Group Think in "The Usual Suspects"

The video above contains two clips from the 1995 movie "The Usual Suspects". The movie tells the story of five criminals (Michael McManus, Dean Keaton, Fred Fenster, Todd Hockney, and Verbal Kint) and their dealings with a mysterious man named Keyser Soze. The first part of the clip shows the men standing in a police lineup. The men have all committed crimes in the past, but this time they are brought in for a crime none of them actually committed; the police just needed a scapegoat. In the second part of the video the men are angry that they have been brought in under false charges and McManus proposes that they get revenge on the police. All of the men, save Keaton, agree to take part in the act.

Both of the clips exhibit most of the antecedent conditions of groupthink. For one thing, the men have good potential for group cohesiveness. This is because they are somewhat homogeneous and have things in common: they are all men and they are all criminals. Homogeneity fosters group cohesiveness. Another of these antecedent conditions is that the group is well insulated. Group insulation refers to a group being unaffected by influences outside of itself. The fact that McManus proposes getting revenge on the police shows that he and the group do not care about the law (an outside influence). The group also exhibits no impartial leadership; the members of the group all have personal interests in the outcome of the crime they are planning because they are all seeking retribution against the police.

A few symptoms of groupthink can be observed from the group. The men must believe that they are somewhat invincible and will not get caught when they do their "job". This illusion of invulnerability is one of the symptoms of groupthink. Also, the men must believe that the act they are planning is moral and the right thing to do (otherwise, would they be planning it?). Their belief in the inherent morality of the group is another symptom of groupthink. There is one dissenter in the group, Keaton. He is trying to stay away from a life of crime and says that he will not participate in the group's plan. A little later in the movie, however, the group places pressure on the dissenter. Keaton eventually agrees to participate.

Some of the elements of groupthink are not as apparent as others in this particular example, but I feel that this still exemplifies the theory.

Groupthink Shown Through 300

This is a clip from the Zack Snyder’s 2007 film, 300. In this clip, Queen Gorgo is attempting to convince the Spartan counsel to send the army to war and assist her husband, King Leonidas, in his fight against the Persian army. She does all that is in her power to convince the counsel that it is a necessary act. Unfortunately most of the counsel partakes in groupthink.

After viewing this clip one can see that the group would have a tendency to succumb to groupthink. First and foremost, the counsel is made up of very similar individuals. The counsel is made up of a small group of men from the same city who dress, talk, and act alike. Besides this, the fact that they all have the same goal, to prosper in Sparta, also adds to their homogeneity. Also they have high group insulation because they are used to making decisions in the group and tend to think as one. These lead to their overwhelming cohesiveness which is often an antecedent of groupthink.

Then comes the fact that this is an extremely important decision and is most likely causing a good deal of stress on the counsel. Also, the fact that this is a decision that must be made nearly immediately also likely leads to increased levels of stress. When stress is higher and the decision is rushed, the counsel is more likely to make a rash decision favoring the one they had in the first place (not to go to war).

The two overestimations of the group also contribute to the groupthink. First of all the group has the illusion of invulnerability. They believed that since they were technically in control of the army that they had all the power. They also believed that not sending the army to war was doing the moral action. This belief in the inherent morality of the group is a symptom of groupthink.

Finally, the group’s closed-mindedness can be seen as a symptom of groupthink. First of all, the counsel’s out-group stereotypes can be seen. Since the queen is not part of the counsel, she is a woman, etc, they see her as an outsider and they do not wish to listen to her reasoning. Relating to this is the group’s collective rationalization. The counsel doesn’t believe that they will be going to war either way and so they don’t think it is necessary to send the army out. They ignore the Queen’s warnings which might make them change their decision.

Overall, one can clearly see that the counsel in the film 300 partook in groupthink. There are many ways that it could’ve been avoided. First and foremost they could’ve increased the open-mindedness and diversity of the group. They also could’ve taken steps in the beginning so the decision was not so rushed. Finally, if they made an adequate decision-making procedure groupthink may have been evaded.

