Human Communication as Narration, Research Paper Example

Nonverbal Communication in Relationships: How Nonverbal Cues Dictate the “Temperature” of a Relationship Through Posturing, Eye Contact, and Gesture and the Nuances Between

Reality is defined as a social construct in which a, “…collective acceptance or recognition by the individuals acting collectively…” (Searle126). This definition applies to not only a social construct but also to the nature of relationships. In the nature of relationships couples communicate in both verbal and nonverbal ways. The argument this paper will present is that nonverbal cues are more telling of a person’s mood than verbal cues in a relationship with a second part to the argument being that relationsips hinge on a balance between verbal and nonverbal forms of communication in which an imbalance exists if a couple has only one or the other (verbal=volatile, nonverbal=passive aggressive).

Structuralist theorypresents the basis of society being a collection of symbols. Society is made of people however, and couples make up a large percentage of that population. In a relationship, Structuralist Theory is important to nonverbal communication because symbols within the relationship dynamic create a contingent story or lexicon. This lexicon adheres to certain symbols representing certain ideals, motifs, and structures within the framework of that relationship. These symbols, or signs are related to individuals in a relationship through verbal and nonverbal means. It is relevant to distinguish this in a relationship as verbal communication in a relationship is weighted against nonverbal communication, empirically:

We communicate as many messages nonverbally as we do verbally. Nonverbal communication – the way we stand, the distance we maintain from another person, the way we walk, the way we fold our arms and wrinkle our brow, our eye contact, being late for a meeting – conveys messages to others. However, we need not perform an act for nonverbal communication to occur. We communicate by our manner of dress and appearance, the automobile we drive, and the office we occupy (Lunenburg 1).

Lunenberg’s argument is that nonverbal communication lends itself to a better way in which couples distinguish moods. This is done through the above listed forms of nonverbal communication. Bad moods may be voiced in a communicative relationship but passive aggressive couples express themselves through these four nonverbal traits: kinesics, proxemics, paralanguage, and chronemics.

Adler and Proctor examine forms of communication (and why humans feel the need to communicate) and break them down into their different forms (e.g. interpersonal, identity through communication, interpretation/perception, nonverbal reactions, and symbolism). There are obvious barriers in any relationship that Structuralist Theory doesn’t expound upon. These barriers can be seen through a cultural, societal, and personal scope depending on the nature of the couple’s relationship. These problems are further exacerbated with complexities in language, syntax structure, and pragmatic rules of language; all of these being verbal forms of communication. Nonverbal communication, however, does not lend itself to the miscommunications that abound in verbal communication through such barriers.

Adler and Proctor examine how married couples with a volatile relationship still manage to be relatively affectionate with one another despite their outbursts. Volatile relationships exhibit outbursts that lead to more passion within the relationship (although the efficacy of altercations may prove short lived if the relationship isn’t balanced with other nonverbal cues). Such outbursts are seen as signs of strong affection or passion within a relationship and the authors believe that with more passion the couple have in their verbal cues, the stronger their nonverbal cues become (physicality). These outbursts then lead to a cyclical understanding of a relationship in which verbal outbursts give way to nonverbal passions and thereby building a healthy balance within the relationship dynamic. Again, the emphasis is on the nonverbal communication in the relationship, the actual passion, that remains the crux by which the relationship remains functional (Adler & Proctor 296). The authors go on to state that verbal cues only, leave the relationship imbalanced. Although voicing anger may “clear the air” in a relationship, it doesn’t aid in showing affection, something only nonverbal communication can accomplish. Emphasis on verbal cues only may lead the relationship as an aggressive machine in which the couple verbally tear each other apart, and without the nonverbal aftermath of passion, the relationship becomes unstable and eventually explodes. To counter this, however, it must be added that nonverbal cues only may also result in complete passive aggressive behavior as exemplified through posturing.

Posturing can allow another person to glimpse into what kind of mood someone is in. For instance, leaning forward and toward another person can indicate that there is a common bond, or favoritism between the two individuals. In opposition of this, leaning backward is interpreted as disfavor. Standing still, stoic, and erect indicates that a person is self-confident, and slouching in a chair (or standing) indicates that the person is self-conscious. Each leads itself to understanding more fully how a relationship functions with these nonverbal cues (Lunenberg 2). Verbal cues cannot send as strong a signal as these nonverbal cues: body language then becomes a type of lie detector.

Passive aggressive nonverbal communication leaves couples in a closed-off nature, which in turn leadsto less verbal communication (Adler & Proctor296). The argument here is that the more verbal a couple is, or the more that they voice concerns with one another (even in a volatile fashion) as opposed to couples who speak with one another but have no substance in their words, the more healthy their nonverbal cues and affections. The authors argue that the best choice for a relationship is “conflict style” so that grievances are aired and attended to then put in the past, as opposed to held onto and brought up at later junctures as slight offenses. This passive aggressive nature can be witnessed in both verbal and nonverbal ways. There must be a balance between these “communication acts” in order for hegemony to be maintained. The authors argue that couples should maintain an “appropriate ratio” of positive to negative (Adler &Proctor  296).

