Hi, everyone. HERE are the slides for download.
And here are our discussion questions. But of course, you can comment on anything about the lecture and the many, many ideas raised today. Feel free to ask questions (not to me, specifically, but to your classmates) as well.
1) Discuss one specific media phenomenon of your choice using the different models of communication.
2) Why or how do you privilege dialogue over dissemination? Transmission over ritual?
3) What is YOUR dream for perfect communication?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Communication as Dialogue vs. Communication as Dissemination.
I believe that the best way to really get to know a person is to engage in a conversation with him/her. By conversation, I don’t mean the mind numbing small talk we so often have to deal with in parties, smockets and along the hallways of Ateneo. Ugh, spare me. I am referring to the one-on-one, heart wrenching, mind blowing, and (in the words of my Philo teacher), SUPER ABUNDANT reciprocation of thoughts, emotions, and opinions between two individuals. This to me is the communication DREAM because the exchange is more likely than not to be candid and truthful, as opposed to an impersonal dissemination of information.
Beyond seeing dialogue as one on one conversation, it can also be likened to a fruitful class discussion, which is a privilege most students take for granted. Without meaning to bash my philosophy teacher (and maybe its too early in the sem to tell), I must criticize the hypocrisy in his method. He stated, on the first day of class (quoting Fr. Ferriols) that we would not learn the definition of Philosophy but instead, “learn how to philosophize”. Upon hearing this, I looked forward to the opportunity to exercise my oral and thinking skills and spent the hour before our next class reading and re-reading our assignment so as to be prepared for the discussion. Needless to say, I was incredibly disappointed as he spent the entire hour and thirty minutes doing ALL of the talking and leaving my blockmates and I with a yes, SUPER ABUNDANCE of words but meager insight.
How will we learn how to philosophize through that, dear sir? Do tell :P
In spite of my bias towards dialogue as the winning form of communication, I also see the benefits of dissemination and would like to share my thoughts regarding the Parable of the Sower and what it means to be Catholic.
In as much as it would be ideal for all the educated to exercise dialogue just as Socrates did, it is also largely impractical. If the message is urgent, then the sender must operate through the quickest means possible. Has it not been proven in history many times over that a lone and convincing individual is capable of inciting a revolution among the masses? Moreover, why on earth would the media industry need to exist if all people needed to do was talk? :P Time will always be of the essence.
Much of what the Parable of the Sower illustrates is our prerogative and responsibility toward the information we receive. In my opinion, as Catholics, we are already blessed with the truth through our faith, and what we choose to do with it determines the kind of people we choose to be. Our salvation does not end with the death of Jesus on the cross; just as receiving an education does not mean we are intelligent.
What we do with what we are given makes all the difference, and I pray that each of us (the privileged com majors of the Ateneo wohoo!!) BE it. : D
- Patricia Ocampo
Very good post, Patricia! I like your discussion of dialogue/dissemination in relation to education, learning and, yes, duty. Much of this first block of the course is about making us more aware about our own ways of learning and ways of seeing the world, and how we regard media and communications in these processes.
I definitely agree with Patricia.
Dialogue is still the better form of communication. You see, in dialogue, there is an exchange of ideas; reciprocity between two or more parties is present. There is no overpowering. Moreover, you will definitely get to see if your ideas are being understood by the other.
Dialogue is still more effective than dissemination. We have different dialogues in this world: ecumenical dialogue, political dialogue, economic dialogue, etc. We resolve things through dialogue. We form partnerships and relationships through dialogue. We build bridges through dialogue. We settle differences and arguments through dialogue.
Look into the family. People living together may not be called a family when there is no dialogue at all. Yes, you live together; but you do not have an insight on what your so-called "family" member thinks or wants to do. Through dialogue, we resolve conflict within our families. We can tell them what is in our hearts and minds. Without dialogue (well, of course, of love as well) a family is nothing!
