This post summarizes the findings of a study I conducted with Professor Elad Segev, published in The Journal of Family Communication. First, I will describe the two frameworks that were used in this study: Relational Dialectics Theory and Affordances. Then, present the highlights of the results.
The Relational Dialectics Theory explores the complexities of relationships through language. The theory is based on Bakhtin's notion that communication and "living language" play an important role in shaping meaning in a chaotic world (1981/1975, 1984/1929, 1986/1979). The relational dialectics theory examines how language and dialogue construct "meaning systems" or "discourses". Discourses showed unequal power of beliefs and thoughts. By understanding the central discourse, we can gain insight into the dominant beliefs of a society, and by noticing the marginal discourse, we can gain insight into the "other" voices (for more information, see Baxter, 2011; Baxter et al., 2021).
Gibson (1979) used the term Affordances to describe the range of possible actions an object can provide based on its environment and the actor's intentions and capabilities. A variety of definitions and clarifications are available today for this term. Throughout this study, We use Bucher and Helmond's (2018) argument that affordances are part of users' experiences and perceptions of technology. In order to understand better affordances, users' perceptions must be taken into account. To better understand how women think about communication, it is necessary to understand how they perceive the channels available to them.
To investigate this, I interviewed three generations of women from nine families (27 women in total) and asked them about their perceptions and use of multiple channels: face-to-face communication, mobile phone calls, and WhatsApp chats. The results indicate that there are two competing discourses (see illustration).
Communication as connectedness, the dominant discourse, emphasizes the strong connections between women. In this way, Israel's value of family is expressed (Fogiel-Bijaoui & Rutlinger-Reiner, 2013). Women expressed a preference for face-to-face interactions because they can see and feel each other. They can feel the greatest intimacy and openness through this type of communication. A phone call will be the second choice when meetings are not possible. One interviewee from the middle generation noted:
If we both have time, the conversation will be very long. We will catch up on every subject, get deep into every emotion [...] For instance, she was upset about work, so she called me and cried. She didn’t write me a WhatsApp message. She wanted to hear my voice, relax, share.
Among the women I spoke with, WhatsApp is mostly used to share "small" updates, and some even specify what topics to avoid. It is interesting to note that this channel can also be used to express negative feelings and organize thoughts. A young woman reported that she and her mother had an argument via WhatsApp, and after 20 minutes of ongoing exchanges, her mother apologized. She continued by saying:
when she told me she was sorry, I realized that she read what I wrote [...] usually she keeps talking with ‘sharp words,’ like flames of fire, without listening.
Although the interviewee prefers to communicate with her mother face-to-face, she found WhatsApp useful in resolving conflicts.
Communication as a disruptor is the second discourse revealed in the research, which undermines the dominant discourse by revealing "exceptions" and disappointments from intergenerational communication. A large majority of the older generation opposes or counters the main discourse. According to them, they usually avoid interfering with or disrupting the lives of their daughters and granddaughters by reducing their active efforts to contact them. According to one of the elderly participants, she silenced herself and didn't share her problems:
I don’t want to be a burden. Sitting and crying things like, “I am sad,” “I am suffering – no, no. When I come, I am happy, we laugh and travel together and that’s it. When I am sad, I keep it to myself, I do everything by myself [...] I keep telling you, if there is no need, I do not bother them. And really, there is no need.
In the marginal discourse, there is also a voice from the younger generation. Several daughters expressed their desire to talk less with their mothers because they felt that the communication was intrusive (as also found by Miller-Ott and Kelly, 2019 in American society). Because of this, both parties may feel disappointed and tense.
In conclusion, understanding how generations perceive and use communication channels can reduce frustration and misunderstandings in the future. They will be able to discuss what they expect from each other regarding communication channels and develop mutual understanding by doing so.
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981/1975). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans., pp. 259–422). University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984/1929). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson (Ed. and Trans.)). University of Minnesota Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986/1979). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (W. McGee, Trans., pp. 60–102). University of Texas Press.
Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Sage.
Baxter, L. A., Scharp, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2021). Original voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 13(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12405
Bucher, T., & Helmond, A. (2018). The affordances of social media platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, & A. Marwick (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 233–253). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066.n14
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Fogiel-Bijaoui, S., & Rutlinger-Reiner, R. (2013). Guest editors’ introduction: Rethinking the family in Israel. Israel Studies Review, 28(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3167/isr.2013.280201
Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2019). Connection or intrusion? Mother-daughter communication through technology. In A. M. Alford & M. Miller-Day (Eds.), Constructing motherhood and daughterhood across the lifespan (pp. 199–214). Peter Lang. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3726/b10841
Comments