High School Groupthink in "Mean Girls"

Groupthink is often focused on groups in an office setting. However, groups exist everywhere and they all make decisions of some sort, even if they are just everyday choices. In the movie “Mean Girls” there is a group in the high school known as the “Plastics.” This group of girls is highly homogeneous; they are all the same grade and all essentially want the same things. Regina George (blonde on the left) plays the role of the leader in the group.

The three girls have a set way of doing things. Everyday they have a specific way of dressing and others rules are established. Many of things they do to other students are mean and unnecessary, but they are too afraid to speak up to each other. Most of this is due to their lack of impartial leadership. Regina is only the leader because she is the first to speak up. Even if the other two have ideas they restrain themselves. The three of them are very cohesive because they all want to get along.

The group is very isolated which builds their groupthink. They don’t really pay much attention to what is going on with others outside of their group. They also suffer from overestimation of their group. They think they are the end all and be all of their high school, when in reality they are not. They also experience a lot of pressure toward uniformity because they want to get along just to get along. They do this so they don’t injure their friendship in any way. At many times the other two are silent while Regina makes decisions for the whole; this creates an illusion of uniformity.

Most of the film shows how an outsider actually breaks down the groupthink. A new girl, Kady, comes to the school and becomes friends with the “Plastics.” She sees the wrongdoing in their decisions and actions. By befriending the three girls, Kady, partakes in whistle blowing because she speaks her mind when others the girls would have chosen to stay quiet. Eventually the girls go their separate ways after realizing that the group was lacking in many things. This brings an end to their groupthink.

Groupthink in The Nightmare Before Christmas

In this clip from Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas a Halloween Town meeting is being held. In the scene, Jack Skellington is attempting to describe the wonders of Christmas to the citizens of Halloween Town. He begins by enthusiastically telling the townspeople about his journey to Christmas Town and the wonders that he saw there in an attempt to convince them to celebrate the holiday.

When looking at the townspeople of Halloween town, one sees a group that is very prone to groupthink. The group was highly homogenous, they each live the same town and each one of them lives to do two things, celebrate Halloween and scare people, they are also very cohesive because they are all friends and coworkers. The group is also susceptible to groupthink because of their lack of an impartial leader; Jack will say anything to get what he wants. The group also does not take any kind of vote; it is just assumed that their decision is unanimous.

The Groupthink that occurs in this scene starts to unfold shortly after Jacks speech begins. Despite the fact that the people of Halloween Town do not understand what Christmas is, they quickly pick up Jack’s enthusiasm about the holiday and begin to run with it. The group completely misunderstands what Christmas is and unintentionally warped its true nature into something frightening rather than jolly. In doing so, the group assumes that it is inherently moral. They feel that their changes will make the holiday better and more enjoyable. Also, the townspeople do not consider the fact that their actions are selfish and that they are planning to take over something that is not rightfully theirs. Also, the townspeople exhibit another stereotype of groupthink, they have an illusion of invulnerability; they feel that there will be no opposition to their take-over of Christmas and that everyone will enjoy the changes that they make to it.

Initially, Jack attempted to explain that the townspeople misunderstood the true nature of Christmas but eventually the group stopped listening to him in their excitement. In that manner, the group assumed an illusion of unanimity; they assumed that Jack still supported the idea. When that happened, Jack decided to self-censor himself and gives into what the group desired. Once the group had decided to celebrate their twisted version of Christmas, Jack decided that obtaining his goal of celebrating Christmas was more important than keeping the townspeople’s understanding of Christmas accurate. In doing so, he assumed the role of self-appointed mindguard. He chose to create a veil that would be appealing to the townspeople rather than telling them the truth which may change their opinion.

Overall, Jack’s behavior and the behavior of the group as a whole exhibited many of the symptoms of groupthink. If Jack had stuck up for what Christmas actually was and had not withheld information from the townspeople, groupthink might not have happened. Also, if the group had taken precautions against making irrational decisions such as creating a proper decision-making system groupthink could have been avoided as well.

The Canons of Rhetoric

Martin Luther King Jr. - "I Have a Dream" speech



Martin Luther King Jr. is seen above giving his famous “I Have a Dream,” speech to an audience at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. This is a prime example of Aristotle’s Canons of Rhetoric.

