The framework of memorable messages

ABSTRACT This ethnograpic paper examines the formative communications I received, and then interpreted, as a youth, and how those communications influenced decisions I made as a young man and emerging adult. The framework under which I will make this examination will be Memorable Messages (Knapp, Stohl and Rearoon, 1961). This framework posits that “when we share our thoughts with others, they are often knowingly affixed to the memories of past events, and so the cycle continues" (Tilley, 2001). This seminal work of Knapp, et al. is usually interrogated in positive messaging and the potential effect that such messaging has on their receivers. In this paper, I will examine the framework. of Memorable Messaging in the context of lived experience from a negative, toxic perspective, and the harm that negative messaging can generate. THE FRAMEWORK OF MEMORABLE MESSAGES By Dortell Williams Throughout our lives we are inundated with many types of messages, some positive and some negative. The positive messages we receive as children and on throughout our lives can help us build resiliency for those counter messages that may sink in and cut, or perhaps burrow within subtly and direct us unconsciously. The work of Knapp, et al. advances the idea that messages we receive throughout our lives, particularly from authority figures as youth, can guide, protect, and even inspire. However, there seems to be no inspection as to what effects we might suffer if the majority of Memorable Messages we receive are negative and deconstructive. Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 2 The negative messages and their effects are the rubric for which I will critically view the construct of Memorable Messages. I will use my own lived as context to test this construct of Knapp, et al. Based on my own experience, I advance the view that Memorable Messages can deconstruct a receiver as well as construct a receiver. Context is paramount here, either in a positive context or negative. My experiences were negative and thus, deconstructive. I was raised in a dysfunctional household were communications were abusive. I was called names like stupid; told I would not be worth anything; told I would be “just like [my] father,“ who was irresponsible, suffered from substance abuse disorder, and was a chronic womanizer. My interpretation of the labeling and prognostications were that they were my fate. I felt that I could do little to avoid them. I assumed inheritance was a “controlling" factor. Nevertheless, I strove against the negative labels and predictions as best I could with what I had. What I had was a warped sense of perceptions that caused me to isolate, and not seek help —- from the very people labeling me. That striving alone, with no counter balance to these negative messages, or direct guidance as to how to avoid them, stacked the odds against me. I recall many times when I did well and was praised for my efforts, but as it turned out, it was the negative messages that had the most effect. Imagination and interpretation played their role in the negative messaging I received. Like most children, I was a curious individual. I asked a lot of questions. For instance, “Mom, why did they shoot that man like that?" My mother's response was usually something like, “I don't know. Don't worry about it." Likewise, with my dad, “Dad, why did the police steal your motorcycle?" Dad: “Because they are crooks!" This pattern of communication Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 3 avoidance left me to my own imaginative devices. Thus, I created personal interpretations as to why people mistreat and kill other people. I assumed that it is a dog-eat-dog world, and to survive I must be ruthless. The ensuing violence I witnessed in my home, in the neighborhood, on television, and at school only reinforced my warped interpretations. My summation of the police (all police and authority figures) being “crooks” is that they shouldn't be trusted, conjecture that fit neatly into my larger interpretation of the dog-eat-dog world. In addition to receiving many negative messages within the family, I also received a series of negative messages outside the home. One in particular was as I was approaching high school graduation. At that critical fork in the road, I approached my counselor about college prospects. After quickly reviewing my file, he noted my 2.85 GPA, and that I was a class clown (seeking relief from the excruciating boredom or to be meaningfully challenged). The counselor concluded that I was “not college material." At that point, I made the decision to join the emerging crack cocaine trade. As a result, I ended up fulfilling all of the negative suppositions foretold of my life, culminating with a life sentence in prison. Ironically, it was in prison that I finally received the guidance I was seeking —- but from other prisoners —- and was actually challenged beyond my boredom. It was in prison that I was able to earn my way to the Cal State Los Angeles BA prison program where I maintain a 3.9 GPA. The following literary review contextualizes my assumptions that negative Memorable Messages can indeed be as destructive as positive Memorable Messages can be constructive. Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 4 Memorable Messages: A Framework According to the Memorable Message construct, individuals receive innumerable messages throughout their lives, yet "there seems to be a few periods of time in which people perceive as a major influence [these messages in] the course of their lives (Knapp, et al., 1981, p. 27). Knapp, et al., assume that the most influential messages are “typically brief; the recipients perceive themselves to be the sole target of the message, and the message often conforms to simple rule structure, for example, if-when. Exactly what was said is not important. Therefore, what is paramount is the interpretation of the message by the receiver. According to Gidden (1979), and his definition of Structuration Theory, there are three primary concepts in social theory: 1. Practices or “observable patterns of activity that are meaningful to their participants...," 2. systems, or types of practices that build and maintain relations among, and between groups," and 3. structure, which refers to the rules and resources that communicators utilize as they take part in system practices (Lindlof, et al., 2019, p. 65). In America our structure of communications contains both denotive and connotative expressions. While denotive is overt and more precise in meaning, the connotative expression can lead to confusion as the receiver is left to interpret the exact mind of the source. The second tenet of structuration theory also has