There and Back Again- A Dark Side Communicator's Tale

Some of you may recognize my blog title as a play on the title of Bilbo Baggins' book in The Hobbit. His journey is the basis for a fantastic journey through Middle Earth. While my journey through the Dark Side is not so adventurous as Mr. Baggins' (sadly, there are no elves, hobbits, dwarves or wizards), the journey is beginning to feel a bit like I've been there and am now back again, so to speak. Let me try to explain.
 
The biggest theme I notice in these readings is the importance of recognizing the cyclical nature of interpersonal communication as I try to understand the dark side of it.  Consider the centrality of emotional responses to the shaping of intrapersonal communication and how that influences interpersonal communication patterns in our relationships, that then produce or define emotional responses. The self understandings, ideological assumptions, understanding and positioning of ourselves and the other, attributions for our own and other's behaviors and the expectations we have of ourselves and others all serve to shape how we interact with others. The world of meaning that we bring to the table is our guide post in how we see ourselves and others in these interactions. The way others respond to this is guided by all of those same understandings of self and other, ideological assumptions, self and other positioning, attributions for their own and others behavior, expectations of themselves and of others. These things are negotiated through interpersonal communication and they result in a pattern of interaction that serves to influence our intrapersonal communication--and so the cycle goes. It all seems pretty simple...we know, as communication scholars, that who we are is negotiated in communication with others and who others are is negotiated in their communication with us. But so far, these readings (this week and prior weeks) have been a much needed reminder for me of this very basic reality.


"Social constructionists such as Rosaldo (1984) have argued that the language of emotions within our cultures shape how we react in different circumstances" (Ritchie & Barker, 2013, p. 586). This statement was an a-ha moment for me as it helped me to better understand how emotional responses to relational experiences are completely contingent upon the language available within the relational context to express and understand an emotion. Relationships are comprised of patterned interpersonal communication, and based on this, I would argue that these patterns of communication specific to each relationship enables (and constrains) our ability to express emotional responses in ways that fit the pattern in place for that relationship. For example, take the Sommer & Baumeister (1997) article on guilt. Guilt is an emotion that seems to be highly contingent on the interpersonal pattern of communication for a relationship. What should one feel guilty about? What's an appropriate amount of guilt to feel? Who should feel guilty for what and who gets a pass? All of this is determined by the relational climate and interpersonal communicative patterns of that relationship. Say a husband and wife get into a fight because the husband stayed out with his friends until 4am. The wife is very upset by this and calls his cell phone repeatedly. The husband comes home angry and embarrassed by the number of phone calls he had to field while out with his friends. Depending on the relational pattern specific to this relationship, the husband may experience guilt and the wife may have gained power. OR, the wife may experience guilt through which the husband may gain/maintain power. This emotional response is entirely dependent on the patterns of interpersonal communication that comprise that relationship.In their discussion of cyber-affairs, Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper and Buchanan (2000) talk about the role that feelings of shame play in what they call "sexual acting out". Feelings of shame clearly are incorporated into the communication patterns of relationships, and can have the same cyclical impact in that it influences the way in which couples communicate and also is produced and reinforced by the communicative patterns in these relationships.

 Because I am STILL struggling with blame (pragmatically, not conceptually--conceptually, I completely get where Stewart is coming from in his suggestion that communication is patterned and collaborative and no one person can be blamed for communicative outcomes), I have to touch on the role of self-serving attributions that Deandra, Tom Tong and Walther (2011). They discuss this concept in terms of the success or failure of virtual teams, but, I think it's useful to consider it more broadly speaking in all relational contexts. We do make self-serving attributions in our relationships--this whole influential theory is based on the assignment of blame, credit and responsibility. VERY simply put, if it fails, someone else is to blame for that--if it succeeds, it's our doing. I realize this theory is designed to help us make sense of the accounts that are communicated about reasons for behavior, but I'm curious how others perceive this theory (and others like it) as it links to Stewart's (2006) definition of communication (specifically on the idea that communication is continuous, complex and collaborative--without room for fault/blame thinking)? Is it simply a concession that we all understand communication in a simplistic manner that allows for fault/blame thinking (Stewart, 2006)? Do theories like this inhibit our ability to complicate the lay understanding of communication? What do you guys think?

