PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS

Parties and Party Systems

A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country.

 The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.

PARTY SYSTEMS

One-party system: this is a state where one party rules. Such states would include the remaining communist states of the world (Cuba, North Korea and China), and Iraq.

The old Soviet Union was a one party state.

One of the more common features of a one-party state is that the position of the ruling party is guaranteed in a constitution and all forms of political opposition are banned by law.

The ruling party controls all aspects of life within that state. The belief that a ruling party is all important to a state came from Lenin who believed that only one party - the Communists - could take the workers to their ultimate destiny and that the involvement of other parties would hinder this progress.

Two-party system: This is a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance.

 America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene.

For the system to work one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support from the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system.

The two-party system presents the voter with a simple choice and it is believed that the system promotes political moderation as the incumbent party must be able to appeal to the ‘floating voters’ within that country.

Those who do not support the system claim that it leads to unnecessary policy reversals if a party loses a election as the newly elected government seeks to impose its ‘mark’ on the country that has just elected it to power. Such sweeping reversals, it is claimed, cannot benefit the state in the short and long term.

Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.

The multi-party system: as the title suggests, this is a system where more than two parties have some impact in a state’s political life.

A multi-party system can lead to a coalition government as Kenya, Germany and Zimbabwe have experienced.

In Germany these have provided reasonably stable governments and a successful coalition can introduce an effective system of checks and balances on the government that can promote political moderation.

Also many policy decisions take into account all views and interests. In Italy, coalition governments have not been a success; many have lasted less than one year.

In Israel, recent governments have relied on the support of extreme minority groups to form a coalition government and this has created its own problems with such support being withdrawn on a whim or if those extreme parties feel that their own specific views are not being given enough support.

Dominant-party system: this is different from a one-party system. A party is quite capable within the political structure of a state, to become dominant to such an extent that victory at elections is considered a formality. This was the case under the Kenyan government in the 90s.

In Kenya the elections of the 1987, 1992 and 1997’ were fought with competition from other parties - hence there can be no comparison with a one-party state.

During an extended stay in power, a dominant party can shape society through its policies.

THE KENYAN SITUATION

Kenya's system is one with characteristics comparable with a two-party system, since two dominant political parties.

Coalitions have dominated since the last general elections in 2007. However, it has been a multi-party system since 1992 and one of the ruling coalitions consists of several parties.

Kenya had over 160 registered political parties as of November 2007, but following the implementation of several Political Parties Acts starting with the 31 December 2008 act, the number has been coming down considerably since.

POLITICAL CULTURE

Political Culture

Political culture refers to what people believe and feel about government, and how they think people should act towards it. 

It can also be defined as attitudes, values, beliefs, and orientations that individuals in a society hold regarding their political system.

Types of political culture

1.) Moral Political Culture. In this culture type society is held to be more important than the individual. Individualism is not submerged in any way, but the group recognizes the need of individuals to assign value to the group.

Government tends to be seen as a positive force. This emphasizes the commonwealth conception as the basis for democratic government.  Politics is considered one of the great activities of man in the search for the "good society."  Good government is measured by the degree to which it promotes the public good.  Issues have an important place in the moralistic style of politics.  Politicians are expected not to profit from political activity.  

 Serving the community is the core of the political relationship even at the expense of individual loyalties and political friendships.  In practice this often results in more amateur participation in politics than in the other political cultures.  Upper New England, the Upper Middle West  and portions of the west are the central areas for this culture type.

2.) Individual Political Culture. In areas with this type of political culture, government is seen as having a very practical orientation. Government is instituted for largely utilitarian reasons.  It need not have any direct concern with questions of the "good society."  Emphasis on on limiting community/government intervention into private activities.  Government should be largely restricted to those areas which encourage private initiative.  Private concerns are more important than public concerns here. To a significant degree there is cynicism about government.   Dirty politics tends be accepted as a fact. The key to understanding this type is that people accept dirty politics as the way things are and should be. The Middle-Atlantic States through Illinois, and to the West, is the area most prevalent for this type of culture.