Firstly, Invention can be seen by the vast amount of knowledge and information Dr. King brings forth to the people. He draws upon instances of the past, such as slavery and the Emancipation Proclamation, and then bluntly describes the present. He is fully aware of his audience, and uses the emotionally pungent topic of inequality and injustice to aid in his persuasion.

There is a clear introduction to Dr. King’s speech; he makes himself personable to his audience by saying, “I am happy to join with you today.” He then captures their attention by pointing out that today “will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.” Now that the audience is fully enthralled he continues to move towards the purpose of his speech. Dr. King does so by saying that after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, “100 years later the Negro still is not free.” He continues to list some of the problems which still occur today and ends his introduction with saying “now is the time” to start action.

The body is made up primarily of the summation of injustices faced by the African American people. He uses supporting details, such as the inability for some people to vote and police brutality, to support his argument. He also gives personal insight into his hopes and dreams for the future by stating that his four children will “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

The speech’s conclusion appropriately summarizes Martin Luther King Jr.’s points and arouses the emotions of the audience. He uses the repetition of the phrase “let freedom ring” to reconnect with the listeners and emphasize his belief of the importance of freedom and justice. Finally, the last line of his speech, “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" fully summarizes his intentions while energizing his listeners.

The canon of style can also be directly seen in the above clip. A prime example is the use of metaphor. In Dr. King’s introduction he says that “America gave the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds” and that he refuses to believe that the “bank of justice is bankrupt” and that they, the people, have come to “cash this check” because it will provide the “riches of freedom and security of justice.” While at first seemingly complex, this metaphor provides tangible and easily understood imagery for the concept Dr. King is trying to convey.

Memory can be seen through Dr. King’s exemplary delivery skills. He has mastered the ability to maintain eye contact, use vocal cues and deliver his emotion to the audience. He has a strong opinion and his body language lets the audience know that he is passionate and that he means business.

Martin Luther King Jr. is known to be one of the most influential men in history, which is most likely partially due to his excellent oratory skills. He is a master of the canons of rhetoric, invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory, and is therefore extremely persuasive.

Group Think Theory: Gilmore Girls

This episode of Gilmore Girls takes place at a regular town meeting. Taylor Doose (Michael Winters), is in charge of running town meetings, and in this particular episode brings the relationship of Lorelai Gilmore (Lauren Graham) and Luke Danes (Scott Paterson) to the attention of the congregation. The conditions of these meetings promote high cohesiveness on the town’s part, makes group problem solving a unified process and is also a complex undertaking.

The viewer observes that in accordance with the Group Think Theory, the town meetings reveal the assembly as being a problem-solving group. They express great cohesiveness in trying to solve this issue for the betterment of the town. While concurrence seeking, Taylor uses past examples to gain the town’s awareness of the severity of this issue. Their homogeneity is that they wish not to have the same conflict in which had occurred 10 years ago with Fay Wellington and Art Brush. This dilemma was said to have affected the town’s economy, as well as the unification of the town as a whole. Although Luke tries to express how irrational the towns’ thinking is, Taylor acts as a self-appointed mindguard by not allowing Luke to convey his side of the argument to the group.

Internal and external stress is put on Luke and Lorelai. They are at the beginning of their relationship and by the town expressing their concern for their relationship puts incredible amounts of stress on them. At the end of the clip, it is also apparent that Luke, after several attempts end the argument, decides that it would be best to put the issue to rest. He was pressured toward uniformity in the sense that this issue would not be resolved until a decision on how to handle it was met. This is when Luke gives his word that if the relationship does not work out that he will move out of town.

The towns people use collective rationalization by thinking this is the best way in which to handle the situation, while not observing what would happen if the breakup were to occur. Although they would keep the Dragonfly Inn, they would lose Luke’s Diner, which those who watch the show would know, is a staple in Stars Hallow. Perhaps if the towns people were asked outside of the meeting their thoughts on Luke and Lorelai’s relationship, they would have been supportive. However, since they were at the meeting when the issue was discussed, they adhered to affiliative constraints and more than likely did not select the best alternative in their decision making process. Thus, this clip of Gilmore Girls expresses how the group think can potentially lead to flawed decision making.

