The Role of Intersubjectivity in Telecommunication - Research Paper Example

Intersubjectivity Intersubjectivity is defined as the knowledge between two or more people. The knowledge is brought about by certain common factors in the affected people’s lives. These factors can either be shared knowledge, common experience on a given subject, or shared interaction of the people involved in the activities. It is mostly used in philosophy and psychology. Several scholars have tried to successfully research on the subject (Tan, 1986). This paper gives an evaluative insight into the concept of interconnectivity as is relevant in telecommunication. In the shaping of ideas and relations, intersubjectivity emphasizes that shred thoughts and ideas are the key point in it. It is the common key to most of the affirmed theories. For instance, a group of scientists discussing on the effects of a certain kind of drug and coming up with an agreement is said to be an intersubjective agreement. Basically, as the name suggests, intersubjectivity is the agreement between two or more people on a subject of contradiction. In most cases, it is applied almost in every day life. It is plays a significant role in dispute resolution and is often used to calm warring parties. Intersubjectivity, according to studies, does not have to be done verbally since it also entails the aspect of mental energy. An example of intersubjectivity in the aspect of emotional energy is often reflected in burial ceremonies where attendants are often in somber and sad moods. Another example of intersubjectivity is the strong affection between two people in the case of mutual attraction based on love. In reference to the above named examples, interconnectivity is portrayed as not being confined to verbal talks only (Tan, 1986). In psychoanalysis, intersubjectivity is seen in the ability of mothers to communicate with their infant babies without literally speaking. This study of intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis is seen as the pillar to healthy relationships even in schools between students and their tutors. In philosophy, the duality between oneself and another being has been researched for a long time by philosophers. In phenomenology, intersubjectivity helps researchers feel other people’s feelings through their own bodies. Intersubjectivity helps in cognitive interaction between parties; it helps one clearly understand whether they have similarities in their thoughts, or whether the other party shares similar beliefs. People also use intersubjectivity to focus and summarize information and draw inferences on a certain topic. Obama, for instance, used intersubjectivity in gaining his political seat by passing his ideas effectively to the voters who then passed the ideas among themselves and drew the inference that his views were better. Though widespread, intersubjectivity does not come out effectively with everyone. It is affected and hindered by different factors. For instance, the way people take up the idea of investing in oil mines in America is not the way people in South Africa would react to that idea. The presence of oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico would help the idea gain positive reaction in America. However, it would be difficult to get oil from South Africa hence a negative reaction. The factors that affect and determine the way intersubjectivity or an idea is received lies in the ability to put it to the audience. The messages have to relay the intent of the one offering the message; the mode of the message if too twisted can lead to misinterpretation of the message. Obama, for instance, is a good orator who gives his audience important issues to ponder over. In his campaigns, he coined a catchy slogan which most Americans grasped and related to his ability to lead. Information should be selectively given without emphasizing on the disadvantages. In contrast, focus should be on the advantages in view of helping people bond. The information to be given should be sought intentionally to impress on the audience. If any information has more than one meaning, the speaker should be able to elaborate what point he wants shared by the audience. The media and politics are the most effective tools in building intersubjectivity among the public. Politicians give the public what they want to hear and build united ideas among large numbers of people. Politics is basically a battle of intersubjective groups each with their own ideologies. A good example of intersubjective battle in political ideologies is in communism and capitalism. These two ideas almost caused a third world war; this shows the strength of intersubjectivity among the masses (Rogers 1983). The media capitalizes on intersubjectivity to gain popularity among the masses. They give products that more and more people like to capture in their mentality and let them bond with them. The public, therefore, bonds with the media houses separately and that is why the rate of advertising varies amongst the media houses. The more popular the ideologies, the more the people love it and want to be associated with it. This is used as a business trick to get more people to advertise in the media stations. A recent study also showed that different media houses are manipulated by politicians to campaign for them. The combination of the intersubjected multitudes helps the politicians bond with the public which consequently promote their ideologies. This is