2). Explain the concept "white men of privilege". Do you agree with the concept? Why or why not?
"White men of privilege" is the belief that upper-class white European males who are rich hold the most power in several instances in our society. Harris (2008) explains it as, "Clealy, the overriding assumption of social, economic, and political power in this country has long resided with upper-class and upper-middle-class white European males of wealth and privilege" (p. 96). I do agree with this concept because for the most part these type of men are the ones you always see in the highest positions in our country. For example, management positons, CEOs, congress, so on and so forth. I mean, we just now in 2008/2009 had a "minority" get elected into presidency, which is a huge step for our country. And Hilary Clinton, while not the first woman to run for president, become about the twelth woman to do so. Perhaps the "white men of privilege" concept is slowly decreasing, and maybe even in the not-so-distant future Hilary Clinton - or another woman - will become the first female to be president of the United States. Perhaps Obama being elected president is the first step to allowing minorities, women, the less attractive, etc to get in on some of the power and privileges that the "white men" have been experiencing for a long time now.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Week 4, Question #1: Stereotypes
1). Are you, or have you ever been a member of a group that has been stereotyped? Does your experience reflect the concepts identified in this chapter? How? Are there differences? What are they?
I have been stereotyped before, but I'm sure I have been many times in which I don't remember or even don't know about because it's something that isn't always brought to your attention or told. Anyway, I've been stereotyped based on who I associated myself with – twice – and both times it's been the same type of stereotype.
I had a friend who was of the bisexual orientation and we also worked at the same retail store. There were rumors going on around the store that we both were either bisexual or "gay." People observed us and assumed that because we would go to lunch together when we had the same breaks and talk to each other when our departments were slow, that we were a "couple."
The other example of when I was stereotyped is virtually the same exact situation – but worse. I worked in a restaurant with another friend (who was "straight," like me) and we would frequently walk in together for our shifts, take lunches together, joked around together in between serving our tables, etc. I lived right down the street and my friend would be over often hanging out before our shifts, so we would just walk over together.
Well unlike in the first example where that friend and I just dealt with rumors about us, in the restaurant example our supervisor (and also another younger coworker, as well) would actually frequently make comments about us being "gay." They would make such comments as, "Are you two in love with each other?" And when I would be working there and my friend had the day off (or a different shift) the two of them would say, "I think that guy's in love with you" and they would say the same to my friend when I was off. One of the cooks there even once told me he thought we were a “gay” couple living together.
The people in these examples who stereotyped us assumed that two guys hanging out together and who got along well must be romantically involved, even though we never kissed, flirted, or even hugged each other – not that a hug between friends should make people think we’re romantically involved. It is pretty sad that guys can’t have a close, same-sex friend without some people jumping to conclusions about their personal lifestyles and sexual orientations.
Lastly, since stereotyping is categorizing people into groups without really getting to know the actual person or people, yes, I do believe my experiences reflect the concepts discussed in this chapter.
I have been stereotyped before, but I'm sure I have been many times in which I don't remember or even don't know about because it's something that isn't always brought to your attention or told. Anyway, I've been stereotyped based on who I associated myself with – twice – and both times it's been the same type of stereotype.
I had a friend who was of the bisexual orientation and we also worked at the same retail store. There were rumors going on around the store that we both were either bisexual or "gay." People observed us and assumed that because we would go to lunch together when we had the same breaks and talk to each other when our departments were slow, that we were a "couple."
The other example of when I was stereotyped is virtually the same exact situation – but worse. I worked in a restaurant with another friend (who was "straight," like me) and we would frequently walk in together for our shifts, take lunches together, joked around together in between serving our tables, etc. I lived right down the street and my friend would be over often hanging out before our shifts, so we would just walk over together.
Well unlike in the first example where that friend and I just dealt with rumors about us, in the restaurant example our supervisor (and also another younger coworker, as well) would actually frequently make comments about us being "gay." They would make such comments as, "Are you two in love with each other?" And when I would be working there and my friend had the day off (or a different shift) the two of them would say, "I think that guy's in love with you" and they would say the same to my friend when I was off. One of the cooks there even once told me he thought we were a “gay” couple living together.