3.) Traditional Political Culture. Social and family ties are prominent where this type of political culture is found. This often means that some families run the government and others have little to say about it. This reflects an older attitude that embraces a hierarchical society as part of the natural order of things.  Government is seen as an actor with a positive role in the community, but the role is largely limited to securing the maintenance of the existing social order.  Political leaders play a largely conservative and custodial role rather than being innovative.  Otherwise, limited government is viewed as best because that is all that is required to meet the needs of those in power. The South is the regional focus for this type of culture. While undergoing change, traditional southern politics have been dominated by "backdoor" arrangements and strict class divisions. 

POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Political Systems

THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS - COLLECTIVISM

This group considers mankind the raw material from which to construct a society. The forms of society differ, the means by which its design is arrived at differs, but what they all have in common is the notion that one/some/many men should rule the others - whether it be king, dictator or majority.

AUTOCRACY / DICTATORSHIP / DESPOTISM

An autocracy is characterized by a supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited authority, or right of governing in a single person, as of an autocrat. It is very similar to a dictatorship.

The key here is that the autocrat has absolute power. An autocrat requires a massive amount of force (in an army for instance) to exert control over an unwilling people.

A kind autocrat is a contradiction in terms. A (rational) benevolent person recognizes that benevolence is not something which can, by its nature, be forcibly created. A benevolent leader would seek to undo the social engineering and return the society toward the sovereignty of the individual. Iraq under Hussein is a good example of dictatorship, as was Russia under Stalin.

COMMUNISM

Communism means a scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

The means to achieve this is by collectivization of all private property. Although meant to indicate the means of production, to be consistent communism requires that no individual may own anything exclusively, privately.

Not the product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal material benefit he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralized and distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility (of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated by the state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of the collective

In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved is if every single member of a communist society is in absolute agreement with the above arrangement - and that the legislators are not open to corruption in the form of personal acquisition or favor.

CONSERVATISM

A political philosophy that tends to support the status quo and advocates change only in moderation. Conservatism upholds the value of tradition, and seeks to preserve all that is good about the past. Irishman Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), compared society to a living organism that has taken time to grow and mature, so it should not be suddenly uprooted. Innovation, when necessary should be grafted onto the strong stem of traditional institutions and ways of doing things: "it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down a structure which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society.” Conservatives are usually social engineers by default.


DEMOCRACY

There are two major modes of democracy.

 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government.

The problems with democracy deserve separate discussion for instance that a majority can 'vote away' the freedom of a minority. To use an extreme example imagine that you live in a village of 100 people and 99 of them vote to take your house. Despite the 'landslide' democratic victory there is no change in the morality of the theft they vote for.

FASCISM

Fascism is characterized by elements of pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, and the complete rejection of parliamentary democracy, the cultivation of military virtues, strong government, and loyalty to a strong leader.

Whereas in communism the individual is second to the society, in fascism the individual is second to the state or race. It is not 'right wing' per-se, but is virtually the same as national socialism (Nazism); it therefore shares much with Marxism in its view of mankind as a collective. We all know what can happen when sufficient people in a state are in eager support of national socialism, hence its widespread repulsion.

IMPERIALISM

The policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which many states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are controlled by one dominant state. Much of the twentieth century history of the Third World, for example, is of the dismantling of the legacy of nineteenth century European imperialism.

 An imperialist state can also be any other type of collectivist, but not a type of individualist, nation. In Britain the growth of classical liberalism can be said to have contributed to the negation of the belief in imperialism as being 'good'.

MONARCHY

Form of ruler ship whereby a queen or king, empress or emperor holds absolute or limited power, usually inherited. In this century most European monarchies have become constitutional or limited, such as with the British Monarchy.

Such monarchies often represent a strong symbol of national identity in (some of) the people's minds (but exist at the expense of all). In some countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia monarchs still continue to hold absolute power. Under these conditions the state is similar to autocracy.

