Ability to Communicate - Case Study Example

Stereotyping in Interpersonal Communications Abraham Zalezink and David Moment (1961) write that it is the small groups within the greater, larger organization that support its success (Zaleznik and Moment 4). The success of the smaller groups is based on interpersonal communications. The ability of the small groups to overcome their various differences – ethnic, cultural, academic, social or other distinguishing differences – in order to focus on the greater goal of the organization is tangential to their ability to communicate as a group. This success becomes even more pronounced as examination of the contemporary workplace reveals that it is a diverse workplace, where perhaps not all the members of the smaller work groups have experienced exposure to the variety of cultures, social acclamation, or other experiences beyond their own environments that help them to acquire the communication skills necessary for a diverse workplace or even a diverse community. In these kinds of small group, or even large group settings, there is likely to be some level of stereotyping. That is, says Zalenik and Moment, “classifying all new experiences, and especially persons, using symbols learned in the past (Zalenik and Moment 35).” Stereotyping relies upon the cues familiar to the individual doing the stereotyping or putting into the classification (Zalenik and Moment 35). The cues, say Zalenik and Moment, are usually ones associated with race, ethnic background, socio-economic status and others (Zalenik and Moment 35). Forcing persons into these limited definitions or categories does not allow for satisfaction on the part of the person(s) being stereotyped, nor does it allow the experience of growth or learning for the person(s) doing the stereotyping (Zalenik and Moment 35). The impact stereotyping has on the group or in an individual’s interpersonal communications will depend upon how willing that individual(s) is to forego stereotyping in lieu of the experience associated with integrating the group with persons of different backgrounds, and coming to know those persons as individuals. Zalenik and Moment point out that stereotyping will be tolerated for an extended period of time (Zalenik and Moment 35). It certainly will not exceed that amount of time in which it is possible to come to know another individual for their individual worth and value as a person, and for the skills and attributes they possess that can enhance the overall group performance. John A Daly and John M. Wiemann (1994) say that stereotyping is our result of our tendencies to overestimate the degree of association between group’s membership and psychological attributes (Daly and Wiemann 243). When we rely on stereotypes to inform us as to the identity of a ethnic, cultural, or racial group, it influences the way we process information about that group (Daly and Wiemann 243). It raises the expectations of group as to how the individual(s) being stereotyped will behave (Daly and Wiemann 243). On a level of interpersonal communication, say Daly and Wieman, stereotyping limits our pattern of communication, or “constrains” it (Daly and Wiemann 243). This creates obstacles within the group that, unless the stereotyping is supplanted with the individual knowledge of the person(s) being stereotyped, it will undermine the overall the goals of the group or the progress that the organization can expect to see from the group. If the group succumbs to the stereotypical images of the member(s), it will become less about stereotyping and manifest itself in the more serious social dilemma of prejudice. An example of stereotyping that leads to prejudicial categorizing of other groups is exemplified by director Tony Kaye’s film, American History X (1998). It is a film set in a California suburb, where a single mom of three is trying to raise her family following the death of the children’s father. The oldest child, played by actor Edward Norton, Derek Vinyard, is vulnerable because of the death of their father and the hardship it has created for the family socially and economically. Derek feels the responsibility of helping to care for the family, fulfilling the role of his father. When circumstances become tense because of the responsibilities he takes on, he also manifests the deceased father’s prejudicial perceptions on the world. It is not the circumstances that have created the hardship for the family – that is, not enough life insurance to ensure the family’s survival beyond the father’s death, or their mother’s lack of preparedness for having to support a family of four, but, instead, it is society’s fault. Most prominently it is the fault of the racial groups that are a problem to society that is causing the family’s distress. While this is, of course, absurd, it nonetheless is a perception that allows for young people to be exploited by others or groups of others whom would benefit from their impacted perceptions. This is what happens when Derek’s behavior brings him to the attention of the local neo-Nazi hate group, a “skin-head” group of white supremacists. Derek’s anger and frustration finds an outlet for itself in the hate group, and Derek achieves the status of leadership within the group. Actually, it is a status that serves as scapegoat for the higher powers that run the group and actually benefit from it economically because the group’s membership supports and contributes to the economic well being of the upper echelon of leadership that provides ideas for outlet of the overall group’s hate. When these dynamics lead to Derek’s arrest, his arrest only creates further hardship for his family, who must then move to more modest living arrangements and the mother becomes ill in response to the pressures of trying