Sarah Heins
CTA 203
Dr. Gernant
15 February 2012
Film Study for Shadowlands
Earlier in the term we discussed the question: “Do words hurt?” In the context of this film, how
would you respond to the question, “Do words help?”
Taking into consideration the consensus of the answers from the question, “Do words
hurt?” and by looking at Bormann’s Symbolic Convergence Theory and Mead’s Symbolic
Interactionism theory, the answer is a resounding yes. As I fully support this answer and will
make further argument for it in this essay, the scene comes to mind of Jack and Douglas crying
together in the attic and the comfort they found in grieving together, even without any speech.
Consequently, both the Symbolic Convergence Theory and the Symbolic Interactionism Theory
support that words do help, as words and language are the source of meaning and understanding
forming connections between individuals.
According to Mead’s Symbolic Interactionism theory, the ability to even develop a
language with another person is dependent upon human contact (Griffin 62). Assuming this is
true, then yes, words help and are even needed, for without them conveying of ideas could not
even occur. In the context of this film, the lack of words would stifle human interaction which
would essentially diminish communication. Yes, words help. We have established that words are
helpful as they allow for communication in human interactions, but words are also helpful with
the understanding that without them, we would not be able to sort meaning in our head which
requires language, known as inner dialogue minding (Griffin 62). This could cause complications
for a number of reasons. One option is that instead of inner dialogue minding, it would be outer
dialogue minding. Not only would this be extraneously loud, but it would be self-disclosure to
the max. The other option is that there would be no inner dialogue minding, which would make
conversation beyond dull and possibly incoherent. Yes, words help.
According to Blumer, “meaning arises out of the social interaction that people have with
each other” (Griffin 60). Also noted is how humans have the ability to name things, but the
extent to understanding is dependent on the extent of the naming (Grifin 61). Explaining this
using Jack and Joy’s relationship could be applied in a number of situations. Two in particular
was when Joy told Jack about her husband and then also when Jack and Joy had the “define the
relationship” talk. Before Joy told Jack about her husband, Jack was able to put some meaning to
the situation based on symbolic actions of Joy (not allowing Douglas to call him, spending so
much time in Europe) through his inner dialogue, but once Joy put names to the situation
(alcoholic, yelling, etc.) greater meaning developed. As more names were given (extent of
naming), the extent of meaning grew as well. Jack understood Joy’s situations and her feelings.
This interaction and exchange of words created more meaning for both of them. Another
meaning-ful conversation for them was when Jack told Joy his true feelings for her at her
bedside. He put names to his feelings for her, and although she may have had an inkling of this,
true meaning was not understood by Joy until this social interaction and until after Jack put
names to it. She responded to him how it was customary in her culture to follow this by a
proposal, and then he proposed. This shows how humans need definitions and words; for Joy,
although they were technically married and Jack had just expressed his feelings, she still needed
the words of, “Will you marry me?” for it to be real to her and to create meaning.
Bormann’s theory of Symbolic Convergence also supports the argument that words help.
Back to my initial picture of Douglas and Jack weeping together in the comfort that both were
undergoing the same stresses, Bormann would explain this as “the sharing of group fantasies”
which in turn creates symbolic convergence which fulfills a psychological or rhetorical need
about an event in the past (Griffin 28). Douglas and Jack struggle with Joy’s death (event in the
past) and need to find comfort of some sort or at least understanding (psychological/rhetorical
need) and find this comfort through being distressed together (sharing of group fantasies), which
ultimately brings them closer together (convergence). “Voiced fantasies become vehicles to
share common experiences and invest them with an emotional tone” (Griffin 28). Although
Douglas and Jack spoke very little to each other during this encounter (not much past voicing
their desire that she was still alive), communicated nonverbally, and they shared the common
experience of loving Joy and missing Joy. They became invested in one another, indicated by
their tone of voice.
Symbolic Convergence Theory goes on to explain that a coherent rhetorical vision can be
spread throughout an area when the same fantasy is repeated across many groups (Griffin 29).