Transmission versus Ritual
All right, this is me taking a crack at this so pardon me if my interpretations are warped but this is how I understood it. Transmission seems to be related to the Cybernetic Tradition we're studying in Com101. Inputs and outputs, getting info from point A and point B. Now do forgive me for this part but Trekkie that I am, this kept running through my mind during the lecture. This is the principle on which Borg perfection runs! Of course, looking at Laswell's formula, there's the noise factor. In sci-fi, that noise doesn't exist. There's complete understanding. The Queen issues orders to her drones and they're understood without question. Every being is a part of the Queen's hive mind, her body composed of every being she's assimilated.
Are you still with me? No?
Well, basically, it's like the perfect government, I'm a dictator, I send you an order, no noise, you do as I say.
It's like a body. Your nerves send your brain's command to your arm, and unless you have brain damage, the command is obeyed in response to your order.
Ok, maybe I'm babbling but that's how I understood transmission. Of course, all the examples of transmission I gave involved feedback from Point B.
It's basically useless unless someone acts on what you sent. Transmission can also be like yelling orders at your younger sister. She hears you, she doesn't act, nothing gets done. :) (You then throw something at her and get feedback when she conks you on the head with what you just threw... )
Ritual is a lot more...approachable. (cue We're All In This Together from that crappy Disney musical that propagates teen sterotypes) It brings society together as one. We're people, not Point A and Point B. What we say is a lot more than inputs and outputs. Comm as ritual is said to be ceremony. When we go to mass, we communicate to the other people with us "Hey! I'm Catholic too!" When we have that weekly lunch with a friend from high school, we communicate that he/she is still valuable to us. There's sentiment in it.
Comm as transmission moves across space. It's like me screaming at someone I don't know and that person hearing it and either reacting by saying "You're crazy!" and running away or not reacting and just running away.
Now, Comm as ritual continues across time. It's those countless conversations you have with dear friends recounting the time you made a fool of yourself by screaming "Sex!" during an observatory tour when the guide asked: So what is it that all people share at night? (The answer was the sky.) No matter how many times you remember that, you still laugh because it's been part of your routine with these individuals. One embarrassing moment in time communicated over and over again as ritual. ;)
All right, so that's my crude understanding of it. Ritual has the fun people factor. :) I'm hoping this suffices and that I haven't written myself as a fool. @_@
Robyn, your post is delightfully ditzy and geeky at the same time. Good job! I like how you brought in "floopy/flimsy/ditzy" examples such as Star Trek and High School Musical (which I love!) to make us think through the concepts in our class (and Com101 too!). Again, it's in the mundane and everyday that we find the media most influential, as they can subtly shape our perceptions about how we think about the world, in this case: communication. Keep it up!
What other sci-fi novels/movies/tv series can we draw analogies from in relation to how we understand media and communications and their role in society?
Dialogue V.S. Communication as Dissemination
In my head, the far more win-y form of communication is Dialogue. Dialogue is of the win. You can't properly convey emotion and the little details (such as tone, that general "feel" of a person, etc.) like you can through a good face-to-face.
Dialogue isn't limited to one-on-one convos though. I mean it could be a one to a group (so long as the group responds), etc. There has to be an active and live back and forth between all those involved for real, powerful communication to happen.
I mean, for instance, lets look at marriage proposals. I mean, there's a reason people propose in-person and not through a group message over YM, or a notice on Facebook. I mean, sure, maybe someone can use communication as dissemination to supplement the dialogue, to add a little something something to the equation so that the experience will be a richer one, but if you want to make real exchange of thoughts, feelings and all that stuff kind of communication happen, dialogue is the way to go.
Even in films, which is kind of like a form of dissemination, on-screen dialogue is an important part of the mix. When the characters speak to one another, when they converse, exchange ideas, thoughts, feelings and crap, if its written properly and honestly, the message on screen will get across. Dialogue enriches dissemination.
