Category Archives: Models

Examples we can productively study

A Sampling of Revelatory Books on What Human Communication Is, and the Ways we Use its Resources

These books are especially thought-provoking for anyone seeking new perspectives on what it means to communicate.

As with every discipline, communication studies includes a special class of books that will profoundly change how we think about the subject. Omitting technical and jargon-laden tomes about communication, I suggest the following as interesting eye-openers that are accessible to any serious reader. All of these books share the trait of forcing us to rethink assumptions that sometimes more comfortable than accurate.

Erving Goffman Source: Wikipedia.org
                Erving Goffman
         Source: Wikipedia.org

The list is wide-ranging, mixing history with media theory and some far-ranging discussions of what is possible in human communication. Though some of these studies were published years ago, they remain thought-provoking for anyone interested in peeling back the onion of communication to look at some of its inner layers. These books are listed in approximate order of their accessibility to a general reader.

Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Anchor Books, 1959).  Goffman was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose influence has been global. His methodology of deep observation of everyday events provides all kinds of insights about the intricacies of even simple interactions. The book remains a stalwart for anyone interested in the sociology and communication, and for good reason. His observations of the familiar–restaurants especially fascinate him–is the perfect antidote to the bland survey research that now dominates so much of the social sciences. And because he helps us see the familiar in new ways, he’s fun to read.

Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Anchor, 1998). Gabler’s study of the first film entrepreneurs is a wonderful piece of social history. He observes that the men who gave us film factories reliably turning out middle-class visions of the American dream were, in many cases, socially marginalized by a virulent anti-Semitism. The ironic result is that they were sometimes kept out of key institutions in the very town they created. The book also confirms how vital film and its modern forms remain central to understanding ourselves in the world.

Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (Norton, 2011)  Carr’s popular book makes the case that the pacing and fragmentation of internet content is undermining our abilities to be critical thinkers. If he is not always convincing in describing the effects of heavy doses of screen time now common to almost all of us, his claims raise questions that everyone in the wired portion of the planet should consider.

Sherry Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (Penguin, 2015).  Sherry Turkle argues in this useful and eminently readable study, that this default model for communication is direct conversation.  And using this benchmark, she offers interviews and observations that suggest we are drifting toward preferences for connecting that weaken our links to full and vital face to face exchanges. Her concern is how we maintain our social nature if our children in particular now fear the unpredictability of direct contact with others. As she notes in her conclusion, “We want more from technology and less from each other. What once would have seemed like ‘friendly service’” from a sales clerk has “now become an inconvenience that keeps us from our phones.”

Joshua Meyrowitz, No Sense of Place (Oxford, 1986). Although written a number of years ago and in advance of widespread use of the internet, Meyrowitz makes what I believe is the best case that newer forms of human communication have undermined the psychological security that came with living only in real space and time. The book is revelatory in its assessment of how visual media work as irresistible magnets for our attention, and how visual media often weaken connections that truly matter. Given his use of seminal thinkers like Goffman and Susanne Langer, Meyrowitz’s framework for assessing communication processes is unsurpassed.  By the end of the book he’s offered a haunting intellectual case for how electronic media have destabilized once secure sources of personal identity.

John Durham Peters, Speaking Into the Air (University of Chicago, 1999). Peters is a Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa and a frequent critic of the common aspirations we have for communication.  The Introduction to this book is alone worth a look.  It takes apart most of the cherished myths we hold, among them: that communication is the best pathway for settling long-standing differences, and the idea that disagreement is just a matter of misunderstanding.  When he starts by noting that “Communication is a registry of modern longings,” a reader can already sense that he is going to deconstruct many a cherished belief about the power of talk. The references in the book are sometimes obscure.  But every chapter has interesting observations, most of which come by quoting writers and thinkers who were experiencing the powers of telegraphy and the telephone for the first time.  Peters also has interesting things to say about communicating with machines, animals and perhaps other sentient beings in the universe.