Another broad theme that I feel has been significant this semester and manifests again in this week's readings is this idea of ideological positioning shaping one's perspective and the overall influence this has on how we judge the competence of interactions. This can be readily seen in the Deandrea, et al (2011) chapter. When discussing how those with offline social skills deficits begin to rely more heavily on internet chat over FtF communication thereby further diminishing their FtF social skills, they have this to say:  "To an outsider, this may look like an addiction. Perhaps it is an adaptation. It is a morally ambiguous paradox to evaluate: We do not favor situations and processes that lead to declines in the ability to manage social interaction effectively" (p. 101). This illustrates the importance of understanding your own perspective and how it aligns with the perspective of the published research, the "evidence", and how that fits with or challenges the dominant ideology. It's amazing the difference changing the behavioral descriptor from "addiction" to "adaptation" has in opening up space for this behavior.

Language is an ideological institution (Deetz, 1992), a point Ritchie and Barker (2013) emphasize as they discuss the importance of language in legitimating and creating space for emotions that may run contrary to the dominant paradigm. In their article about polyamorous communities, they talk about the value of creating a language that will legitimate and give voice to emotional responses to sexual relationships that run counter to the discourse of monogamy. In this way, we can begin to see how "re-writing language of identity, relationships and emotion can enable alternate ways of being" (p. 596). This, for me, is a very hopeful statement. It helps us to clearly see that we can re-negotiate a relationship--we can re-write an incompetent interpersonal pattern within a relationship to be more competent--but, it MUST be collaborative. It's also nice illustration of Stewart's (2006) claim that everyday conversations are among the most powerful/important. The language we use to talk about mundane things, to give voice to what is and is not "normal", to express emotions and thoughts collaboratively creates and inhibits space for change in individual, relational and social perspectives and orientations.

 I think this is why I loved When A Man Loves a Woman so much--this couple terminated a dysfunctional relationship--an incompetent interpersonal communication pattern--and collaboratively re-wrote it. Not an easy task, but doable. Referring back to my sister and her husband (when she left the abusive relationship behind)--I didn't trust that she could re-write that relationship, and I doubted her decision to go back to him. I doubted it because in our society, we don't seem to privilege the re-writing of old relationships--when it's broken, you move on. You don't re-negotiate it. Sure there are cases where this is done, but more often than not, the strength in the relational partner is demonstrated and celebrated as having the strength to leave the abusive relationship. Having the strength (and it takes considerable strength) to extend an invitation to re-negotiate a relationship with negative interpersonal patterns is often portrayed as weak. What my sister and her husband did, to me, shows some of the strongest love I've seen. Each was willing to completely change their approach to their marriage--they were willing to become unfamiliar with each other again and re-learn how to relate to one another. They challenged and changed their interpersonal communication pattern and created one that was much more competent.

I guess right now, from the way this week's readings build on the previous readings to inform my approach to the dark side is simply the reminder that all communication is constitutive--whether it's light or dark--and the relationships it constitutes are created collaboratively.  The patterns that comprise these relationships, whether they are light or dark, create a way to interpret and attribute emotional responses which perpetuate or challenge the power structure and the perceived competence of the relationship. All of this is embedded within our larger social system that is rooted in ideological assumptions that contribute to how we define what is and is not competent communication and what is and is not desirable to strive toward in our relationships--what is labeled as positive or negative--what is stigmatized as antisocial or supported as prosocial communication--what is light, and what is dark. It's not a new realization, in fact, it's one of the fundamental tenets we embrace as scholars of communication. It feels new, though, in "light" of the dark side.  I'm there, and now I'm back again (See? I didn't totally abandon my opening story).