The people in these examples who stereotyped us assumed that two guys hanging out together and who got along well must be romantically involved, even though we never kissed, flirted, or even hugged each other – not that a hug between friends should make people think we’re romantically involved. It is pretty sad that guys can’t have a close, same-sex friend without some people jumping to conclusions about their personal lifestyles and sexual orientations.
Lastly, since stereotyping is categorizing people into groups without really getting to know the actual person or people, yes, I do believe my experiences reflect the concepts discussed in this chapter.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Week 4, Question #3: Nonverbals
3). Pick one concept from either text, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
The concept that I wish to discuss further in chapter three is the concept of Nonverbal Communication. It's interesting that the way we listen to people varies depending on what culture we're in.Harris (2008) includes some research in his book, in which "indicates that African Americans may give more subtle conversational feedback in certain contexts than their white American counterparts, causing some white American speakers to assume their African American listeners have not understood what was said" (Victor 1992).
This communication difference potentially can cause quite a bit of confusion between different cultures, as the quote demonstrates. Imagine someone who is brought up in a culture where they're taught to use obvious and frequent nonverbal cues to show the other person they're listening and understanding, talking to someone who was taught to use much more subtle cues while listening. Not only would it probably cause confusion and awkwardness, not being sure if the other person is listening to you or understanding and maybe even asking them "Do you follow?", but it would also make the conversation lag and slow down, having to pause and wonder if they're paying attention.
This kind of communication difference could cause a negative effect in so many situations, including, for example, a job interview. The employer might assume the interviewee isn't paying attention or isn't interested if they don't use the type of nonverbals cues of listening that the employer is used to.Another example of nonverbal communication differing in cultures, is the example of eye contact in Asian cultures and not looking at another in the eyes while listening; they view it as disrespectful. It's kind of ironic that with the Asian culture and the American culture communicating with each other they would both find the other disrespectful in conversation because of what they were taught as to be "respectful."
The concept that I wish to discuss further in chapter three is the concept of Nonverbal Communication. It's interesting that the way we listen to people varies depending on what culture we're in.Harris (2008) includes some research in his book, in which "indicates that African Americans may give more subtle conversational feedback in certain contexts than their white American counterparts, causing some white American speakers to assume their African American listeners have not understood what was said" (Victor 1992).
This communication difference potentially can cause quite a bit of confusion between different cultures, as the quote demonstrates. Imagine someone who is brought up in a culture where they're taught to use obvious and frequent nonverbal cues to show the other person they're listening and understanding, talking to someone who was taught to use much more subtle cues while listening. Not only would it probably cause confusion and awkwardness, not being sure if the other person is listening to you or understanding and maybe even asking them "Do you follow?", but it would also make the conversation lag and slow down, having to pause and wonder if they're paying attention.
This kind of communication difference could cause a negative effect in so many situations, including, for example, a job interview. The employer might assume the interviewee isn't paying attention or isn't interested if they don't use the type of nonverbals cues of listening that the employer is used to.Another example of nonverbal communication differing in cultures, is the example of eye contact in Asian cultures and not looking at another in the eyes while listening; they view it as disrespectful. It's kind of ironic that with the Asian culture and the American culture communicating with each other they would both find the other disrespectful in conversation because of what they were taught as to be "respectful."
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Week 3, Post 3: "Types of Norms"
3). Pick one concept from either text, not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
The topic I found to be most interesting, out of the topics that haven't been taken, is chapter three's Types of Norms section. I'll discuss explicitly- and implicitly-stated norms.
As Harris (2008) says, "An explicit norm is outlined in either written or oral form as a policy or group sanctioned procedure" (p. 47). As the examples that follow that quote in the book demonstrate (required attendance, dress standards, or due dates), this type of norm is one that would be found in a type of business setting or at a school. Upon getting hired for a job, the manager orally goes over the required dress code, specific policies of the company, late attendance/tardiness consequences, etc - some of which is displayed in print on the application. In a school/college setting, this kind of information would be found on the syllabus (even the dress code example in certain instances, such as a physical education course, where you would be required to wear loose-fitted clothing), as well as be communicated orally by the instructor.