Fisher, however, favors a post-modernist approach in which positivism takes the place of other theories. In this author’s rejection of “rational world paradigm” he follows the ancient Greeks, mainly Aristotle’s “practical reason” stratagem. In this stratagem, Fisher extols the process of narration through nonverbal cues in a relationship. This is what is known as “the couple’s story” as told and re-emphasized by each other. Their narrative structure is told to friends and family members but through the process of verbal communication the story lays flat and doesn’t hold much truth in it, however, by pairing the narration with nonverbal cues (e.g. eye contact[1], “skinship,” and other nonverbal forms of communication) the couple is better able to relay the emotion of their origin story. Therefore, although their narration is a structure of symbol of their coupling, the nonverbal cues offer physical proof of what the narrative story means to them as individuals (Fisher 12). Although narration is a way in which the couples may express their story (something supported through Structuralist Theory) their paradigm isn’t fully defined without the nonverbal counterpart, thereby making nonverbal communication more substantial (at least proven here in the physical sense) than verbal communication and cues. Another powerful nonverbal form of communication is touching,

Touching is a powerful vehicle for conveying such emotions as warmth, comfort, agreement, approval, reassurance, and physical attraction. Generally, the amount and frequency of touching demonstrate closeness, familiarity, and degree of liking. A lot of touching usually indicates strong liking for another person. It should be noted that men and women interpret touching differently. Concerns about sexual harassment and sexism have greatly limited the use of touching in the workplace (Lunenburg 2).

Both verbal and nonverbal communication, however, are undoubtedly needed in order for a couple to define their relationship as individuals within that paradigm, to each other, and as a couple presenting themselves to others.

Structuralist Theory combines with Rochberg-Halton’s theory and forms a definition for symbolic interactionism within the relationship paradigm as it relates to both verbal and nonverbal communication. In simpler terms, this means that signs and symbols become important signifiers in the relationship and create nonverbal cues that the partners pick up on whether inductive or deductively. Despite the argument of this paper being for nonverbal communication as more important than verbal communication in a relationship, in this theory, nonverbal communication relies on verbal communication as humans (remember that reality is built on a society’s agreement about what is real and not real, what is important and what is not important, as Knapp and Hall state, “some nonverbal behavior is common to human beings throughout the world, but many of the behaviors we exhibit are taught to use by our culture. We explored three dimensions along which cultures vary in order to highlight cultural differences in nonverbal behavior” (419)). Nonverbal behavior may also be defined through facial expressions.

Facial expressions can be key to determining the mood of a relationship as verbal communication may be nil at a point of argument between two passive aggressive people in a relationship. Thus, facial cues may lead to a deeper understanding of what is happening within the relationship,

Facial expressions convey a wealth of information. The particular look on a person’s face and movements of the person’s head provide reliable cues as to approval, disapproval, or disbelief. When people begin to experience an emotion, their facial muscles are triggered. The six universal expressions that most cultures recognize are happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust. Smiling, for example, typically represents warmth, happiness, or friendship, whereas frowning conveys dissatisfaction or anger. However, smiling can be real or false, interpreted by differences in the strength and length of the smile, the openness of the eyes, and the symmetry of expression (Lunenburg 2).

Each of these elements can only be discerned through nonverbal means thus proving the weighted importance of this form of communication in a couple’s relationship.

Rochberg-Halton argues that this definition is important because it can clue others in to a couple’s relationship through interpreting what certain signs and symbols mean. These signs and symbols serve as ways of nonverbal communication. Signs and symbols can be interpreted as different things to different couples, as reality is defined by society, so to is it defined by individuals in that society. These signs and symbols depend on a shared history between the couple, without which, their stories remain fallow. As Homo narrans the narrative is important in defining what these signs and symbols mean. For instance, within a relationship, if fast food symbolizes that the other person was thinking of their partner and didn’t want them to have to cook dinner, then a certain restaurant and the logo of that restaurant becomes that couple’s symbol for sharing/caring. While, in  another relationship, if going out to eat at a fast food restaurant means that one member of the couple is breaking a shared dieting plan, then the symbol for the restaurant, the restaurant’s logo, because of a symbol for betrayal (Knapp & Hall 62). Therefore, whenever each couple sees this logo is calls forth the feelings associated with it in their frame of reference (either betrayal or thoughtfulness) and whenever that symbol is passed while driving, or seen as a commercial on TV, then those feelings will automatically come up. When these feelings do come up, depending on the nature of the relationship, members within the coupling will express these feelings through nonverbal cues such as extended eye contact (for the caring couple) or physical rebuffing (such as crossed arms, or “cold shouldering” for the betrayed couple. This is a form of nonverbal communication known as kinesics, “Body movements or kinesics include gestures, facial expressions, eye behavior, touching, and any other movement of the limbs and body. Body shape, physique, posture, height, weight, hair, and skin color are the physical characteristics associated with kinesics.Gestures reveal how people are feeling. People tend to gesture more when they are enthusiastic, excited, and energized. People tend to gesture less when they are demoralized, nervous, or concerned about the impression they are making. Handgestures, such as frequent movements to express approval and palms spread outward to indicate perplexity, provide meaningful hints to communication” (Lunenburg 1-2)). These signs and symbols will maintain their contingency on these feelings throughout the course of the relationship, and will usher forth these parenthetical nonverbal communicative actions (Russel 275). If the couple breaks up then these symbols lose their meaning within the dynamic of their new relationship because the symbols are only true as a frame of reference within the context of its origins. Thus, the symbols are cyclical, and renewable through each new relationship. Therefore a person may attribute different feelings toward one symbol through their course of relationships and express different nonverbal cues as to what that symbol means to them in each new relationship. Rochberg-Halton goes on to combine symbolic interactionism and structuralism into a school of thought whereby how humans understand a system (such as society, job, or marriages) and the concepts and traditions that underlie that system in a nonverbal sense (Rochberg-Halton 460).

