Communication 372 – Theory and Research in Intercultural
Communication
Updated 05/18/09
Intercultural Blog
|
Definition of Culture for Today:: Samovar &
Porter (2003): "The deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual and group striving" (p.8). B. J. Hall (2005):
“Culture is defined for our discussion as a historically shared system of symbolic resources through which we make our world meaningful” (p. 4). |
Introduction One semester, I used the “intercultural blog” as a
way for students to talk about their own intercultural experiences, in hopes
to get them away from their computer (or to scout around on their computer)
for “intercultural experiences.” In the end, responses were uneven, with some
students treating the blog mostly as a way only to express themselves (the
ideal use of a blog!) but not really to apply course concepts. Also, the blog
became redundant with the exam essays. In Summer, 2009, students are required to have four “journal” entries, though these are
really application essays. However, you are free to add more stories to apply
short concepts if you want to! Since yours are worth 20 points each, you
should pick “frameworks” and such to discuss that have some depth of
application (don’t, for example, try to write a whole application essay on
the fact that someone “stereotyped” you in an interaction!). There are some
good examples in Exam 2 sample on-line (this year, Quiz 2 will actually have
closed-ended questions and not be all essay!). Also, I will provide some
examples below. So, some of my blog entries will be longer
applications of frameworks. BUT, since this is my blog, and not just a sample of assignments, I may also have
briefer reflections. The primary purpose for this blog is for my
Intercultural Communication students, Summer, 2009! You will notice an ongoing scroll of definitions of culture in the L margin. These are for you to continue to see how people define culture. These are from Redefining Culture (Baldwin et al., 2006). |
|
Parsons, T. (1964). Social
structure and personality. Common culture: "A commonly shared system of symbols, the meanings of which are understood on both sides with an approximation to agreement" (p. 21).
Pictures © John R. Baldwin, 2005 Top image: Me swinging on a vine in |
About teaching COM 372 On-Line Research says that teaching an on-line course is more work than teaching f2f. I believe it! I have been sitting here typing, updating my webpages, saying what I want to say in writing, for 3 ½ hours now, and I have not even logged onto WebCT to see what you have to say about my initial questions (for those who got a head start). Another ½ hour should do it for today! (so much for getting a head start on day 2). People ask me if I like teaching on-line. I have a mixed response. I am really a f2f kind of guy. I like the personal interaction with students, and I think a course like Intercultural works best face-to-face. But teaching on-line has its own advantages: · Some say that it allows teachers to teach class (and students to attend) in their pajamas (or less!). I will neither confirm nor deny that rumor, but will move on to other reasons…
Disadvantages: The main disadvantages are lack of interaction in the classroom (I usually like to do lots of group exercises), and the fact that I often have a lot to say, sometimes comparing different authors, sometimes clarifying, that doesn’t always work as well in print. There is a lot that simply cannot be tested on the higher thought regarding intercultural communication. But I’m glad to chat if you want to call! |
|
Culture: “An accumulated pattern of values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by an identifiable group of people with a common history and verbal and nonverbal symbol system" (Neuliep, 2006, p. 38). |
May 21, 2009: Neuliep’s Contextual Model of Intercultural Communication (ICC) Each writer who designs a model to explain the ICC process must, by necessity, focus on some things while leaving other things out. Neuliep provides a very useful model of ICC in that it pictures communication as occurring within a series of concentric contexts. Some writers, like Gudykunst and Kim, use dotted lines in the influences on communication, to show the overlap or interrelationship between the contexts or influences. I’m sure Neuliep intends us to consider the contexts as interrelated. As I apply the model, I could either explain the whole model and then apply it, or explain and apply as I go. To save space (so that my application actually serves as the “examples” for the model), I will do the later. Note—I start with a title! J I will also use APA citation and list my source at the bottom of the entry. Your paper will probably only have one citation, if you use a source at all! When dropped into a Word document, it’s about 3 full pages long—just a tad longer than your application essays need to be! A Tense Situation—Interethnic Conflict Interpreted through Neuliep’s Contextual Model of ICC When I was a doctoral student studying intergroup and intercultural communication, one day I was attending a faculty-student get-together. I was walking by two of the other students, both African Americans. We had worked together, and I considered (and consider) them to be friends. “Ann” was talking to “Frank” about something that seemed very interesting, probably pertaining to diversity and communication or the perceptions of African American graduate students in our predominantly White program. It sounded interesting, but I didn’t want to butt in, so I deliberately wandered close, clearly pretending to be interested and eavesdropping, so as to