The first half of my senior year of high school, I was in a long distance relationship with a young man I had met at Cornell’s Summer College program. (I’ll call him James for the sake of flow, though it is not his real name.) He and I met in a class we had together, immediately clicked, and then decided to pursue and exclusive romantic relationship, despite the fact that James lived outside of New York City and I lived in Atlanta. We kept in touch through AOL instant messenger, as well as lengthy telephone conversations and e-mails. We had a set schedule to talk online while we were writing papers or doing other homework. After dinner, we would talk for an hour on the phone. While we were dating, one of us would fly to see the other roughly once every month or six weeks. I even spent an entire week and a half with James and his family in Vermont following Christmas. Even though we visited frequently considering the large distance between us and the fact that we were both in high school (and therefore largely not in control of our traveling schedules), most of our conversations took place in media much less rich than face to face contact.
Quick, chatty conversation was exchanged through IM, while more serious conversations about our concerns and feelings were reserved for phone time. In this aspect of our relationship, McKenna’s concept of identifiabiity came into practice. Identifiability suggests that anonymity leads to more self disclosure, then more relational development. Even though James knew much about me, the phone gave me a sense of anonymity that allowed me to reveal more about myself without feeling judged.
When I decided that it was time for James and me to go our separate ways, McKenna’s concept of interactional control came into play. This concept suggests that because I could control the number of cues I was giving, I was able to selectively self present; therefore, I was more comfortable with myself and disclosed more. I was able to speak more honestly about why I felt our relationship should end because I did not have to 1) give away many cues about my attitude, or 2) witness his reaction. Therefore, I was less tempted to “beat around the bush” and was able to be honest with
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Not to be a pessimist, but I agree with your title. It was interesting to read how you interacted with your previous boyfriend and how much you invested in each other. I liked how you tied in McKenna's theory and highlighted the sense of anonymity on phone conversations although you guys did spend time together in person.
Post a Comment