Note: After all the editing and cutting I could endure, alas, this is the shortest I can get…
I find it amusing that my latest literary adventure amid the rains and suspension of classes is actually a course textbook. Turns out the course that required it has become one of the easiest and now one of my favorites this semester. The subject? Comm 140, and the book, “A First Look at Communication Theory“ by Em(ory) Griffin.
Communication Theory is essentially the course description of Comm 140, the second of four subjects common to all who go through each of the four courses in the UP College of Mass Communication (broadcast, communication research, film, and journalism). Compared to the particular focus of each course, the four subjects (Comm 100, 140, 120 and 141) tackle communication in general, as the name suggests, and the broad field of mass media. To the non-MassCom student, call our Comm series the rough equivalent of the Math series in Engineering and Science courses, for lack of a better comparison.
The relative difficulty of Comm 140 however, differs from that of its mathematical counterpart (probably Math 53 or something). I should say though that as in math, the professor plays a big role in how the subject is taught and whether the student ends up either loving or dreading it. In our class, we love her.
There, we talk about the stuff that makes our study of communication “scientific” yet still relevant and humanistic. Comm theory gives MassCom students “intellectual” bullets against those who dare say the course is either too “way up there” or too simple and everyday. It’s also the basis of frameworks on which to anchor future research work and ultimately, our theses. Comm theory is unique as well since the wide range of theories covering different aspects of communication comes not only from the field itself but also from others like psychology, sociology, and economics.
Among our main references were books on communication theory by Stephen Littlejohn and Griffin. Ask any higher-year UP MassCom student who Littlejohn and Griffin are, which is what we call both the books and their authors who combine and update the most definitive theories around. Since almost all their chapters were required reading, I decided to have both books photocopied. I earlier planned to have original copies bought outside the country, but it only grew impossible.
Now in the CMC library, it’s difficult to bring those books out since they were in the reserve section and could only be checked out a few hours before the lib closed and then returned early the next day. My OC self was determined to bring out only the original copies in the lib, since I wanted my copies to resemble the original ones.
Long story short, when I borrowed them, I only came out carrying Griffin, since one student was using the original Littlejohn till the lib closed and wasn’t willing to let it go. She reasoned that photocopying the other versions was as good as the original. I couldn’t reply that I also wanted to copy the cover, so I just retreated.
Looking back, I’m glad I only got Griffin. Though thicker than Littlejohn, Griffin is a better read. He’s much more down to earth, and makes a MassCom student feel better about his course. Unlike Littlejohn, which contains little or no graphics, Griffin makes it a point to use both diagrams and yes, cartoons to better explain and help remember the theories. No less than my all-time favorite comic “Calvin and Hobbes” has a place in crucial parts of the book. Griffin is more conversational and concerned more with the student getting the theory and relating it with everyday situations than him sounding too academic.
Three days onto Griffin, I like what I’ve been reading since simply put, I CAN RELATE WITH THE THEORIES! In reality, the theories are just everyday observations and expectations about how we relate with other people (read: communicate) that certain people have had the time, luxury and brains to make coherent, put to words, and combine under an intelligent-sounding title. We could have come up with them ourselves if we only had the opportunity, as our professor Dr. Paz Diaz says.
I’ve been fascinated with the initial batch of theories in the book. They tackle the most basic of communication situations—interpersonal, that is, “you” and “me.” (I’m reminded of this issue that interpersonal communication isn’t only about two people, but can also mean three.) I hope to throw in some of the theories and how I find them in future posts. For now, here’s an interesting one:
This might also be familiar with those who have taken or are taking Psych 101. However, the section on this in Santrock’s Psychology 7 didn’t expound much on what constitutes “attachment.” Compared to the main theories that give general reasons why and how people develop “close relationships” with each other, attachment theory focuses on individual differences that define their ability and desire to form those relationships.
People behind this school of thought (taking from the work of John Bowlby--Griffin, 2006) believe that how we grow close to people when we’re infants determines our attitude toward intimacy with others later on. Griffin cites a study on attachment styles in young adults, which divides those styles into four descriptions (which I reproduce in full):
SECURE: “It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.”
DISMISSING: “I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.”
PREOCCUPIED: “I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.”
FEARFUL: “I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely or to depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.”
Hmm. Personally, I still can’t define where I stand among the four. I’d disagree though with the developmental psychologists who say that the effects of childhood experiences aren’t changeable. Griffin doesn’t say which among the four is considered “right” and “wrong,” or that the list doesn’t end with the above. The group I’m a part of would probably consider the first and even the second as preferred attitudes. It’s just that when I read the statements, I find myself agreeing with a lot even if they’re different. So, where am I? For now, call me a mixture of all.
Try going through them again. Then ask, “Where do I see myself? And if so, what difference does it make?”