be invited in. Ann saw me pretending to eavesdrop and got angry: “If you want to talk with us, then talk with us, but don’t stand around pretending to listen.” It actually took us a while to work through the misunderstanding. If the contextual model works, then it might apply to *any* communication, with some of the contexts being more important at different times than other contexts. I still do not fully understand what went wrong, but Neuliep’s model opens up some possibilities: Cultural Context: Ideally, the cultural context, which pertains to the overarching influence of a dominant culture, should not be an issue. Both Ann and I are from the American culture, so we likely approach our educational system from roughly the same value stances of individualism, view of progress, value of education as an “attainable” and “measurable” accomplishment, and so on. Microcultural Context: Neuliep (2006)f suggests that “sometimes the difference is ethnicity, race, or language,” and suggests that “often microcultures are treated differently by the members of the larger culture” (p. 26). As defined by Neuliep, perhaps Ann and I have differences in microcultural aspects. For example, perhaps African American behavior values directness in communication, whereas White American behavior values behaviors that do not impinge upon the free will of the other (such as hinting). Or there could be a difference in how to “enter into” and “leave” a conversation that others are having between White and Black microcultures (later we will call them co-cultures or sub-cultures). The definition creates a difficulty, however, in that Neuliep’s definition of culture (see box to left) could apply equally to “Black” culture as to “American” culture—both are identifiable groups with symbol systems. Still, it is possible that this is where the breakdown occurred. Environmental Context: The environment could play a large role, here. At one level, the discussion occurred in a somewhat crowded get-together, a “party.” It could be that whatever cultural norms for entering into and leaving conversations apply to Black and White co-cultures differ in this context than they would in a formal business meeting. One limitation in Neuliep’s model, like similar “social-scientific” models (e.g., Gudykunst & Kim, 2003) is that the “environment” excludes important historical, economic, and social environments. Hecht, Collier, and Ribeau (1993) for example, say that we cannot understand Black-White communication apart from 400 years of shared history! Neuliep hints at this in saying that microcultures are often treated differently than others. Perhaps Ann’s response to my pretend-eavesdropping is based on a long-standing tradition of Whites manipulating Blacks. Or perhaps, while she addresses my eavesdropping, maybe she is actually upset at the “White gaze” again cast on Black culture, as if it were something different, folkloric, or strange. Many Blacks, for example, say they are simply tired of trying to explain Black culture to Whites. Maybe she and our other colleague just wanted to have a safe “space” in the largely White party to talk. Perceptual Context: Clearly, the interaction was influenced by our perceptions of each other. Possibly, Ann did not care for me and felt my hanging around was a nuisance. More likely, however, she liked me as a person. Still, we both bring in our own stereotypes and prejudices, influenced, of course, by our microcultural and environmental contexts! Socio-Relational Context: This context would become more relevant if I were the student and Ann were a professor in the Department, or if I were a sales clerk and she were a client. As it stands, our social relational context is that we share the same role—that of co-students in a graduate department of communication. Still, there could be expectations from the situation (for example, that you can jump in and out of conversations without hesitation or impinging on the communicators) that work among peers. Perhaps Ann felt I was making a big deal out of jumping into the conversation when, as a peer and friend, I should have felt free to barge in. And, since this aspect should also include our personal differences, maybe my own behavior (hovering to get an invite into the conversation) reflects my own lack of confidence that I would not be welcome in the conversation, rather than any aspect of either White or American cultures. In this case, our perceptions of the roles could be influenced by microcultural aspects, or they could have nothing to do with ethnicity or culture! Verbal and Nonverbal Codes. Neuliep notes that we are always communicating nonverbally (posture, eye contact, touch, etc.), even though verbal communication is “digital” with gaps in between (hence, the dotted line). In this respect, it was my “hovering” that seemed to bother Ann—my nonverbal communication, rather than my verbal explanation. At the same time, I was surprised by her directness, an aspect of verbal communication. Again, we see how both the verbal and nonverbal communication are influenced by all of the other levels. In sum, the Neuliep model helps me to understand at least some possibilities of what went wrong in my interaction with Ann. To this extent, it is a good model. At the same time, to fully apply it to social and political aspects of the situation, I did have to “stretch” the model just a bit to fit. This leads to some possible clarifications that Neuliep could make in his 4th edition! Gudykunst,
W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with
strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). Hecht, M. L., Collier, M.
