Welcome to the next video in Module one, where we were rethinking communication. In this video, we'll look at an alternative approach for understanding communication. What scholars call a social construction model of communication. This is the operating system upgrade I think we need, to better understand and explain the complexities of human interaction. And to have more successful group communication. Now in our last video, we talked about the transmission model of communication which represents the conventional wisdom about communication in our society, sort of the factory installed operating system many of us run and simply take for granted. Rather than seeing communication as the mirror transmission of information known, a social construction model claims, that communication is all about creating our social worlds with other people, and how we make meaning together, how we build common understandings, and how we negotiate our future together. Social construction makes us understand how people with different backgrounds, believes, values and interests can navigate their way forward, collectively. Now admittedly, social construction doesn't lend itself to a straightforward definition. It's more of an overall orientation towards understanding human interaction. I like to say it's an idea that is more caught than taught. But there are some key points to help us get our minds around this concept. First is the idea that communication actually happens at two levels. The content level and the relationship level. On content level,it involves the actual substance of our communication whereas the relationship level is all about meaning and interpretation. It's not just what you say the content level but how you say it, the relationship level. Have you ever been in an argument Where someone accuses you of saying something you never actually said? I didn't say that, you might claim. But that's what you meant is often the response. See, you can say things without really saying them. And the transmission model of communication really can't account for this. After all, how can someone receive a message that wasn't actually sent. But, a social construction model of communication understands that words do things. Words don't just reflect reality, they also create reality. For example, when my son comes downstairs and I say I think you left the lights on upstairs. I'm not merely describing a neutral state of affairs. I'm also implying a directive. And reinforcing my authority as a father. I'm really saying, go back upstairs, and turn off the lights. Even though I didn't actually say any of this, this situation isn't just about the formal message I sent. The content level. But more importantly the meaning constructing with my son. The relationship level. None of this stuffs about directives or authorities was in my message per se. But it was in the socially constructed reality that exist between my son and me through our communication. And this is so critical for your working groups. Of course, you have to have good message content. But more importantly, you need to consider the relational level of your communication. What your words mean, what your words are doing, and what realities they are creating. Now a second key idea for social construction is the notion of social worlds. A concept developed at length by communication scholar W Barnet Pierce, in his book Making Social Worlds. Although we share a common physical world of time, space, and material objects, we all inhabit different social worlds made up of different social realities, our understanding and interpretation of what the physical world means. These social worlds, they're very real but they differ across people, thus the notion of pluralism because there are many social worlds. My social world as a professor is certainly different from those of my students, even though we share the same campus and the same classrooms. The university means something different to me than it does to them. Though some aspects of our social world certainly do overlap, and our different social worlds are constructed, or are deconstructed, through our ongoing communication with the various people with whom we interact. Our social worlds aren't simply there, like the mountains and rivers and trees that surround our college campus. They are created and must be continually sustained through our interactions with other people. Social worlds are temporary configurations of continuous processes. For example, consider any professional relationship in your life Like your relationship with your boss or an important client. This relationship is a social reality. It doesn't just exist in nature and your communication about this association merely describes your relationship. No, your communication literally constructs this relationship. It is a social reality that exists in, not separate from Communication. And it exists differently for each party involved in the relationship. Even though you experience the exact same events, these events mean something different to each of you. And therefore the reality of your relationship is a social construction based on your interactions with other people and your interpretation of those interactions. Not just some objective reality that exists independently of your communication with each other. Yes, you're shouting, for example, in a particular instance, it does have a physical reality that exists