An implicit norm, as said by Harris (2008), "is an unstated preference of the group such as being courteous, bringing snacks, or doing a good job, but cannot usually be clearly identified by looking at the group's written guidelines or formal operating procedures" (p. 47). While group norms in terms of close friendships can be stated orally, usually however group norms in these situations are "unwritten/unsaid rules," sort to speak. Even some people in this class this week have said some of their group norms are being friendly, courteous, and/or respectful toward each other and that these norms are simply implied and not brought up.
The book says when someone in a group interrupts someone or brings up a taboo topic (i.e. violates a norm) everyone either gets silent or responds negatively (p. 48). This statement is true for both settings – business and personal/group of friends.
The topic I found to be most interesting, out of the topics that haven't been taken, is chapter three's Types of Norms section. I'll discuss explicitly- and implicitly-stated norms.
As Harris (2008) says, "An explicit norm is outlined in either written or oral form as a policy or group sanctioned procedure" (p. 47). As the examples that follow that quote in the book demonstrate (required attendance, dress standards, or due dates), this type of norm is one that would be found in a type of business setting or at a school. Upon getting hired for a job, the manager orally goes over the required dress code, specific policies of the company, late attendance/tardiness consequences, etc - some of which is displayed in print on the application. In a school/college setting, this kind of information would be found on the syllabus (even the dress code example in certain instances, such as a physical education course, where you would be required to wear loose-fitted clothing), as well as be communicated orally by the instructor.
An implicit norm, as said by Harris (2008), "is an unstated preference of the group such as being courteous, bringing snacks, or doing a good job, but cannot usually be clearly identified by looking at the group's written guidelines or formal operating procedures" (p. 47). While group norms in terms of close friendships can be stated orally, usually however group norms in these situations are "unwritten/unsaid rules," sort to speak. Even some people in this class this week have said some of their group norms are being friendly, courteous, and/or respectful toward each other and that these norms are simply implied and not brought up.
The book says when someone in a group interrupts someone or brings up a taboo topic (i.e. violates a norm) everyone either gets silent or responds negatively (p. 48). This statement is true for both settings – business and personal/group of friends.
Week 3, Post 2: Group Norms
2). What are the functions of norms in groups? Can you give a personal example not already discussed this week? Have you ever experienced a violation of a norm? Explain.
I'll start off by discussing my own violation of a group norm, when I was with my former employer. I worked at a grocery store for about seven months, and one of the norms there was for all employees to sign up for the union and to pay a fee for it. I was unaware that this norm was a requirement, and after telling my friends about the fee costing $350 they advised me to just not sign up. Well fast-forward seven months and my manager calls me into his office, informing me that a union representative called him and gave him a list of employees who weren't union members yet.
Harris mentions in the book, "When group norms are violated, the group will usually impose some type of social sanction or punishment" (p. 49).
My "punishment"? He laid me off on the spot.
The fuctions of norms in groups are to set allowed behaviors, rules etc in place, and to give group members a typical place where they usually meet or hang out. Most of the time, friends have a favorite place where they go to hang out and this place becomes the accepted designated destination. It could be a partilucar friend's house, a coffee shop, etc. It's usually based on the common interests of said group. If the group in question is, say, a book club then their accepted place might be Barnes and Noble Café. If it's a business group, it might be a particular place for lunch, or meeting in the conference room every Friday with the manager.
Group norms also say what is acceptable behavior within the group and what is not. Group norms usually get made after hanging out with each other for an extended period of time.
A personal example of a functional group norm would be with my group of friends and we all accepting that certain topics are not to be brought up with us due to disagreements in the past on said topics. A specific example would be regarding my best friend's ex-wife; due to everyone having different opinions on her and it causing arguments in the past, it's become a group norm of ours to not bring up the subject. "In every group, certain actions are approved of and others are frowned on" (Harris, 46). It's funny because after this norm became accepted whenever my best friend would mention her in anyway or just get off the phone with her, etc everyone would be silent and then one of us would change the topic.
I'll start off by discussing my own violation of a group norm, when I was with my former employer. I worked at a grocery store for about seven months, and one of the norms there was for all employees to sign up for the union and to pay a fee for it. I was unaware that this norm was a requirement, and after telling my friends about the fee costing $350 they advised me to just not sign up. Well fast-forward seven months and my manager calls me into his office, informing me that a union representative called him and gave him a list of employees who weren't union members yet.