That's not to say dissemination is bad. We sometimes need to just shout out there and hope people get our message because, honestly, as much as some of us may want to, we can't personally converse with everyone in the world. We a way of reaching the people we can't normally reach, and I guess that's what dissemination is for.
I guess, if I could like condense this entire debate into a single style and scenario, it'd be kind of like comparing your preference between big inspired speeches and personally talking to small groups or individuals during some sort of event.
Ish. I dunno. Something kinda like that. It makes sense in my head.
Anyway, back to my point: In my head, dialogue is the superior way of communication but thanks to constraints and stuff on people, dissemination can be more practical. That's why I'm trying to go with a mix of both, using my chosen medium of communication i.e. film.
Aaaaaand, yeah. OK. That's all I have to say for now I guess. If that made sense. I hope it did. If it didn't, then yeah, I didn't write this.
Sir Jon: Ditzy and geeky is what I am. :) Communication is everywhere and I love seeing it in things I love and loathe. It's everywhere in a good way...like oxygen. ^_^
I love Star Trek: Voyager almost as much as I love Comm so that's the only TV show I can REALLY relate it to. They have awesome communication devices. Universal translators let them speak the languages of species they've never met. The language barrier is gone! Laswell would have been proud. So much less noise.
They have tricorders that tell them in an instant what's wrong with someone, what the conditions around them are like. In that world, the body and the environment can now speak to us.
There's also those dorky commbadges that make that cool beep sound when you tap them. Glorified walky-talkies, really. But imagine commbadges! You can wear communication on your chest, close to your heart, where it deserves to be. :)
The joys of interlocking obsessions. Cybernetic tradition again. Trek is just a subsystem of the bigger system that makes up my obsession with Comm. :D
All right, hoping that didn't give anyone a nose bleed. >_>
These days, I think most people have forgotten how to communicate effectively face to face. Most find comfort in hiding behind the many facets of written communication (via the Internet or text messaging). Maybe it is easier and more liberating to communicate through these things because for one thing, you don't necessarily have to worry about the immediate reaction of the person you are talking to, as if it is negative, you can always say that your message was misinterpreted because the tone of voice wasn't present, etc. It's a lot easier to make excuses when your body language cannot be seen, and when the tone in your voice cannot be heard.
That being said, I think it would be totally awesome if we could just get back to basics. I believe that there is more honesty in face to face conversation than there is in wireless mediums. If all facets of speech are accounted for (tone, body language/hand gestures, eye contact, etc.) then maybe there will be a greater chance of the message being interpreted the way the speaker meant for it to be.
- Aika Beltran
I'd prefer communication as dialogue because, honestly, not everyones going to want to hear your thoughts and feelings and it would make me feel better to know that the person i was conversing with is actually interested in what i'm saying. and i also agree with patricia on the whole small talk thing, it annoys the hell out of me when all there is to say are "so the weathers nice today..." or "what's your course? oh thats cool...i'm gonna go now" and then you see these same people in the hallways and wave so delightedly like you are the best of friends.
but anyways, the whole one-on-one thing can also be a scary process. maybe thats why YM and texting are so popular here. there's no hiding from the other person once you put your thoughts out there. but i like it best because its the most surefire way to understand where the other person is coming from and whether theres a true connection there or not. can you imagine, thinking someone is your soulmate (a.k.a. the shit!) online, and then you meet them in person and it's like "are you kidding me?!" i'd rather skip that part, its a waste of time.
so i guess i'll write more later but thisll do for now
I agree that communication as dialogue is more favorable than communication as dissemination.
Failure of communication is unavoidable due to language differences, cultural differences, personal differences, loss of data, and such. However, for me, a more effective way of communicating is engaging in dialogue or conversation. Why? It’s just different when you’re actually “with” the person/s. Like what you guys have already said, facial expression, tone, and body language do matter if one wants to get something across. Since a message can be interpreted in various ways, in Communication as Dissemination, there is a bigger chance for miscommunication to take place. It’s a greater risk once you engage in it.
