Interactional theory in Gandhi - Research Paper Example

? Interactional Theory in Gandhi (1982 Communication Strategies for Political and Social Changes 22 April An eye for an eye isthe norm in handling conflicts. In the British colonies, conflicts could not be avoided because local people and leaders were increasingly calling for independence, especially in light of racial inequality and oppression from colonial leaders. To achieve unity among groups with different socio-economic statuses and religious, political, and cultural beliefs is essential, but extremely challenging. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has taken an almost impossible role of being a facilitator and leader of individual and social changes in India. To understand his life, Attenborough (1982) produced and directed Gandhi. This paper analyzes the film using Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson’s (1967) Interactional Theory on communication. It aims to show that this theory helps explain Gandhi’s effectiveness as a persuasive communication expert and social transformation leader. Gandhi demonstrates an interactional view of communication because Gandhi used non-violent, non-cooperative, and peaceful communication strategies, which have been successful in attaining individual and social changes because he continuously reframed punctuations regarding the causes and resolutions to conflict. Gandhi depicts the rise of Gandhi, from being a lawyer of racial injustice in South Africa to a transformational leader in India. Attenborough (1982) showed how Gandhi started his non-violent approach to conflict management, when he realized the intensity and extent of racial discrimination against Indians in South Africa. With his friend and supporter, the rich Indian businessman Kinnoch, they and their thousands of supporters defied the Pass Law and other oppressive policies, until they changed legislation into one that improved racial equality. Gandhi returned to India, which was in a historical transition from colonial ownership to independence. Gandhi aroused the formation of nationalist organizations and used the media to gain publicity and to spread his non-violent, non-cooperative, and peaceful approach to the demand for independence from Great Britain. Interactional Theory views relationships as “patterns of interaction” (Watzlawick et al., 1967, p. 2), where every member participates in the cybernetic environment, while interacting with other systems to control their environment too. Gandhi is an effective communicator because he does not undermine the value of the press in enhancing public awareness and changing individual and social beliefs. The first rally in South Africa indicates how Gandhi saw the media as a partner in documenting non-violent actions, so that more people would join him and for the British Empire to realize the power of their numbers. Gandhi wants journalists to cover their peaceful protests because it can unite the nation. He told the reporter Walker that he “cannot unite a community” without a paper (Attenborough, 1982). He then used the media, including his own paper, to promote his views on non-violent and non-cooperative action toward resolving various conflicts. Gandhi knows the importance of connected systems to achieve widespread social changes. Interactional Theory has five axioms and the first aims to show how complex systems operate by stating that people “cannot not communicate,” so everything that is said and done is a message. Watzlawick et al. (1967) stressed: “Activity or inactivity, words or silence all have message value: they influence others and these others, in turn, cannot not respond to these communications and are thus themselves communicating” (p. 1). The pragmatic approach to language emphasizes the effects of actions on communication behaviors (Wayne, 1990, p.603). Gandhi shows the importance of every aspect of communication to express his strategies and to persuade people to follow his methods. His main emphasis is that violent, non-cooperative, and peaceful communication strategies can be used to attain social changes. In South Africa, while a police already threatened him to stop burning the passes, Gandhi continued despite the blows on him. Gandhi believed that if people did not retaliate to the blows, their enemies’ anger will be decreased, and their respect will be increased (Attenborough, 1982). By not doing anything violent in return, Gandhi communicates that the path to resolving conflicts is the path of peace and love for everyone, including their enemies. The second axiom of Interactional Theory asserts that content and relationship aspects of communication are important to effective communication. Content pertains to the subject of the communication, while relationship refers to how communicators see one another and how they convey and respond to each other (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.95). Gandhi shows that the content of conflict is the same, racial inequality, but the relationship must be redefined. He explains that there are two common ways of responding to violence. Victims of violence can either react with violence, or they will take the blows of violence without fighting back. In a meeting about the new Pass Law, some Indians were so angry that they stressed that they would kill any police officer, who entered their homes without permission and disrespected their wives (Attenborough, 1982). Gandhi, however, persuaded the people to see the problem and solution in a different light. The problem is that the British have discrimination and hatred in their hearts for Indians, but the right solution is to not hurt them back. He argued for peaceful solutions: “I need such courage…but…there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill. Attack no one…kill no one…They cannot take away our self-respect if we do not give it to them” (Attenborough, 1982). Gandhi proposes a relationship that can drastically alter how violence perpetrators and victims see and interact with one another. The relationship is to see one another as equals, equals in integrity and respect. In describing content, a useful term is “self-definition” or “self-concept,” where people seek to affect other’s view of their “self-definition” (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.98). People’s responses to self-concept are confirmation, rejection, and disconfirmation. Rejection happened in the film through the British’s denial of India’s assertion for home rule. The British saw the Indians as people whom they must