Romantic Communication Among Married Couples, Article Review Example

Social reality is a, “…collective acceptance or recognition by the individuals acting collectively…” (Searle, 1998, p. 126). Not only does this apply to society, but the groups that comprise a society from culture, to groups, to tribes, and even to the family dynamic. Within the family dynamic there is the married couple. Society is a collection of symbols according Structuralist theory. These signs may be communicated to a couple through verbal or nonverbal communication. The relevance to this dichotomy in communication is that there are present, in a married couple’s relationship, verbal communication and quite possibly an underlying nonverbal communication that may lead itself to verisimilitude that opens up the relationship to be defined on different terms.

There are many forms of communication that are paired with humans’ capacity for emotion. Adler and Proctor (2013) examine these 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). The authors report on communication by first understanding the syntax of common language and the barriers that can present as well as focusing on cultural structure of language, syntax, and pragmatic rules. Adler and Proctor (2013) examine how married couple with a volatile relationship still manage to be relatively affectionate with one another despite their apoplectic outbursts. These “volcanic” outbursts are seen by the authors as not an anomaly in the relationship, but rather, a part of the whole. These outbursts are seen as a sign of passion and the more relish the couple have in fighting, the more passion and “positive interactions” the couple have in between. Thus, the more anger that is expressed between them, the more affection and they have for one another as compared with other “normal” couples (Adler & Proctor, 2013, p. 296). The authors go on to state that couples that choose to ignore an issue are more prone to miscommunication, or a lack of communication altogether (Adler & Proctor, 2013, p. 296). This literature expounds on the subject of verbal vs. nonverbal communication within a new dynamic. Couples that are verbal, or voice their affectations and annoyances with one another as opposed to doing the opposite, of maintaining a culture of silence within their relationship, have a more “healthy” relationship. The literature goes on to argue that “conflict style” is the best choice in a relationship, as compared to nonverbal communication (here defined not as body language but a lack of communication altogether). There must however be a balance between positive and negative “communication acts” within a relationship in order for hegemony to be maintained. The authors argue that couples should maintain an “appropriate ratio” of positive to negative (Adler & Proctor, 2013, p. 296).

Adding to this idea of communication, Fisher (1987) argues for a more post-modernist approach and routes in favor of positivism. Fischer rejects the “rational world paradigm” and instead follows Aristotle’s path of “practical reason”. In these new theories, Fisher argues that narration is an insight into a couple’s story. Thus, although narration can be seen as a figure of speech it also necessitates a more deeper meaning within a couple’s relationship as it’s a means they use in which they organize and define their relationship to each other as individuals. Thus, their narration is structure or symbol of their relationship within their “argumentative matrix” that in turn is demonstrative proof of their coupling (Fisher, 1987, p. 12). Narration is a way that structuralism persists in the relationship, as a verbal tool that couples use to define their paradigms. Fisher’s argument supports Adler & Proctor’s argument in that both relate communication as a way that couples define their relationship.

Such Structuralist theories combine with Rochberg-Halton (1982) in adding to the definition of symbolic interactionism as it relates to verbal and nonverbal communication between married couples. Signs and symbols between married couples rely heavily on history which in turn relies heavily on being communicated to one another through the definition of humans as Homo narrans. The dynamic of a couple’s relationship is defined by Rochberg-Halton as interpretive. It is interpretive through symbols and these symbols have a deep history between the couple (e.g. if a can of soup symbolizes caring and one person makes it for another person in a marriage then that can of soup will continue to be representative of the love that exists between them so that whenever it is mentioned or made, this feeling of love persists not only through the act but through the manifestation of love as represented by the can of soup). Thus, buying a can of soup and lying it on the countertop in the kitchen and then it being seen by another couple is a nonverbal symbol of love. 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, 1982, p. 460).

Searle (1998) in turn presents a new way to discuss the speech-act theory within a couple’s dynamic. Searle states that there is a communication between the mind and the body that in turn functions to create a conscious person full of reactions and intent (on both a verbal and a nonverbal level). Searle relates these theorize to social constructivism in a comprehensible manner. 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 stretches his intentions by including sociology, psychology and philosophy into a whirlwind read and thus there is something lacking in structure and focus simply because there is so much (the book could have been longer due to these reasons) ground to cover the theories fall somewhat flat (although they are still usable). In Searle’s theory, when a couple finds the correct form of communication, or a balance between verbal and nonverbal, a person’s consciousness is then revealed.

Cahn (2013) argues that a couple can have a volatile relationship without the balance of affection that Adler and Proctor petition for. Cahn’s theory is that there is a universal understanding as well as a perceived understanding, and it is with the latter that miscommunication transpires and therefore the argumentative phase that Adler and Proctor relate to as the passionate phase that leads to better understanding within the relationship dynamic. In Cahn’s research, intentional miscommunication in a relationship leads to the destruction of the core values of trust within the relationship and ultimately to its deleterious conclusion. The conclusion of each of these theorists combines (excluding Cahn and Adler & Proctor) to define verbal and nonverbal communication within a married 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.

References

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

Cahn, D.D. (2013). Intimates in Conflict: A Communicative Perspective. New York City: State University of New York.

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

Rochberg-Halton, E. (Autumn 1982). Situation, Structure, and the Context of Meaning. The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 23, No. 4. Pp. 455-476.

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