PLURALISM

Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between a variety of competing leadership groups (business, labor, government, etc.). Advocates of pluralism claim that it best serves the democratic ideal in a complex modern society, in which individual participation in every act of decision-making is impractical.

 According to pluralism, individual rights and interests are protected by a sort of extra-constitutional checks and balances: No single group holds the dominant power position, power is always shifting, and individuals can have influence on policy-making through being active in one of these power groups. Some claim that America is such a pluralistic society; other theories say that pluralism is in fact a myth and American society is elitist. Despite this pluralism is not limited, other than by the common sense of its participants. Therefore it is still, in essence, collectivist and adversarial.

PLUTOCRACY

Government by the wealthy, or by a government primarily influenced by the wealthy. This system is as open to the social engineers as any other, and is against any principle of individual liberty. One of the criticisms of the US political system is that some wealthy people and organizations exert enormous influence over political power. This is not to be mistaken for a criticism of the free market or of wealth but as a criticism of unlimited political power.

SOCIALISM

Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator).

 The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the judgment of the legislator.

Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless of how this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups considered (by the legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed, ill, young and old and significantly, those with political pull.

THEOCRACY

A state or government which is run by priests or clergy. A recent example of a theocracy is Iran immediately after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, when the Ayotollah Khomeini gained power.

Theocracies are becoming more common as Islamic fundamentalism grows in strength, but its influence is almost nonexistent in the West, with the exception of the USA where the 'religious right' have some influence.

THE INDIVIDUALISTS

ANARCHISM / NIHILISM

A doctrine that advocates the abolition of organized authority. Anarchists believe that all government is corrupt and evil. Anarchism was a force in nineteenth century Russia, associated with Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). Types of anarchism range from pacifism to violent revolution. While most often anti-capitalist (and tending to more collectivist philosophies), there are pro-capitalist strains, depending on the view of private property. The major problem with anarchism is in maintaining the freedom of the individual. Without an organized objective system of law an anarchic society might be at the mercy of the criminal and the powerful, with only personal and communal self defense to rely on. Many questions on anarchism are addressed by this

LIBERALISM (CLASSICAL)

A term which has changed its meaning, in the nineteenth century in Europe, the great age of liberalism, the term stood for freedom from church and state authority and the reduction of the power of royalty and aristocracy, free enterprise economics, and the free development of the individual.

Liberalism advocated freedom of the press, religious toleration, and self-determination for nations. It was liberalism that established parliamentary democracy. The Founding Fathers of the USA might be termed liberals

LIBERTARIANISM

A philosophy of freedom, particularly from any unnecessary restraints imposed (or indeed any restraints) by governmental authority. It is central to America: liberty is one of the inalienable rights described in the constitution ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and it has always been what America sees itself as standing for, although it can be argued that America has become more of a typical European nation (economically and politically) and has greater freedom simply because it has yet to decline to European standards.


OBJECTIVISM

Similar in 'appearance' to libertarianism, objectivism is different because it is based upon a specific philosophy of reality as first detailed by Aristotle and further extrapolated in the mid to later part of the 20th century by philosopher Ayn Rand, well known for her best selling fiction novels which encompass her philosophy in dramatic form. Objectivism supports individualism with reference to the nature of reality and this differentiates it from being just another political opinion. It is not an easy philosophy to understand, or for many, to accept.

CAPITALISM

Contrary to popular belief capitalism is not a 'system' as such. It is the consequence of individual liberty and corresponding property rights (the right to own that which you create, or are born owning). Capitalism is readily blamed for various inequalities despite having never been practiced in fact, with the closest examples being 19th century USA and to a lesser extent 19th century Britain.

Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself forces nothing.