J., & Ribeau, S. A. (1993). African
American communication: Ethnic identity and cultural interpretation. Newbury
Park: Sage. Neuliep, J. W. (2006). Intercultural communication: A contextual
approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. |
|
“Culture [is] those deep, common, unstated experiences which members of a given culture share, which they communicate without knowing, and which form the backdrop against which all other events are judged” (p. x). (E.T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, 1966)
|
May 18, 2009: On (Re)Defining Culture. When I was a young bachelor, I thought “culture” was that stuff growing on the old yogurt in the fridge. I never thought of “culture” much as the notion of “high” culture—the opera, a certain canon of literary texts, original paintings, as opposed to the “low” (popular, mass) culture of billboards and comics. I probably thought of culture simply as the values, beliefs, behaviors and artifacts of a group of people. And this is a standard and fairly straightforward definition of culture. But when I did a project in my doctoral program that led first to a short book of about 100 definitions of culture, and then to a larger book that included several essays and in-depth analysis of over 300 definitions of culture, I learned—well, that there are other definitions of culture. In this blog entry, I would like to look at some of these as they apply specifically to Tropicália. To give this a more narrow focus, let me speak specifically to one song on the first main Tropicalia album, applying various approaches to what “culture” is. Tropicália is a rock movement that emerged in the late 1960s in Brazil during the military dictatorship. Led by Gilberto Gil and Caetano Veloso, this movement set itself off both against the assimilation of American rock of yê yê yê music (pronounced “yeah, yeah, yeah”) of Roberto Carlos and his friends and the leftist critique of música popular brasileira (MPB). Tropicália had as its goal to “cannibalize” music forms from around the world, including pop, psychedelic, and, later, African themes, reggae, and other Latino music forms, and make them “uniquely Brazilian.” The music formed both a response to traditional music styles—both Brazilian and American/British, and to the repressive government, by using irony, humor, and so on. “Panis et Circensis” (bread and circuses/games), originally sung by The Mutantes, epitomizes the movement. Culture as structure/framework: Some researchers see culture as a pattern of something—be that values, norms, symbolic usage, or even a set of things, such as the classic trio of thoughts (beliefs, values, world view), behaviors (actions, communication), and artifacts. These are often seen to be “patterned” or structured to create a “whole way of life” (Williams). In this sense, we can see underlying values of Brazilian youth culture of the late 1960s. Values that were important were syncretezation of music: Most Brazilian young people liked American and other international music—but they were also nationalistic, spending more money on Brazilian records and artists and still holding a strong pride in Brazilian culture. In this song, we also sense playfulness and irony, as the song blends together an unusual sound (listen to the music first)—playful, with trumpets or what sounds like the beginning of a march, and then tinkling of silverware as it falls from a table. Finally, youth were growingly concerned with complacency, including that of the government. The song reflects this as (now read the lyrics—English is at bottom of page), the singers sing of violence and danger while the people are busy eating, drinking, and dying. The song’s (and albums) title comes from a famous quote by Roman poet Juvenal who argued that the Roman government can make itself popular by giving the common people food and entertainment (thus distracting them from real conditions). Culture as function: At the basic level, all cultures provide people a way to accomplish tasks, to make sense of life, to deal with input from one’s environment. To survive. This type of definition asks not what culture is, but what it does. One might ask, then, how music serves some purpose (it soothes, entertains, etc.). Here, however, the patterns brought into the song (both musically and textually) seem to have a new purpose: to change, to resist. Both the bread and circuses provided by the government (part of culture), and the songs of protest by the musicians serve different purposes, at least one of which is negotiating power relationships. Culture as process: Here we must
go beyond P&C as a song to Tropicália
as a movement. A few of culture as process
has tension with seeing culture as framework,
because a “framework” is “handed down from one generation to another” (see
Samovar & Porter definition above), but a “process” is always changing. Tropicália demonstrates how music
within a nation (as a representation of the “culture” of the nation as a
whole) is in constant flux between one thing and another, borrowing
influences from other cultures, and in return influencing them. As we will
see in later lessons, this view is more “humanistic” than “scientific.” The
question here is not what culture contains,
or what purpose it serves
