Discussion Question:
In your experience, why do people typically break up?
There are never ending amounts of reasons for why couples break up relationships. I believe that many a times a break up is usually done for selfish reasons. Not to say that this happens in all cases... but many do. Love is selfless and when two are in a relationship they are needing to give of themselves. When one or both persons refrains from giving, the potential for selfishness to seep in causing those involved to ask "what am I getting from this other person?"
If you think about it, many reasons why people get out of relationships are selfish. Jealousy - "he is spending too much time with others" or "she can't stop flirting with my friends". Jealousy can also tie in with Self-Esteem issues. Money - "he spends it all on what he wants and doesn't think about me or our future" or "she's too careless with my money and goes spending it on things that are unnecessary". Boredom - "this person is not interesting to me any more".
Other reasons for a break up that were raised in class:
Adultery/Cheating, Abuse, etc. These are litigate reasons for break up in my eyes. It is not selfish for someone to consider themselves worthy of a better partner who treats them with respect. Although, from a Christian's perspective, I do believe that when already married a couple should try to work on their relationship. I do believe that divorce can be considered an option when in these situations.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
The Filter Model - My Parents
My parents... are a match made in heaven! They are very perfect for each other and their story of getting together romances me.
As Professor Nellis suggested using a couple that we know to relate to the discussion in class today, I chose my parents. The filter model that was uncovered as a series of macro societal influences shows who probable it is to 'hook up' with one's soul mate.
Working through the filter: Mom and Dad
1. Pool of Eligibles: The entire world (6 billion people)
2. Gender Preference: My parents both had the entire world's population divided into two as they were not attracted nor wanting to marry the same sex due to faith based principles. (3 billion people)
3. Propriniquity and Sex Ratio: My dad was born and raised in Holland until age 9. Then his family (8 children and his mom and dad) moved to the Canada and then moved to the United States. My dad moved to Alberta after finishing 7 years in the military over seas and in Canada. Mean while.... My mom was born and raised in Red Deer, Alberta. She eventually moved to Edmonton for school and work. Edmonton has a relatively equal ratio of men and women living in the city.
4. Endogamy: My mom and dad met in Edmonton at a church they were both attending at the time.
5. Homogamy: My mom tells me that she was attracted to my dad mostly because he can relate to her so easy. They both share the same faith, their morals are all attributed from the same origin, they are both from Dutch decadence or from Holland.
6. Value and Role Similarities: Very similar to their homogamy, they both share the same faith. This is what they base their foundation of marriage upon. They both have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This develops an even deeper relationship between them then the average couple cause they are able to have trust in the One who has authority over their lives while remaining committed to each other.
7. Cohabitation: My mom and dad got married before living together. They will be celebrating their 22nd wedding anniversary this June (2012). I truly believe that their marriage will last their entire life times.
As Professor Nellis suggested using a couple that we know to relate to the discussion in class today, I chose my parents. The filter model that was uncovered as a series of macro societal influences shows who probable it is to 'hook up' with one's soul mate.
Working through the filter: Mom and Dad
1. Pool of Eligibles: The entire world (6 billion people)
2. Gender Preference: My parents both had the entire world's population divided into two as they were not attracted nor wanting to marry the same sex due to faith based principles. (3 billion people)
3. Propriniquity and Sex Ratio: My dad was born and raised in Holland until age 9. Then his family (8 children and his mom and dad) moved to the Canada and then moved to the United States. My dad moved to Alberta after finishing 7 years in the military over seas and in Canada. Mean while.... My mom was born and raised in Red Deer, Alberta. She eventually moved to Edmonton for school and work. Edmonton has a relatively equal ratio of men and women living in the city.
4. Endogamy: My mom and dad met in Edmonton at a church they were both attending at the time.
5. Homogamy: My mom tells me that she was attracted to my dad mostly because he can relate to her so easy. They both share the same faith, their morals are all attributed from the same origin, they are both from Dutch decadence or from Holland.
6. Value and Role Similarities: Very similar to their homogamy, they both share the same faith. This is what they base their foundation of marriage upon. They both have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This develops an even deeper relationship between them then the average couple cause they are able to have trust in the One who has authority over their lives while remaining committed to each other.
7. Cohabitation: My mom and dad got married before living together. They will be celebrating their 22nd wedding anniversary this June (2012). I truly believe that their marriage will last their entire life times.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Communication Styles - Miller & Miller
Miller and Miller designed a framework of four different types of communication. Creating this model in 1997, they illustrated the modern society's forms of communication. I will review each one and relate them to a person or situation that I am familiar with as they/it demonstrates that type of "talk".
