I personally disagree with two concepts in interpersonal communication that we’ve learnt this week.
The first concept of contention is proximity. It is said that the more opportunities one has with another increases the chances of relational formation. I understand and can see the logic as to why proximity can cause a relationship to form and develop. However, it might not always be the case. For example, if the other party is not what one is looking for, how awkward would things turn out? I strongly believe that proximity does not determine our destiny.
The second area of contention is with regard to Stage 3 of Knapp’s model of relational development: Intensifying.
Personally I disapprove of physical contact before a specifically, romantic relationship is established. Why? I would regard it as a violation of private space. If not involved in such a relationship, a person is an individual unit. Hence I believe that a casual distance (1.5 – 4 feet, according to Edward T. Hall’s zones of personal space, that is differentiated by relational status) should be kept.
However, I agree with the concept regarding self-disclosure in relationship maintenance.
I didn’t know that there were ’Rules for Disclosing’ prior to the lesson.
“Disclosures may create unwanted intimacy.” (“Thinking Through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5th edition, pg.161) This is quite true. Depending on who the other party is, we disclose selectively, in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Also, it is said that there should be a right time and place for disclosure. ”Disclosures should not be bolts from the blue.” (“Thinking Through Communication” by Sarah Trenholm, 5th edition, pg.161) Well, nowadays, youngsters are so random (slang) that they disclose to others, especially to friends, whenever they want to. It doesn’t seem like the recipients are unable to react to the sudden outburst. Then again, the communication might actually not be effective. From what I’ve observed, responses are usually just laughs, be it genuine or not, or if any at all, they are just as random as the content being disclosed.
What do you say?
*IMHO – in my humble opinion
October 4, 2009 at 10:02 am |
On your point of proximity.
My understanding is that for ANY relationship to form, the opportunity/chance of being in the same space is required. I think you have misunderstood it as – more time equating to relationship formation.
Personal spaces are also subjective. (esp across cultures. Western vs. Asian) Say a friendly arm over the shoulder, I don’t think that should constitute as molest?
October 10, 2009 at 7:14 am |
Hmm, I think I just meant being in close proximity as ‘having increased opportunities’. And yea, was referring specifically to romantic relationships.
Personal spaces are possibly subjective. This is just my humble opinion:)
Thanks for your input!
October 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
I agree with you.I think that the Knapp Model has its flaws.
well as you said, i think it is true, why would someone engage in physical
contact before even they are bonded.
good stand there:)
October 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
HMMMM…
Personally, i think that proximity is like opportunity. the closer you get, the bigger the opportunity for something to happen. However, if someone whom you already do not favour comes within your personal space, it is considered UNDESIRABLE and the feeling(discomfort?) you get is analogous to that of being close to a pervert(put explicitly, don’t mind me).
On the flipside, if the two parties come together and start developing stronger emotional attachments, we can understand and expect the intensifying concept to be demonstrated.
I guess society has begun to open up in terms of what is acceptable. however, your values do not necessarily have to change with society! So, if one should feel uncomfortable with such occurences, it is totally fine–accepting or embracing it will make you feel alright.
October 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
I think proximity is one of the factors in relational formation as we can know the other parties better rather than if we are ‘far’ from them. The closer we are to someone, the bigger the chance to form a relationship. Regarding our destiny, we never know what will happen next, so just leave it there, enjoy the process.
I agree with your opinion on casual distance that we need to maintain during the first part of forming a realtionship. We need to keep a distance in order to respect one another, especially for girls.
Nice post there…….
October 7, 2009 at 6:19 am |
I agree with ur post about “zones of personal space”. There should be a certain distance kept between both parties at the forming stage of the relationship. In my opinion, it helps to promote respect to both parties & not cause unnecessary misunderstanding/s.
October 7, 2009 at 9:43 am |
Well now, aren’t you a fiesty one? Haha. Proximity theory doesn’t suggest that people close by would DEFINITELY become your partner, but rather that the chances of it is higher in COMPARISON to people far, far away. Does that change your view somehow? haha
Anyway, I was kindly reminded that a single theory cannot sum up ‘love’ and interpersonal relationship alone. Rather, it’s a permutation of many. Yet, I myself find the theories a tad inaccurate on many counts.
October 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
When people do disclosure, it certainly means wanting to improve or strenghten the relationship. Yet, not all relations do disclose in a two-way systematic order. This ambiguity gives rise to confusion in the relationship between the two.
Probably, there might be miscommunication in earlier interactions, giving rise to wrong non verbal cues and verbal cues being send out. Once again, these cues are still receiver based. Then again, a sudden blot of blue in the lack of disclosure might be very telling already …
October 9, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
Agree with your disagreement on proximity.
It doesn’t give enough personal space for both parties, unless they are possessive people who love to be tied down by the other party as well as tying the other party down. Otherwise, people might want to think twice about seeing someone who has similar social networks
October 10, 2009 at 10:43 am |
I agree with, “the more opportunities one has with another increases the chances of relational formation” because in my opinion the more chance that you get to hang out around someone, the more chance that you’d like that person. This is not always the case, of cause. But in my experience, when I’ve the chance to get to know someone on a deep level, I seldom dislike them.
For example in the setting of a clique, you may not like this person X, but as X is the friend of your friends, you’ve to accept him as part of the group. This gives you more opportunity to get to know him better, and maybe have fun together, and gradually you might find that you’ve stopped disliking X.
Besides, people usually befriend and marry other people with whom they’ve connections, like friends of friends, relatives, colleagues, or otherwise know on some level. It is quite hard to befriend a complete stranger, right?
October 10, 2009 at 10:52 am |
Hey, great insight there! on the point that we might just get to like a person, whom we might’ve originally disliked, when there’re opportunities to get to know them better.
Thanks for the input!:)
October 10, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
proximity does not make sense for all types of r/s.
for example,no matter how close foes are,their hearts would never ever beat as one.
however,if you’re with the person you love/like,proximity would indeed bring a person close to you!
October 10, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
Hmm, that may be right. If there’s too much hatred in a person, he might never let up to accept another. Interesting take on the issue! Thanks for the input!
November 8, 2009 at 8:10 am |
HEYYY!
I would agree with you totally on the intimacy aspect. Personally, I feel too much emphasis is placed on the physical aspect of relationships and that shouldnt be the case because getting to know the person should be of utmost priority.
I like your point on proximity as well because two people with no sparks flying between them would never fall for each other no matter how close they may be to one another.
November 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
True, proximity does work the other way sometimes. If the other party has qualities that you dislike, proximity does increase that dislike. However, consider if the person has one unfavourable trait that makes itself apparent the first time you meet him. If you choose to stay away, you’ll never get close to this guy, but it there is proximity, there may be a chance that you realize that this guy’s undesirable trait was circumstantial and there are so any other nice things about him. First impressions mean a lot, but proximity usually speaks volumes more about someone.
November 9, 2009 at 1:20 am |
Good point regarding intimacy before any form of romantic relationship. I would think that people may place importance in physical contact, however, at times, it may give undesirable results and impulses. This may prove to be detrimental to the relationship and possibly more emotionally scarring should the relationship sour.
However, keeping the above in view. I wouldn’t say that a complete isolation from the self-defined social space is preferable. After all, man is still a social creature and it is widely known that physical contact is among the 5 love languages, and love is not necessarily referring only to romantic love. As such, i think sometimes, a pat in the back or small amount of contact like a hug is not only desirable but necessary for the feeling of love from friends, family and one’s spouse.
Social space between individuals should be respected. But we ought to recognize our need for physical contact and acknowledgement.
Good Article! =)
November 9, 2009 at 6:44 am |
Thanks for your comment!