Capitalism doesn't aim at equal ends because they do not occur where people are free to choose their own paths. Those better off do have more opportunities (not more freedom), but that in no way gives one person (or group) the right to rob them of these opportunities and give them to another. Life can be very hard for an impoverished man in a desert compared to a rich man in a European landowner’s family. That does not give anyone the right to rob the European and give to desert dweller.

THE REPUBLIC

A republic is a political system whereby political power is explicitly is granted with consent of the people and ruled according to law. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people and in discharging that purpose it derives its just power from the consent of the people. Hence the words "we the people". It is not a democracy, nor is it populism or pluralism. Infact it is quite a strictly limited system where the people essentially delegate (note - delegate, not forfeit) the protection of their individual rights to a government of their choosing. The limitations would be made explicit in a constitution and an excellent example is the US constitution, which sadly is largely unknown by the American people and constantly undermined by their governments.

POLITICAL SCIENCE

POLITICS

·         Politics refers to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society.

·         It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

·         Modern political discourse focuses on democracy and the relationship between people and politics. It is thought of as the way we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, government, and politics. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.  It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior.

Politics as an art of government

·         This is the traditional definition of politics, based upon the original meaning of the term in ancient Greek Civilization. The word 'Politics' is derived from the Greek word 'Polis' literally meaning city-state.

·         Ancient Greece consisted of independent city states, each of which had its own system of government. Politics refers to the affairs of the 'Polis' or what concerns the state. This is the classical view of political science.

·         According to J. W. Garner, "................... political science begins and ends with the state". The study of politics concerns itself with the life of man in relation to organized state. Paul Janet states,

·         Hence, the state came to occupy the central place in politics. The ethical basis of the state, its evolution, the functions it is supposed to perform, its relationship with individuals became the main concern of political science.

·         Since the state performs its functions through the government, its main forces remained on the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics essentially meant the study of government or more broadly the study of authority.

·         David Easton defined politics as the "authoritative allocation of values" by this he meant that politics includes all those processes through which government allocates benefits, rewards or penalties. This is how it meets the demands and needs of society.

·         The distribution of such benefits, rewards or penalties is called authoritative because these are widely accepted in society and considered binding by the people. Hence, politics involves formal policies or authoritative decisions made by the government.

·         A major problem with this definition is that it presents a limited view of politics as essentially the affairs of state and government, thereby involving only a limited group of people engaged in the management of government as well as those trying to influence it. This implies that most people, most institutions and most social activities are considered as being outside politics.

Politics as public affairs

Another notion of politics takes it beyond a narrow focus on government to what is thought of as 'Public Life' or 'Public affairs'. The public sphere of life can be considered as 'Political' whereas the private sphere of life remains 'non-political'.

The roots of such a view of politics can be located in the writings of the famous Greek Philosopher Aristotle. In his book 'Polities', he said that "man is by nature a political animal". By this, he meant that human beings could live 'the good life' only within a political community.

Hence, politics is a moral activity essential for creating a 'just society'. In other words, politics is a noble activity precisely because of its public character. This is the reason for which Aristotle describes politics as the 'master science'.

However, the distinction between 'public life' and 'private life' needs to be clarified. There are two ways of understanding this distinction.

According to the traditional approach institutions of state can be regarded as public. Hence politics is restricted to the activities of the state which is considered responsible for managing the collective problems of the community. Those areas of social life like the economic, cultural, artistic, personal, domestic, etc. which, the individuals manage for themselves are considered 'nonpolitical'.

The other approach to 'public/private' division takes note of the fact that besides the state there are many other institutions which are opening, which operate in public and the public has access to these.

Institutions such as business, factory, trade unions, church, university and other community groups come to be considered as public and hence political. This definition of politics, however, excludes disagreements and conflicts emerging in the private or personal sphere. It is strongly believed that politics does not and should not interfere in personal affairs and institutions.

Politics as compromise

Politics is commonly called the "art of compromise." This label is thought to be especially appropriate for democratic politics.

