A common topic of conversation within my family revolves around current political situations and decisions. As is the case with most, there are a lot of conflicting opinions that take place. My father and I are both highly opinionated but have clashing perspectives. My mother, on the other hand, chooses to play the mediator. This does not, however, restrict her from voicing her own, somewhat scarce opinions when the discussion ensues, and these opinions almost always align with that of my father's. Having two authority figures sharing the same views, which specifically conflict with your own, itself, points at a significant power dynamic at play. Adding to the equation is my younger sister. She mainly prefers to remain in a weird stance of apolitical, one wherein she does not believe that she has enough knowledge to provide significant contributions to the discussion but also will not refrain from voicing her perspective on an opinion that has already been brought into the conversation.
In this communication situation presented, we can see a varied display of dynamics at play. I have noticed that our routine conversations begin with my father's initiation. This means that our discussions are usually pertaining to my dad being the sender while the rest of us are the receivers, and its continuation relies on the input/feedback we provide to him as well as the ones we provide to the other receivers as well, as discussions usually work.
As seen in the diagram, the sender, my father, will send a message across to us three, which is a current political topic. The channel he uses to convey his message in is English, as that is what all of the participants are comfortable with, and the medium of transmission is face-to-face. A recurring political issue presented in our discussions is PM Modi and his decisions and proclamations during this pandemic. The cultivation theory most definitely influences this message that my father passes along to us. Cultivation theory is the theory of communication where the more time spent in the television world, the more likely people are to believe social reality aligns with the reality portrayed on the television. Most of what my father uses as a source of his information is usually popular news channels and news sites. It is a well-known fact that the media that is circulated is very easily influenced. This influence can be either indirectly altered by the government to serve its propaganda or a medium of spreading fake news. My father's intake of information based solely on this kind of media means that his reality and thereby, his opinion is heavily dependent on them.
When this form of the message is passed along to three different receivers who may practice different politics, they may have various inputs to provide. The first, and most prominent, exchange of ideas and viewpoints that takes place is the input I give back to my father. This input, however, has certain restrictions that make it unclear to the receiver of it, which in this case, is my father. The first problem it encounters is the Spiral of Silence theory. Spiral of Silence states that individuals might be isolated or excluded by other individuals or society due to their opinions. This implies that individuals have a fear of isolation. This fear of isolation consequently means that one remains silent rather than voicing their opinions. Media plays a significant role in influencing the dominant idea and people's perception of what this dominant idea is. It is, however, not as rigorous as it otherwise would be, considering I have the safety blanket of familial relations. This means that I do hesitate while voicing individual opinions and also filter out my thoughts before expressing them to my father as there is a superiority and authority imbalance when it comes to a father-daughter relationship. However, I do consider this theory implied pretty loosely on my actions, considering I clasp on to a sense of security that comes with having opinionated conversations within a familial setup.
Communication occurs smoothly if no noise influences the message being passed along. Noise can be of any kind, but in this situation mainly, I think there are preconceived notions that prevent a clear understanding of the message. This noise occurs when I provide feedback to my father as I have already formed, based on the kind of information I have received, a notion that is firmly against the message being conveyed. It is hard to let go of such conviction as it is something formed over time based on information I believe to be accurate and against the rigidity of an administration. However, this is the manner in which
conversations between people with different politics functions. In the diagram, there is a relatively clear path to portray my opinionated viewpoint, and after encoding when influenced by the noise, it becomes a broken path to imply restrained feedback caused by noise.
Since, I filter out my thoughts, slightly altering my perspective due to the Spiral of Silence theory at play, we can also view the Gatekeeping Theory taking place. In 1943, Kurt Zadek Lewin coined the term "Gatekeeping." It is the process of selecting and filtering out specific information. The Gatekeeper is the watchdog who determines what information should reach the group or individual; they hold a certain level of social, ethical, cultural, or political influence. There are certain aspects of my opinions that I withhold and not pass along in my input to my father. This is depicted in the diagram by showing three arrows that, after being gatekept, is narrowed to one, which is then encoded and sent to my father.
Another part of the conversation that takes place, somewhat simultaneously, is the feedback my mother provides to my father. Although my mother believes she doesn't lean on either end of the political sides my father and I wish to take, her feedback is always assent to the message my father passes along. This is depicted by a clear line between the two. The path is illustrated in such a manner since there does not seem to be any disagreement, or noise, that disrupts their understanding of each other's politics as it is at par.
Since my sister chooses to maintain her lingering stance of apolitical, she does not provide an utterly broken path of feedback to my father or anyone in this conversation. This is because of the noise that is created due to her being an inattentive receiver due to her lack of knowledge on the matters. No conflict is presented due to this as the participants of this conversation understand that her young age and lack of knowledge on the current functioning of our politics means she can be adept from specific discussions. This is, however, when a different thread of conversation presents itself. I take on the role of the sender and my sister, the receiver. I believe that it is no longer wise to maintain the stance of apolitical, which is why my sister should be more aware of the administration that is responsible for our country's functioning and the politics of it to help her build her stance accordingly. Hence, there is a message of information explaining the conversation that was initially taking place that is passed along by me to my sister. There is no feedback given back since the communication is more one-way due to its explanatory nature.
The final thread of conversation that takes place is the one between my mother and I. In this case, my mother is the sender, and I am the receiver. Again, there is no feedback given since the communication is more one-way due to its admonishing nature. The contents of this message are always along the lines of not expressing my views publicly and to be afraid of the consequences that my political declarations may result in. In the sending of the message, the Spiral of Silence plays a significant role. My mother is afraid of the repercussions of voicing my opinions in a society wherein the majority are people who have views that conflict with mine. Although this may include precaution against severe rebuttal by such people, a lot of it has to do with my mother reserving the fear of isolation that comes along with expressing opinions that are against the administration that has control over us. Again there is a lot of noise in the sending of the message as it comes with certain preconceived notions that my mother has about the consequences people have faced and supposedly will always face if they boldly proclaim their political stances, especially ones that differ from the majority.
As is portrayed in this situation, there are two opinion leaders, that is, my father and I, whereas the other two participants of this conversation, my mother and my sister, are ones whose opinions depend on the views of the opinion leaders. In the diagram, this is portrayed by receiver 1 (me), being placed above the other two receivers. This is because there is a power dynamic at play where they listen to my opinions, and as a whole my father’s, to shape their own.
These are highly opinionated conversations, and there will come a change in its functioning with the probable change in the opinions itself. However, the setting in which these discussions take place plays a significant role in how the consequences of certain aspects occur. There is also a great sense of dependence that is portrayed in this communication situation due to its familial setup. Nevertheless, this communication functions on a frightening power dynamic driven by fear and suppression of voices due to the pre-set hierarchy, resulting in the control exercised by a stronger power onto the weaker ones, in this case-the administration to my parents and ultimately onto us.
Sources:
Gatekeeping Theory (1943) by Kurt Lewis
"Opinion climates, spirals of silence, and biotechnology: Public opinion as a heuristic for scientific decision making"
Cultivation Theory Revisited: The Impact of Childhood Television Viewing Levels on Social Reality Beliefs and Construct Accessibility in Adulthood
Comentarios