McCornack's textbook defines gestalt as a general sense of a person that is either positive or negative. It is an impression of the person as a whole rather than as the sum of individual parts and can be useful for encounters in which we must render quick judgments about others with limited information. Certainly, this process can have significant shortcomings.
I am reminded of a time when I worked in the developing world. I listened to several people from the “developed world” speak on helping those in the “developing world.” They viewed local village needs based upon their brief encounter the the village leader and their concept of a good life. Later in the day, a U.S. military member offered points to consider. He said, “Remember that just because somebody isn’t educated, that doesn’t mean that they are stupid. Also, just because somebody is poor doesn’t mean that aren’t happy.”
This exchange stuck with me. I think for many of us, our world view is firmly planted in our own life experiences. Western concepts of “success” and “happiness” feed our gestalts for many individuals. When outside of our element, the process of creating gestalts (discern a few traits, draw upon info in our schemata, and arrive at judgment based on these traits) can be magnified and outright false.
That military member spoke with pragmatic experience. For me, this exchange showed how gestalts (and stereotypes) can cloud judgment and also how they can be tempered and become useful again. Ever since, I never stop trying to understand a person.
Image taken by me in the Afar region of Djibouti, 2007.
McCornack, S. (2019). Reflect and relate: An introduction to interpersonal communication . Boston: Bedford.
No comments:
Post a Comment