independent of what anybody thinks. But what that shouting means whether a justified passion or uncontrolled outrage is a matter of interpretation. And each party will construct a different version of that social reality as they interact with other people and make sense of that situation. Whwn you communicate with each other, you are socially constructing your relationships. And this is in the in star contrast from transmission model of communication. We learned about it in our previous video. Admittedly,all of this is getting a bit philosophical. So let's look at a practical example to illustrate this contrast. Have you seen the movie The Martian? It's a great film about a astronaut, played by Matt Damon. Who is accidentally stranded on Mars, when his crew leaves him for dead after a terrible accident. But, spoiler alert, he's alive, and working to survive until the crew can return and rescue him. Now a key moment in his survival comes when he finds an old satellite from a previous mission that has a camera he can use to communicate with NASA back on Earth. Let's take a look at this scene. [MUSIC] [SOUND] Incoming. [MUSIC] Are you receiving me? Yes, no. [LAUGH] Okay, point the camera at yes. [MUSIC] >> Whoo yes, yes. So here's the rub. Somehow we have to have complex astrophysical engineering conversations using nothing but a still frame camera from 1996. Luckily The camera does spin, so I can make an alphabet. [MUSIC] >> I know where he's going with this. [MUSIC] >> Seven. [SOUND] >> That's it. [MUSIC] [SOUND] [MUSIC] F. O. 57, W. [MUSIC] [SOUND] That's it, that's it. Wake up. >> Mm. [MUSIC] [LAUGH] >> Message transmission at its best. But let's fast forward a little bit and see what happens when their communication gets even more complicated. >> Now that we can have more complicated conversations, the smart people at NASA have sent instructions on how to hack the rover so that it can talk to Pathfinder. If I hack a tiny bit of code just 20 instructions in the rover's operating system, NASA can link the rover to Pathfinder's broadcasting frequency. Then we're in business. [MUSIC] >> Mark, this is Vincent Kapoor. We've been watching you since SOL54. The whole world is rooting for you. Amazing job, getting Pathfinder. We're working on rescue plans. Meantime, we're putting together a supply mission to keep you fed. Until Aries 4 arrives. [MUSIC] Okay, glad to hear it. Really looking forward to not dying. >> [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] >> [APPLAUSE] >> How's the crew? What did they say when they found out I was alive? [MUSIC] Guys, can we get some space please? >> Me? >> Yeah, you. >> Just gimme a sec. >> You should tell him. [MUSIC] No. We haven't told the crew you are alive yet. We need them to concentrate on their mission. [SOUND] Okay, he says, the I'm alive, what the f word, f word in German form, f word again is wrong with you? >> [LAUGH] >> Marc, please watch your language. Everything you type is being broadcasted live all over the world. Yeah. >> [LAUGH] >> My god. >> Yes, sir. He's under a tremendous amount of stress. I understand, we're working on it, I'm sure he didn't mean what he said. Thank you, Mr. President. >> Do you see how this scene is about so much more than just message transmission or information processing? It's all about meaning, interpretation, and understanding. Transmission worked just fine. This problem isn't fixed with more message clarity, or an alternative communication channel. This is a problem of understanding. From a transmission perspective it doesn't make sense that they would have such a conflict, but it makes perfect sense from the perspective of social construction. Notice how the NASA official struggles to respond. He's concerned about what social reality his words will create. He not merely reflecting an objective reality with his language, but instead trying to negotiate a shared understanding of the situation that will enable everyone to keep working together, towards a productive solution. And this is what happens in our groups all the time. Yes, we certainly transmit messages and process information as we coordinate the basic details of our work together. But most of what we are doing and experiencing in our groups is an ongoing, intricate process of social construction. Negotiating the shared meanings and understandings that enable us to work Together. Much of your working groups will surely be marked by pluralism. Working in close proximity with others who inhabit different social worlds. And you need to be able to interact with each other To make their decisions and sustain quality relationships. This requires effective communication. But if we think of communication only as message transmission, we're bound to fail at this important aspect of group work. Just like writing a new program on an old operating system. Instead we need to understand that we're involved in a complicated process of social construction. Creating a shared reality together with other people that enables us to work productively together. We need an upgrade to a social construction model of communication to help us understand the complexities of human interaction and respond wisely. Now in our next video, we'll begin exploring some of the so-called hidden forces that influence our group communication. First up is the notion of context, a key consideration for effective group interaction. We'll see you next time.