three prongs: The first being that of meaning, which happens when one person interprets another person's expression by attacking a particular interpretation and action. Lindlof offers the following Hollywood action film exchange: “Was that a threat"? "No. That was a promise." Here the meaning is nuanced and the Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 5 interpretation has a potential for duality, confusion. The second dynamic of this three-prong process of structuration theory is power. Power is the primary influence when the source of the message is from a person in a position of authority. The final tenet are norms, which stem from the source's legitimacy, for example, their moral appropriateness (Lindlof, 2019, p. 66). Again, interpretation is paramount. According to Knapp, et al., regardless of how the receiver constructs or recalls the message, the most important aspect of the Memorable Message is how the message is "perceived," according to the receiver's current social and emotional needs (p. 36). The reason why people remember certain messages, and give them more import than others is an elusive phenomena. Whatever the reasons for which particular messages remain as memories, they have consistent components: 1. the messages are typically brief: 2. they are remembered for lengthy periods, particularly if they comport to one's needs or belief system, and 3. the receiver believes s/he is the sole target of the message; 4. the message often conforms to simple rules, and 5. usually the recipients were requested to participate in forming the message (Knapp, at al., 1981. pp. 27-41). Crook and Daly (2012) argue that message interpretation has health consequences (p. 2). It is important to identify the characteristics and context of the message itself (Thoits, 1995). For example, the source, valence, etc. These assumptions lead me to the following questions: 1. Can negative Memorable Messages deconstruct a person's self-concept? 2. Can negative Memorable Messages from others lead to self-destructive behavior that becomes an imposed prophecy on others? Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Discussion The effects of negative Memorable Messaging seems to reverberate throughout the adult male prison system. I was able to glean this hypothesis from over 800 hours of facilitating cognitive behavioral therapy classes for my peers. During the course of ten years, I facilitated classes such as victim sensitivity awareness, parenting, and effective communication, among others. During this tenure, the vast majority of personal stories of peer participants hinged on negative Memorable Messages much like my own. Based upon my lived experience and observations, I believe negative Memorable Messages can deconstruct a person's self-concept. I also believe that negative Memorable Messages from others can lead to self-destructive behavior that becomes an imposed prophecy on the receiver. These findings are salient because they allude to a malicious preventable pattern of maladjustment and self-destructive behavior among youth. As a society, we not only desire that our children be safe, and that others be safe in shared environments, but that they grow up to be productive, contributing members of larger society. Conclusion My lived experience agrees with almost every tenet of the Memorable Message construct. With nearly a decade of facilitating cognitive behavioral therapy classes, I was able to observe that the past experiences of my peers also fit into the description of toxic Memorable Messages and confirm my conclusions. Meshing with my personal experience, the three prongs of Gidden's structuration theory were all present: practices of activity that were meaningful to me, such as being under the tutelage of my parents (home life) or teachers (daily places of learning), 2. systems, (structured family life; Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 7 structured academic group activities); 3. structure from an authority figure at home or at school. Memorable Messages also have consistent components that appear to coincide with my experiences: brief messages, "You're stupid"; 2. they are well remembered, which was also my experience; 3. the receiver believes s/he is the sole receiver of the message; I was also the direct receiver of the messages I recall and interpreted as negative; 4. the messages conformed to simple rules, and those rules were the deference of accurate knowledge from an authority figure that has intimate understanding of me as a person, and 5. the receiver is requested to participate in forming the message. My participation involved an initiation on my part by some action, while the message being imposed in response to my actions required me to listen and acknowledge the message. As I embraced these toxic messages, and believed them, I not only remembered them, and acted on them, but I acted on them in a fashion that negatively shaped the rest of my life. The toxic messages became part of my nature. Therefore, as a society in general, we have a choice of which types of Memorable Messages we deliver. As social scientist, we possess a deontological appointment to further examine this construct with a Meta-study that includes women, and other marginalized populations. Limitations This study was limited to my lived experience. I compared my experience with long-term informal observation of my imprisoned adult male peers who also suffered similar negative consequences as a result of the internalization of toxic Memorable Messages. My research was restricted to an all-male penal institution. It was very limited in scope, and prohibitions to conduct research on a protected class, that is, prisoners, restrained my study. As Williams / The Framework of Memorable Messages Page 8 part of that protected class, with the inherent containment of prison as a physical locale of study, my inquiry was further restricted. It is thus my hope that a larger study be conducted, appraising the Memorable Message construct from a toxic perspective and a more encompassing lens. Resources: Crook, B. & Daly, R.M. (2016), Memorable messages about the misuse of prescription stimulants, Health Communication, pp. 12, 1-10. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016 Lindlof, Thomas R. & taylor, Bryan, C. (2019), Qualitative Communication Research Methods, citing Anthony Gidden (1979), Structuration Theory, pp. 65-66 Knapp, M.L. Stohl, C. & Reardon, K. K. (1981), Memorable messages. Journal of Communication, pp. 31, 27-41 Thoits, P.A. (1995), Stress, coping and social support processes: where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Behavior, pp. 35, 53-79. doi: 10: 2307/2626957 Tilley, C. (2001), Ethnograpgy and material culture, p. 258