Relational Dialectics Theory :: American Beauty

Since "American Beauty" showcases a dysfunctional family, a plethora of dialectics are present. This clip, however, shows a family dynamic that reveals the tensions of a few dialectics. Although the movie achieves this better as a whole, this clip acknowledges that not all families can be as ideal as they would prefer.

The clip begins with Janie, the daughter, coming home late for dinner. Then Carolyn, the mother, reveals that Lester, the father, quit his job. This launches an argument between the couple. Carolyn is upset because Lester should not be proud to lose a salary of $60, 000; Lester, however, is tired of going through the motions of life and prefers happiness to the tedium of a career in advertising.

Considering an ideal and normal family dinner (that subscribes to the constraints of American culture), this family is, in comparison, irritable and turbulent. Thus, the real vs. ideal dialect is represented. This juxtaposition is especially evident when Lester throws the plate of asparagus against the wall. Also, as opposed to couples making executive decisions about finances together, Lester shows another way that real families might act by quitting his job. This reveals a certain level of totality, or interdependence that is present in their relationship.

Another dialectic that can be seen is the public vs. private dialectic. Prior to this scene, the couple attends a dinner party where Lester acts conspicuously happy to be with his wife. Compared to this scene, though, it is clear that their private life is a contradiction to their public life. Public expectations have an effect on public status; therefore, the existence of this dichotomy is necessary to achieve a more personal relationship. Contextually, though, this particular scene rouses negative thoughts about the family’s private life.

Relational dialectics theory is based on the assumption that contradictions are ever-present in relational life. Lester and Carolyn are like physical representations of some of these contradictions, because the characters themselves contradict each other. Another assumption is that communication is inextricably linked to the search for a happy medium between these contradictions. The family as a whole lacks proper communication skills, and therefore their contradictions and actions are problematic. This family also represents the non-linear aspect of relational dialectics theory, which is a fundamental assumption claiming that not all relationships follow the same routine.

Throughout the movie they choose to use selection, which is exemplified by their independently made choices. Perhaps the family would not clash as much if they found compromised or used integration to solve their private problems. In trying to combine their contradictions, they might be able to come closer to the perceived ideal family.

Relational Dialectics Theory- "I love you...thank you."

An example of the Relational Dialectics Theory is seen in the television show, the OC. The clip begins with the two main characters, Ryan and Marissa, who are about to bring in the New Year together. The couple has experienced tough times from Marissa's struggle with alcohol abuse to Ryan's adaptation from city slum to wealthy suburbia. The two are excited to spend New Year's Eve together, but both have conflicting plans.
The assumption that contradiction is the fundamental fact of relational life is prevalent when Marissa states that she wants to attend a party; where as, Ryan would much rather "take it easy," and simply stay home enjoying one another's company. These conflicting views are not strong enough to ruin the relationship, but communication is necessary to negotiate and reach a compromise. Ryan reminds Marissa about the past Christmas when she was drunk and didn't remember the event; their relationship is characterized by change and reached the level where Ryan only wants the best for her. Ryan explained that his reason for wanting to stay home was because he wants to know that she will be safe. Marissa felt close to Ryan by his remark which then drove her to say I love you.
The basic relational dialectics: autonomy vs. connection and openness vs. protection were represented in the clip. Both characters were caught off guard when Marissa "slipped" by saying she loved Ryan. Ryan was taken aback by the comment and simply said, "thank you."
Ryan had his guard up and was not ready to say I love you back. Marissa felt connected to Ryan in response to him saying he wanted her to be safe and to be with him. She also was embarrassed for blurting out her feelings, and the fact that Ryan did not respond with the same affection made her feel humiliated. Marissa responded your welcome to his thank you and the couples' departure was awkward.
The OC clip represents contradiction and different views on love in that point in time of their relationship. Both care about one another yet the conflicting openness vs. protection aspect of their relationship is still a barrier for the couple to overcome.

