not realize the dialectics are fluctuating, so that is why this type of contradiction is not negative. Tensions are normal but are controllable, for “intimate couples face a common set of contradictions in their relationship that must be negotiated” (Hoope-Nagao, 2002, p.142).

It is also useful to know how to negotiate these tensions. It is important to know how dialogue is essential to settle these ongoing fluxes within dialectics, and that dialogue can even be used second after the disagreement to come to some form of agreement even if it is to agree to disagree. It can also be used to prevent the argument. Let me be clear on the fact that contradictions or tensions can lead to conflict, for tensions or contradictions are not conflict. Now, within dialogue, relating to one another and respecting one another’s opinions are also characteristics of dialogue. Dialogue is important and useful in relationships. Tensions exist, and it is useful to know how to negotiate these tensions. Relational dialectics have been an educational experience in teaching my couples and me how to dialogue and how to understand the tensions that coexist. These tensions can coexist and be positive. In this theory, dialogue is very useful in many relational situations, so it is important to understand the dialogic process.

The theory teaches how openness and trust are essential, but that privacy and independence are, as well. Some couples are open and some are not, but I might propose that openness in important issues such as health or finances must be discussed. However, in some couples, finances are specifically the man or woman’s domains. Baxter (1996) poses, “Relational dialectics is not a formal theory of prediction and causal explanation. But it is a theory in the sense of a coherent vocabulary and a set of questions to bring to the understanding of communication” (p.236). With my knowledge of the different types of theories I believe relational dialectics is an interpretive theory that uses lived experience as evidence, and the goal is a have general understanding of how communication patterns within the contradictions, praxis, and totality of relationships, generally.

Conclusion

In relational dialectics, it is sometimes hard to make predictions, and that is why I had rather make propositions about dialectics. Most couples tend to be more open about the important issues that concern the both of them. This was typical in my research, however in Hoppe-Nagao (2002) they discuss the term vulnerability. I feel these couples might feel more vulnerable because the couples have been married for only five years. I did find any of my couples to feel vulnerable about any subjects. They are closed about details and tend to not discuss ideas that do not interest the other individual, but this has nothing to do with vulnerability. Also, children are a vital part of a marriage most marriages. From interviewing at different stages of marriages I learned what it was like before children, while having children, and after the children left. The tension of independence versus autonomy is greatly affected by children. In my opinion, people need to be aware that when they bring children into their lives it is not about them anymore. Independence is scarce and usually work related, whether is going out to grocery store or Christmas shopping or an occupation. Children also create a schedule. It is very important that children have a schedule and structure, so certainty is highly present when children enter the picture. Spontaneity is more common at the beginning of a marriage and when the kids leave the nest. It may hard to include spontaneity in with kids, but it is important for the marriage to maintain some level of uncertainty. I have learned that I should make time in my marriage for these types of activities.

These dialectics are different for every couple and it is important to know how to work through and negotiate these tensions. In the research study of Hoppe-Nagao (2002) they found, “the results of this study suggest that some of these couples in which the end justifies the means. For example, these spouses may use potentially anti-social behaviors in an attempt to achieve a desired outcome” (p.158). I did not find this selfishness as much in my research. Most of the couples I interviewed, when they disagree they use the selection, separation, or reframing strategies, and then they talk and relate through dialogue. So, dialogue is usually secondary, but it is essential in order to produce any “we-ness.” Bakhtin (1981) states,

A unitary language is not something that is given, but is in its very essence

something that must be posited—at every moment in the life of a language it opposes the realities of heteroglossia, but at the same time the ideal of a single, holistic language makes the actuality of its presence felt as a force resisting an absolute heteroglot state; it posits definite boundaries for limiting the potential chaos of variety, thus guaranteeing a more of less maximal mutual understanding. (p.xix)

It is important to be an individual and maintain uniqueness, but couples need togetherness as well through a holistic not atomistic language.

It is said that if one has a hand full of good friends then one is doing well. Friends are the family we choose, and relationships are essential in our happiness. Humans need interaction with others. That is why older people die rapidly when no one visits them, because they need that conversation of dialogue, relating with another. Humans need attention and affection. We are compassionate creatures that need intimacy. Married couples are best friends that have chosen to spend their lives together forever. Most girls dream of the day that they will find the man of their dreams to spend forever with, so knowing how to make the best of that one day, is something that I cherish. Relational dialectics has given me the ability to be prepared for tension, but to know that it is normal. Tension does not have to be fighting or yelling. Tension should be negotiated through dialogue. This is the only healthy way. I have learned how important dialogue is to make a marriage last. Communication is one of the most important concepts of a marriage and so many adults do not know how or refuse to talk about it. Divorces are more common now than people staying married. I do feel like I have a toolbox of propositions that I will be able to utilize in my future marriage.

References

Baktin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M.

Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. (2004a, March). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships,

11(1), 1-22. Retrieved from December 3, 2008, from Ebsco Host

Baxter, L (2004b,July). A Tale of Two Voices: Relational Dialectics Theory. Journal of

Family Communication, 4(3/4), 181-192. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from CMMC

Baxter, Leslie A., & Montgomery, Barbara M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & Dialectics.

New York: Guilford

Braithwaite, Dawn O., & Baxter, Leslie A. (2006). Engaging Theories in Family

Communication: Multiple Perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

Hoppe-Nagao, Angela, & Ting-Toomey, Stella. (2002). Relational dialectics and

management strategies in marital couples. The Southern Communication Journal, 67(2), 142-159. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Research Library database.

