According to Trenholm, the Pragmatic Perspective is communication that consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time. Many scholars associate this with 'playing a game.' An example the book uses is... "When people decide to communicate, the become partners in a game that require them to make individual moves or acts. Overtime these acts become patterned." I do not agree with this perspective on communication. When we are communicating it is not a 'game' to play, it is a natural instinct. In other words, we don't think about how to communicate in a 'game' form before we open our mouths to communicate. For example it is natural to start a conversation with no thought and see where it leads whereas where you can 'win.' I know my examples are a little extreme, but it simply gets the message across. The part I do agree on is that communication can be patterned. One example is your daily routine to 'communicate' yourself to the world. Regardless if you mean to send a message to someone intentionally or not, throughout the week you repeat certain things.
Hello Hoofie!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your remarks about the correlation of communicating and a “game”. I do understand your perspective on this, however I believe the term “game” is very interpretive. These terms this model uses such as “games” or to “win” is not the best choice of words to look at this approach because it almost makes it sound as though communicators are trying to “win” or get something out of every conversation. In partial agreeance with you, communication should also be looked as a natural instinct. When I interpret this model, I think more in terms of persuasion and argument. I can see how these types of interactions can be interpreted as games because there are methods to increase your chances in “winning”.