Elected officials representing different voters meet in legislative chambers to hammer out policies that all constituents can live with. Of course, no politicians or voters receive everything they want in the final legislative package:

The need to assemble at least a simple majority to implement any policy almost invariably means that supporters of some policy must sacrifice something of value to others active in the political process

Few doubt that politics is indeed the art of compromise. politicians who refuse to compromise seldom win and hold on to office for the obvious reason that uncompromising politicians garner too little to send home to voters.

 Successful politicians early on learn the survival value of compromise. Economist Donald Wittman (1995: 154) correctly observes, "That is what good politicians do: create coalitions and find acceptable compromises." Political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain (1995: 61) is almost rhapsodic about democratic compromise: “But compromise is not a ordinary way to do politics; it is an adventure, the only way to do democratic politics.”

While the centrality of compromise to politics is beyond question, we argue that the current story of political compromise is misleadingly incomplete. Our argument is built of two points. First, that politics is the art of compromise only at the level of legislative activity; politics is not the art of compromise at the ballot box. While compromise by elected officials is necessary for the successful political careers of these officials, the argument is that the institutional structure of democratic elections causes voters to seek representatives who at least appear to be uncompromising.

A complication for elected officials is that many voters also want their representatives to bring home the cake. Because bringing home the cake requires compromise with other legislators, each legislator confronts the difficult task of being an expert compromiser in legislatures while appearing to voters to be an uncompromising champion of principle.

Politics as concensus

This is a method where the ruling party uses a system of asking the various sides in an argument to put forward their own ideas and then trying for find a consensus, which is a agreement that all parties can agree with. By getting all sides to contribute their own ideas, the final agreement is built with input from all sides of the question, rather than one group over-ruling all the others, with their power.

Consensus is a hall mark of a mature nation's ability to make good laws with agreement from all sides of the political spectrum.

Politics as power

Power politics  is a form of international relations in which sovereign entities protect their own interests by threatening one another with military, economic or political aggression.

Power politics is essentially a way of understanding the world of international relations: nations compete for the world's resources and it is to a nation's advantage to be manifestly able to harm others. It prioritizes national self-interest over the interest of other nations or the international community.

Techniques of power politics include, but are not limited to, conspicuous nuclear development, pre-emptive strike, blackmail, the massing of military units on a border, the imposition of tariffs or economic sanctions etc.

SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY

Introduction

Theories are a set of statement or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Here I will discuss social penetration theory, its importance, its process, its assumption and criticism. This theory proposes that relation development, interpersonal communication moves from a relatively shallow, non-intimate level to a deeper more intimate level.     

Social Penetration Theory

Social psychologist Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor came up with this theory that explains how relational closeness develops. These two scholars believe two people might end up being best friends if the two proceed gradually and in an orderly fashion from superficial to intimate level of exchange as function of both immediate and forecast outcome.

According to Griffin (2000) Altman and Taylor compared people to onion. The two tried to describe people as having layers just like onion. We have multilayered nature of personality, on the outside people are tall, 20 years old male, a communication major etc – when we look beneath we discover the semi-private attitude of people.

People’s inner core is made up of values self-concept, deeply felt emotion. For this to be reveal you have to be closer to someone.

Closeness through Self Disclosure

According to Griffin (2000) for t6his to happen someone becomes accessible to others if he/she relaxes the tightened boundaries and makes oneself vulnerable. Altman and Taylor believe it is only by allowing someone else to penetrate well below the surface that someone can draw truly close to their friends. Ways of showing vulnerability is by opening up to others by sharing your feelings, clothes etc. non-verbal path of openness is eye contact, smiling. But the best route for social penetration is through self-disclosure.

The depth of disclosure represents the degree of personal disclosure. To get to the centre you must slice through the outer layers. Altman and Taylor claim that on the surface level this kind of biographical information takes place easily, perhaps at first meeting. But they believe the layer of the onion skins becomes tougher and more tightly wrapped as you go near the centre. But once you have penetrated deeply, it is easy to share with little resistance and future privacy will be difficult.

