Veronica Ramrez Martell 801.8.

5085

March 15th, 2011 INGL 3275 Prof. MacLennan Paradigm Essay: I speak, therefore I am

Upon hearing that Id be asked to adhere exclusively to one perspective, having to choose between the objective or the interpretive frame of reference, I thought to myself: this should prove challenging. It is, and for various reasons. Both viewpoints have their strongsuits, appealing attributes, and very convincing track records which prevent either viewpoint from getting a clear advantage over the other. It is not uncommon to find yourself in a situation and analyze it from both angles to decide which is more adequate under the circumstances, therefore alternating constantly between paradigms. On a more personal level, wholeheartedly committing to anything in this day and age appears to have become a faux pas. We can pick and choose the bits we want and discard the rest in almost any aspect of our lives. Luckily, in this instance, the context is specified: human communication.

In order to study human communication, I believe the interpretive perspective is more befitting than the objective paradigm advocated by social scientists. Human communication is a very complex process that involves innumerable factors that include both external and internal elements. The latter not being necessarily discernible in a definite way. Considering this, one authoritative reality seems like a crass simplification of the observed phenomenon. The interpretive perspective allows different readings of the same text acknowledging that reality is ultimately subjective as a result of the observer being inextricably bound to what he or she

perceives. To explain how this imprinting accounts for the variation in interpretations, supporters of the interpretive perspective allude to individuals free will. Each person acts accordingly to their own volition rather than automatically reacting to a received stimulus. This is a very important factor that compeled me to regard this paradigm as more capable of explaining human communication. People behave differently, even in similar situations. The interpretive perspective acknowledges this variation and seeks to explore the gradations in order to better understand the process.

Achieving understanding creates awareness of oneself, ones values and ones actions. The interpretive perspective fosters such grasp and uses these as tools when elucidating texts instead of regarding them as a deterrent to acquiring knowledge. This consciousness is reflected in the emancipation value found in the interpretive paradigm. Rather than attempting to control the public, interpreters aim to empower the individual by increasing free choice. This is achieved by endowing people with new and different ways to envision reality allowing them to resist manipulation that they may have previously been subjected to. This viewpoint is heedful of the fact that neutrality is unachievable and criticizes social scientists for not owning up to their actions. The interpretive perspective possesses a sense of social change and betterment that is lacking in the objective paradigm. I strongly believe knowledge should not just be obtained, but rather employed for the advancement of society through discussion and consideration. Interpreters create a favorable environment for debate by providing multiple readings which cater to subtleties that social scientists may not fully appreciate due to their generalizing approach. The interpretive scholar, however, does not lose these details because of the meticulous methods in which he or she conducts research. Approaches like textual analysis and

ethnography examine the most minute details. The former registering the slightest nuances in order to challenge the established notion and the latter delving so far as to emulating the observed cultures viewpoint in order to better conceive their world of meaning.

A kindred keenness on subtle cues in communication can be observed in the sociocultural tradition which is based on the assertion that, by communicating, people create and recreate social reality. Rather than reality structuring language, the language process of a culture constructs their social reality, their perceived world. I think this tradition illustrates how influential language really is and how interwoven it is to our reality. Language has the capability to furnish our social reality, or if lacking, deprive us of realities other cultures possess. Although incomprehensible to us, there are cultures like the Piraha in the Amazon that do not own the concept of numbers or colors. Their social reality does not include such notions, and even though anthropologists have repeatedly attempted to teach them, it is simply indecipherable to them. Less conspicuous differences between cultures can also be seen along the line of pronouns that express social standing or are one-size-fits-all. The socio-cultural tradition consequently possess theories like that of the Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity that states that peoples actions and thoughts are a result of that cultures language structure. This tradition resides mostly in interpretive territory which can be attributed to its focus on multiple realities as shaped by people through their communication process.

The region that is primarily crossbred, but inclined towards interpretive, is where I identify with the most since my proclivity towards the interpretive perspective is moderate. Adjacent terrains such as the semiotic and critical traditions closely came in second. The

aforementioned are relatively similar to the socio-cultural tradition in object of study since both focus on how language, in the first case specifically signs and symbols, shapes our interpretations and realities. The latter, in contrast, identifies these influences with the primary intent of reproaching the adverse repercussions. I resonate with these traditions because the assortment of realities than can be uncovered and explored as a result of probing through these theories explain the world I perceive. There isnt one absolute enduring truth. We each possess our own reality and through communication we conceive it in others.