Problematic Situation, Essay Example

The most recent problematic situation that I encountered involved two close friends, who are also married to one another, and a perceived instance of domestic violence. A group of friends went to a local neighborhood bar to celebrate the beginning of the weekend. The night proceeded smoothly as everybody was in good spirits. However, toward the end of the evening some members of the group wanted to go to another event, while others wanted to go home. The two close friends were divided on their plans for the rest of the evening and got into a verbal altercation inside the bar. As the result of the altercation, the husband decided to leave. His wife, increasingly more frustrated at this point, followed him out, and confronted him outside the bar. They got involved in a screaming match, at which point he raised his hand and slapped her across the face. She stumbled and he walked away. There was a police officer nearby who witnessed the event from his patrol car, as well as several witnesses outside the bar who heard and saw everything. I was one of those witnesses. Before the husband could make it across the street to go to their house, he was apprehended by the police officer and subsequently arrested. The wife, in an attempt to save her husband from arrest, told the arresting officer that nothing happened. However, she was under the influence of alcohol at that point and only made matters worse. She too was apprehended for disorderly conduct. All the witnesses stood around, astonished at the sequence of events. This couple was envied by many as a ‘perfect’ power couple. Once each was in separate patrol cars, a police officer made his rounds to collect witness accounts of the events. He approached me and asked me what I had seen and I told him. Although these two people were y very close friends, I witnessed that he slapped her and that she lost her balance as a result of the contact.

Looking back, this altercation started with a conversation of gestures, and then progressed to a conversation of significant gestures. Through their interactions with one another inside the bar, one could see that they were clearly not in agreement about their plans for the rest of the evening. Once outside, their conversation advanced to a more serious phase; one which involved louder voices and eventual physical contact.

They approached each other with a hostile attitude and proceeded with that language of gestures until their eventual arrests. They were antagonizing each other, waiting for a specific (seemingly perfect) moment to attack. However, each person’s reaction became the stimulus for the other’s response. In other words, each word uttered by the wife stimulated the husband to respond in a particular manner, and vice versa. The relationship between them is therefore established by the manner in which they interact with one another. However, the relationship is pliable can undergo constant change, depending on how each party in the conversation reacts to the other’s response. As such, the fact that they were fighting with each other gave each the much needed stimulus to respond in a certain way to each other. In other words, everything the husband said, or did, stimulated the wife to react in a certain way. And although she may have wanted to react differently at any point during the conversation, his gestures prompted her to change her course of action and act differently than originally planned instead. Her original position, or attitude, is therefore altered by the husband’s gestures; the same is true for him also. This, in essence, is a conversation of gestures. Mead (1934), states, however, that these gestures are by no means significant. These gestures are purely just responses to the other party’s gestures. In other words, they are not pre-planned; they are, in fact, impulsive responses, or, unconscious communication (Mead).

It is out of the conversation of gestures that conscious communication emerges. According to Mead (1934) communication starts from a primitive (or unrefined) nucleus, and develops to become a more advanced form or social interaction. The conversation and interaction between the husband and wife was mostly just reactions toward each other’s gestures. Neither planned their responses or actions toward the other’s responses. Everything that was said and done had an animalistic quality to it. Their inability to stop for a moment and examine the situation led to their eventual arrests. However, once the police became involved, everybody became more aware of their responses. What initially started as a conversation of gestures now progressed to a conversation of significant gestures. This means that the conversations between the couple and the police and between the police and the witnesses indicated a transition from non-significant to significant interaction.

Significant communication implies that all involved individuals comprehend the meaning of his and her gestures. Once the police arrived on the scene, the husband understood that his gesture of slapping his wife had consequences. Similarly, he also understood that if he were to exhibit more acts of aggression, they too will have significant consequences. The wife understood that her shouting and arguing will have a different effect on the law officers than they had on her husband. The bystanders understood that their account of what happened will have an impact on the husband and the wife. As a witness to the event, I too understood that whatever I said to the police will have an impact on the couple’s case. For instance, if I signed a form which stated that the husband did hit the wife, then my statement could be potentially incriminating to the husband. Similarly, if I signed a statement that nothing happened, that statement could be potentially incriminating to the wife. If I did nothing, then I would not act out of good faith and that act in itself could be incriminating to me. Mead identified language as communication through significant symbols, most notably vocal gestures which elicits the same response from the person making the gesture as the person toward whom the gesture is directed. That is exactly what took place between the husband and wife. Their responses of anger and disagreement elicited identical responses from one another.

However, their communication progressed to significant communication when each began to understand the meaning of his and her gestures. Once the husband raised his hand and made contact with his wife, a series of event unfolded. It is at that moment that he understood the meaning of his gestures. It is at that moment that significant communication was initiated, at least for the husband. The wife, unaware of the responses her gestures would elicit, continued with her initial means of communication; that of anger and confrontation. Perhaps, though, on some subconscious level she anticipated the husband’s response and pushed him into corner where he had no other option but to slap her. Of course I do not condone this, but it is a possibility. Perhaps in her moment of anger she preconceived a response from him that would make him leave her alone. I do not think anyone could foresee where this would go, and as such it is a rather sad. In other words, this entire situation, up until the police showed up, contained no consciousness of meaning. The latter indicates that a person in a conversation will respond to his or her own actions or gestures, as the other person in the conversation will respond. So, a gesture is an action that suggests a reaction. The meaning of the gesture is implied in the reaction and indicates the result of the action, as initiated by the gesture. A gesture only becomes a significant symbol when it elicits similar responses in both parties. So, if the person making the gesture would respond a certain way as the result of that gesture, and the person receiving that gesture responds similarly, then that gesture is a significant symbol.

References

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Book.