TED Community » Kathy Castle

Sign in to send Kathy an email »

About Me

I am doctoral student studying Organizational Communication. As a developing scholar, I see communication as the construction of the social framework in which we live. It comprises our contexts, our frames of reference, our cultures. This is incredibly powerful, as these shape our understanding of ourselves, our organizations, our communities, our world, our future. As we engage one another in communicative exchanges, we work together to communicatively create our reality. We communicate within discourses that have been created by those around us, and we work to perpetuate or challenge the discourses that shape our understanding of the world. It is the construction of these social discourses that I am so interested in studying, understanding and in “exposing” what they limit us to as individuals and as social organizations. Perhaps one of the most useful metaphors for communication that I’ve encountered is that of communication as creativity and constraint (Eisenberg & Goodall, 2001). In our communication, we create our social structures. These structures enable us to communicate, co-construct our identities, our cultures, our realities. They also serve to limit how we understand ourselves and our world, and our ability to impact the creation of our identities, our cultures and our realities.

It’s important to note the emergence and perpetuation of powerful voices and groups within these social discourses, and the impact they have in the shaping of these discourses. Certain groups not only have more access to the social dialogue, they have power within the social structures that shape this dialogue. Not all voices are created equal, and this is incredibly interesting to me as a scholar. The ramifications of these distinct power differences within the social discourse that both enable and constrain us are, in my view, largely misunderstood in the community at large. This has serious consequences for us all. Even more important here is the consideration of the impact this has on the way in which we come together, and the way in which this impacts how we relate to one another and organize (or fail to organize) within these social systems. One person with a sense of responsibility and communicative understanding cannot make a difference. One person cannot create a reality. Communicators that are able to join together and begin to create and perpetuate an organizational culture within these social discourses that challenges the predominant norms in which it exists can begin to effect change

Location:
United States, Lincoln, NE
Current role:
Ph.D. Student and Course Director- Business and Professional Com
Gender:
Female
Areas of expertise:
Teaching, Cultural Criticism, Power Analysis, Communcation, Organizational Alignment, Leaderhship, Critical thinking, analysis & synthesis, Public Speaking Any Size Group, Writing - Blogs, articles, books, Analysis and Deconstruction of Organizational and Public Discour
I am:
Blogger, Change Agent, Consultant, Educator/Teacher, Global soul, Idea generator, Parent, Student, Writer/Editor
Associations:
National Communication Association
Languages:
English
My website links:
MOM-My Own Mind- Blog, Kathy Castle
Universities:
University of Iowa - Iowa City, University of Nebrasa - Lincoln
Member Picture Member Picture

More About Me

I'm passionate about

The power of communication to shape reality, and the interdependence of communicators in the shaping of our shared world--Communication has the power to preserve or to challenge social structures.

An idea worth spreading

Responsible communication begins with critical self reflexivity of yourself and of the "Other" as they are each positioned within historical and socio-economic contexts. This self-awareness informs what should be a felt responsibility to communicate in a way that opens up new methods of thinking and ultimately challenges the structures that constrain our everyday practice.

Talk to me about

Communication and its role in the shaping of reality. I like to consider how power structures inhibit some voices and enable others, and the ways in which communication can change the world.

Comments

  • TEDCred score: +2.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

  • A comment on Conversation: What is happiness?

    Mar 2 2012: Happiness, like everything else, is fluid. We (should) continuously grow and evolve--which means our expectations and desires evolve. Our idea of happiness is not static--it changes...and that's a good thing--it's really the process of growth and our attitude towards it that ensures happiness. Though, not in isolation.I believe that our relationships with ourselves and others is what determines our happiness--do our relationships promote or inhibit our personal growth? If those relationships that we hold most dear sponsor our growth and give us the freedom to grow in the ways we were meant to grow, and if we give ourselves that same freedom...and if the society in which we live supports the direction of our growth---then we have a shot of finding true happiness here on this earth.

    Of course, it doesn't stop there--we have to be instrumental to the growth of others..in order to be truly happy, we have to go beyond what we get out of the process of individuals, and consider how we contribute to the growth process of those around us. Do we support or inhibit it? In what way? Can our own growth process encourage that of another...these are the things that lead to happiness, in my opinion.

  • A comment on Conversation: Do individuals have a social media strategy

    Feb 21 2012: Hi Chris,
    My blog is actually a culmination of personal and professional thoughts---it's where I apply what I study and consider in my "academic life" and how that applies to my personal roles (as mother, wife, friend, concerned citizen)...it's a chance for me to sort through my thoughts and try to see how things connect...hopefully leading to a more productive application and connection between these two worlds that are often held up as disparate--public vs private selves...I guess you could say that my blog is a challenge to that separation.