The first is "Small or Shop Talk", this refers to a sociable discussion conducted as a routine. One or more persons involved in this conversation are task orientated in this situation and are looking to achieve a goal. Many people that I come into contact with at Red Deer College are extremely well familiarized with this type of talk. Young adults at a party, for example want to get to know others. They do this through the process of "small talk" which could potentially lead to a more in-depth conversation. My friend, Nancy just recently went on a blind date with a man names John. They had never met one another before they met for the date. This caused them to start their date off with "small talk". They both wanted to receive something from their date so the dialogue was more task oriented at the beginning. For example, the task of asking the other person what the other saw as appetizing on the restaurant's menu and so on.
The next level of talk is called "Control Talk". These talks are particularly not open to generating new ideas and are defined in two ways. Fight or Spiteful. Both considered as ways of wanting to take control of the conversation. When someone is expressing themselves in a 'fighting' way (in other words, attacking you or being rather argumentative) they can be seen as using "control talk". On the other hand, spiteful talk is rather passive aggressive and can be seen in sarcasm and non verbal communication. My friend’s family use spiteful communication when wanting to engage in control talk. When one wants another to do something making the other feel guilty is usually the resolution.
“Search Talk” is my personal favorite out of all four of Miller and Miller’s framework. This is the conversation that is most valued in my eyes. This is a conversation between people when they focus on each other’s words carefully with intention and explore ideas and interests. It is very much so, not a routine and shows are a complex process where two or more persons participate generously. This can be an on-going conversation from day to day. Like a married couple for example, they are not restarting all new conversations every day and all the time. No they have many things that are explored and spoken about for more than just one day. . . Although many people favor this type of communication over others because of depth and complexity, it also has its weaknesses. Professor Nellis said in class that the authors of the text book we are studying at this time think that this “talk” suffers from a lack of closure. This, of course, depends on the circumstances.
The last conversation model that Miller and Miller include in their framework is called “Straight Talk”. This type of communication ‘cuts right to the heart’ of the situation or issue and is direct and to the point. Each person included is completely honest with their feelings, emotions, and opinion. This can also be seen in dating situations. When getting to know another person in a mature relationship, people are usually interested in the other’s honesty and genuinely. This type of conversation usually takes place when one person wants to find out the interests of another.
The first is "Small or Shop Talk", this refers to a sociable discussion conducted as a routine. One or more persons involved in this conversation are task orientated in this situation and are looking to achieve a goal. Many people that I come into contact with at Red Deer College are extremely well familiarized with this type of talk. Young adults at a party, for example want to get to know others. They do this through the process of "small talk" which could potentially lead to a more in-depth conversation. My friend, Nancy just recently went on a blind date with a man names John. They had never met one another before they met for the date. This caused them to start their date off with "small talk". They both wanted to receive something from their date so the dialogue was more task oriented at the beginning. For example, the task of asking the other person what the other saw as appetizing on the restaurant's menu and so on.
The next level of talk is called "Control Talk". These talks are particularly not open to generating new ideas and are defined in two ways. Fight or Spiteful. Both considered as ways of wanting to take control of the conversation. When someone is expressing themselves in a 'fighting' way (in other words, attacking you or being rather argumentative) they can be seen as using "control talk". On the other hand, spiteful talk is rather passive aggressive and can be seen in sarcasm and non verbal communication. My friend’s family use spiteful communication when wanting to engage in control talk. When one wants another to do something making the other feel guilty is usually the resolution.
“Search Talk” is my personal favorite out of all four of Miller and Miller’s framework. This is the conversation that is most valued in my eyes. This is a conversation between people when they focus on each other’s words carefully with intention and explore ideas and interests. It is very much so, not a routine and shows are a complex process where two or more persons participate generously. This can be an on-going conversation from day to day. Like a married couple for example, they are not restarting all new conversations every day and all the time. No they have many things that are explored and spoken about for more than just one day. . . Although many people favor this type of communication over others because of depth and complexity, it also has its weaknesses. Professor Nellis said in class that the authors of the text book we are studying at this time think that this “talk” suffers from a lack of closure. This, of course, depends on the circumstances.
The last conversation model that Miller and Miller include in their framework is called “Straight Talk”. This type of communication ‘cuts right to the heart’ of the situation or issue and is direct and to the point. Each person included is completely honest with their feelings, emotions, and opinion. This can also be seen in dating situations. When getting to know another person in a mature relationship, people are usually interested in the other’s honesty and genuinely. This type of conversation usually takes place when one person wants to find out the interests of another.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Re-caping the Big Theories
Earlier this semester our class studied nine theories. I would like to go over them again now just to refresh my memory.