Depth and breadth of Self Disclosure

Griffin (2000) states that depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy. This analogy applies equally to intimacy and friendship and romance. In their framework of social penetration theory, Altman and Taylor outlined the following observations about the process of depth of penetration:-

1.      Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. The relationship is still at a relatively impersonal level.

2.      Self disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development. The theory predicts that new acquaintances will reach roughly equal levels of openness, but does not explain why.

3.      Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as they tightly wrapped inner layers are reached. Instant intimacy is a myth. Not only is their internal resistance to quick forays into the seal there are social norms against telling to much fast. Most relationship stall before stable intimate exchange is established. For this reason these relationship fades easily following separation or slight strain. A comfortable sharing  of positive or negative reaction is rare when it is achieved, relationships becomes more important to both parties more meaningful and more enduring.

4.      Depenetration is a gradual process of layer by layer withdrawal. A warm friendship will deteriorate if the areas of people’s lives are closed that were opened. Rational retreat is a sort of taking back of what has earlier been exchanged in the building of a relationship. Surface talk still goes on long after deep disclosure is silenced. Relationship is likely to terminate not in an explosive flash of anger but in a gradual cooling off of enjoyment and care.

Regulating closeness on the basis of rewards and cost

According to social penetration theory, it all depends on the cost benefit analysis that each one performs as he/she considers the possibility of a closer relationship. From the first encounter people usually sort out the pluses and minuses of friendship, a computing bottom-line index of relational satisfaction. When the perceived mutual benefits outweigh the cost of greater vulnerability, the process of social penetration will proceed.

Social penetration theory discuss heavily from social exchange theory of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley. They studied the key concept of social exchange theory, relational outcomes relational satisfaction and relational stability.

The idea of making potential benefit is issues to determine behaviour is not new. Since philosopher John Stuart Mill stated his principle of utility. The minimax principle claims that people seek to maximize their benefit and minimize their costs so the higher we index a relational outcome the more attractive we find the behaviour that might make it happen.

Social exchange theory assures that we can accurately gauge the payoffs of a variety of interactions and that we have the good sense to choose the action that will provide the best result. Altman and Taylor are not sure that the input receive is always reliable. What matters to them is that we base our decision to open up with another on the perceived benefit cost-cost outcome.

Early in a relationship we find to see physical appearance and mutual agreement as benefit. Disagreement and deviance from the norm are negative. But as the relationship changes so does the nature of interaction that friends find reloading. Deeper friendship appreciates and we can even enjoy surface diversity.

Criticism

Social penetration theory is an established and familiar explanation on how closeness develop but over 300 subsequent studies suggest that the path of intimacy described I not completely accurate.

Contrary to the initial prediction that reciprocity of self disclosure would be highest in the exploratory stage of relationship, Vanhear found mutual sharing must frequently in the semi-private middle range of penetration. The discrepancy may be due to the unexpected speed of self revelation.

The theory made no mention of thee gender difference in vulnerability but Altman and Taylor latest research said men are less open than female.

The theory describes the break-up of relationship as a reverse penetration process in which both parties methodically seal off inner layers of their lines and slowly drift apart. Betsy Tolstedt a Chicago psychologist analyzed the conservation of long term romantic partners at the time when their relationships were falling apart and discovered that feelings of pain and anger caused the process of breaking up to be more chaotic than the theory said.

Assumption

This theory is known as an objection theory in that it is based on data drawn from experiment drawn from individuals and not conclusion. This theory is guided by the assumption that relationship development is systematic and predictable I and includes deterioration.

Altman and Taylor are convinced that the process of Social penetration theory moves a lot faster in the beginning stages of the relationship and then and slowly as it continues.

Social penetration theory is best known for its onion analogy – onion theory of personality.

Relationship progress from non-intimate to intimate.

Relational development is generally systematic and predictable.

Relational development includes depenetration and dissolution.

Self-disclosure is at the core of relationship development.

