CCA 1 & 2

CCA#1

Our self-concept shapes how we communicate with others in the present, and can also influence our behaviour in the future (61). This idea, known as the self fulfilling prophecy can occur when the expectations of one person govern another’s actions (63). In my personal experience, the self fulfilling prophecy is most prevalent in a family setting that consists of more than one child, and can be either a negative or positive catalyst for the behaviour of children. For example, my family is comprised of two children; my brother and me, who fit on opposite ends of the spectrum. Everything that he does is picked apart and scrutinized, which according to the self fulfilling prophecy, explains all of his negative behaviour. Throughout his life, he has never been a strong academic student, has gotten his license suspended as a result of drunk driving, and has deceived my parents into thinking he was attending university, when in actuality; he wasn’t. These examples come as a result of the constant scorn he faces from my father telling him that he has never been good enough, and that he will not becoming anything in life. Conversely, my parents have always supported me, and told me that I am capable of doing anything. As a result, I have succeeded in most things I have attempted. For instance, I have always been a stronger academic student than my brother. There is tangible evidence of this in our report cards, as well as in our parent-teacher interviews. My parents have always been disappointed after hearing about my brothers progress, yet they have always been content and proud with mine. These examples are evidence that the self fulfilling prophecy is crucial to understand and consider in one’s family, because it can be the determining factor in a child’s behaviour. This is important to remember when your child or future child comes home with a bad report card. You must sincerely consider exactly how you react; it could mean success or failure in your child’s future.

CCA#2

Perception and culture are two ideas which are so inherently intertwined, that we tend to forget that the former is so powerfully shaped by the latter (116). Every country is shaped by one of the two types; high or low context (117). In my experience, the United States is one of the lowest context cultures, and its media does not attempt to portray it in any other manner. There are several examples of the ‘what you see is what you get’ principle when we look at the American media. Firstly, in response to the delayed reaction of the U.S. government during Hurricane Katrina, rapper Kanye West, stated “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Instead of sending his message in “politically correct” fashion. West directly attacked the president, ignoring the ramifications that could have come as a result of speaking his mind so directly. Due to the fact that the U.S. is low context, there are several of these kinds of guileless examples seen in the media. Similarly, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks stated that she was ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas. Both statements openly attack the highest governmental figure in the country; a trait which would only be tolerable in a low context culture. They are direct, verbal statements which send a clear message. In one of its high context counterparts, like South Korea, these controversial statements would be seen as rude and disrespectful. They would not be promoted in the media, nor would they even be thought of because Eastern cultures promote the idea of social harmony. The difference in volume of these countries is one of the reasons it is so difficult for citizens in different cultures to adapt to living in other countries. Whether a low or high context culture is more beneficial in communicating can be left up to you to decide, but it is impossible to deny that problems within a country, specifically for George Bush can be partially attributed to said volume.

Adler, Ronald B., George Rodman, and Alexandre Sevigny. Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 2008. 61-117.