Holism

I will inform you exactly how the article “Holism and what it means” relates to Holism in medicine today. In the western culture we have become very dependent on pharmaceutical drugs. In the United States we consume 50 percent of the world’s pharmaceuticals and only make up 3 percent of the world’s population. So, I would say we are too dependent on these pharmaceuticals and need some kind of alternative. The article I read offers that alternative. Instead of treating only the symptoms we need to look at the root of the problem. There are many alternatives that we can use from ancient medicine that was developed thousands of years before pharmaceutical drugs and taking the holistic approach to treatment.

Grant first gives the reader the idea of holistic from the medical perspective, “holistic as a whole made up of interdependent parts” (Grant 57). So, our bodies have different parts, but they depend on each other. This is often referred to as the mind, body, and spirit or the mind and body connection. When this is used in medicine it is called holistic medicine. This would be considered a complementary therapy (or alternative) rather than the conventional way that most doctors treat their patients. Now, Grant uses the dental hygiene as a solid example of the principle, she says that they have always been holistic and that the world was notified from the Surgeon General that “oral health and total body health and wellness are one and the same.” (Grant) In the article she is encouraging doctors to try the alternatives within their offices. She says that she wants feedback. She is looking to encourage patients and doctors to try something different, something holistic. (Grant)

There are many definitions of holism, but I felt the University of Oregon illustrated the idea very clearly, “Holism as an idea or philosophical concept is diametrically opposed to atomism. Where the atomist believes that any whole can be broken down or analyzed into its separate parts and the relationships between them, the holist maintains that the whole is primary and often greater than the sum of its parts. The atomist divides things up in order to know them better; the holist looks at things or systems in aggregate and argues that we can know more about them viewed as such, and better understand their nature and their purpose.” (Schombert)

Now, Holism can be understood through biology or physics like Bohm in our reading or through sustainability, or most importantly through the article on treatment of illnesses. As Americans, consuming so much medication, are we thinking about sustainability when we are consuming half of the world’s medication? No, we need to think about it holistically like Bohm and Grant do. We need to develop alternatives that concentrate on the body as a whole. We need to think about the future generations to come, are they going to have the medicine they need or is it going to be so expensive they have to work when they should be retired. We need to decide what the root of this problem is instead of treating only the symptoms. If we treat only the symptoms we are continuing a non-holistic approach which is not the goal of Grant. She wishes that consumers, customers and doctors, would not be close-minded on the issue but be open to ancient practices that worked then and can easily work today if we show the initiative collectively in our society.

References

Grant, D. (2005, October). Holism, and what it means. RDH, 25(10), 57-95.

Retrieved October 6, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Schombert, James. (2001). Glossary. Retrieved on October 6, 2008, from

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/holism.html.

Communication ideas on the presidential debate.

Communication Strategies used in the 2008 Presidential Debate

Upon watching the 2008 Presidential Debate I feel Barack Obama is a better public speaker and communicator so I will focus on his communication strategies and John Mccain’s signs of weakness. I will discuss non verbal communication along with communication strategies such as Audience Relation, having transitions, and being confident.

Now, Obama starts off very clear, and to the point. He has obviously prepared for this and has structure. Meaning, he is organized. He grabs the audience’s attention (attention getter) and relates to the audience (audience relation) by saying, “We have been hearing a lot about Wall Street, but what about you all on Main Street.” He uses statistics, “95% of you will not get a tax increase.” So, he has just established relation with 95% of the audience. Using numbers can be extremely beneficial when used correctly.

Now, Obama’s vocal behavior is strong as well, immediacy behaviors, he has good volume, pitch and expressiveness. His visual behaviors include smiling, strong posture, and eye contact. Whereas, Mccain seems tense, he leans forward showing signs of weakness. Obama was standing strong on all of the controversial topics, and clearly he has developed creditability by developing a plan. Mccain has the experience aspect, as well so has developed creditability. Nonverbally, Obama uses expansive, confident movements. Mccain was blinking constantly making me nervous. So, Mccain has situational anxiety.

He could have practiced more, but he did put his campaign on hold until the day of the debate, so I doubt that he practiced efficiently so he could avoid situational anxiety.

Now Obama used vivid mental pictures like the main street concept or the statistics and he developed confidence. This is essential to make the audience listen. He used feelings by discussing his want to help people to be able to feel up on this gas and sending your children to college, as well, all developing confidence. Obama went to Harvard, so I am sure that he knows a very diverse set of vocabulary. He uses smaller words so that the audience can understand. So, non-verbal communication consists of 69 percent of communication leaving a mere 31 percent for verbal communication. Therefore, paralanguage and visual uses of communication are more important than verbal communication, words. Therefore looking weak by leaning forward , stuttering, and stumbling over words makes one seem not creditable and Mccain did all of the above, making him a very weak communicator. I am not saying that he isn’t capable of being a good communicator, but during the debate he seemed very timid and nervous.

Impromptu speaking is the hardest, in my opinion. That is what these candidates were doing. They could prepare somewhat, but they did not know the questions they were going to be asked. I think Obama did a very good job developing an outline on ideas that he wanted to discuss therefore, maintaining the audience’s attention and seeming very confident. Mccain seemed weak through his non verbal behaviors because he did not have good posture and using fillers such as um and uh.