(function), but how it becomes. Culture as power: This approach is one taken by critical theorists (for example, feminists). They would argue that patterns and processes work together, and that, beyond any observable function of “helping people make sense out of life,” there are always power interests. So, for American culture, “individualism” is not simply something we pass down harmlessly, but is an image manipulated by advertisers and cultural elite, so that people represent their individualism in a way that benefits some but not others (or not even themselves), such as by purchasing consumer goods (Hollister, Nike, Abercrombie & Fitch) to express one’s “individual” style (in the same way everyone else does). P&C serves as a perfect example of this—it sets itself very subtly against the national platform of gaining support for the dictatorship through the late 1960s—but also against other power forces trying to define what constituted Brazilian national music after the bossa nova. In this view, culture is no more neutral than the evening news or the comics—all present ‘ideologies’ that either support or challenge dominant ways of thinking, and any approach that seems culture simply as a “framework” of things passed down to future group members would be, well, naïve. Links: Tropicalia: http://www.barbican.org.uk/tropicalia/home Panis et Circencis on Youtube (with video collage of the Mutantes and other Tropicalists) |
|
|
Wednesday, May 28,
2008 Thinking about
Environment: When I lived in ·
Daily temperatures were usually in the 90s and
100s (F), with a very high humidity. We used to joke that we had a rainy
season, where it rained every day, and a dry season, where it only rained
every other day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Being A Nerd…and/or Other Things [application of CTI] One of those important interactions that marked how I see myself occurred one day when I was an 8th grader. I was tall, medium build, and, well, kind of nerdy (for those who know me, this will come as a real surprise. . . okay, maybe not). If I can find a childhood pic, I’ll put one here in the margin, at great risk… Since I was tall, I thought I would try out for basketball, so I went to the “interest” room where boys were supposed to go to learn more. As I walked into the room, there was a ripple of laughter on one side of the room, and I heard one of the “cool” boys say audibly, “Hah! Look who just walked in!” There was more laughter. I turned around, walked out, and have really never played basketball. Fast forward to my children. My son is 16. He likes computer games like Civilization and Age of the Empires, but he creates his own maps to play on, sometimes based on Tolkein, and sometimes out of his head. He has created his own world with maps and unique languages, for which he has created the script, found programs on-line, and transferred into font. I would type in his script, but without his font loaded, you would not be able to read it. (I will insert flag in margin, under my picture). My daughter, 12, is having difficulty with some friends. They call her “Amish” because she watches maybe one hour of TV a week, doesn’t care to carry a cell phone, and doesn’t play computer games unless her brother or someone is playing with her. Neither like popular music (though they listen to some “rockin’” Christian bands). My daughter has moved from her usual lunch crowd, because she refuses to bend to what they want her to be. My son went to school bragging that he’d been to a group that had sold more concert tickets than Bruce Springsteen. . . that’s right. Mannheim Steamroller. (I was one of the youngest in the audience, and he was the expert: “Oh—this song is from their 7th Fresh Aire album, track 6—and it’s written in 7/4 time…”). The dictionary and atlas sit close to our dinner table for us to consult to solve dinner-time disputes over etymologies, meanings, or other things. The kids friends are astounded when they come over, because we engage in full discussions of all kinds of things with the kids at dinner and beyond. Dinner takes over an hour. (Who has time for TV?) We are nerds. But you’re wondering where the theory application comes
in. The theory helps to explain my nerdiness compared to that of my children,
using the communication theory of
identity. In essence, this theory is about how we both construct social identities through communication and how we negotiate these in interaction. (I will try to be very brief here, if I can! Oh—too late). First, the very category of “nerd” is created through images, jokes, and interaction. There are, of course, the stereotype nerds (pocket-protectors, high-rise pants, and all that. Not us). But there are other characteristics of being a nerd, so carefully laid out by Weird Al Yankovic in “White & Nerdy.” Identities have content and relationship elements. The content are the thoughts and behaviors we associate with an identity (here, being nerdy)—interest in math, good at school, listening to off-beat music, not being in that other social group, the “cool” people. But the relationship is the feelings concerned with the identity. Here is where my kids and I differ. You see, I never wanted to be a nerd, but always wanted to be cool. But I could not even pull of slang correctly! My kids both revel in being nerdy, different (though in their own cool way). They have a positive association with being “nerdy.” This relates to other aspects of identity. Scope