1. Haberma's Paradigms:
a) Empirical-Analytic: this perspective sees things as measurable and in an objective light. This usually involves the scientific method including observation, measuring, prediction, and control.
b) Critical-Theoretic: this perspective deals with the observer searching for the underlying information that might influence behavior.
c) Situational Interpretive: this perspective is seen as completely subjective as to how the behavior has come about. An example would be that of love and beauty... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
2. Legal: this is one of four definitions of family. It defines the rights and duties of the members within a family. (ie: father = bread winner, mother = nurturer, etc.)
3. Phenomenological: the second definition of family. Each individual within a family has their own perspective of who is kin.
4. Disciplinary: this definition of the family serves to enrich one's knowledge. It simply reflects a positive focus using different conceptual or growing tools.
5. Theoretical: this definition of family includes dynamics of the family. Some theories examine stability and coherence, but others concentrate on conflict and results.
6. Postmodernism: other well known as "pomo". This concept is an inevitable movement that culture is experiencing at this time in history. Ignorance will gain no benefit. Those who are postmodernists are very much against the grand narratives (Liberal Cortex, Marxian Narrative of History, and Judian Christian History), but rather prefer the 'Petite Histoire' or individual experiences as everyone experiences life differently.
7. Conflict: One of three macro theories, this concept takes on the assumptions of Fredrick Engel’s book “Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State”. This book argues on the matter of primitive communism.
8 . Feminist: second of the three macro theories, this reveals the notion of man as patriarchal leader and head figure. This society would favor men to be dominant.
9. Ecological: Finally, the last macro theory. This focuses on structural-functionalism when society acts as an organism or body and all parts serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.
1. Haberma's Paradigms:
a) Empirical-Analytic: this perspective sees things as measurable and in an objective light. This usually involves the scientific method including observation, measuring, prediction, and control.
b) Critical-Theoretic: this perspective deals with the observer searching for the underlying information that might influence behavior.
c) Situational Interpretive: this perspective is seen as completely subjective as to how the behavior has come about. An example would be that of love and beauty... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
2. Legal: this is one of four definitions of family. It defines the rights and duties of the members within a family. (ie: father = bread winner, mother = nurturer, etc.)
3. Phenomenological: the second definition of family. Each individual within a family has their own perspective of who is kin.
4. Disciplinary: this definition of the family serves to enrich one's knowledge. It simply reflects a positive focus using different conceptual or growing tools.
5. Theoretical: this definition of family includes dynamics of the family. Some theories examine stability and coherence, but others concentrate on conflict and results.
6. Postmodernism: other well known as "pomo". This concept is an inevitable movement that culture is experiencing at this time in history. Ignorance will gain no benefit. Those who are postmodernists are very much against the grand narratives (Liberal Cortex, Marxian Narrative of History, and Judian Christian History), but rather prefer the 'Petite Histoire' or individual experiences as everyone experiences life differently.
9. Ecological: Finally, the last macro theory. This focuses on structural-functionalism when society acts as an organism or body and all parts serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Changes in Dating, Courtship, and Love
Q: What changes in dating, courtship, and love would you project as this century unfolds based on current social, cultural, even technological trends?
A: Over the years, many trends have changed. Just since the time that my parents were young (my age, 20 haha) and dating, things have changed a lot. Things such as the way the majority of people communicate when looking for a partner. People seem to rely on technology now a days more than anything. More and more relationships start through on-line dating, texting, or emailing, and many do not build their foundations on the communication which is most assertive and healthy - talking face to face.
A: Over the years, many trends have changed. Just since the time that my parents were young (my age, 20 haha) and dating, things have changed a lot. Things such as the way the majority of people communicate when looking for a partner. People seem to rely on technology now a days more than anything. More and more relationships start through on-line dating, texting, or emailing, and many do not build their foundations on the communication which is most assertive and healthy - talking face to face.
Friday, 9 March 2012
Duvall and Miller's 8 Developmental Tasks in Marriage (1985)
Today Professor Nellis showed the class the eight most important tasks couples need to accomplish during marriage according to Duvall and Miller. I will relate this list to my friends who just recently got marriage. (For privacy purposes, I will not use their real names.) Lets call them Jack and Jill.
1. Finding, furnishing and settling into their first home. - Jack and Jill decided to rent a basement suite as their first home. They have furnished their place with things that have been given to them at their wedding and/or they have brought from their own individual homes from before they were married. They gradually brought all their belongings to the basement suite before they got married and the day they got back from their honey moon, they settled into their home.
2. Establishing mutually satisfying ways of supporting themselves. - For the most part they have established that Jill stays at home, doing most of the house work: dishes, cleaning, laundry, etc. as well as works part time as a health-care aid. Jack works full time and produces most of their income as a construction worker.