Stable Exchange Stage of the Social Penetration Theory

In the above clip, one of the closing scenes of Zach Braff's lauded romantic indie flick "Garden State," the two main characters Andrew (Zach Braff) and Sam (Natalie Portman) finally approach the stable exchange stage of their relationship which has been built up over the course of the movie.

Throughout the movie Braff's character displays an inability to show emotion. He never cries, he is stoic in almost every social exchange he is involved in, and he fails to cry or even appear saddened by the death of his mother early on in the story. His jaded disposition isn't helped by the enormous dosages of lithium and other psychoactive drugs he consumes daily per the advice of his psychiatrist father.

In this scene, Andrew shows his first signs of vulnerability and complete openness to Sam when he sheds a tear. He also begins to talk about his history with his mother, a topic he avoids discussing at all until this point. Earlier in the movie, we learn from a slightly intoxicated Andrew that he pushed his mother when he was 9 years old, and through a series of freak occurrences, the fall left her confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Because of this, he has resented her for most of his life, so this if the first time he expressed any positive attitudes towards her by sharing a pleasant memory from his childhood with Sam, representing full self-disclosure.

The couple displays synchronized needs in this scene as well. The minute Andrew sheds a tear Sam grabs a cup to "save it," and through this playful display she shows to Andrew that she understands how important this moment is.

Their conversation is no longer about trivial things like bands or pets as they were in the Orientation Stage. They are spontaneously and freely discussing issues with serious emotional weight, like Andrew's relationship with his deceased mother and their inability to cope with the fact they are in love even though they will soon be separated when Andrew returns to Los Angeles. The depth of their self-disclosure is at its greatest point.

Sam is equally open, when she begins to speak about how "it hurts..." referring to the fact that she cannot deal with Andrew's departure. This is also her highest point of self-disclosure as through the entire movie she has shown herself to be independent and free-spirited, not the type to fall in love easily. She shows her vulnerability as much, if not more, than Andrew does.

The two also seem to have achieved dyadic uniqueness as Sam and Andrew remain humorous throughout this emotionally-charged exchange. Andrew remarks he would save the first tear he has shed since childhood in a "scrapbook, if he had a scrapbook," while Sam half-jokingly says "I don't think I'm going to be able to get all of those," referring to his tears, when Andrew finally breaks down.

Throughout "Garden State" Andrew and Sam remain lover's at arms length, slowly growing closer throughout the Orientation, Exploratory Affective Exchange and Affective Exchange stages. While this is not the immediate moment they confirm their romantic attraction towards each other, this scene illustrates their full self-disclosure, spontaneity and dyadic uniqueness the best, so it is a vaild representation of the Stable Exchange stage of Social Penetration Theory.

The Orientation Stage of the Social Penetration Theory

The movie 50 First Dates is an exemplary film for the Social Penetration Theory.  In this movie, Drew Barrymore’s character suffers from short-term memory loss from a previous car accident.  Adam Sandler meets Barrymore at a small breakfast diner, and tries to pursue her.  When he finds out about Barrymore’s condition, he attempts to get her attention every morning at the diner using many diverse tactics.  In this particular clip, we see Sandler using superficial communication to get Barrymore’s attention.  He pretends that he cannot read the menu in order to get help from Barrymore.  Barrymore does help him through his “reading problem” by sounding out the word.  Even though the conversation is superficial, Barrymore is still very supportive and she never judges Sandler.  The characters do not learn any facts about each other, but they do communicate on a public level. This level of interaction is clearly the orientation stage of the Theory.  The only dysfunction to this stage is the unorthodox behavior of Sandler.  Usually communication at the orientation stage follows the norms of society, but Sandler chooses an obnoxious strategy to gain attention.  Although this clip strays slightly from the true meaning of the orientation stage of the Social Penetration Theory, the overall message is still the same.  Barrymore and Sandler do not self-disclose with each other, and they act at the outer, or public, layer of the onion analogy.  In this clip, they have no breadth or depth to their conversation, which solidifies the fact that they are still in the orientation stage.  

