Relational Continuity Constructional Units (151)

relational continuity constructional units (151) used when the employee expressed that she had to go back to work. Both the mother figure and the son figure stood of to hug her, but the younger teenage daughter remained sitting. Instead, the worker standing stroked the head of the girl sitting – a nonverbal action of haptics (76) which spoke volumes. I took special notice of how each table ended their conversations. I noticed that hugging was more common between females, while a more accepted action between Table C was the table that surprised me the most. As the largest group of people I observed, the communication went against my expectations of my own experiences of trying to communicate in groups larger than five. Unlike my prediction, the group rarely splintered off into multiple conversations while together. I couldn’t pinpoint a source of leadership (216) in the group, as each person shared cohesiveness (213) as everyone in the group seemed to be looking at whoever was talking. I wonder if a maturity caused by the elderly age of the group could have contributed to this. The only time I have experienced peer communication this commendable in a group this large would be under formal meetings like Bible study, much less a casual setting like that of Table C. Ironically, the first time I noticed any use of technology at the mall was a smartphone in the hands of a child less …show more content…
Although I didn’t experience a wide range of cultural diversity much different than what I’m already used to, this ethnography imparted a greater observance of the culture of humanity as a whole. Overall, my ethnography provided me with a valuable self-examination. What if I had been the one sitting at one of those tables and a student was observing me? Would my own subconscious communication styles provide a commendable example of what the textbook teaches about? What would others say about