With reading about the pragmatic perspective, they describe communication as patterned interaction and at first I did not agree but as I read on I could see what they meant. To me it seems as though they are saying you need two people to interact, your sender and your receiver and that makes sense. You need both people in order to have communication even if one does not respond and one not responding can send a louder message then responding with word. In a game you need two people to play and usually in a game one persons move depends on the person before them and in communication that is what we do. If I am having a conversation with someone and I state how I am feeling the other person will respond to what I have said because I set up the game or the move in that situation.
They also talk improving unhealthy pattern and give the example of a fighting couple that goes to see a communication counselor. Well the communication counselor is not really into the exact details of the argument or what the background is but the pattern in which makes them argue. Many people have this problem whether it is with a spouse, parent, friend or anyone else that they don’t see eye to eye in the pragmatic approach you want to find a new pattern in which you should communicate so you don’t argue all the time rather then focus on the personality of the person. In life I don’t think you can view communication entirely as a game because if we did there wouldn’t be as much interpersonal communication between people.
I came to some of the same conclusions as you, on the Pragmatic concepts and approaches. I totally agree with you that non-verbal communication, as in “shining someone on” is still participating and interacting with the sender of the message. They’re just choosing silence over words, and that can speak volumes. Taking the Pragmatic systems approach in resolving unhealthy interaction in relationships, can greatly improve communication between the ones involved. If done on a consistent basis, it can proactively change the negative pattern of disagreement among the one’s not having the same viewpoint. It makes sense to logically analyze a situation first and foremost, versus playing the “blame game”.
ReplyDelete