Harris mentions in the book, "When group norms are violated, the group will usually impose some type of social sanction or punishment" (p. 49).
My "punishment"? He laid me off on the spot.
The fuctions of norms in groups are to set allowed behaviors, rules etc in place, and to give group members a typical place where they usually meet or hang out. Most of the time, friends have a favorite place where they go to hang out and this place becomes the accepted designated destination. It could be a partilucar friend's house, a coffee shop, etc. It's usually based on the common interests of said group. If the group in question is, say, a book club then their accepted place might be Barnes and Noble Café. If it's a business group, it might be a particular place for lunch, or meeting in the conference room every Friday with the manager.
Group norms also say what is acceptable behavior within the group and what is not. Group norms usually get made after hanging out with each other for an extended period of time.
A personal example of a functional group norm would be with my group of friends and we all accepting that certain topics are not to be brought up with us due to disagreements in the past on said topics. A specific example would be regarding my best friend's ex-wife; due to everyone having different opinions on her and it causing arguments in the past, it's become a group norm of ours to not bring up the subject. "In every group, certain actions are approved of and others are frowned on" (Harris, 46). It's funny because after this norm became accepted whenever my best friend would mention her in anyway or just get off the phone with her, etc everyone would be silent and then one of us would change the topic.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Week 3, Post 1: Norms
1). Are there group norms at SJSU? What are they? In the group of individuals that you spend time with, are there group norms? What are they? In both cases, how did you identify these norms? How did you adapt to these norms?
I'm one of the people who attend class and then leave campus, or if I do stay on campus it's because I need one of the campus's resources to do a homework assignment...and then I take off. However, I did catch a norm just today in my music class on campus. The class gets out at 1:15 pm and today the instructor put on a movie at about 12:50. The movie was still playing when 1:15 came around, which at this point students started checking their phones for the time and glancing at each other...as the instructor continued to sit in his chair and watch the movie. Seconds later, students start hesitantly standing up and walking out. Moments later, even more students stood up, shoving their books into their back packs to leave. At this point, the instructor calls out, "Remember no class on Monday." The norm I'm referring to is the instructor usually officially ending class at the designated time by saying "that's all," "goodbye," "thank you," etc., which then prompts students to stand up and leave. But what happens when the instructor is unaware of the time, like in the case I experienced today? Students awkwardly glance around the room at each other, while thinking, "Uh, can I go now?"
In my group of friends, the only norm I can really think of is how much we, sometimes brutally, joke around with each other; playing pranks, calling each other names when they do/say something stupid or sometimes not even then, making fun of them for a bad date experience and not letting them forget it happened for months down the line, etc. But we all know it's all in good fun and we know never to take it seriously and to laugh about it, and don't even give it a second thought because it's been going on for so long and we're so tight. We all adapted to these norms, especially in the beginning, by just getting the person back later on. And by now, years down the line from when it first started, it doesn't even phase us anymore...although it is still hilarious as ever.
I'm one of the people who attend class and then leave campus, or if I do stay on campus it's because I need one of the campus's resources to do a homework assignment...and then I take off. However, I did catch a norm just today in my music class on campus. The class gets out at 1:15 pm and today the instructor put on a movie at about 12:50. The movie was still playing when 1:15 came around, which at this point students started checking their phones for the time and glancing at each other...as the instructor continued to sit in his chair and watch the movie. Seconds later, students start hesitantly standing up and walking out. Moments later, even more students stood up, shoving their books into their back packs to leave. At this point, the instructor calls out, "Remember no class on Monday." The norm I'm referring to is the instructor usually officially ending class at the designated time by saying "that's all," "goodbye," "thank you," etc., which then prompts students to stand up and leave. But what happens when the instructor is unaware of the time, like in the case I experienced today? Students awkwardly glance around the room at each other, while thinking, "Uh, can I go now?"