Social Penetration Theory

The social penetration theory is displayed in many scenes of the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. In this film, Jim Carey is undergoing a procedure that erases his memories of his failed relationship with Kate Winslet. During the procedure, Carey’s character decides he does not want this to happen and desperately tries to hold on to these memories. This is a scene, where the social penetration theory is the most evident. It takes place inside Jim’s mind and Carey and Winslet’s characters are lying in bed together. Kate begins to tell Jim a story about when she was little and had a doll she thought was ugly. This is showing a great deal of intimacy, because she relates this doll to herself. She then asks Jim not to ever leave her. Jim responds by telling Kate that she is pretty. By telling this story, Kate feels close enough with Jim to express self-disclosure. Kate’s story shows great depth, because she is reaching back to her childhood. The couple is quite obviously in the stable exchange stage, because there is complete openness and spontaneity between the partners.
The next part of this clip shows Jim Carey and Kate Winslet’s characters lying on ice holding hands. Carey states, “I could die right now, Clem….I’m just happy. I’ve never felt that way before. I’m just exactly where I want to be.” This shows Carey’s reciprocity of Winslet’s feelings and also displays the stable exchange stage. By saying he could die shows that he has learned to love and feels that his life is complete. Each of these characters has let their guard down and have reached a very high level of intimacy. The scene ends with Carey reluctantly losing the memory. He wants to continue to feel that level of intimacy. Both characters are extremely vulnerable with one another and thus have clearly demonstrated the social penetration theory.

Relational Dialectics

A piece from "Friends" to illustrate Relational Dialectics Theory.



The relational dialectics theory refers to intimate conversation that takes place in close relationships. The closer two people become, the more problems, controversies or conflicts normally arise. In a relationship it therefore becomes important to find a ‘happy medium’ between one’s own desires and those desires of the other person.
Oftentimes, an additional problem is the different communication styles of men and women and the inability to relate to the partner’s way of thinking or expressing him- or herself. According to the theory, relationships do normally not follow a linear pattern, but rather consists of conflicts and therefore communication does oftentimes not follow a straight path. Conflicting values in relationships that the theory points out are privacy vs. transparency, novelty vs. predictability, and autonomy vs. connectedness.

An example that illustrates the relational dialectics theory pretty well is the American TV show ‘Friends’, throughout which the (mis-) communication between people, especially in the context of relationships between men and women plays an important role. The clip I have chosen for this post displays a conversation between Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) and Paul (Bruce Willis).
The clip starts with Paul coming home and telling Rachel that he has made a reservation at a restaurant. While Rachel seems satisfied with this, she however wants Paul to tell her something about his day. “It was fine” is all Paul has to say, without disclosing any more information to Rachel. In comparison to Paul, who seems to have a higher need for privacy, Rachel wants to know flat out what he is thinking and “what’s behind this strong silent exterior”. It becomes evident that Rachel and Paul’s needs are at odds with each other at this point, as Paul obviously does not want to make himself vulnerable by disclosing his feelings and thoughts. Rachel experiences that the conversation even though she just wants him to give her “something – anything!”, is not going anywhere. Paul finally agrees to tell her something about his youth, but the content of the story is at odds with what Rachel expected – however, Rachel does not openly tell Paul her thoughts, but rather remains silent and moves on, trying to convince him that they should now go out to dinner. However, now Paul has arrived at a point that he wants Rachel to listen to him.

While it is questionable why they did not have this conversation earlier during their relationship, because as Rachel says she “doesn’t know anything” about him, it is clear that Rachel has the desire for novelty at this point in order to avoid the apparent monotony of their relationship in which they do not know much about the other person. Paul responds to Rachel’s request by writing down his thoughts, a method that Rachel can not relate to. It becomes clear that they are communicating on two different levels. They both have a need for attachment to the other person, but also want to keep their need for independence.
The clip ends with both of them being close to tears, realizing that they are very attached to each other besides different ways of communication. While the content of the scene displays the theory of relational dialectics in a fairly exaggerated way that tends to be over the top, it however explicitly shows that the communication is not straight-forward and the relationship does not follow an obvious linear paths.

Social Penetration Theory

The Social Penetration Theory is illustrated in numerous relationships in the movie "Good Will Hunting". It is most clearly present in the relationship between Will (Matt Damon) and Sean (Robin Williams). Throughout the movie their relationship follows the idea of the Social Penetration Theory almost exactly. The two characters when they first meet have almost no interaction at all, then gradually the two begin to have superficial communication, never really delving into anything too personal.