refers to the number of people who hold an identity, not really important here. Centrality (not a term in CTI, but useful) refers to how much I think about the identity on a day-to-day basis. Is it a once-a-week identity (like some wear their religious views), or does it permeate my life, or somewhere in between. Probably, being Nerdy is only mildly central to who I am. But it comes out in interaction, or becomes situationally important (salient) when I am around a group of people that others might consider “cool” (this happens much more rarely now that I am an adult, by the way! And what is “cool” tends to change). Sometimes it becomes salient when the talk turns to the latest sports statistics and I realize that I not only don’t have a clue, I don’t want one! Now that I am working out at the gym and getting occasional consultation on what clothes to buy, many people might not know I’m a nerd until I open my mouth and say something. My son, however, wears his “Why be Normal” t-shirt on game days at Normal Community High. We dragged (and, yes, I mean dragged) the kids to an important football game, where we sat by some fanatic. Chris, in a deliberately loud voice, complained, “A chess match would be a lot more interesting than this game!” That is, his intensity (or degree to which he speaks out about his identity) is much higher than mine! There are certainly many more aspects of the theory I could apply, but I will choose just one, and that is avowal and ascription. Sometimes, people say things that call our choices into question, like when one of my good friends found out I was studying Chinese for fun. “Oh, right. I always study obscure Asiatic languages for relaxation!” (He’s trying to teach me to throw a Frisbee, however). The mocking gives his meaning to my identity, or “places” my identity in a certain light (ascribed identity). Now that I am older, my evaluation (relationship aspect) towards my nerdiness has changed, so I also embrace the identity (avowed identity), so it doesn’t bother me. But if you ask my daughter if she is a nerd, she would probably say no, even though she holds all the same sorts of interests as the rest of us. To continue insisting she is a nerd (ascription) even though she does not claim that identity (avowal)—OR to highlight the “nerd” identity when she, in fact, is avowing a different identity, such as “friend” or “young lady” would lead to ineffective communication, that is, where the identities others ascribe to us do not match the identity we claim in an interaction. (This also occurs within a group, where one person sees the content with of the identity one way, and another member sees it differently. So, imaginably, someone with a pocket protector and high rises, could complain that we are not enacting the “nerd” identity correctly, perhaps with something like, “You’re just not Nerd enough.” |
|
The Flag of Karmachon
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It seems best to reserve the concept, culture, for
those resources (patterns of symbolic action and meaning) that are (a) deeply
felt, (b) commonly intelligible, and (c) widely accessible" (Carbaugh,
1988, p. 38). |
HYME’s SPEAKING Framework: Baldwins at Dinner A family
example: In the Baldwin family, there is what I call the “Dinner
Dictionary Ritual.” In this ritual, the family is discussing some idea
(postmodernism, euthanasia, narcissistic, etc.) and a term comes up.
Sometimes it is regarding the origin of some term (on which Nordic god does
the English word “Tuesday” come from, and how does this relate to the Spanish
martes, which is based on Mars, the
god of war?), sometimes on the pronunciation of a word, and sometimes on a
concept. We used to run downstairs to get a dictionary, but finally just gave
up and moved the dictionary to a bookshelf that sits close to the kitchen table.
Genre: Seeking information in the
dictionary (I often find it easiest to start here!). Participants: The Baldwin family—mom, dad, 11-year old daughter,
and 15-year old son (as of June 4, 2007!). Any one can get the dictionary,
but so far, it tends to be the three oldest members of the family. Act sequence (and I’ve deliberately
taken this out of order so that we do not seek SPEAKING ritual as a lock-step
process): There is some lively discussion, over some term, concept, or
current event (requiring knowledge of some place). This gives rise to
different opinions. Sometimes simply to clarify or seek information, and
sometimes to prove him or herself right (ends),
someone goes and gets the dictionary—sometimes an atlas, which lives
right next door to the dictionary. The person looks up the word or place,
brings the information to the table, and we continue chatting about the topic
while we eat. The key is usually
friendly, sometimes competitive, and the instrumentality—here
less important, is the use of a standard reference source to provide
“verifiable facts” to answer some question that has come up. Often looking up
in the dictionary ends a particular dispute, as if the dictionary has
authority, though sometimes someone chooses to disagree with it or extend its
finding—or comment that we need a more up-to-date dictionary. However,
notably, we never do this if there is an actual argument with a negative key,
if relationships or emotions are on the table, and we never do it spitefully,
reflecting the norms of the hunt.