On the contrary, I think that at the end of the day, it all boils down to how one utilizes and maximizes his creativity, diplomatic skills, and other capabilities in order to efficiently communicate, whether it be through dialogue or dissemination :D
-Bianca Arcega
Communication as Dialogue versus (?) Communication as Dissemination
Does it have to be one against the other? Do we really have to choose which form of communication is better? I think not. Just like what Jopy said, it has to be a mix of both for effective communication to take place. I really think it’s a question of which is more appropriate in a certain situation, depending on the kind of message or information being conveyed, the target audience and the desired effect.
Both forms have its advantages and disadvantages. I totally agree with everyone on their claim that dialogue enables us to have a meaningful and fruitful exchange of ideas with one another. It’s probably the right way to communicate if we have or intend to establish a more intimate relationship with the person we’re talking to. It makes us engage into a sincere conversation wherein we get to share a bit of ourselves, and in return, learn something from what others got to tell.
However, dialogue can only go so far with regard to its reach. Its individual take on communication is what restricts us with people we personally know or we’re somehow connected to. This is where communication as dissemination comes in. It’s quick, convenient and can be quite persuasive depending on the credibility of the source. The biggest drawback though is its tendency to be like spoon-feeding and too one-sided. It will only work if the receiver actually do something with the information obtained.
It’s not like I’m playing safe or something. I just couldn’t choose between the two. Maybe the reason they’re both there is because they complement each other. I personally think they should neither be compared nor separated.
Am I making sense? What do you guys think? Let’s have a dialogue. Haha! That’s me trying to be funny. Okay, I'll stop. :P
-Jellie Ramos
Dialogue vs Dissemination
Advertising is generally fueled by the idea of dissemination. Tv and print ads are “out there” for everyone to see (much like dissemination’s “Those who have ears, let them hear!”). In this case, we could say that dissemination is a faster, more efficient way to achieve this particular purpose.
Dialogue, the more personal way of communicating, is the way to go if your purpose is to have/ build a personal relationship with your audience. It is very useful for our personal lives/relationships...
but I don’t think our world would have reached this status of literacy or the advent of technology if it wasn’t for dissemination. In the realm of education, if we stuck with Socrates’ style…then education would be an exclusive privilege, and only the people in on the secret will be the ones that could contribute to the knowledge of the world. When dissemination was applied to education via the creation of schools, education was given a relatively longer reach than before. Because of this, more great minds were discovered, more knowledge was contributed to the world, and all their achievements gave birth to our modern, very hi-tech, and small world.
I believe that these two forms of communication have their distinct uses. Neither is better than the other. :)
-Kate Tan
Yes, dialogue has been taking a beating over dissemination here so far. I appreciate Kate's and Jellie's defense of AND anxiety toward both types of communication. :)
We are in the internet age. People around the world are logged on to the internet all the time, and through reading the Getting-To-Know-You posts by my classmates in this blog, I can say that Ateneans are no different from those people. Most of my classmates say that they are heavy users of the media because they spend a lot of hours online everyday.
A media phenomenon in this internet age is webcasting. Webcasts are very popular today with the peoples’ rising interest in podcasts and video streaming. Through popular websites such as YouTube, different information, through videos of course, reach different parts of the world easily. People could upload news clips, movie clips or even video clips of themselves that regular people are now beginning to make names for themselves. The YouTube phenomenon has even created internet celebrities of our people like the Cebu Prisoners and Charice Pempengco.
I think YouTube can be seen as both Communication as Dissemination and as Dialogue. With the website’s tag line: “broadcast yourself,” YouTube is a clear example of Communication as Dissemination. Users upload videos and it is up to watchers how they interpret the videos they have just seen. This is where Communication as Dialogue comes to the picture. Through the website’s comment feature, users could talk about the videos and interact through exchanging ideas and comments.