to provide for her family. In the meantime, Derek’s younger brother played by actor Edward Furlong, Danny; fills the void within the neo-Nazi group left by Derek’s arrest. Within the group, Danny’s own hate is facilitated. From Danny’s perspective, it is not Derek’s fault that he was arrested, but the fault of the minorities: blacks, Latino, Jews, and other groups that are undermining the “American” tradition that caused his brother to be arrested. Because Danny is young and impressionable and held his brother in high regard, he assumes Derek’s prejudices and finds an acceptance within the skin-head group that doesn’t care if he’s getting good grades or going to school. When Derek is released from prison he returns home, and is mortified at the conditions in which his family has been forced to live. He rejects his life of racial prejudice, and realizes that he was exploited by the skin-heads for the self-interest of the higher echelon leadership. He attempts to turn his brother around, but finds it is a challenge, since his brother is now even more confused by Derek’s rejection of the skinheads. Daly and Wiemann say that it when stereotypes are held rigidly that they cause inaccurate perceptions (Daly and Wiemann 243). Those perceptions prevent people from coming to know and understand based on their individuality, and this causes the individual(s) stereotyping, who hold too rigidly to the stereotypical image, to miss the opportunity to experience and learn diversity. People who are stereotyped have much more to bring to the experience of others than the stereotypical reference of them allows someone who holds to rigid stereotyping to imagine. Without being open minded, or without letting go of the rigid stereotypical image, interpersonal communication hits a brick wall that does allow for logic or appreciation of diversity. It means that there are self-created roadblocks to personal and group success. The stereotypical perception that cannot be overcome by reason or through the experience of diversity prevents creativity, growth, and progress. In an organization, it cannot be allowed to continue. In society, it cannot be the accepted social norm by which a society is governed or that society will fail in the quickly changing global world that is emerging and will, if it attempts to resist, be ideologically obliterated by the more prevailing ideological perception of equality for all human beings. Closed mindedness represented by stereotyping will circumvent the opportunities available to an individual who, should they persist in their stereotypical thinking, or that which they hold too tightly, will be forced to remain within the confines of like-mindedness and will not be welcome into the general society that is more free to move about. While stereotyping has typically been associated with personal individual prejudices, it manifests itself through other ways too. The mass media has long stood accused of creating a stereotypical image of the female body that does not accurately communicate the female body, but a fantastical and often times impossible to achieve female body that serves no purpose in society other than a sexual one (Allen, Presiss, Eayle, and Burrell 2002 62). This media-created image is demeaning to women, and negatively impacts their self-esteem. It can impact a women’s sense of self-worth, and can impact her ability to effectively communicate with others, especially when those communications are hindered by feelings of low self-worth, a sense of not fitting in because she lacks the beauty that perceives herself as not exhibiting, but which is advertised all around her. This is one type of stereotyping that has been allowed to prevail over the logical and reality of women’s bodies. Although in recent months, especially within the fashion industry where those miscommunications to the public largely originate within, there is noticeable criticism now being leveled for the industry’s role in creating the stereotypical image of women. While stereotyping does serve some purpose, it should not surpass the reality of individuality of a person(s). There is value to diversity not just culturally, but physically as well, and all of these characteristics that make each of us different, yet inherently the same by virtue of our humanity, serve to create a rich social and learning experience when we embrace diversity. Zalenik and Moment give the example of an organization whose organizational goals were not being met (Zalenik and Moment 38). Upon examination, the organization found that their goals were being “hindered” by certain prevailing circumstances within the organization (Zalenik and Moment 38). As it turned out, the problem revolved around the upcoming retirement of the president, and progress had become impeded because the group had fallen into predicting who would succeed the retiring president, and the group was basing its speculation on the image of the existing president. They were stereotyping the company’s leadership in a way that caused them to devalue their own self-worth as potential successors (Zalenik and Moment 38). Stereotyping can clearly be detrimental to one’s own personal goals. To hold stereotyping too closely, is counterproductive for organizations, groups, and individuals. Works Cited Allen, Mike, Raymond W. Preiss, Barbara Mae Eayle, and Nancy Burrell, eds. Interpersonal Communication Research: Advances through Meta-Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. Questia. 27 May 2008 . Daly, John A., and John M. Wiemann, eds. Strategic Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994. Questia. 27 May 2008 . Zaleznik, Abraham, and David Moment. The Dynamics of Interpersonal Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. Questia. 27 May 2008 . Read More