When
it came to the journal article I chose to assess, I looked into all sorts of
communication journals and found one that caught my attention. With a title like Making Sense of Hurtful Mother-in-law Messages: Applying Attribution
Theory to the In-Law Triad, I couldn’t help but wonder how The Official
Style was used and why it was used in this case. Looking more deeply at the text as well as
the trends throughout, I was able to recognize the “monster-in-law” stereotype embedded
within the text using The Official Style.
I started off my research by looking
into the authors’ backgrounds and their credibility. Both Associate Professors were in
Communication Studies at accredited universities, but I noticed one small
detail that may have skewed the article.
Christine Rittenour, of West Virginia University, specializes in women
and gender studies. This explained a lot
of the diction used that didn’t necessarily seem to fit the context. For example, words like “betrayal” and “threats”
connect with the topic of gender studies and the oppression of women. In other words, I would consider these to be
more severe choices in diction to help the audience grasp the “seriousness” of
the topic. I think that it made the
argument more convincing and helped to facilitate the negative image of a
mother-in-law and oppression of the daughter-in-law.
To enhance the audience’s perspective
on mother-in-laws, appositives were used throughout to give a better
understanding of the topic at hand. At
times there were relevant examples like definitions to clarify the terms in the
context of a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relationship. On the other hand, there were clarifications
that ended up being irrelevant to the general topic. For example, the word “evaluations” was used
and followed by “(e.g., “Going out with you was the biggest mistake of my
life”).” These forms of appositives
because of the disconnect from the topic.
I saw the underlying women and gender studies background of Rittenour here
as well considering these statements were still directed at the
daughter-in-laws, which reflect the words of the man in the relationship and the
oppression of women. Rittenour’s bias
was deep within the text.
This bias leads to the stereotype
that is being reinforced by this journal.
Mother-in-laws were being villainized.
There was a consistent lack of daughter-in-law responsibility when it
came to understanding the messages that mother-in-laws were sending. Using terms like “threats”, “mistreatment”,
and “betrayal”, as previously mentioned, to describe the mother-in-law was
contrasted with words like “fear”, “humiliation”, and “shame” when talking
about the daughter-in-law. This instills
an image or expectation of what mother-in-laws represent. It creates a villainized versus victimized
relationship between the mother and daughter-in-laws.
Interestingly, the language
throughout the article solidifies the stereotype, but the lack of specific examples
and use of passive voice create a disconnect between the audience and
message. In terms of the topic, I think
that specific qualitative evidence pertaining to hurtful messages from
mother-in-laws would solidify the main idea about the relationship between
mother and daughter-in-laws. With the
study consisting mostly of statistics gathered from a structured survey, it’s
harder for the audience to relate to the information. Personal experiences give explanations,
context, and a thorough understanding of the situation. It eliminates any messages that might infer
that the mother-in-law isn’t completely at fault, which would complicate the
outcome of the study and more openly lose credibility. In the long run, I think this hurt the study,
especially with the audience being those who read the Communication Quarterly.
Knowing that the statistics come from a strategically made survey also
shows the bias within the study alone. Personal testimonials would serve as more
obvious and understandable evidence.
This shows there was some sort of bias involved, like the authors was
pushing for results that confirmed their argument.
I can strongly identify the bias and
purposeful choices within the text that reinforce this mother-in-law
stereotype, but I recognize how the context shapes the way that Communication
Studies professors like Rittenour created the argument. These authors were attempting to make the
connection between Attribution Theory and the messages mother-in-laws were
sending. To their defense, I do
understand and appreciate that their study was focused on one specific
relationship, but I don’t think that they considered the hit that their
credibility would take when only discussing one side of the interaction.
The article was a perfect fit for
the Communication Quarterly, which I assume had a huge influence on the
formatting and use of language throughout.
Commonly, communication concepts are labeled in a technical-sounding way
to prove to the audience that the topic is important, that it is complicated
and technical. Being that I have this
prior knowledge, I looked for specific examples of technical-sounding elements
within the text. I noticed acronyms
immediately. Typically, the purpose of
an acronym is to abbreviate a long-winded or technical concept, especially
within the realm of published journal articles.
The use of these acronyms within this specific journal was much
different. The terms mother-in-law and
daughter-in-law were abbreviated to MIL and DIL. Because of the truly uncomplicated nature of
the topic, it seemed as though this device was used to make the document more
“official” and more “complicated.” The
influence of having the article published in such a journal seemed to influence
the way the authors shaped their message in even the smallest way. If the journal had not used The Official
Style, it probably would not have met the criteria to be published in the Communication Quarterly. It seems that there is a very complicated
connection between The Official Style and this published journal article.
As you can see, subtle choices in
prose can create a whole different meaning or understanding about text. I touched on very specific details about the
types of choices that were made throughout the journal article and their
effects. With that being said, this does
not encompass every device within The Official Style and the other elements used
to reinforce the mother-in-stereotype.
Now I leave this to you; what kinds of other devices do you see that
contribute to the stereotype? How else
might the authors justify The Official Style?
How does looking at The Official Style change the way you perceive any
text?
Kendra Woyahn
No comments:
Post a Comment