What makes communication interpersonal?

Summary of this post:

• Interpersonal relationships are qualitatively different from less personal relationships

• Intimacy is a special dimension

• Developmental models help us understand interpersonal communication more closely

• Importance of self-disclosure

So first, truly interpersonal communication has several characteristics that make it a joy to study; I know you might not feel that way because most of you are might not enjoy academic studies of communication.

Why would you care about it as much as I do as a communication instructor? But studying communication, especially interpersonal communication is worth studying for a few reasons. It is qualitatively different from other less personal relationships.

Like all messages it has, both content and relational dimensions. The relational dimension is interesting. Thinking about how we relate to each other is fruitful for any future goals you might have. Also, the idea of intimacy or the concept of intimacy readily comes up when one thinks about interpersonal relationships and a major part of the relational dimension.

Men, women and others, sometimes value and express intimacy differently. Cultural background influences how we communicate that intimacy as well. So it's a fluid idea heavily influenced by one's identity.

Communication scholars have explored some forces that shape interpersonal relationships. Using models, these scholars describe how communication in relationships changes over time. For example, dialectical models describe forces that always operate in relationships. Keep in mind that no matter what model is used to analyze what is happing in a relationship, relationships are constantly changing.

The role of self disclosure, is important for understanding interpersonal communication. People disclose (or withold) personal information for a variety of reason. Scholars use models to help in understanding how self-disclosure operates. We will get into intimacy as a special dimension, how developmental models help us understand interpersonal communication more closely, and the importance of self-disclosure as we continue on in the post.

For More Awesome Free Email Newsletters

So in terms of the characteristics of interpersonal relationships we can ask ourself, what is what is an interpersonal relationship? What is interpersonal communication? What does that really mean?

How does it differ or how is it different from other types of interactions? When and how are interpersonal messages communicated? What's the context that this label of "interpersonal" actually apply?

These questions will help us start getting acquainted with the topic of interpersonal communication. So in terms of what makes communication interpersonal? I think the most obvious way to define define that type of communication is to look at the context. And by context I mean, the number of people the number of people involved. If there are five people involved, more than likely, most of us would not consider that an interpersonal relationship. In this sense, we could say that all communication between two people or dyadic communication is interpersonal. And by dyadic, that's just another way to say two people conversation, relationship, or communication.

In many ways dyadic communication is different from the kind of communication that goes on in other contexts like small groups. So for example, unlike small groups, dyads are complete and cannot be subdivided. In other words, if one person withdraws from the other, the relationship is finished. This indivisibility means that, unlike the members who make a group, the partners in a dyad can't form other partnerships to get their needs met; instead they must work matters out with one another. We can't reduce past two people.

One of the things that you get from this post too is that relationships require work. They involve labour. I would argue that if you're in a relationship and it's hard, then both people are negotiating and working on it. That's a relationship that nurtures each other because of negotiating and finding meaning with each other versus a relationship with no real arguments. If no one is really trying to understand each other, is that an interpersonal relationship? And the question obviously goes to say, who decides what's real? I hope we get to talk this out in class. 

For More Awesome Free Email Newsletters

So although looking at communication from the perspective of the number of people is useful. Thinking about the context like that raises some problems. Consider, for example, a routine transaction between a sales clerk and a customer or when you ask a stranger on the street for directions. Those examples show two people conversing but we wouldn't say those conversations were interpersonal in nature, right?  So while in purely contextual sense, communication of the sort meets the definition of interpersonal yet it hardly seems personal in any sense of the word.

The impersonal nature of many two-person exchanges has led some scholars to say that quality, not quantity, is what distinguishes interpersonal communication. It's not about the number of things it's about the actual quality of the relationship; how close. Qualitatively interpersonal communication occurs when when people truly treat one another as unique individuals, regardless of the context in which the the interaction occurs or or the number of people involved. So when quality of interaction is the is the actual criteria, then the opposite is impersonal communication, not group or mass communication. When there is no quality and communication that's what we would consider an impersonal communication.

So the greater part of our communication even in dyadic contexts, is relatively impersonal. If you think about all the interactions you have on a daily, all of those impersonal interactions stack-up in a day and represent the greater part of your day. We might chat pleasantly with shopkeepers or business owners. We might discuss things like the weather and current events with with most with classmates, neighbours, and co workers if you go on Co Op. And mostly all of that happens in a polite way, but considering the number of people we communicate with qualitatively in a personal interaction is rather scarce. It's not rare, but it doesn't happen readily.

This scarcity isn't necessarily unfortunate. Most of us don't have the time or energy to create personal relationships with everyone. In fact, the the scarcity of quality contributes to its actual value. That is what makes it special. Which is good, which is why a lot of communication scholars like myself like to study so you can get a sense of how interpersonal your relations our relationships are by by trying by thinking about the quality of them. Right, and, or how rare they are.

Comprehension Activity

1. Examine your interpersonal relationships in contextual sense by making two lists. The first should contain all of the two personal relationships in which you have participated during the past week the second should contain all your relationships that have occurred in small group and public context. Are there any important differences that distinguish dyadic interaction from communication with a large number of people?

2. Now make a second set of two lists. The first one should describe all of your relationships that are interpersonal in a qualitative sense, and the second should describe all of the two-person relationships that are more impersonal. Are you satisfied with the number of qualitatively interpersonal relationships you have identified?

3. Compare the list you have developed in steps one and two. See what useful information each one contains. What do your conclusions tell you about the difference between contextual and qualitatively defined or definitions of interpersonal communication? 

References:

Adler, R. B., Rodman G., and Sévigny, A. 2015. Understanding Human Communication. Third Canadian Edition. Oxford University Press Canada. 

First Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/-RMsWV0zpPs

Second Image: https://unsplash.com/photos/w6NN2LP68CQ