While this relates less to the film, it still relates to C.S. Lewis which Shadowlands helped define
the life and thinkings of the man. Some of his famous quotes such as, “Experience, the most
brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn,” and, “Pain is God’s megaphone to rouse
a deaf world,” have spread throughout much of the U.S. and became ideas in their minds as well,
forming it into a coherent rhetorical vision. These thoughts are easily triggered by symbols that
represent them. For example, in a play in high school, I quoted Lew’s quote about pain and the
megaphone. Lewis’s quote about learning comes to mind for many after a particularly difficult
event. The convergence continues even to people outside of the initial interaction.
Words matter. They can hurt, and they can also help. Mead’s and Bormann’s theories
clearly define their necessity in life to communicate with others and understand them as well.
Social interaction is vital to develop greater meaning and understanding with others. Words help,
and sometimes nonverbal words are needed even more. In fact, for words to hurt, they have to
help first.
Think about the social world in which these characters live. What are some of the
communication rules and norms? Choose one of the rules and discuss how a character or
number of characters violated that norm or expectation. Describe why or how the choice
supports or refutes the arguments made in the Expectancy Violations Theory.
A number of communication norms were broken during the course of this film where the
action of a person violated the expectation another had. These instances ranged from Joy
“gallivanting” around Europe without her husband (What disrespect is she showing to her
husband for doing this alone?), the young teacher/student of C.S. Lewis that continuously fell
asleep during class (If he willingly shows up, why is he sleeping?), Jack and Joy “technically”
getting married (What?), Jack inviting Joy to spend Christmas at his place (She’s married so how
can she spend the holidays with someone else?), Jack bringing Joy to social gatherings (His
friends wonder how this passionless man can now be involved with a spirited woman.), and
many more. The most prevalent, and possibly the largest violation of expectations is Jack and
Joy’s marriage which will be discussed further analyzing the situation according to context,
relationship, and communicator characteristics and how this situation supports the arguments
made in the Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT). Also integrated will be the Social Penetration
Theory as it is a tangent off the EVT and supplements the argument that this violation brought
positive reactions between Jack and Joy.
Context is set by cultural norms and by the setting of the conversation (Griffin 89). Jack
and Joy’s marriage violated both a norm and the setting. The norm of the culture, both American
and English (and Griffin would say that “all cultures have a similar structure of expected
communication behavior (90)), is that a man and a woman get married for reason of love. To
quote Jack, marriage would mean that, “I’d have to love her, wouldn’t I? She’d have to be more
important to me than anything in the world. I’d have to be suffering the torments of the damned
if I were ever to loser her…” However, their reasons for getting married, or the reason she gave
him anyways, was so that she could gain citizenship through him. This is abnormal. The setting
of the conversation of their marriage also violated an expectation, and maybe this was felt more
by the viewer than by Jack and Joy, but the expectation of hearing about or watching a proposal
(or a decision to get married) is that it will not be while the woman is busy making dinner, not
making eye contact, and walking about the room in a hurried fashion. When Jack told Warnie
about his agreement to marry Joy and the reasons why, Warnie’s nonverbal communication
clearly communicated that not only was he surprised to hear they were getting married, but he
was even more surprised to hear the reasons and the way in which it happened. According to the
EVT, this surprised feeling was felt because of their violations of what was expected. It is likely
that Warnie’s expectation was based upon Jack and Joy’s relationship.
