The muted group theory discussed by Cheris Kramarae refers to the societal undermining of women. Kramarae continues to define the muted group as “people belonging to low power groups who must change their language when communicating publicly, thus, their ideas are often overlooked.” In many cases in modern America, we see women forced to take different approaches to gaining respect than men of an equal of even lesser status. Men respond when women either teeter on the verge of friendly flirting, not demand respect from a far. A good example of this would be the movie Honey. In this movie the main character Honey is a up and coming dancer from the streets of NY. Her agent keeps on promoting her as an artist until finally he makes his move on her and she denies him. Once she does this, he pulls all of her shows and she is no longer able to remain a dancer. However, eventually she goes back to the agent and fulfills his wishes in order to pursue her career as a dancer.

Honey

The standpoint theory addressed by Sandra Harding and Julia T. Wood refers to the different perspectives we each have as individuals. We each have completely different pasts so during conversations, we each take a very particular standpoint on the matter being addressed based on our past experiences. Different standpoints rely on things such as race, ethnicity, gender, etc. With this being said, these individualized standpoints we each have shapes our view of the world.

An example of this would be in one Family Guy episode. This episode has the main character, Peter Griffin, hanging out with his father in law, Mr. Pewtershmidt, who happens to be a billionaire. Peter joins Mr. Pewterschmidt for a card game with his fellow billionaire buddies (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet) and at one point they go on a drive and pass through a toll booth. To which Peter says “you have to pay them a quarter” and Bill Gates responds with “what’s a quarter?”. This displays the standpoint theory because it represents the standpoint to which Bill Gates views a quarter. With billions and billions of dollars to worry about, a quarter is merely insignificant.

family guy clip

Debrah Tannen very strongly suggests that men and women should be studied as almost two sperate species in terms of the way in which they communicate with one another. Through vigorous studies of conversation, Tannen argues that while men and women are hearing and seeing the same things, the mental interpretation of these signals are much different. For example, in Tannen’s 5 distenct differences, in the public sphere women tend to have a more “get to know one another” style of communication. In retrospect, men are far more focused on dominance of others attention. The next point she mentions is story telling, and continues to explain how women tell far less stories then men. In these stories that men tell they are more likely than not the hero or humorous in some way. The next point hits on the fact that women always seem to listen more than men do. The next topic is about the gender difference in asking questions. For example, Tannen mentions that men are far more hesitant to ask for directions then women are. The final point that Tannen makes is the point of conflict. Women are far less likely to be involved in a physical fight, this is simply because men are genetically designed to see life as a competition with each other.

An example of this would be when men and women speed date. If you ever watch something on this topic or if you’ve ever been involved with this, then you’ll know how it works. The women usually switch dates quickly and the men basically talk about themselves while the women listen. This proves the point Tannen was referring to when she talked about women being better listeners.

Specific speech codes are attributed to specific roles played in society or even a family. As mentioned in class, the father was seen as the “conversation starter” in traditional settings. While speech codes are co created by the speaker as well as the listener, it becomes seamless between the two. Obviously the speaker has control over the direction of the conversation, but the listener is still able to facilitate their own interpretation of the words.

A good example of this is Tiger Woods. Back in 2008 Tiger Woods was on track to be the worlds first athlete to bring in a one billion dollars, however by 2009 he had lost nearly all of his endorsements. Much like the Michael Vick case mentioned in class, Tiger Woods was seemingly attached to the idea of cheating on your wife for years to follow. The media constantly published article after article mentioning the women Woods had been with.

Everyone walking the earth has their own unique way of understanding the world around them. The coordinated management of meaning theory refers to the simultaneous creation and interpretation of meaning throughout our social realities. Pearce and Cronen state “They can achieve coherence through common interpretation of their stories told. They can achieve coordination by meshing their stories lived.” Clearly our realities are a lot more dependent on our understanding of social experiences then we’d originally think. A good example of this would be commercials and advertisements. We all see the exact same message being produced yet different things appeal to us so we may love or hate the ad depending on our created meaning for certain things. A great example of this would be the 100 pound female models that most girls set out to look like. If 2 girls saw the same ad of a pencil thin model being swarmed by good looking men, one may think “I should try to look like her to get guys like that” while the other may simply think “she’s too skinny, I want to eat more so I don’t end up looking like that and have a bunch of slobs all over me”. A simple change in understanding and meaning could be the biggest difference in the world.

The cultivation theory discussed in the book explains how television in modern America is often given the blame for often exaggerating our expectations and understandings in everyday life. The world may seem like a dark and scary place, but this is often related to the lens of the fictional lives you often become engulfed into through the television. We subconsciously go into situations having predetermined expectations because of what television has portrayed to us as the “norm”. The more time an individual spends getting lost in the so called “television reality”, the more likely the individual will have a more difficult time separating reality from the reality of the television show.

