Month: November 2020

An onion by itself is typically not the tastiest treat around. At least to my knowledge, I have never asked my mother to pack an onion in my lunch so I can eat it raw. But when you consider how many different ways an onion can be paired, now we are getting somewhere. When fried, put onto a burger, or even sauteed the flavor completely changes the properties that an onion brings to the table. In addition, the onion is known for having multiple layers, with these layers have birthed multiple sayings and quotes. But one thing that remains constant is the idea that behind each layer is another deeper layer. This same concept is seen in our friendships. When I was young, my mother would always make me be on my best behavior to meet new people. This is what happened when I met my current best friend Justin. When we first met our parents set up a playdate or as I call it “the moms drink wine and let the kids have their fun”. We were both dressed in nice clothes and were not used to each other’s company. But as time went on we started getting closer and closer and sharing more about ourselves. We were introduced when we were 5 years old, and now at twenty-two, we are still best of friends.

Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor take this onion and relate it to social penetration theory. This theory is “the process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability”(94). In addition to sharing, one must pay attention to personality structure or an “onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings about self, other, and the world”(94). Lastly, Cialdini recognized this as one of his weapons of influence but it can also be seen in social penetration theory. The law of reciprocity is “a paced and orderly process in which openness in one person leads to openness in the other”(96). Although the way that Cialdini defined reciprocity is defined differently the essence of the message is the same. When people offer favors for one individual the other feels obligated to return the favor.

Returning to the original statement of the Onion, I find it interesting how this theory does not have to be learned to be applied. It is natural for people who are meeting new people to start on the outermost layer before they start sharing their innermost vulnerable secrets. Retreating to the example above with my best friend and me, we were just children. We could barely speak English let alone understand social interactions as a whole. But it is interesting how we still followed the social penetration theory. Personality structure played a significant role in developing our relationship. When we started we liked each other based on the idea that we enjoyed doing the same things and that was it. We played the same sports and watched the same shows. Our relationship has progressed and we have grown closer because the longer we know each other, the deeper our conversations got, and the more protected information started to get shared on a more frequent basis. This was only possible because of the Law of Reciprocity. Once one of us started to share information the other would match the information. I remember us being children in elementary school and I would only tell him who I liked if he told me who he liked. Overall, the most interesting part of social penetration theory is the fact that is it naturally occurring. Meaning individuals do not need to have an understanding of the theory before we implement the theory in real life.

Social Penetration theory and friendships

Before I get started, I understand politics can be a touchy subject, but I have no malicious intent and do not mean to offend anyone in any way shape, or form. By reading on, you understand that there might be a trigger warning, but the purpose of this article is solely for educational reasons.

2020 was one heck of a year with no shortage of topics to talk about. Among these topics, there was also an election that divided the country into two pieces. One of the claims made by George Washington was that the two-party system was a bad idea. Until a couple of years ago, no one really took this seriously.  Between Joe Biden and President Trump, our country has never been more divided, and for some reason, people feel the need to justify their decisions without anyone even asking them. They push for one side or the other with complete disregard for their own actions and or beliefs. The interesting part is when we take a step back from all political disagreements and watch the different sides completely go against their beliefs with their actions. When interviewed regarding said beliefs their actions act differently than what they claim to believe.

In chapter 16, In Chapter 16, Cognitive Dissonance Theory Author Leon Festinger describes cognitive dissonance as “The distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action”(194). This action of Cognitive Dissonance is one that we all have felt before. When I was a child I was taught that liars were bad people, then when I would tell a white lie I knew I was not a bad person but my action did not line up with my beliefs. In addition to today’s political outrage, we can see the majority of people practicing selective exposure, or “the tendency people have to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it’s incompatible with their current beliefs”(196). This is seen in people’s social media when they only follow one side and disregard or do not follow people who disagree with them. Lastly, Festinger’s minimal justification hypothesis claims that “the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior” (198).