3. Allocating responsibilities each partner is willing and able to assume. - As each has different preferences of responsibilities around the home, Jill assumes most of the household skilled jobs and Jack aids as her help. Jill cooks, cleans, grocery shops, and more. Jack will often come home to 'just chill' after a long day of work, but he does not restrict Jill to doing all the house hold jobs. He is more than willing to help, however Jill must be honest in asking for help. Just as Jill does almost all of the house work, Jack takes care of almost all of the couples finically needs. Jill does work part time to contribute, but Jack works full times and pays the bills, and works out budgeting issues alongside his wife. All in all, Jack and Jill work as a well-rounded team with not too many responsibilities being strictly delegated on only one person.
4. Building foundations for satisfying marital relations. - Their communication is treated as a key component in their relationship and is not neglected. Jack and Jill both admit to being sensitive verbalizers and both find themselves very honest with their feelings and thoughts.
5. Controlling fertility and planning a family. - This topic seems to be the greatest of conversation when talking with Jill. As a couple they have communicated that they want a family in the future, but probably not for the next year or so.
6. Starting a family. - Jack and Jill feel they are not in the best spot financially (still paying off Jill's college loan) and would like to spend time strengthing the foundation of their relationship before bringing other little people into the big picture. Also, Jack and Jill both grew up in families that, at most of the time, included only a single parent. They both agree that they respect the decisions that their parents made while they were younger, however they wish to maintain a solid relationship for their future children so that their children will have a solid model for their future.
7. Interacting with relatives on both sides of their family. - Jack and Jill share a faith in God that most of their family members do not. This brings some division in the amount that they speak with their brothers and sisters, but there is a high level respect found in conversation about and when talking with them.
8. Maintaining couple motivation and morale. - Because of Jack and Jill’s relationship with God, they both have the very similar morals in life and have both voiced their values and opinions on issues openly. Their relationship is growing to be a strong bond filled with faith and love. It is expected to weather all storms of life as long as they remain faithful in their commitments to God and each other.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
Hot n' Cold and 3 Paradigms
Professor Nellis asked us today if we could see through the perspective of at least one theory while watching Katy Perry's "Hot n' Cold" music video. This video reveals what Katy's fiancé is thinking as he is about to say the two most critical words at that time.
http://youtu.be/kTHNpusq654
Looking from the empirical-analytical perspective, I see how Katy truly has the objective to see her future husband say "I do" at the alter. She observes his nervousness as he drifts off into thoughts on the subject of her thinking he is over analyzing the situation. She and others that are sitting, witnessing the wedding anticipate his words and are left on the edge of their seats. They all, in some way, control his answer by putting him under the pressure of saying yes to a life spent with Katy. Does he want this?? His thoughts prove differently...
From the situational interpretive point of view, many viewers are able to relate with Katy's fiancé. He, like many other people, on their wedding day can become anxious and assume things before they happen. So many people get 'cold feet' before their wedding. Nervousness can over come them with thoughts that they are making the biggest and possibly the worst decision of their entire life.
The perspective that I saw as most evidently related to this video was the critical-theoretic. The majority of the music video is of what the man is really thinking under his surface of patience and submission. As Katy is waiting on her fiancé's reply to the pastors question of "Will you take this woman?" the another question is posed.... If what the video portrays is true about Katy's character, then her fiancé is doomed for a life of submission under her forceful authority to tell him what he is like in her eyes.
http://youtu.be/kTHNpusq654
Looking from the empirical-analytical perspective, I see how Katy truly has the objective to see her future husband say "I do" at the alter. She observes his nervousness as he drifts off into thoughts on the subject of her thinking he is over analyzing the situation. She and others that are sitting, witnessing the wedding anticipate his words and are left on the edge of their seats. They all, in some way, control his answer by putting him under the pressure of saying yes to a life spent with Katy. Does he want this?? His thoughts prove differently...
From the situational interpretive point of view, many viewers are able to relate with Katy's fiancé. He, like many other people, on their wedding day can become anxious and assume things before they happen. So many people get 'cold feet' before their wedding. Nervousness can over come them with thoughts that they are making the biggest and possibly the worst decision of their entire life.
The perspective that I saw as most evidently related to this video was the critical-theoretic. The majority of the music video is of what the man is really thinking under his surface of patience and submission. As Katy is waiting on her fiancé's reply to the pastors question of "Will you take this woman?" the another question is posed.... If what the video portrays is true about Katy's character, then her fiancé is doomed for a life of submission under her forceful authority to tell him what he is like in her eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)