Methods of communication - Essay Example

Evaluate the primary methods of communication. How do gender, political correctness, `culture, and personality tendencies contribute to the potentialbarriers of communication? In order to understand the role of gender, political correctness, culture and personality tendencies in communication we should primarily refer to the most common methods/ tools of communication. The identification of these methods will help towards the promotion of communication as a fundamental part of social life. Generally speaking the primary methods of communication are speech and touch.

By those primary methods people can communicate regardless of the gender, political believes, and of course culture. Gender had a major role historically. Indicatively, Wyoming (USA) has been the first place internationally where women were allowed to vote (bbc.co.uk, [1]). In other sectors of social and political life gender has been also proved to be a barrier in communication (e.g. how women were treated in their work, if they were given the same chances and rewarding). The issue of gender and its role in the development (or the limitation) of communication was examined in a study made by Prividera (2003) who observed the behavior of communication teachers and particularly their aspects on gender and its role in the development of particular communication initiatives.

The study of the above researcher ‘revealed how gender was marginalized and minimized in the talk and teaching practices of many of my research participants who instructed basic courses; such marginalization may perpetuate disparities in the academic experiences of male and female students taking introductory communication courses’ (Prividera, 2003, 29). As for culture, this has been characterized as ‘a shared system of symbols, beliefs, attitudes, values, expectations, and norms of behavior; it refers to coherent groups of people whether resident wholly or partly within state territories, or existing without residence in any particular territory’ [2].

In accordance with the above definition culture can be a severe obstacle to communication in case that the attitudes or the values of the people involved are different. The elimination of this differentiation is a task that requires a significant amount of time and intensive effort by the interested parties – with no guarantee that the relevant attempt will be successful. On the other hand, political correctness (PC) has been found to be a threat for social attitudes – influencing as a result the effectiveness of potential communication efforts.

In fact the study of Lalonde et al. (2000, 317) showed that there are ‘predicted differences in beliefs about PC between members of social groups based on gender ideology and sexual orientation while more conservative views (e.g. right-wing authoritarianism, modem prejudice) would be associated with a belief in a PC movement and endorsement of a PC crusader stereotype’. In other words political correctness is very likely to operate as a barrier to communication attempts – though this assumption could be more applicable when referring to groups than to individuals.

In the same way, personal tendencies can be a barrier to communication especially under the influence of the following circumstances: a) a negative event of the past leads the person to avoid communication, b) the person’s environment (family, school) does not promote communication and so on. In any case the role of personal tendencies in the development of communication has to be evaluated in accordance with the circumstances (personal, social, professional and so on) of the person involved.

References Lalonde, R., Doan, L., Patterson, L. (2000) Political Correctness Beliefs, Threatened Identities, and Social Attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3): 317-336 Prividera, Laura. The Possibilities of Pedagogy and Philosophy:Fostering Gender Equity and Equality in the Communication Discipline  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA, May 27, 2003 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p111538_index.

html http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/timeline/votes_to_women.shtml [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercultural_communication_principles [2] Part II – Discussion A. Positive criticisms 1. The development of methods of communication – using the e-mail, the video-conferencing and other modern methods of communication – as described in the beginning of the particular paper, has promoted communication in modern life. The use of the study of Robbins (Experimental Methodology) should be considered as valuable in order to understand the methods through which technology has helped to promote communication among people of all social classes.

The reference to the negative role of modern technology – that follows – in the development of communication is useful in order to understand the multi-dimensional role of technology and to identify the need for precautions when adopting high-tech devices as the primary ‘tools’ of communication. 2. The reference to the culture and its influence on communication is extensive. The analysis made at this point covers effectively all issues related with the role of culture in the development of communication.

The transformation of culture to a ‘barrier’ of communication is also sufficiently analyzed. The combination of culture with personal attitudes (as factors that influence communication) should be also considered as successful. B. Contradictory criticisms 1. The references used for the support of the issue under examination – are considered as limited. In fact the whole paper has been based on just two references. Although these references are related with the subject under examination, they lack of the appropriate arguments for the effective justification of the problems examined in current study.

In this context, the particular subjects of the study have been examined under a ‘narrow’ and ‘limited’ thought being based on the personal views of two researchers. However, the complexity of the particular issue requires a more analytical approach. 2. On the other hand, the explanation of the role of gender in communication is not very clear. Moreover, the analysis referred to gender and to its role in communication is too short. In this way, it is not made clear whether gender is a vital element of communication and whether it tends to operate positively or negatively (and at what level each of these functions) in the development of particular communication initiatives.