Cognitive dissonance happens to everyone whether we are aware of it or not. It does not have to be your own personal belief that your actions do not line up with in order to experience cognitive dissonance. When looking into politics people feel this dissonance when there are other opinions they do not agree with. Solely because of this feeling they go out of their way to avoid other’s opinions. This selective exposure has to lead us to a country where we are unable to come to a compromise and put the nation before our own personal views. With no one listening to one another, we see others go out of their way to make the other side look bad just because we do not want them to look good. There are some individuals out there who completely disregard the other side’s arguments, and this leads us nowhere besides the inability to adapt and come to a compromise. In addition to the vast amounts of selective exposure, we have in our country, people feel the need to justify the “wisdom of their choice to dismiss the other”. A study done at Harvard University by Sendhil Mullainathan claimed that “cognitive dissonance theory predicts that the act of voting for a candidate leads to a more favorable opinion of the candidate in the future.” Essentially, cognitive dissonance is inevitable, no matter what topic you choose or what discussion you make. But no matter how long we try to unify, we will always justify the decisions that we make and cognitive dissonance will always be around to haunt us. I can honestly say, we are a good country but we have failed. We have failed because we did not put the nation’s needs in front of ours but most importantly because our behaviors do not match our attitudes.

The Haunting of Hill House

A wise person once said, “We do not need to be told when someone tells us a good story, we just know and acknowledge the good story when we hear it”. Think back into your life and remember all of the times where you did something that was not smart but now you look back and just laugh. Once you remember this moment, think about how many times you have told the story, and how many times this story was shared by a dear friend who just wanted to remind you of that one time you did something stupid. The Narrative Paradigm theory brings forward the idea that everything in our lives can be told in the form of a story. Essentially, we live in a story and the pages of the book are slowly being written day by day. The most crucial part is the fact that we do not have control over who tells our story. This is what happened in the 2018 Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House. An event happened in their childhood and no one in the family could remember what happened perfectly because they all came up with their own stories to mask the dramatic event. Once all of them came together again and shared their stories, then everything started to make sense.

Our textbook defines narration as “symbolic actions, works and/or deeds, that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create or interpret them”.(299) Later the book defines Paradigm as, “a conceptual framework; a universal model that calls for people to view events through a common interpretive lens” (299). Now looking more into a narrative, it is essentially how someone tells a story. Contrary to popular belief, Fisher does not see narrative paradigm as rhetoric, but as “the foundation on which a complete rhetoric needs to be built”(299). Transitioning to high school English, stories are filled with symbolism, therefore the story is much more than was is said or written on the page. The main portion of why people love stories is because of the interpretation that relies on the individual to decipher. After all, there are two determining factors for a narrative, fidelity, and coherence. Fidelity is basically if the story makes sense while coherence is determined by if the story comes together and floes effectively.

After reading about this theory, I found it interesting how the majority of television shows and movies actually follow the same rules and outline of this theory. In The Haunting of Hill House, a family goes through a traumatic event that follows them for the rest of their lives. Because they are all so young when the incident occurred, every one of the five children remembers the night differently. With all having different memories of what happened it was hard to piece everything together. One of the children, Steve, wrote a book and made a lot of money based on the events that happened that night, but all of the other siblings disagree with his story because they remember it differently. For the sake of spoilers, I will not clarify the event, but an event occurred which forced the family to come together and share everything they remember about the night. After their narrative, the paradigm of the stories was able to line up and they were one step closer to understanding what happened that terrible night. Originally, there was a lack of fidelity between the siblings because the other stories did not align with the beliefs of the other siblings. But as more information was shared everything started to line up. The coherence and the fidelity changed and they solved the puzzle. What is essential to take away from this TV series is the power of storytelling when persuading individuals.

When it comes to telling stories we are all guilty of it. Changing the story just enough to make your argument seem much better. Maxwell and McCombs and Donald Shaw wrote about the different levels of agenda-setting. The first level is when they tell you what issues you should be thinking about. The second level is where framing happens, they basically tell you which aspects of the issues are most important. Lastly, the media shows you how to connect each of the different stories. I claim that level two can influence the public the most because they share what information you should be concerned about and just touch on the other sides. The picture above is a great example of framing because it shows how manipulative it can be. On one side, it looks like the soldier is about to be executed. On the other side, the soldier was just saved and getting some much-needed water. In today’s day and age, framing is more prevalent than it ever has been before. In the election of 2020, we can see how the media focuses on one aspect of the candidate to emphasize their own personal viewpoints.