Conclusion

Social penetration theory deals with how relationship grows from the non-intimate level to the intimate level. From the discussion it is true to say that Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory is not hundred percent correct on the stages of developing a relationship. The stages of developing a relationship vary from person to person and our culture and perceptive on the world also play a key role.

References

Griffin, E (2000). A First Look at Communication Theory, U.S.A. Quebecor Printing Book Group.

Social Penetration Theory. Retrieved on 2^nd November, 2013 from www.oregonstate.edu/spt.html.

ARTIFACTS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Artifacts have made intercultural communication inevitable. Communicating with other culture characterizes today’s way of life and encourages good relation and bonding. Technologies like the internet, television and radio has increased the probability that whatever is documented will be used by someone from another culture. Intercultural communication is important in our lives thus the art of knowing and understanding how to communicate or interact with other cultures (artifact) should be a skill to be emphasized.

Introduction

Artifacts have made intercultural communication inevitable. For us to understand artifacts and how it impacts intercultural communication we have to understand what culture and intercultural communication is all about. Culture has been defined in a variety of ways. Culture is a “system of belief, values and assumptions about life that guides behaviors and is shared by a group of people and these are transmitted from generation to generation, rarely with exploit instruction” Peace Corps (2002)

“Culture is a system of shared beliefs values customs, behaviors’ and artifacts that the members of the society use to cope with their world and with one another and are transmitted from generation to generation through learning.” Bates and plog (1976)

Intercultural communication is a form of global communication. It is used to describe the wide range of communication problems that naturally appears within an organization made up of individuals from different religious, social ethnic and educational background (Wikipedia)

In simple terms it is a form of communication that aims to share information across different cultures and social groups. It is mostly used to describe the wide range of communication processes and problems that naturally occurs within an organization made up of people from different background. It also tries to understand how to perceive the world in general.

Intercultural communication serves a very important role in preventing misunderstanding and miscommunication. Because of increased intercultural interdependence, people are rethinking cultural communication in order to acquire good intercultural communication competence. Arasaratnam (2005) states, is becoming more relevant in the increasingly multicultural communities that people live in today.

From what we understand of culture and intercultural communication, we can say artifacts are vital as they ensure culture exist and through them understanding and harmonious co-existence is evident through intercultural communication.

Artifact

An artifact is a Latin phrase arte factum (something) made with skill. The Oxford student dictionary defines artifact as an object that is made by a person especially something of historical or cultural interest. It is also something observed in scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.

The free online dictionary defines artifact as any handmade object as a tool or the remains of one as a shared of pottery, belonging to an earlier time or cultural stage especially such an object found at an archaeological.

According to the definition of culture by Kroeber and kluckholm (1952) culture refers to all characteristic common to a particular group of people which are learned and not given by nature. If members of a group have two legs is not a cultural characteristic but a natural one, but a special and common way of walking would probably be cultural. From this we can have four primary cultural dimensions which are pattern of through, pattern of behavior, pattern of artifact and imprints in nature. For our case we will deal with pattern of artifact, which is the common way of manufacturing and using of materials. Where artifactural dimension of culture is given a special attention is in museums.

Culture is a system of shared beliefs, values, custom, behavior and artifact that the members of the society use to cope with their world and each other, transmitted down through learning. From this I agree that the shared meaning that members of a society attach to the various phenomena, natural, intellectual, ideology, religion and artifact (tools, houses, machinery, work of art and the culturally transmitted skills and techniques) are vital and together they ensure intercultural communication is possible through fastening and  understanding on how things are done.

Artifacts are objects or thing often used to communicate information about oneself and they may include clothes, jewelry, trinkets, accessories like handbag, umbrella, fans, hats and colours to express ones interest hobbies, status or lifestyle. With artifacts one can be distinguished from others by demonstrating his or her own taste of life and philosophy. However, different culture has different interpretations of these artifacts. The most influential artifacts a person has is one’s own wardrobe. Research in psychology and communication states that clothes usually make a man or woman in the eyes of the observers. Colour as artifact usually tells something about your personality. Red indicates a passionate, assertive and enthusiastic nature. Yellow indicates optimized, cheerfulness and originality. Blue shows peaceful nature, coolness and calm.