rule or control, or else the country would break down (Attenborough, 1982). In worst cases, disconfirmation occurs, where the British do not see the Indians as people at all. They do not see them as equals and treat them as second-class citizens, such as in South Africa, where Indians cannot walk on the streets with white people. One of the worst events of disconfirmation is when General Dyer ordered the shooting of non-violent protestors. The massacre resulted to 1,516 people dead, where General Dyer informed the committee that investigated his decisions that he wanted to teach Indians a lesson on following the British Empire (Attenborough, 1982). He did not see these Indians as people, so he slaughtered them like animals for their disobedience. The next aspect of self-concept is confirmation, which pertains to being accepted by the other. Gandhi tells Nehru and Al Jinnah that he wanted to change the British, how they see and react to the Indians: “I want to embarrass all those who treat us as slaves…I want them to change their minds, not to kill them for weaknesses we all possess” (Attenborough, 1982). Gandhi aimed to promote confirmation of an independent and equal Indian self-concept through showing the British that the Indians have the integrity to rule their own people. The self-definition concept emphasizes the role of equal racial status that arises from equal sources of humanity, so that enemies will finally see one another as equals and partners of peace and development. The third axiom of Interactional Theory is discussed next, where it is concerned of how members of the system punctuate their communicative sequences. Punctuation pertains to interpreting communication events into specific actions and responses, where causes and effects are clear (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.98). Different events in the stories depict diverse punctuations in Gandhi’s methods and the effects of his methods. For instance, when the British jailed Gandhi in Champaran, crowds gathered peacefully outside the prison. The people were there to support him because they believed in his methods and what he was fighting for. The causes of their actions are Gandhi’s non-violent protests, while the effects are social changes in how people see and resolve their dilemmas. Communication is “not unitary,” however, and every action has a reaction in a continuum of causes and effects (Weakland, Ray, & Schlanger, 2012, p.58). Problems occurred when the crowds used violence because of frustration and the violence they received from the police. Still, Gandhi emphasized peaceful action to resolve their differences and to call for independence. His punctuation always begins and ends with peace. The fourth axiom of Interactional Theory is that communication can be digital and analogical. The digital code refers to what people say or write, or what the words are, while the analogical code refers to how something is expressed, especially nonverbal cues (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.100). The digital code in the film is that Gandhi spreads the code of non-hate, non-violence and non-cooperation to his followers. For him, the best way to defeat the enemy is not to show an eye for an eye, but to show love and peace for every act of violence (Attenborough, 1982). The analogical code includes being humble in front of others and treating everyone with respect. In a meeting with Nehru and Jinnah, Gandhi served them. He took the plate of cups from a servant and did the serving himself. This action powerfully showed that in serving one another peacefully, they could have a more harmonious life, where they could attain all their goals without violence (Attenborough, 1982). One of the worst events in the analogical code of non-violent protests is when General Dyer ordered his troops to shoot Indian demonstrators, including the thickest parts of the running crowd (Attenborough, 1982). He did not mind whether children and women were killed, as well as the fact that the crowds were not even fighting back. He meant to kill them all to teach them a lesson. His analogical code is that to demand obedience, one must show unrelenting violence (Attenborough, 1982). The film indicates the importance of digital and analogical in effective communication. The fifth axiom of Interactional Theory illustrates the difference between symmetrical and complementary communication. Symmetrical communication means that communication exhibit behaviors that are mirror images of one another (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.101). The people are equal to one another too. In complementary communication, another behavior is added to the communication, with the parts creating a whole (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.101). Symmetrical communication happened in the film when Gandhi received the respect he needed from the courtroom in Champaran. The judge could not impose any acceptable fine on Gandhi because he refused to pay 100 rupees for his bail (Attenborough, 1982). As a result, the judge freed him without bail (Attenborough, 1982). He saw Gandhi as an equal because of his integrity as a person. Complementary communication happened when people interacted because they accepted their power differences. An example is during the congress, where Gandhi participated. When he spoke, some people were leaving, because he was not very prominent yet. They also listened more to their political leaders than Gandhi (Attenborough, 1982). Complementary communication indicated differences in power, where some people assigned more power to political revolutionary leaders than on Gandhi. These communication patterns illustrated different power relations among speakers and listeners. The unequal relationship between Indians and the colonial British is demonstrated through one-up, one-down, and one-across communication patterns that are present in uneven communication relations. One-up communication pertains to dominance and the claim that one has the right to define the situation (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.101). A good example is the rally of the mine workers in South Africa. One of the British told Gandhi that the workers should go back to work. He is one-upping Gandhi and his people by dominating them through words. One-down communication happens when people submit to those in power. Gandhi resisted and stated that they were only reacting to the imprisonment of their peers. He reminded him that when these prisoners were freed, they would go back to work (Attenborough, 