There are other oblique theories on nonverbal communication as in Searle’s discussion of speech-act theory. Searle argues that the communication that takes place between the mind and the body functions to create consciousness (although philosophers and scientists are still not set as to whether or not consciousness can be applied to humans as it is an abstract concept and has no physicality to prove its existence). In Searle’s theory, the mind and body create a full, conscious person that reacts to stimuli on both verbal and nonverbal levels. Searle defines this theory under social constructivism. Therefore, Adler & Proctor’s theories on interpersonal, identity through communication, interpretation/perception, nonverbal reactions, and symbolism relate to Searle’s interpretation of how a person reacts to such elements and in turn responds to these reactions and symbolisms to the other person. Searle goes one step further than Adler & Proctor by including sociology, psychology and philosophy under his theory. Searle’s theory states that a couple must find a balance of communication (between verbal and nonverbal) in order for their identities to be revealed to each other (in some relationships couples will hide parts of themselves and therefore create a false relationship based on this personality—based on trust issues, in which nonverbal cues can be picked up by the other person). This miscommunication is brought forth in Cahn’s theory of there being a universal understanding as well as a perceived understanding (in which one person in the relationship ignores facts about the other person because they don’t fit into their ideal, or concept of that person) (Patterson 10). This may however lead to the argument phase that Adler & Proctor promote, but the miscommunication does not lead itself to that theory (Patterson 11).

The conclusion of each of these theorists combines (excluding Cahn and Adler & Proctor) to define verbal and nonverbal communication within a couple’s relationship dynamic in both how they speak, how they act, and how they use symbolism within the context of Structuralist Theory to define their boundaries, personalities, and interactions between each other. There are many forms of communication that are paired with humans’ capacity for emotion. The importance of narration as an integral part of a couple’s understanding of each other on a verbal level, but it is with nonverbal cues such as eye contact and posture that a true sense of the temperature of the relationship can be divulges. Symbolic interactionism lends itself to an even greater understanding of a couple’s relationship defined through nonverbal cues of communication. These symbols and structures help couples define themselves to each other through a cultural perspective. It is through nonverbal communication that this triptych of elements play the most important part in a couple’s relationship as personality, honest interactions and defining boundaries are all best done through nonverbal cues as body language reveals a person’s truth.

Annotated Bibliography

Adler, R., & Proctor II, R.Looking out, looking in. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Fisher, W.R.Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason,Value and Action.Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987. Print.

Knapp, Mark. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction. Boston: Cengage Publication, 2007. Print.

Lunenburg, Fred. Louder Than Words: The Hidden Power of Nonverbal Communication. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. 12.1. (2010). 1-5. Print.

Patterson, Miles. Invited Article: A Parallel Process Model of Nonverbal Communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 19.1. (1995). 3-29. Print.

Rochberg-Halton, E. “Situation, Structure, and the Context of Meaning” The Sociological Quarterly. 23.4.(1982): 455-476, 1982. Print.

Russel, James. Evidence for a Three-Factor Theory of Emotions. Elsevier. 11.3. (1977). 273–294. Print.

Searle, J. R.Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. Basic Books. New York, 1998. Print.

[1]Eye contact is a strong nonverbal cue that helps in defining different functions of communication. Firstly, eye contact can help signify conversation beginnings and ends. Secondly, this nonverbal form of communication also relays feedback between the couple because the eyes can show whether or not the conversation is holding someone’s attention. Thirdly, eye contact relays emotions between the couples and “Eye and face contact displays ones willingness to listen and acknowledgement of the other person’s worth…Lack of interest may be indicated through contractions of the pupils or wandering eyes” (Lunenburg 2).