Media as artifact are infrastructure with three components; the artifacts or devices used to communicate or convey information, the activities and practices in which people engage to communicate or share information and the social arrangement or organization forms that develop around those devices, activities and practices (slide share) from this we say the devices, activities and practices people are involved in as the interact brings about cohesion.

Media artifacts are media collected which are collected and available to be re-represented. The media used usually diverse from video, sound to interview, magazines and photos. If you want to have something documented and you cannot write it down with words then it can be used as your media artifact. An example of a media artifact was done by Michael Lesy who stumped on a collection of photography of late 19^th century taken in a small town Wisconsin called black river falls. Michael was intrigued by this and started reaching the town newspaper from the same period. He artfully arranged the photos and newspaper fragment in a sequence. He published the under the little “Wisconsin Death Trip” in 1973. This audio slide show includes an interview with Michael Lesy and images from the book, together with other image of Victorian post- mortem photography.

According Wikipedia cultural artifact also known as social artifact is a term used in the social sciences like anthropology and sociology for anything created by humans which gives information about culture of its creator and user. Current objects of modern or near –modern society are also cultural artifacts. For example 17^th century lather or a Television each may provide a lot of information about the time in which they were manufactured and used. Cultural artifacts usually provide knowledge about technological processes, economy and social make up.

The study of artifact should be insisted within the social relations and system through which they are produced and consumed and thus their study is bound up with study of society economic and politics. The study of artifacts is valuable because it provides tools that enable someone to read and interpret one’s culture. It also allows the examination and critically analyzing the whole range of artifact without prejudices towards one or another sort of cultural text, institution or practice. It opens the way toward more differentiated political rather than a esthetic valuation of cultural artifact in which one attempts to distinguish critical and oppositional from conformist and conservative moment in a cultural artifact. For example the studies of Hollywood film shows how key 1960 films promoted the views of radical and counter culture and how film in the 1970s loss a battleground between liberal and conservative position.

Intercultural communication brings about openness among individual of different background with different view points on matters. But because of the drive to try and understand the different culture (artifacts) of our neighbour which are in the media, the world has now been made a small village. Artifacts have a major role in shaping  the society and encouraging unity through people coming together to make and use them.

Conclusion

“Cultural communication research tends to focus on understanding communication within one’s point of views” Gudykunst and moody (2002). From this, we can say for us to understand the different cultures (artifacts) and be one with them. Then we have to get closer to comprehend what they mean.

“Although intercultural communication is not new, what is new is the systematic study of exactly what happens when cross-culture contacts and interaction takes place, that is when the message producer and a message receiver are from different culture.” Gao (2006) The contacts and interaction usually binds the different point of views together.

References

Arasaratnam, L.n. and Doerfel, M.L. (2005).Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspective, International Journal of Intercultural Relation.

Bales, O.G. and Plog , F.(1976) Cultural Anthropology, (3^rd). New York: Mc Graw Hill.6.

Gao, F. (2006). Language is culture : On Intercultural Communication Journal of Language and Linguistics.

Gudykuns L. W. B. and Mody, B. (2002). Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2^nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, C A: sage

Intercultural communication Retrieved March 12, 2014from http://en.wikipedia. Org/wiki/intercultural- communication

Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckholm, C. (1952). Culture. A critical review of concepts and Definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology paper

Media Artifacts Retrieved March 12, 2014, from www.slideshare.net/../media-artifacts

Oxford student Dictionary. (3^rd Ed) (2012). Oxford university press.

Peace corps. (2002) .Building bridges: A peace corps classroom guide to cross- cultural understanding Washington, DC: Author Retrieved March 12, 2014, from http://www.peacecorps.gov/wws.