A Critique of the
Interactional View
by Mark Sonnendecker
Watzalick's Interactional View makes a lot of sense to me. He starts the theory by relating the ideas to the family. I think this is a worthy comparison because most people can relate to this type of comparison. Watzalick then discusses the five axioms (For a refresher of the axioms, click here.). To make these ideas clear, he relates them back to the family example. This makes the concepts easier to comprehend.
This section of the group's analysis of the Interactional View is a critique. I have decided to critique the first axiom. Once again, the first axiom is "One Cannot Not Communicate". Critiques can be done with respect to the scientific method or the humanistic method. I have chose to take a look at the first axiom in the humanist light.
The humanistic method has five ways of evaluating a theory. These ways of evaluating are by a new understanding of people, clarification of values, aesthetic appeal, community of agreement, and reform of society. Understanding the idea that people communicate even when they are not talking is a crucial point when trying to understand people. A quick example can help to solidify this idea. You are at a party and there is a girl or guy that you are interested in talking to. However, you are a bit shy and do not want to approach him or her. Every time she walks past you to use the restroom or grab another beer, she looks you right in the eye. Without her having to say it, she is telling you that she is interested and wants you to approach her. This is just a general application. However, it is a good one because a humanist gains a new understanding of the girl by what has transpired. The idea that nonverbals can help us gain a better understanding of people can be applied to many different scenarios. The Humanistic Method
A person's values should be brought into the open by according to the humanists. An application of the first axiom can clarify this. If a question concerning abortion is posed to a person who is pro-life, you can tell his or her stance on the subject by their facial expressions alone. The person does not have to give you an answer to know how he or she feels.
A good theory should have aesthetic appeal according to humanists. The theory should look at old material in a new light. The form of the communication should be able to capture a person's attention as much as the actual content. In regards to the first axiom, the nonverbals a person give off can have as much significance as the actual words of the speaker. These nonverbals will make a person look at things differently.
Another aspect that is critical for a good humanist theory is a community of agreement. That basically means that the theory is judged upon how many people agree with it. This axiom qualifies as "good" because most people accept the fact that people are constantly giving off nonverbals. Therefore, a person can not not communicate.
Change should be generated by a theory. In regards to changing society, this axiom is not going to make a huge impact. This axiom is a piece of a whole. However, the theory as a whole may be able to do this. Change could occur if people applied all parts of the interactinal view.
Links
Back to the title page.
