COMM

Good Relationships

Introduction

            The ability to communicate and establish positive relations is an important aspect of human life. Nonetheless, it is not often easy for humans to communicate efficiently without any flaws. There are obstacles that emerge between the two interacting parties, which might result from different factors. The elements within the interaction process influence the quality of communication. A problem in one of these issues may potentially minimize the strength of the interpersonal relationship that is to be established. Cultural differences are some of the major factors that might inhibit the ability of two or more parties to strengthen their relationships. Differences between my Arabic culture and my friend’s American culture strongly affect our interpersonal relationships.

Ideas Description

            Interpersonal relationships are often established through cultures and experiences that people undergo. These experiences are what define the relationship worldviews that individuals develop and maintain. In most cases, people’s relationship frames are developed and maintained via personal experiences and cultures and subcultures. People tend to view problems and relationships based on their frames and perspectives (Kelley, 2016). When people develop the habit of framing what they observe from varying vantage points, they develop spaces for social justice and advocacy for each other. This is particularly true when one frame is used and others fail to examine options. This narrow strategy hinders the realization of social justice and just relationships (Kelley, 2016).   In most situations, restricted approaches normally turn to be self-serving over a specified period of time. This limits a person’s capacity to cater for others’ needs.  Broad relationship perspectives develop a vision of life in which good things may happen.

            When people employ narrow strategies to understand others’ sentiments, they merely describe something good simply from what appears to be clear form one limited worldview. However, the use of broad relationship strategies helps to foster dialogue in order to gain new perspectives (Kelley, 2016).   When relationship frames are restricted to a single perspective, they become unsuccessful in generating clear and concise views of the world in which people live. Instead, they only view problems from one approach, and are distorted by glaring and inexistent lights. They also give room or erroneous subjects or objects that offer a collection of perspectives. One of the biggest relationship challenges is sharing relationship frames from which people can put in place just and loving social ties. One of the ways in which this can be attained is to promote dialogues as the parties attempt to co-develop frames and lenses to view, value, and legitimate their personal experiences and the experiences of the significant others.

            In light of the above problems, it is important for the communicating parties to embrace dialogue that promotes adaptability and change. This is because being rigid and subscribing to only one worldview might hinder the realization of strong interpersonal relationships. There are various communication-based procedures that can be employed to promote resilient relationships and character. They include: crafting normalcy, affirming identity anchors, maintaining and utilizing communication networks, placing alternative logics to work, and legitimizing negative feelings (Kelley, 2016).  These processes can be managed within people’s personal relationships. The maintenance of some form of normalcy and consistently identify offers stability in situations of disruptions. Maintaining an open communication approach with other parties allows people to easily adjust themselves in constructive ways to their constantly-changing environments. Most significantly, enabling the self to process emotional experiences and reframe the reasoning process fosters the establishment of a constructive, optimistic, and just future for the self and other people.

IE Description

            I am an Arab and I have some American friends. In some situations, I normally disagree with my American friends in many ways. For instance, I value collective efforts and planning as a family while my American friends prefers individualism. One of my American friends revealed to me that he has never been comfortable with the idea of holding a family meeting that is attended by members of the extended family to discuss where he and his brothers could get a house. In his opinion, this decision should be solely his to determine, not a collective agenda. My American friend also encourages me to focus on improving my personal self before shifting to family and community issues. According to him, individualism is more important. However, I have grown up in my life giving up things for the family. To me, my family comes first. These ideological differences often breed arguments on rare occasions. For instance, my American friend may sometimes call me a rigid person. In our Arab culture, honor is normally important. Therefore, the American habit of attacking other people through arguments might be unforgivable to us. Although these habits might be treated lightly in the West, it matters a lot for me. Further, unlike my American friend who may not give up her seat for an old man, we believe in expressing reverence to old people. Our disagreements along these lines might have the potential to hamper the good relationships that we share together. The relational framing theory postulates that people perceive dominance-submissiveness and affiliation-disaffiliation as functional frames that enable them to process social messages. In the process, they can effectively solve ambiguities and develop relational inferences.

Sense Making

            From this case scenario, it is clear that differences in worldviews have the potential to hinder the establishment of strong relationships. This is particularly true when people approach every problem that they are facing with the use of their cultural frames of reference. For instance, being from a background of strong Arab culture, I hold that collectivization is the best way for people to come together and address a particular issue. However, my American friend chooses to do it alone most of the time since he comes from an individualistic background. When each person decides to fully pursue their own worldviews, there is a potential for bad relations. Failure to give room to different worldviews by communicating parties may generate hostility and bad relations. In order to counter this problem, each person can give dialogue a chance by giving a listening ear to competing worldviews. Establishing open communication with others helps to adjust in constructive ways to the changing environment. This can be important in reaching a compromise by respecting others’ relationship frames and worldviews. Enabling the self to process emotional experiences and redefine the way we think enhances the development of a constructive relationship that is full of home. Taking time with the friend and personally thinking through each of the communication-based strategies that enhance resilience can be helpful in strengthening relationships.

Conclusion

            Interpersonal communication is one of the most important determinants of good relationships. However, interactions might be hindered by differences in relationship frames among communicating parties. Relationship frames often determine the worldviews that each interacting party takes in a specific relationship. These factors may be influenced by cultural backgrounds that act as frames of reference to approaching problems that people face. Such barriers can be addressed by promoting dialogue and learning to accommodate different worldviews.