Interactional View Theory Essay

This theory states that within family relationships there can oft quantify be misconceptions between each family member and the problem can solely be transformed when addressed by outside members of the family (or military position), or evidently stepping outside the situation yourselves and looking at any possible aspects that way, or reframing. Watzlawick claims that through the repetitive actions of a family system, a self-regulating, inter-depending network of feedback loops guided by members rules, we tend to stick to a status quo, or a family homeostasis, when dealing with issues within our families.In doing that, we often automatically assume, or put a label on, a situation to be how we escort it from our personal views rather than looking at the whole picture and every adepts views who are involved. Once we fulfill that outside-looking-in accession we have to take into retainer both(prenominal) sides of the communication in the situation the content of the situation, t he accounting dismantle of a message (verbally), and the relationship between members communicating, the command part of a message (nonverbally). In doing this as well as analyzing all aspects of the situation we can eventually come to an agreement on how to approach and solve the existent issue.Growing up with a health practitioner as a parent, getting sick is never anyone elses fault plainly your own and sympathy is almost never present in those situations. I recently had an extreme food- drunkenness incident which ca employ much havoc in my family, but the process of analyzing and solving this issue is a perfect ensample of Watzlawicks theory. A few years ago my mom unconquerable to go back to school and study healthy reenforcement, diet, and theways of an organic, primitive vegan. This changed her whole life, my whole pantry, and the way she approached almost any situation. Anytime something does non go the way it should having to do with my body, energy, moods, etc. if I go to my mom for advice the wait on is always roughly diet, sleep patterns, or other healthy living styles. Which is accurate and understandable to a certain extent but, in mine and my stepdads minds, it does not apply to every situation.I do prey very healthy compared to the average person and I try to not eat a lot of meats, and especially not red meats, but on occassion I do enjoy treating myself to, what I call, a carp meal. A few months back when visiting friends out of town, I resolute to go all out and try this world-famous burger at a local burger joint. Might I say, it was quite an the burger, but the aftermath was vii days of pure distaste, pain, and regret. Of course when coming to my mom for advice on the situation she immediately put all blame on me for not choosing sagely on my food decisions. My stepdad, on the other hand, eats a dear(p) amount of red meats and had really been to this particular restaurant many times before, having no issues.He said i probably just got a bug from touching the world famous burger joint door handles and putt my hand to my face, or something of that sort. My take on the situation was different from both of theirs. I thought it was all in my mind because I am typically a stumblest eating red meats and i violated my self ethics therefore causing me to feel guilty to an extent where I caused myself to actually be sick. Hearing each members take on the situation caused havoc and an unnecessary issue that drove away from the actual problem. Until we all sat down and open-mindedly listened to each persons cogitate did we all realize how ridiculous the whole situation was, and how no one actually knew the official cause of my illness but arguing about what superpower be because of our personal stances was just silly and almost irrelevant. When approaching the situation, as Watzlawick predicted in his theory, my mom, stepdad, andI, originally, all took our individual opinions and pushed them on one ot her assuming that they were the only way. My mom saying the my stepdad was an enabler, one whose non-assertive behavior allows others to continue in an addiction or other wrong-doing, and in argue himself, my stepdad saying she was biased because of her personal beliefs on eating habits.Once we agree to sit down and talk about each persons perspective on things using metacommunication, communication about communication, and taking into consideration why each of us acted a certain way and how it might have affected the others, we could finally come to agreement and be at peace. We decided that if we all would have approached each other in a more open-minded, understanding manner using one-across communication, conversational moves used to neutralize or level control within the exchange, rather than essay to one-up communicate, place conversational moves on each other to gain control of the exchange, with each other, it would have been a symmetrical interchange, an interaction fou nd on equal power, and the conflict might not have happened at all.I find the Interactional View Theory to be quite on point, and though Griffin found much to critique I might have to disagree and say, while the theory may not be absolutely perfect and one-hundred percent accurate in every situation, it does apply to most of, at least, my family controversies, for example, this particular incident. From this theory I was made aware of how often I am to quickly cut off my parents responses as initial reactions to them being repetitive and almost biased in their advice, and how I can be more open-minded in those situations. I was also made aware of how to think and approach my parents in certain situations, such as food poisoning, to trigger a more serene and open-minded response from them. I enjoyed reading, comparing, and analyzing this theory and will begin to consciously apply it to my future conversations with my family members as I did in the food poisoning example, but this t ime before the incident can happen or get worse.