For most, putting on a shirt, making a sandwich, or taking a shower are mundane and second nature tasks. They require hardly any skill and can be completed by exerting little, if any effort. Living with a physical disability, however, complicates the situation. I require the assistance of others to complete not only the mundane, but almost every activity of daily living. By employing a staff of PCAs (Personal Care Attendants) to physically care for me, I am able to lead a full and successful life.
While it may seem like a luxury to be fed and dressed by others, it is actually a taxing and stressful ordeal. In order to properly manage other people, one must maintain a demeanor of professionalism and clarity with high expectations for success. Through many years of trial and error, I have learned that the key to this is communication. In this paper, I will use media ideologies to describe the interactions with my PCAs through the portals of communication I have chosen to employ: email and text messaging. I will analyze the methods I use to convey information to them and discuss how I discriminate between formal and informal communication. I will also attempt to shed light on the ways in which my staff interprets their position based off of my communication methods following the symbolic interactionism perspective.
In Break-Up 2.0, Gershon (forthcoming) defines media ideologies as "...beliefs about how a medium communicates and structures communication- makes a personal email account different from a work email account, or a text message different from a phone call" (p. 18). It is not only what we say, but the way it is conceived. And the conception depends on our interpretation. The struggle I find when working with my staff is that my ways of communicating are not always interpreted in the way I intend. The best example is the way I utilize text messaging to deliver or receive information from my staff. My staff are college aged and all use this technology. I know that if I send a text, it will be read. I may text Beth a message of "What time are you coming tonight and can you pick up my dinner?" Her response may be simply "k". Clearly she is using texting as an informal medium for she did not give any real thought to my inquiry.
"But studying media ideologies will not give insights into what is really being communicated as opposed to what people believe is being communicated" (Gershon, p. 21). Beth may have meant well, but there is no way of knowing if she even read the entire message. I have learned from people like Beth to work around this second-order information by delivering information to my staff in a way that clearly directs how my messages should be observed. The Gershon article refers to a text message story where something serious occurred in a non serious medium. That occurred often with me at one point. Now when I send a text to a PCA, they know it is important. They respond to me differently than they might a friend or family member for I explain how me sending a text warrants an immediate action. It can be complicated because traditionally texting is an informal practice. But with persistence and clear expectations, it is possible to change the perception.
Email works in a similar fashion. I have a separate email account that contains all work related content. My PCAs have my personal email as well, but just how Gershon speaks to the word "appropriate", the PCAs have knowledge internally structured that tells them my work email is for work content. It is harder to make that distinction in texting. Particular aspects of media can be efficient in some ways and deficient in another. Texting is an immediate response, but not necessarily focused. Email is less invasive, but has a different ideology to young people.
Aside from structuring ideologies, it is important to be able to discriminate when I am conveying formal versus informal content. "There is nothing intrinsically formal or informal about a particular medium, it all depends on what its users decide is formal or informal" (Gershon, p. 29). Gershon makes a good point about users. They decide what is informal versus formal, when to respond and not respond. I am typically friends with my PCAs. It is a challenge in its own to balance the relationship, and the best way to differentiate work Kevin and friend Kevin is in my personality. I simply act differently and let my professional guard down when they are not with me for work. But it is much more difficult to represent the two sides of a person to the same group of people in a written conversation. I conquer this by using different sets of writing styles. Where a work email may open with: "Hello Everyone, I was hoping to meet with each of you this week regarding job evaluations", an informal message might contain: "hey girls!!! lets go out this wknd…i really want to see that new movie and do drinks, k? ïŠ" I continually develop my media ideologies by comparing and contrasting with other mediums. I then try to apply these thoughts for others to interpret. It is ingrained in us from elementary school that you capitalize the letter "I" when referring to oneself and to add punctuation. By eliminating these, I believe I can take a formal medium and transform the interpretation to mean informal and less serious thoughts.
This separation flows into my social relationships with my staff as well. In Public Displays of Connection, Donath and Boyd explore the social implications of the public display in one's social network. One major point they discuss refers to the way in which we use time and space to keep incompatible aspects of our life separate. It is an important concept in the sense that bringing people together in this way is only desirable if the potential ties will be compatible. "We may choose not to introduce some acquaintances to each other and may carefully orchestrate our activities to prevent overlap" (Donath and Boyd, p. 78). I have to deal with this separation and compatibility issue constantly. Just like their example of separating a married man's singles bar friend and family is not a common practice, I must decide if I want to introduce my work into my personal life. Making a connection on Facebook with a PCA for instance, essentially removes a privacy barrier on both ends. This is of course assuming both parties make information previously unknown in the work relationship visible. Ironically, regardless of how separate I keep these ties, in the end, if I were to fire a PCA, instantly the lines blur. The tie is broken and I am de-friended from their Facebook profile. The privilege I had before no longer exists.
In her lecture on the various sociologic perspectives, Professor Kendall spoke of the symbolic interactionism perspective and its role with the meanings of objects. She discussed Herbert Blumer, who named the term and discussed the basic premises of this perspective. One premise, that meanings are handled and modified through, interpretative processes used by the person dealing with the things encountered (Kendall, January 19, 2010), parallels the concept of media ideologies and directly relates to the communication relationship I have with my PCAs. Media ideologies are structured around our beliefs about certain mediums communicate. The belief can be created and changed during interactions, and as Professor Kendall explained, the central idea of symbolic interactionism is how people act in particular situations (January 19, 2010). Both of these in conjunction explain the complex nature of my Personal Care Attendants. They each have preconceived ideologies of mediums at the start of their job and this can be changed based on the situation they be placed.
Living with a physical disability complicates all aspects of my life. Whether it be physical or emotional, I must address things from multiple perspectives. As is explained in the article on media ideologies by Gershon, the content of communication, while important, is only half the issue. The ways I utilize mediums and attempt to influence second-order communication are also important. They allow me to be taken serious despite the conceptions of the medium I use to convey information.
It is also important to be able to differentiate when I am conveying formal versus informal content. Like Donath's and Boyd's thinking, there are implications of public display in social networks. Having a lack of compatibility in either a personal or professional relationship can seriously sour the situation. All of this is better understood in terms of the symbolic interactionism perspective. It sheds light on the way my messages are interpreted and gives somewhat of a better understanding as to why people act the way they do in particular situations and how this can be changed. While the terms have not always been apparent to me, the meaning behind them has aided me in understanding how to interact and conceive others.