After Will and Sean begin to see each other more and more we are able to see that their relationship is slowly progressing and we see more intimate communication. The two share stories of their pasts and we see that gradual overlapping of the two's experiences. In one scene Sean (Robin Williams) tells Will (Matt Damon) how he met his wife while he was on a trip to see Game 7 of the World Series, and goes on to tell Will how he never got to the game. The two laugh about the story and discuss the decision Sean had made by not going to the game, a good example of dyadic uniqueness in the sarcasm the two exchange about the story, further allowing us to see the relationship as it is growing to the point we will see in the video clip.

In the clip I have included in my post we witness the two characters Will and Sean at their most vulnerable point in the entire movie. In terms of the depth of communication it is at its peak in this scene. Sean discloses the information he has had at his disposal the entire time of their therapy sessions to Will, and addresses them. Sean informs Will that he was also a victim of abuse, and consoles Will and makes it a point to make sure he knows that what happened to him was "not his fault".

Sample Illustration 3 - Face-Negotiation Theory

Another piece from "Brothers & Sisters" to illustrate Face-Negotiation Theory, provided by a former Com 103 student.

Brothers & Sisters - McCallister & Co



The Face-Negotiation Theory is illustrated in this clip from the ABC series “Brothers and Sisters.” Nora Walker (Sally Field), and her family were publicly criticized on a political radio show, and once the radio host started to pass judgment on her family, and what kind of mother-in-law Nora would be, Nora had face concern, or interest in maintaining her face and the faces of her children. The radio host said, “you will not believe the family freak show a McCallister Presidency would hoist on an unsuspecting nation. Let’s start with the mother-in-law; I have a stack of letters to the editor this woman has written, all strident and incomprehensible.” She wanted her family to be seen in a positive face, or she wanted to be liked and admired by others.

As a result, Kitty Walker (Calista Flockhart) calls into the radio station and attempts to save her own face, and the faces of the rest of her family. At first, she engages in face-saving, which is an attempt to avoid embarrassment, however instead of saving her face, she further embarrasses herself and her family. She calls into the radio show and says, “you should do your homework, my mom, who you equated with a terrorist happens to be a Gold-Star mother.” Kitty’s husband Robert McCallister (Rob Lowe) is running for President, and he calls her after the radio incident asking how she was planning on fixing the damage she had just done.

This conversation between Kitty and Robert eludes to plans for face restoration of Kitty and her family, and of Robert’s presidential campaign. Face restoration is a strategy used to preserve autonomy and avoid loss of face. This restoration occurs after the loss of face has happened, and offers excuses or resolutions. What is not shown in the clip is how Kitty tries to rectify the situation and save the faces of Robert and her family; she goes onto the radio show and explains her family, and solidifies Robert’s positions in his presidential campaign.

My Illustration (for fun) - Expectancy Violations Theory

In case you missed these wild geese at TCNJ...



To show that I am also thinking and working, here is an illustration from me (very original!). I have to remind you that my analysis is not as complete as I expect from you for this assignment. You should follow the sample illustrations.

Do wild geese have "personal space" as humans do? You will know the answer after you watch the video below:



This video clip was taken on the TCNJ campus in the dusk of Jan 18. A good pool of wild geese, usually floating on Lake Sylva, appeared surprisingly on the grassy lawn in front of Paul Loser Hall. When I approached them, they became alert to my "invading" their "personal space" and started to wobble away. I walked closer, intending to feed them. Obviously, my unexpected behavior was not received positively by these geese. Had they learned Expectancy Violations Theory, they would have seen me as a rewarding person, thus positively evaluated my violation.

Sample Illustration 2 - Standpoint Theory

Another illustration from a former Com 103 student.