In my group of friends, the only norm I can really think of is how much we, sometimes brutally, joke around with each other; playing pranks, calling each other names when they do/say something stupid or sometimes not even then, making fun of them for a bad date experience and not letting them forget it happened for months down the line, etc. But we all know it's all in good fun and we know never to take it seriously and to laugh about it, and don't even give it a second thought because it's been going on for so long and we're so tight. We all adapted to these norms, especially in the beginning, by just getting the person back later on. And by now, years down the line from when it first started, it doesn't even phase us anymore...although it is still hilarious as ever.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Week 2, Post 3: The Inters
*1). Groups are living systems based on interdependence and interrelationships. What happens to a small group when parts of the system do not function well? Provide two examples from your own small group experiences that show the importance of understanding interdependence and interrelationships.
Interdependence is all about the notion of “two (or more) heads are better than one.” It’s the whole reason why we work in small groups to begin with and not independently by ourselves. In small groups, we’re supposed to share ideas, agree/disagree with other’s opinions we the group can come to a common denominator, and so new ideas can form that maybe wouldn’t have if everyone were to work independently. If parts of the system don’t function well, the group isn’t taking advantage of being in a group, working together, sharing ideas, getting work done faster, etc. The group begins to fall apart and essentially isn’t a group anymore because they aren’t working together. I remember in one of my small groups no body communicated with each other outside of class, and inside of class one or two members made all of the decisions and ask didn’t ask the rest of the group for opinions. This resulted in half of the group not totally knowing what was going on, so when the final presentation came that half of the group hasn’t as prepared and knowledgeable as the other half who had taken over. Another time I had a group that we worked on quizzes in-class together, and every single time the same people would say what they thought the answer was and the same people would just write down the answer and not contribute. There were times when our answers were wrong so we didn’t get full points, and if the whole group had contributed instead of just half we might’ve been able to get all the answers correct.
Interdependence is all about the notion of “two (or more) heads are better than one.” It’s the whole reason why we work in small groups to begin with and not independently by ourselves. In small groups, we’re supposed to share ideas, agree/disagree with other’s opinions we the group can come to a common denominator, and so new ideas can form that maybe wouldn’t have if everyone were to work independently. If parts of the system don’t function well, the group isn’t taking advantage of being in a group, working together, sharing ideas, getting work done faster, etc. The group begins to fall apart and essentially isn’t a group anymore because they aren’t working together. I remember in one of my small groups no body communicated with each other outside of class, and inside of class one or two members made all of the decisions and ask didn’t ask the rest of the group for opinions. This resulted in half of the group not totally knowing what was going on, so when the final presentation came that half of the group hasn’t as prepared and knowledgeable as the other half who had taken over. Another time I had a group that we worked on quizzes in-class together, and every single time the same people would say what they thought the answer was and the same people would just write down the answer and not contribute. There were times when our answers were wrong so we didn’t get full points, and if the whole group had contributed instead of just half we might’ve been able to get all the answers correct.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Week 2, Post 2: Phase Space
*3). Pick one concept from the reading assignment this week (Ch.2) that you found interesting or useful and discuss it. Please discuss a concept that has not already been discussed this week so far.
While in this chapter the concept of what's called "phase space" is just in the beginning stages of being explained (looking forward to reading the more in-depth on this subject in ch. 4!) I still found this concept to be interesting all the same. It was interesting to read of the different stages/phases in small group communication, which are listed as: Introduction/forming, Conflict/storming, Emergence/norming, and Production/performing. With the introduction stage the group is getting to know each other, learning each other's names, etc. It's interesting that right after this stage comes the conflict stages, which is "nicknamed" so brutally-sounding "storming." I see the introduction stage as everyone in the group being polite, since they are just meeting each other, and yet it's funny that the next stage is conflict, where I picture the group members arguing and having difference of opinions.
However, as the book hints, conflict is a very necessary stage of small group communication yet I think a lot of people try to avoid conflict of any kind especially in new situations. For example, in small groups I've been in a lot of times the members will all agree on someone else's opinion/statement just to be polite and not wanting to go against them. I know this happened to me in one of my classes. Myself and this other early-twenties guy were teamed up with two older ladies for this group project and this sort of took the reigns and took over themselves. Myself and this other gentlemen were hesitant in giving our opinions and input since they were older than us, more experienced, etc. To close, I'll offer one of the book's quotes: "Out of the knowledge of their different perspectives, conflict often emerges and can lead to a greater understanding on which the group can predicate its productive decision-making and problem-solving processes" (P. 38).