Joy and Jack’s relationship thus far consisted of the Christmas holiday together, frequent
tea dates, tours around the city, in-depth talks, sharing of poetry, her attending social gatherings
with him, and so on. However, the conversation that Joy led in her house just prior to the
decision to marry was controversial to their relationship, which is defined by similarity,
familiarity, liking, and relative status (Griffin 89). Also noted here, is that it was Joy leading the
conversation, which violates normal interpersonal interactions which is more akin to duets than
solos and works best with synchronized actions other than unilateral moves (Griffin 93). Jack’s
reaction to Joy’s unilateral conversation was nonverbally communicated as confusion and lack of
but desire to be incorporated into the conversation. His expectation, based on their relationship,
was that this conversation could be two-sided, not one-sided, especially since the way that he felt
was placed upon him by Joy in a way that made it awkward to refute. The violation of the
relationship occurred when Joy put “names” to their relationship. Based on their similarity,
familiarity, liking, and status, the expectation is that they could have potential interest in each
other. However, Joy’s communication of their relationship violated that expectation; she
verbalized how they were just friends and how Jack did not want her to think that there was
romantic love. She said something to the effect of, “Most people looking at our relationship
would think that we were involved, but we are not. Are we, Jack?”
Jack’s friends also had a problem with this norm they were violating with their
relationship. They acted concurrently with Griffin’s argument that, “Once we deal with someone
who acts outside the range of expected behavior, we switch into an evaluation mode…We first
try to interpret the meaning of the violation, and then figure out whether we like it” (Griffin 90).
His friend’s nonverbal communication of looks given to each other, tones of voice, undertones,
or lack of verbal communication, portrayed their possible disapproval and uncertainty through
their judgmental thinking. After hearing Joy was staying with Jack for the Christmas holiday and
after she had been to a few social gatherings with them, his friends began to evaluate their
relationship, what it meant, where it was headed, what she was doing in Europe by herself, what
he was doing conversing with a woman in Europe by herself, and ultimately, from what I could
tell they seemed to figure out that they did not like it. Speaking on this, Joy said to Jack, “Don’t
you just sometimes want to share the joke? Here’s your friends thinking we’re unmarried and up
to all sorts of wickedness when all along we’re married and not up to anything at all.”
The communicator characteristics of age, sex, place-of-birth, physical appearance,
personality, and communication style (Griffin 89) of Jack and Joy did not seem to play that much
of a factor into what they expected, or possibly it did not seem like it was a big factor, since little
to none of this area was violated. The only violation that seemed to happen was loosely linked to
personality. At one of the social gatherings the two were at, Joy, commenting on Jack’s
personality, became very frustrated with Jack when they were up in his study about how he was
like a closed book who did not let anyone in. This is more closely linked to Burgoon’s argument
that, “Partners who receive about as much intimacy as they expected were moderately satisfied
with their marriages” (Griffin 90). Although Jack and Joy’s marriage was unconventional, they
were still married. And taking this into consideration with Jack’s personality, Joy’s reaction to
Jack supports Burgoon’s theory; Joy was dissatisfied with Jack because she expected more
intimacy with him, and when that did not happen, she commented on it and became frustrated.
In conjunction with Burgoon’s theory of Social Penetration, Jack and Joy both formed
expectations of one another in the marriage of what the other could do for them and what the
other could do to them (Griffin 91). The outstanding expectation Joy had that Jack could do for
her was give her citizenship. The outstanding expectation Jack had that Joy could do to him was
pain. Griffin writes, “The reward valence of a communicator is the sum of the positive and
negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to
reward or punish in the future” (91). What comes out of this equation then is either a positive or
negative number; positive indicates to move forward, negative indicates to stop. This is the
thought process that was going through Jack’s mind when he and Joy were in the barn together
on their vacation. He was struggling with fully letting his feelings flow and enjoying love (what
Joy could do for him) in conjunction with the pain he would feel when she passed (what Joy
could do to him). This was indicated by Joy’s statement, “We can’t have the happiness of
yesterday without the pain of today. That’s the deal.”
Joy and Jack’s friendship, “marriage,” and love violated many expectations. However,
according to Griffin, when a positive likeness has grown, not only is it safe to contradict the
norms, but it even can make a more positive effect on the relationship (Griffin 92). Jack and Joy
violated the norms, but only after their likeness had grown. These contradictory actions and
communications that took place, ultimately helped them further their relationship so much so that
separation was the greatest tragedy.
Work Cited
Griffin, Em. A first Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print