The Color Purple - Celie Liberation Scene (8:33)



The Color Purple, directed by Steven Spielberg exemplifies some of the important aspects of Standpoint Theory. From 1909 to 1946, Celie Johnson, an African American woman’s live was illustrated. Celie is ridiculed, mistreated, and subordinated by her master, also known as her husband. She, however, during the liberation scene, finds the courage to stand up to him and decides to leave and go live with her good friend, Shug. Everyone seated at the dinner table is astonished with Celie’s ability to finally speak up and acquire freedom from enslaved situation.

Standpoint Theory assumes that ”all standpoints are partial, but those of the ruling class can actually harm those of the subordinate group” (West & Turner, 2007, p. 503). Most women from an early age are told that they have to be dainty, dependent on a man, and submissive to men, a father or husband mostly. Obtaining such characteristics would make them more appealing to men. Because women often felt inferior to men, they were and sometimes are mentally harmed. They allow themselves to continually be oppressed by the dominant species- men. In this scene from The Color Purple, however, Celie challenged the norm and liberated herself.

Standpoint Theory also argues that people on the lower rungs of the social hierarchy see more than their own position. In other words, “the lower positions on the hierarchy posses the greatest accuracy in their standpoints, where accuracy refers to the ability to transcend the limits of partial vision and see beyond one’s own specific social location” (West & Turner, 2007, p. 507). In the course of the liberation scene, Celie’s father-in-law directs his son to control his wife. The father-in-law is appalled by Celie’s behavior. As Celie departs from the house, her husband shouts how she will never make it on her own because she is Black, poor, ugly, and a woman. Her husband never attained accuracy. He was never capable of seeing things from her perspective or social location.

Sample Illustration 1 - Face-Negotiation Theory

The following illustration (the clip and the writing) was provided by a former student of Com 103.

Brothers & Sisters: Justin’s Intervention (8:32)



This video clip embodied Face-Negotiation Theory which describes how people from different cultures, small groups or close relationships manage conflict negotiation to maintain face.

The clip “Justin’s Intervention” from the series Brothers & Sisters is about one brother, Justin, who is addicted to pain killers and the entire family of six, plus two concerned friends (non-family) gather to confront him. However, Justin feels it is an ambush and feels cornered and embarrassed –he loses face and with that goes his self-respect within his family dynamics and relationships. Face is defined as a metaphor for the public image people display, the image of the self that people display in their conversations with others (p 483). Initially Justin attempts to save-face, defined as to prevent embarrassment or vulnerability to himself. He uses a negative face in his desire to be autonomous and free from the others. Justin employs face-threatening acts (FTA’s) to threaten each person with insults and embarrassing information, and directly challenges each person present for the intervention in order to restore his face within the family this leads to two people (non-family) leaving the house. Finally his sister, Kitty, steps up to manage the conflict that has escalated between the family members. Justin begins to attack her and she provokes him calmly with “go ahead, say it” and instead Kitty confronts him with his addiction, “I’m here and dealing with your addiction”. Kitty employs two types of facework strategies. Initially she uses tact facework where she allowes Justin the freedom to act as he feels and does not restrict or interrupt his insulting tirade on the others. Kitty then moves to solidarity facework to enhance the connection between the two of them. She does this by telling Justin, “I’m bleeding and aching, I just had a miscarriage but I’m dealing with you. Tell me what is it that I am doing that isn’t all about how much I love you”. Justin then changes his face to face restoration, which occurs after the loss of face has happened and he says he is sorry and states that he needs time to think.

This clip also shows the collectivism orientation within the family. I believe who they accomplish this through their family solidarity to heal one person in the family that needs all of their support and love. Collectivism is the “we” identity and places emphasis on the group’s goals, groups obligations and in-group needs over the individuals. This was evident when they all received the telephone call summoning them to the intervention for their brother. Although they may all operate most of the time within individualism, which emphasizes the individual identity and needs over the group identity, they also value inclusion and the desire to fulfill another’s needs within their family.

Originally Erving Goffman (1967) did not feel that the term, face would be applied to close relationships and was more pertinent to the study of social groups. However, over time the study of face has come to include close relationships and small groups which would include family members and a family.

Initial Post

This is a group blog for Yifeng Hu's Introduction to Communication Studies classes at The College of New Jersey for Spring 2008. Students will be posting to this blog throughout the semester and making comments on each others' posts.