While in this chapter the concept of what's called "phase space" is just in the beginning stages of being explained (looking forward to reading the more in-depth on this subject in ch. 4!) I still found this concept to be interesting all the same. It was interesting to read of the different stages/phases in small group communication, which are listed as: Introduction/forming, Conflict/storming, Emergence/norming, and Production/performing. With the introduction stage the group is getting to know each other, learning each other's names, etc. It's interesting that right after this stage comes the conflict stages, which is "nicknamed" so brutally-sounding "storming." I see the introduction stage as everyone in the group being polite, since they are just meeting each other, and yet it's funny that the next stage is conflict, where I picture the group members arguing and having difference of opinions.
However, as the book hints, conflict is a very necessary stage of small group communication yet I think a lot of people try to avoid conflict of any kind especially in new situations. For example, in small groups I've been in a lot of times the members will all agree on someone else's opinion/statement just to be polite and not wanting to go against them. I know this happened to me in one of my classes. Myself and this other early-twenties guy were teamed up with two older ladies for this group project and this sort of took the reigns and took over themselves. Myself and this other gentlemen were hesitant in giving our opinions and input since they were older than us, more experienced, etc. To close, I'll offer one of the book's quotes: "Out of the knowledge of their different perspectives, conflict often emerges and can lead to a greater understanding on which the group can predicate its productive decision-making and problem-solving processes" (P. 38).
Week 2, Post 1: E&E
*2). Explain how entropy and equifinality impact small groups.
Entropy is not a good thing for groups at all. The book describes it as being disorganized, stagnated, and chaotic. I associate this within groups in the stage when there are no roles for each group member (e.g. leader), and everyone is talking at the same time, and there is no order or organization to anything. “If everyone is talking at once and no one is listening, very little can be accomplished, and someone needs to insist on order” (P. 33). Entropy can cause small groups to not get any work done and be stuck in one place, due to lack of any new information being said or given in the group. This probably happens when some of the members don’t or stop contributing to the group and just let the other members talk. I recall in one of my classes when I had a group of four people and the first day we couldn’t decide on a leader, so when we all gave an opinion on what to do for the assignment there was no one to make the final call and therefore we kept going in a circle. Before we finally decided on a leader, our group was very disorderly and it made me feel like it would be a long semester.
Equifinality allows each group to decide on their own way of doing something, based on strengths, weaknesses, opinions and so forth of the group. Equifinality says that there is no one way of doing something. How this impacts small groups is by giving groups a lot of different options to choose from in completing a task. It gives groups flexibility, and not being boxed in to one way or order of things. As an example the book says, “If you are interested in maintaining your physical health, you can watch your diet, do aerobics, lift weights, play sports, or combine any of those or other activities” (P. 34). Just as there is no one way of being physically healthy, there is also no one way of communication in a small group.
Entropy is not a good thing for groups at all. The book describes it as being disorganized, stagnated, and chaotic. I associate this within groups in the stage when there are no roles for each group member (e.g. leader), and everyone is talking at the same time, and there is no order or organization to anything. “If everyone is talking at once and no one is listening, very little can be accomplished, and someone needs to insist on order” (P. 33). Entropy can cause small groups to not get any work done and be stuck in one place, due to lack of any new information being said or given in the group. This probably happens when some of the members don’t or stop contributing to the group and just let the other members talk. I recall in one of my classes when I had a group of four people and the first day we couldn’t decide on a leader, so when we all gave an opinion on what to do for the assignment there was no one to make the final call and therefore we kept going in a circle. Before we finally decided on a leader, our group was very disorderly and it made me feel like it would be a long semester.
Equifinality allows each group to decide on their own way of doing something, based on strengths, weaknesses, opinions and so forth of the group. Equifinality says that there is no one way of doing something. How this impacts small groups is by giving groups a lot of different options to choose from in completing a task. It gives groups flexibility, and not being boxed in to one way or order of things. As an example the book says, “If you are interested in maintaining your physical health, you can watch your diet, do aerobics, lift weights, play sports, or combine any of those or other activities” (P. 34). Just as there is no one way of being physically healthy, there is also no one way of communication in a small group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