1982). He did not show one-down communication and reversed it through his own version of one-up communication. Indeed, when the British said, “I’ve warned you,” Gandhi answered: “We’ve warned each another” (Attenborough, 1982). Gandhi does not accept one-up communication to his people at all. One-across messages means that the communication moves forward, but the status quo remains (Van Oorschot & Hogerhui, 2006, p.101). A good example is the train scene in South Africa. Gandhi explained why he was in the first class cabin, but train managers did not pay attention to him. They listened to him for some time, but they threw him out afterwards. One-across message means that they did not care about Gandhi’s belief that he is an equal to anyone who sits in the first-class cabin. These communication patterns indicate the struggles of Gandhi in persuading people to change their views of themselves and their rulers. Aside from these axioms, Watzlawick et al. (1967) argued that communicative patterns can be hard to change, but reframing will help transform them. They are hard to change, but not impossible, through reframing the problem and solutions. Reframing concerns changing punctuations: “Reframing takes up where the notion of punctuation leaves off. Reframing is a means of problem solving that emphasizes the semantic plasticity of so-called ‘reality’” (Lee, 2008, pp.10-11). Watzlawick et al. (1967) believed that instead of “reality,” there are multiple realities. People can reframe issues to change how they are understood (Ramage, 2009, p.220). Gandhi showed that there are multiple realities too. The given reality is Indian colonization, while another reality is independence. Instead of promoting civil war, however, Gandhi reframed the analysis. He argued for peaceful and non-cooperative approaches to calling for independence. Gandhi understands the limitations of his approach to conflict. He has reservations on whether the Indian people are prepared to remain non-violent, even as they and their families receive violence on a daily basis. Gandhi fasted after the mob’s murder of the police because he wanted the rallies to stop, since they have spiraled into violent riots. Pandit Nehru visited him and told him that all demonstrations had stopped. He described people praying that he would end the fast and they even offered flowers to local and British police (Attenborough, 1982). They wanted to save Gandhi and realized that nonviolence must be totally adopted, or else, their efforts were wasted. Gandhi does not only reframe conflict resolution to the British, but most especially to his people, particularly when some of the mobs have turned to violence. He successfully changed behavioral patterns because of his emphasis on peaceful actions. Double-binds are present in the film too because of the problematic communication patterns between the British and the Indians. Bateson stressed that a double-bind has three elements; first, the communication happens in an emotionally significant and connected relationship (Smith-Acuna, 2011, p.56). In the case of Gandhi and his followers, the connection is deeply emotional. Emotions are so high that some of the crowds have even killed the police. Gandhi fasted until all these demonstrations are stopped because he did not want to contribute to the height of people’s emotions (Attenborough, 1982). The second element of double-bind is that there is a conflict between the report and command functions of communication (Smith-Acuna, 2011, p.56). The followers of Gandhi were in a double-bind when they were trying to have a peaceful demonstration, and then the police attacked one of their members. When they saw violence against their non-violence, they became so angry that they brutally killed the police. They could not follow the commands of Gandhi anymore because of their emotions. The third element of the double-bind is that there are specific rules, but mixed messages cannot be directly fixed (Smith-Acuna, 2011, p.56). Gandhi proposed only one way of changing the hearts and minds of the British, and that is through non-violence. The crowds, however, tend to take a different path, when facing violent adversities. Nevertheless, Gandhi showed that as a leader, he took responsibility for his followers’ actions. His fasting punished him most of all, but reminded his followers that the path of peace does not co-exist with violence. Through communicating that non-violence and non-cooperation is the best way to resolve conflicts, Gandhi sends a powerful message that non-violence can change people’s attitudes and behaviors, thereby directly shaping their decisions. He applied non-violence in his content and relationship, thereby showing a strong connection between analogical and digital communication. To improve digital communication toward non-violence, he punctuated how he saw conflict and his enemies, seeing conflicts as opportunities to love and respect one another, until the colonial leaders realized that Indians have the integrity to rule their country. Gandhi told Mirabhen: “When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won.” Indeed, he won. His competent communication opened the minds of the Indians and the British to the punctuation of peace in ending the colonialism. Instead of saying an eye for an eye, he opened all their eyes to the reality of their equality and promoted the urgency of Indian independence. References Attenborough, A. (Producer & Director). (1982). Gandhi [Motion picture]. India/United Kingdom: International Film Investors. Lee, D. (2008). Strategic ambiguity, reframing, and spin: The social impact of language. International Communication Association, 2008 Annual Meeting, 1-36. Ramage, M. (2009). Systems thinkers. UK: Springer. Smith-Acuna, S. (2011). Systems theory in action: Applications to individual, couple, and family therapy. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Van Oorschot, M., & Hogerhui, M. (2006). How people get lost in organizations: On communication and organizing, an anthropological search. Amsterdam: Eburon. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Some tentative axioms of communication. In Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes (pp. 48-71). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Wayne, A. (1990). On (not) observing behavior interactionally. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54(4), 603-612. Weakland, J.H., Ray, W.A., & Schlanger, K. (2012). An interview in retrospect. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(1), 53-73. Read More