By emphasizing a specific view the media is able to influence the public without the public even knowing. The media frames their content on a daily basis to best fit their agendas. in the second level of agenda-setting, “transfer of salience of a dominant set of attributes that the media associates with an attitude object to the specific features” and putting an image in our minds (370). Media framing as defined by James Tankard, one of the leading writers in mass communication theory, claims that “the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, and elaboration.”(370) This is important to understand because the media “set an agenda for which issues, events, and candidates are most important” as well as the things that pop into our minds. (370) They have the power to make certain events big news and mean a lot while they downplay other events.

The media and news have such an important job, their job is to educate the public on what is happening around the world. I believe it is important to keep all information unbiased, expressing all of the facts so then the people can make the decisions and can develop their own unique ideas and beliefs. When the media ever so slightly changes the story or emphasizes one specific portion of the story, our minds get swayed to believe one side of the story. On the extreme side, it can look like a form of brainwashing because they are telling the people what to think and how to act. James Tanark said it best when he was explaining selection, emphasis, and elaboration. Selection is important to understand because the news and media outlets want to pick stories that are relevant and will get more eyes on their network. Once they select a story they need to emphasize one critical aspect of the story. They will emphasize what is important to them and their audience. In the case of the media and elections, certain media stations decided it would be best to choose a picture of Joe Biden smiling and looking good, while President Trump’s picture was a mean scowl. When one looked deeper into how the media influences our choices throughout the presidential election it is obvious that the media picks sides. Depending on which channel you choose to watch, the way their news and tell you why it is important. When looking at right-wing politics they focus on how Vice President Joe Biden is old and unfit to take on the role of president. On the other side of the spectrum, they focus on President Trump’s racist and sexiest remarks. Both sides are guilty of framing. This becomes a major issue when we become blind to the way the media influences us. This is important to understand so you do your own research and develop your own thought rather than listening to one specific media outlet and let them control your beliefs.

Agenda-setting in the 2020 election

Over the summer I had the privilege of working with many individuals. The person who is solely responsible for my success throughout the internship is a gentleman who we will call Isiah for the sake of privacy. Isiah grew up in the inner city of Boston and grew up with a hard life as a poor African American, but he worked hard to escape that life so his children can one day have a better life. Isiah understood that others treated him differently but decided to turn a blind eye, but for the most part, he was just another salesperson doing his job. I always thought he was just like everyone else I worked with because he talked like us, dressed like us, and even used the same slang that we used on a daily basis. I never thought too much of it until one day where we got ourselves into a little pickle. We were in a lower-class neighborhood and some individuals came up and began to harass me for being white and wearing nice clothes and him for being the “whitest black guy in America”. Isiah jumped into action and started speaking in slang and with a tone that I have never heard before. After we were back in the car I asked what happened. He acknowledged what he did and claimed that those were the kind of people he used to hang with and he knew how to deal with them.

In Chapter 36 Co-Cultural Theory of Mark Orbe, we learned the importance of the Co-Cultural group or “the marginalized groups such as women, people of color, the economically disadvantaged, people with physical disabilities, the LGBTQ community, and religious minorities”(449). Isiah fit into this group but more importantly, Isiah participated in assimilation or the “process of fitting into the dominant culture while shedding the speech and nonverbal markers of the co-cultural group” (451). Furthermore, Isiah participates in Communication Orientation or “the combination of a co-culture group members preferred outcome and the communication approach he or she chooses to achieve a goal” (450).

Isiah does an excellent job showcasing Co-Cultural Theory from multiple perspectives. First and foremost he is a member of a co-culture group because of his African-American background. In the example above, Isiah uses different aspects from his other experiences to achieve the outcomes he desires. In the case where we were confronted and harassed, he used his knowledge from his teenage years to help get the outcome we both wanted, to get back to the office in one piece. Although at first, the individuals thought he was the “whitest black man in the United States” they soon connected the dots and realized this man has become a master at adopting a new culture and making it his own. From seeing firsthand the way he talked and the way he was reacted in that one moment it is clear that the process of assimilation has taken its course. Right after this, he looked at me and he could tell that I was perplexed because I have not seen that side of him. I only knew the office, Isiah, where he would talk like everyone else and use the slag that we used. No one would ever know he was not apart of the dominant culture unless a situation forced him to adapt and change. Furthermore, he was completely adapted to the culture’s verbal and nonverbal markers to better fit in. Co-Culture Theory does a great job showing how the actions of both the Dominant and the Co-Culture group and how these intertwine with one another.

The Rhetoric of Race, Culture, and Identity: Rachel Dolezal as Co-Cultural Group Member