propagated by the media houses. However, intersubjectivity is faced by some challenges which are highlighted in this case study. A further discussion will be in order to find the solutions to these challenges. If they can be eliminated, intersubjectivity will be realized as an integral aspect of human existence. The two major challenges facing it are social cognition; this is defined as the ability to process and retrieve information in the brain within related species. Those who are bound by similar ideas tend to fall into this class. The way they retrieve and process ideas is related but not all of them have the ability to grasp it correctly. The other challenge is the ability to participate correctly in sense making (participatory sense making). This can be described as the ability to put the ideas to someone whoa would be able to see the sense in them. Social cognition has been researched and a theory cultivated through the studying of the way one acts when in social interaction with others. This theory was proposed by Miller and it stated that if one was motivated to learn certain social behavior, then it would have to be learned through undivided and serious observation. The media is one of the highest participating factors of social cognition due to its high influence on the public. This theory is used in psychology and education to change the behavior of learners. A student who is a drug addict would have to be taken to a rehabilitation center. This is where clear understanding of social cognition is understood. The victim would spend time being given a clear way and set of introductions to follow to aide them. The media participates a lot in influencing people to change their behavior and ideas. Similarly, politicians too influence the masses. These two factors are the key hindrances to the change from positive intersubjectivity to corrupted intersubjectivity (Rogers, 1983). In the U.S, this is usually evident when the republicans and democrats are battling for the presidential seats. Before the debate, each candidate airs their views in a debate where each supports their policies. This is usually an attempt to change the ideas of the public through their ability to speak and make sense (Lowery, 1988). The other challenge faced by intersubjectivity is in participatory decision making; this is the ability to pass your ideas to another person with different ideas from yours and making sure the other party is so conversant with that set of ideas. This depends on the ability to gently and completely erase their ideas and incept your ideas such that they would take your ideas as the more perfect (Rogers, 1983). This is usually mental and implied. The ability to do so is exercised by doctors on their patients who are adamant on certain cures or politicians who lure the masses. They may entice the public through gifts or bribes while pretending to give them a free will of choice. The victim develops such a big liking for the ideas of the one incepting them hence break the intersubjective bond earlier created. The media has no much influence on this because the ability to convince another to be in agreement with you is caused by the effectiveness of your communication (Lowery, 1988). This is where information should be selectively given without emphasizing on the disadvantages to help the people bond. Each and every one has different ideas and although one can be forced to change, the final and complete change depends on one’s will. The media has all this because it mostly depends on propaganda and promoting the ideas of the elite so as to gain investors. This two challenges facing intersubjectivity can either be completely eliminated but that would change the way a lot of things function. The face of the politics would change. It would be really hard for the bad ideas to be wiped out and embracing of new ones would be really hard. In America, for instance, for the first time a black president was elected after this two took factors. However, the solution to this two is firm mindedness and a deep rooted foundation of the ideologies. There is no solution for this and it is dependent on the state of mind of the people. The change being introduced, however, doesn’t have to be disadvantageous and it doesn’t have to be adapted (Lowery, 1988). In conclusion, my view is that it is better if the challenges facing intersubjectivity are left or assumed not to exist. References Baym, J. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Manhattan: Manhattan publishers. Fox, J. R. (2011). Wise fools: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as modern- day jesters in the American court. New York: McGraw publishers. Hawkins, R., & Daly, J. (1988). Cognition and communication. In advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes. Sage: New York. Herman, E. (2000). The propaganda model: A retrospective. New York: McGraw publishers. Lowery, S., & De Fleur, M. (1988). Milestones in mass communication research (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Scheufele, D. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. London: Oxford publishers. Shapiro, M. (1991). The effect of headlines on attitude activation and agenda setting. Paper presented to the information Systems Division at the International Communication Association annual conference May . Chicago. Tan, A. (1986). Mass communication theories and research (2nd ed.) . New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Read More