COMMUNICATION ( A MICRO-SOCIOLOGICAL OUTLOOK ON THE CONCEPT)

                        According to Emilio Gardini, the birth of the discipline of sociology came along with society’s effort to respond to changes in advanced western modernity. Sociology as an academic discipline is a social science course which basically involves the study social behavior, social structure; its development, institutions and its organization. Within sociological study one can choose to take a Macro outlook in addressing issues or a micro outlook. So what is the difference between these two lenses and how is this even relevant to communication? Well Macro theorist in sociology view the society has having a structure and depending on whether you are a functionalist, conflict theorist or Marxist, you address issues in society with that thought. Macro theorist view society as outside of the individual’s perception with strong emphasis on determinism. Micro sociology on the other hand, involves the construction of meaning that is socially relevant within society in social action and collective behavior. Here individuals are believed to construct the meanings that they attribute to facts and events through social relations. Also when looking at society with this lens, the school of thought one adopts influences how one considers society. The constructionist and symbolic interactionist acknowledge a structure but emphasis is placed on meaning and interpretations. Phenomenology on the other hand focus more on experiences, senses, and consciousness of individual, this school of thought does not acknowledge the presence of a structure. Now coming back to the issue at hand, I have decided to take a micro-sociological viewpoint because I am considering the concept of communication in terms of how individuals in society interpret and give meaning to things. for example, if I am to communicate to a group of individuals in a seminar presentation, when I am addressing the group in a language, I believe that the people am addressing must understand what it is I am saying and thus be able to give meaning to my words. this emphasis on interpretations and meanings is what categorizes this post in a micro sociological lens. 

The concept of communication has become a fascinating one for me recently due to readings I have come across and also some very enlightening class discussions. If I ask anyone right now to define communication the first thing that is likely to come to mind will be the exchange of information or maybe not in those exact words but along similar axis. That is of course correct thinking as the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information, Or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc., to someone else. From the above definitions, communication can be seen to be a social act in the sense that it involves more than one individual. Although some people (notice how I said ‘some’) might believe that communication is done solely through speech, that is only just one medium of communication amongst others. Individuals can also communicate through facial expressions (my mother’s famous “don’t eat that food” look comes to mind), gestures, pointing/using hands, writing (remember how we were all such good love letter composers before texting, abbreviations and smileys ruined it), drawing, touching, the list seems endless. Now for this to be possible i.e. for communication to occur, the individuals involved will have to understand each other, this means both have to understand the language being used. Sight, hearing , reading skills, ability to recognize information, memory to recall and understand information all come into play. my fascination for communication stems mainly from how this concept shapes our world. in the socialization process of a child, the parents try and shape the reasoning of their child by communicating to them (say "mama" c'mon! say "mama"). we have to communicate with other individuals daily to get through our routines. I wouldn't be writing this post if it wasn't meant to communicate something to you. In looking at Tajfel's social identity theory which postulates that individuals construction of self is based on group membership, communication can also be seen as key in ones construction of self. to break this down and make it more understandable, ask yourself this question. who am I? you might start defining yourself as a Christian, an honest individual, a freak perhaps, a bank manager, a literate individual, a father, a sister, a wife etc. all these can only occur due to your interaction with other individuals which thus allows your to categorize yourself in a social grouping based on shared meanings with others. so if I say I am a Christian or a Man, I do so on the basis that you should understand the meaning attributed to those words, and also my meaning which I attribute to those words stems from how I was socialized. at this point in time you should now understand my fascination with the concept of communication. finally I believe individuals attribute meaning to what is socially relevant to them, this is why the Urhuobo people in the mid-western region of Nigeria have multiple names for Yam (due to its significance in their society, like its use in marriage practices) and the French people have no word for the same crop. Similarly the French have multiple names for various flowers(due to the significance attached to them, for example if I want to woo a lady in France, I could buy her a rose flower), while the Bini people in Nigeria have just one word for all flowers (so the rose might not be such a good idea for a Bini lady). 

in a basic synopsis, communication when viewed from a micro-sociological lens involves addressing the concept in terms of its significance in social action and also how individuals attribute meaning to and interpret the words or means used in the process.