Hugh Dalziel Duncan, Communication and Social Order (Oxford, 1984)  Duncan was an interpreter and synthesizer of a number of important scholars of rhetoric and literature, most notably Kenneth Burke. In this academic book he offers nothing less than a complete course on how to approach almost any human action as moment of social engagement. His understanding of the wellsprings of comedy is especially rewarding, and further evidence for the old saw that creating humor is a serious business.

Comments:  woodward@tcnj.edu

Logo

The Strange Business of Fronting For Others

Flight Attendants for Singapore Airlines Source: Wikipedia.org
Flight Attendants at Singapore Airlines.  Source: Wikipedia.org

 Fronting is the requirement to represent in speech and body language the interests of others who have a specific lexicon and level of enthusiasm they want you to employ.

Most of us have heard writer David Sedaris’ story of gaining seasonable employment by becoming one of Santa’s elves in Macy’s New York store.  It’s funny in part because we know that it cannot be easy for a sardonic man to put on green tights and prance around in fake snow.  The job comes with the built-in need to be a happy supplicant to overstimulated children and demanding parents.  As Sedaris first explained it on NPR’s This American Life, he mostly did his part.  But each time we read or hear the tale we are aware of the yawning gap between the prickly man and the fantasy of simple innocence he’s required to enact.

This imperative to perform in a non-congruent role has a name: fronting.  It’s a handy term because it identifies one cause of the angst we experience when a communication task seems daunting.  Specifically, fronting with apparent conviction is often a lie, made worse if we’re born with a strong sense to recognize our own hypocrisies.

Formally, fronting is the requirement to represent in speech and body language the interests of others who have a specific lexicon and level of enthusiasm they want you to employ.  It’s the primary job skill for work in customer service, sales, teaching, lawyering, and most forms of inter-organizational communication.  Typically, in manufacturing engineers will front and protect each other, not necessarily revealing departmental differences to the sales people one floor up.  Professors front for their disciplines to students or deans.  Lawyers remain the very picture of client loyalty, even when they have significant doubts.  And let’s not forget restaurant servers, who usually know enough to be more optimistic about the food coming out of the kitchen then simple devotion to the Truth would allow.

There is an obvious performance aspect to all this. Professional actors front so well that they seem to become their characters. Who knew that actress Alexis Bledel hated coffee?  Her character dutifully carried a paper cup of the stuff with her everywhere in the hundred and fifty caffeinated episodes of The Gilmore Girls. The rest of us are simply amateurs, and often uncomfortable with the gap between our assigned roles and the authentic person we claim to be.

There is some evidence that airline attendants carry around more fatigue than most of us, partly because fronting for air-carriers today means remaining upbeat in the face of the countless real and perceived affronts to passenger dignity.  Look carefully, and you can almost see them straining to keep their frustrations out of view. It can be very stressful to serve the interests of an organization if we believe it betrays a core value.

The most difficult kind of fronting  is when an individual is induced to deliver as their own what is essentially another’s message. It’s the burden of allowing oneself to seem to be the active agent in an exchange.  Thus spouses and partners will sometimes ask the other to represent themselves as a committed believer to a point of view, when no commitment exists.  One instructs the other about what to say, as in “When you call the Fredericks back, be sure to remind them that we are opposed to attending any event that. . . [Insert the offending feature here]”  Whatever principle is at stake, it is the protesting partner who has passed along the task of an impassioned reply that the other may not share. Couples provide this stress-inducing service to each other all the time.

There is an interesting final irony about fronting.  My impression is that its burdens are eased if a person is wearing a uniform.  The official garb of an organization implicitly says to all clients and customers, “I am performing my assigned role.  I have clothed myself in the firm’s attitudes, but know that underneath I am still my own person.” A policeman has sartorial support to claim that the ticket he is giving you is simply an application of the law.  Besides, who would quarrel with anyone with both a gun and a club?

Send Comments to: Woodward@tcnj.eduPerfect Response logo