I agree with most of my classmates that Communication as Dialogue is a better form of communication than Dissemination. There is a better exchange of ideas among people, and I believe that YouTube included the comment feature because of this reason. They could have just created a website that simply streams videos but they had to include comments so their users could interact. However, I am leaning more towards what Bianca said, that how a person uses his skills to effectively communicate (in whatever form it may be-- dialogue or dissemination) that decides which form one could use to communicate better. :D
-Bea Oliveros :)
Good point, Bea. Dissemination and dialogue are not at all mutually exclusive. There are elements of both in every type of communication. :)
Dialogue is the best, because I hate having to nod my head agreeing to everything without having been given the chance to defend/explain my side or ask my questions.
And I find that I understand things better when it's through one-on-one discussion, which is why I think it's a complete waste of time for me to be enrolling in voice/dance classes that has 1 teacher : 30 students ratio. I won't learn much because, usually, being told what to do is not enough for me. I need to ask many questions over and over again, and that's going to be annoying in a real class. And I find that I like smaller crowds when there's an outing or something. I just think one-on-one conversations and secrets shared in a smaller circle of trust are better than whole-block bonding. (Sorry, block.) It's because, for me, communication is always better when there's interaction. (I think this is also the reason why I don't like TV much and like the Internet better. The people on TV don't need me. It's not interactive.)
I prefer dialogue. It’s so much better to express yourself to someone who you can actually see. My mom, for example, usually texts me how much she misses me. I felt her love, but wouldn’t it be a gazillion times better if I heard her say it or even saw her say it?
I’m also the type of person who appreciates closeness and trust. This is something that doesn’t develop overnight nor can be developed without seeing that someone living in their natural habitat. Sometimes, it’s nice to hear how textmates become lovers or how pen pals become close, but those methods don’t work with me. I need someone I can actually see, someone who I can share my world with. And, when that person looks at me, he or she knows whether or not I have a problem. Maybe, in the future, if we ended up taking different paths, emails, texts or the like is already “ok,” but it won’t come close to being with the person in the flesh.
In the world of technology, it’s already very hard to detect sincerity. Some people may be lying or fooling with you. Besides, when you think about it, people have time to think of their responses. Plus, you don’t see them.
Relating this to the world of advertising, media can easily influence minds. I bow down to the ever so famous “First Day High” concept. They made deodorant look cool. Dissemination can hold power over the masses. The formulation of effective ads helps the mind grow imaginative. Besides, in this world where almost everything is cliché, it’s hard to think of something different. This brings me back to my first post. It’s ok for people to consider me weird, or different(not that I am. Haha), because this is how people get remembered.
Dialogue and dissemination are both important, but dialogue, in my case, is more necessary.
My comment is very late haha. Sorry sir. Anyways, Nikki and I reported on Dialogue vs Dissemination.
Like I said before, I really do believe that neither dialogue nor dissemination can exist without one another. Both have its own flaws and strengths. When one simply disseminates information, the danger of misinterpretation and misunderstanding is very high. It's like a teacher asking his students to read a very difficult essay. They won't be able to pick up anything from it so then the point of learning something from it is useless. That's why dialogue is an important as well. It helps clarify the ideas that the essay (for example) was trying to point out.
At the same time, dialogue alone isn't helpful in preserving knowledge so that it may later on be furthered. If we simply pass on knowledge, it won't be as accurate anymore. The interpretation would stain it even more when it is done verbally, than when it is written down. Also, I believe that to keep knowledge to only a limited group of people would not help in furthering our knowledge of it. A lot of other people out there may also have ideas that would be largely helpful to one's research even if they don't really have expertise in the field.
Finally, regarding question three. I don't think there will ever be such a thing as perfect communication. For one, I don't think that anything is perfect. There is only good and better, and even better, and so on. Communication will continue to evolve as time passes, and my idea of perhaps great communication, is for it to continue its evolution. To further be able to accurately transmit messages in whatever medium, and to further help society's own growth.
Post a Comment