When Gerber, who came up with the theory, began researching in the 1960’s, he defined the cultivation theory as “ high frequency viewers of television are more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid. Heavy viewers are exposed to more violence and therefore are affected by the Mean World Syndrome, the belief that the world is a far worse and dangerous place then it actually is” (masscomtheory.com/cultivation theory) Being that television sets were still rather new at this point and in no way as accessible as they are today, Gerber was able to notice a direct correlation between television watched and skewed versions of realities.

An example of this would be Law and Order Special victims unit. Although the show has a new episode what seems to be like every single day, depicting people of all ages and genders getting raped in New York city. If an individual spent a few hours watching a few episodes they’d more than likely believe that rape is far more common than it actually is.

Roland Barthes is given credit for having created the rhetorical term of semiotics which he defines as “the study of the social production of meaning from sign systems; the analysis of anything that can stand for something else” In my opinion however, humans have been applying meaning to symbols since the beginning of time. Whether it be consciously or subconsciously, even the earliest man knew smoke meant fire. Barthes expands on this idea when he explains the meaning of modern symbols such as diamonds to represent love. Humans go through everyday of their lives applying new meanings to symbols that we grow to understand as an entire culture. An example of this would be the handicap symbol we see everyday as Americans. Whether it be in parking spots, or on bathroom doors we are compltely aware that symbol means only people with handicaps should be using whatever the symbol is on.

The cognitive dissonance theory is something any remotely indecisive person can relate to. Many things play into how much you experience post decision dissonance. The more time you spend on a decision adds to the amount of post decision dissonance you feel. (if you do feel any dissonance) The next is how important the decision. For example, if you’re making the simple decision of “soup or salad” at a restaurant the amount of dissonance would obviously be less then if you were choosing a college to attend. The final part of the dissonance theory is how stuck you are with the decision you make.

An example of post decision dissonance would be in Johnny Depp’s film Donnie Brasco. In this film, Johnny Depp goes undercover as a member of the Italian Mob and becomes too attached to the people he’s supposed to be trying to take down. In the climax of the film, Johnny Depp tries to convince Al Pacino to take the money that he has and just get out of the country. He immidiately regrets the decision because Al Pacino hints at the fact he knows what Johnny is saying and may kill him because of it.

http://youtu.be/_-67OCs6At8

The book explains the functional perspective of group decision making is more of an effective approach to solving problems as long as you stick to the four major criteria ; The first is analysis f the problem. This is allowing the group to all be on the same page and know exactly what the problem is. Next is goal setting which is simply agreeing on what the group wants to reach as a whole. Next, is identifying the potential alternatives to reach the understood goal. Finally, the last criteria would be evaluating the alternatives. Not only should the group find a solution but they should also measure out which solution is the best one.

Jams Camron’s movie Avatar is a perfect example for the functional perspective of group decision making. In the beginning, the main character tried to fit in with a foreign tribe solely by himself, and no help from the scientists he worked with everyday. However, as soon as a real problem arose in which he had to save the entire tribe from militant forces, the group comes together to consider plenty of options on how they could make is work. Finally, the main character comes up with the idea they stick with because it is the most likely to succeed. This resembles the example from the book because all aspects of the group displayed their ideas and went with the best one.

Rhetoric is defined by Aristotle as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every case. Within this, Aristotle explains the three settings in which rhetoric would be used as a powerful persuasive tool : the first setting is epideictic, which would be ceremonial speech. Graduation speeches, funerals and even letters of recommendation would be examples because they give a persuasive “praise’ to someone or something. The second rhetorical setting Aristotle mentions is the forensic rhetoric which would take place in a courtroom setting. The third rhetorical setting is deliberative which would be a political speeches.Aristotle also introduces the first idea of three ways in which a speaker attempts to get through to the listener. First is the ethical appeal which he calls ethos. Second is the logical appeal which he calls logos. Finally, the emotional appeal Aristotle’s called pathos.

In one episode of the Boondocks, the main character Riley demonstrates ethos because of his ethical appeal to his audience to change their point of view on a contraversial matter in the neighborhood. On one hand, he wants his favorite rapper and good friend Gangstalicious to move into the house next door. However, his outspoken grandfather doesn’t want the rapper to move in next door due to his dangerous lifestyle and bad influence on Riley and his younger brother Huey. At one point in the episode Huey speaks out to the neighborhood including Gangstalicious stating that although he and Gangstalicious may be friends, they were in fact dangerous and a bad example to the children of the neighborhood. This forces Gangstalicious out of the neighborhood because they local families push him out. In his speech, Riley demonstrates ethos because he was experienced in what Gangstalicious was doing, not only because they were friends but also because he was young enough to see the malleable kids he hung out with being corrupted. Also, Riley demonstrates pathos because he pleeds with the families to unite and push Gangstalicious out beause the children they raised were being damaged. At one point, a mother even begins to cry while thinking of her little boy being damaged by something she could have prevented.