Undoubtedly, this ritual reflects some underlying values specific to the
Baldwin family culture, as well as power structures (in that anyone call for
or get the dictionary but not everyone does), though perhaps dominant in
larger cultures (you can decide what those are.). Visitors to the Baldwin
table are free to engage in the ritual, though they rarely seek the
dictionary and some protest the ritual: “Hey, we’re not in school!” |
|
|
June 3, 2008: Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Model:
Professor Wang and Dong Ah Insitute of Media
and Arts. In 2005, I had the
opportunity to go to Dong Ah Institute of Media and Arts in On the way there, I read
much of Robert Kohls’ book, Learning
to Think Korean, so I had lots of expectations about Korean status,
formality, and social distance. When I arrived, I was first surprised by the
huge number of apartment dwellers in major city highrises, by how many
cephelapods Koreans ate (octopus, squid, cuttlefish), and by how proper
everything is, from meeting status superiors to wrapping gifts (and the frequent) exchange of gifts!). While
some later scholars, such as Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich, did apply
expectancy violations to people’s culture shock experiences (it’s not whether the culture surprises you,
it’s how it surprises you
and whether you like the surprise!), the original theory (as we will use it
in class), is not about general aspects of culture as a whole or climate or
architecture—but about interacting with
specific individuals. So I will talk about Professor Wang, one of the most wonderful South Koreans that I met. Professor Wang makes films and teaches film, but he also likes drama. On one occasion, he picked up Dr. Kazoleas and me at DIMA, drove us to Seoul (1 hour each way), bought us dinner, and then took us backstage in one theatre and then to see another avant-garde theatre production. He then took us for a second meal after it was done with a lot of the drama students! I was overwhelmed by his friendliness, openness, and kindness. It is not at all what I expected from Kohl’s book! The expectancy violations model was originally about spatial differences (did Professor Wang get too close or too far?); it was then extended to other nonverbal aspects, such as touch, gaze, and so on. It could also be applied, however, to other behaviors, such as verbal openness or hospitality of the individual. Let’s imagine that one day, while joking, Professor Wang pats me on the shoulder. Because I do not expect this from South Koreans (a “low contact” culture. . . supposedly, though one wouldn’t know it from watching young people joking around or being social!), it would bring arousal, that is, draw my attention from what he is saying to the nonverbal behavior, and, thus, to our relationship. Older theories would say that, since touch brings arousal (mental activity) or disrupts equilibrium, we avoid it. But EVT is stronger, because it says that responses can be different. In this case, it draws my attention to Mr. Wang’s kindness, openness, and hospitality lead me to re-interpret his behavior. The point is, we evaluate two things—the behavior and the person (communicator reward valence). If I am very touch avoidant, like Mr. Monk, it doesn’t matter who touches me, I don’t like it. But if the behavior is ambiguous (like a touch on the shoulder), I would interpret it in terms of CRV. Thus, in this situation, if Prof. Wang were trying to persuade me, he might even be more effective if he patted me on the shoulder, because the violation of my expectations would draw my attention to the positive relationship we have. In fact, if he did, in fact, pat me on the shoulder, I didn’t notice—the pat is imaginary to make a point. That is, we do not notice every behavior, even every violation. And a “violation” can sometimes be a cultural violation, but it can also be an individual violation. Perhaps Prof. Wang did pat me on the shoulder, but, despite my expectations of South Koreans, it was so much within my personal expectations of him, I didn’t even notice. So should I violate someone’s expectations or “tow the line” and follow cultural norms? The theory says that if people see me positively, it might actually be better to violate their expectations! (BTW, hint: If you write about this theory, please talk about violating expectations. I have received many an essay when the student simply says, “I violated him…” and this can have a totally different meaning. |
|
|
|