  • A reply on Conversation: What would it take for you to be willing to be changed by your interaction with another?

    Feb 21 2012: Mary-- Interesting question. It is not dialogue, to be sure. We are in the process of stating a viewpoint...an interaction is how I would describe it at this point...and eventually, over time, the hope would be that we would make a move toward integrating each other's viewpoints into our understanding...but as I said, dialogue is something to which people should aspire--it's not easy to achieve. There is a lot that stands in our way---and I'm curious as to what others think it is that gets in the way...

    I am studying organizational communication---the way in which communication between and among people comprises organizations and impacts our ability to collectively organize toward a shared purpose. I am particularly interested in the ways in which the public talks about things and the way in which organizations talk about things and how this enables us to see the world from specific vantage points...as well as how it constrains our ability to see the world. In other words, I study the way in which public and organizational discourses intersect to inhibit dialogue. I am also interested in how moments of dialogic exchange can impact those structures that serve to limit our perspectives.

  • A reply on Conversation: What would it take for you to be willing to be changed by your interaction with another?

    Feb 21 2012: Linda,
    I agree whole-heartedly with you regarding the importance of listening! It is an under-valued, essential part of communication. We do tend to value those who articulate themselves well over and above those who listen well...this is one key element of what I am talking about--thank you for pointing it out more clearly than I did. In a culture that privileges articulation over listening---how can we come to value listening and, I would go further and ask, how can we come to value not only listening, but the willingness to be truly affected by what we hear? How can we encourage these skills so that what we articulate in response moves us closer to a shared meaning?

  • A reply on Conversation: What would it take for you to be willing to be changed by your interaction with another?

    Feb 21 2012: I don't quite see where you are getting the idea that I am arguing with myself..The term argument was intended to denote a claim that I would support...not something contentious with you, myself or some other individual. I both respect and appreciate your viewpoint--and see it as an important opportunity to deepen my understanding of the communicative process as it is perceived by those around me. This openness to other perspectives and seeking to understand those perspectives is a basic tenet of dialogue.

    I see dialogue as I have defined it as unique--and as Linda mentions in her response--listening, truly listening is an essential part of the communicative process. This is what I am getting at...can we truly value all perspectives as being of equal importance or are we hindered by the temptation to privilege our own perspective? As we communicate with one another...a process that involves listening and talking...what can we do to ensure that we avoid privileging our own viewpoint? Or, perhaps that is not something everyone sees as desirable...

  • A reply on Conversation: What would it take for you to be willing to be changed by your interaction with another?

    Feb 21 2012: Hi Colleen,
    Thanks for your comment. I apologize if the information I provided to explain my question was confusing. Perhaps my intent will be cleared up in this response. If not, please let me know. The imposition in only seeking to articulate your ideas is that you are seeking to impose your thoughts on another--privileging that over seeking to understand the perspective of that other--if our main objective in communication is to clearly articulate our thoughts, we are missing the boat on co-constructing meaning with another person--we are simply seeking their agreement or acceptance of our presentation of our perspective. Communication is often deemed "successful" when it efficiently expresses a thought or idea. When we communicate with the intent of creating our experience with that person, letting the meaning emerge between us without regard for whose viewpoint is dominant or accepted or agreed upon, we are truly communicating to create new meaning.

    As to the notion that experience is the only way to effect change---I agree---but I would argue that without communication, there is no perception of experience. We understand experience through our communication with others--when something occurs, we describe it, we tell stories about it, we recall it for ourselves and for others through language--and others do the same. In discussing these experiences through our communication, they become meaningful for us, for others, for cultures and societies. It is through communication that meaning about these experiences emerges and transforms over time. So I would argue that talk is in fact, not cheap as Linda asserts,..it's constitutive.

    That said, my intent in this question is to get at what it will take to move from the notion that communication is about effectively articulating one's ideas to the more robust idea that communication is about creating new meaning with another communicator--and all that goes into ensure voice in the creation of that meaning.

  • A comment on Conversation: What would it take for you to be willing to be changed by your interaction with another?

    Feb 20 2012: Mary,
    Thanks for your comments! Humility and recognition of that which we don't know is a huge part of dialogue--it's a great place to start. We do need to recognize that we don't have all the answers, but more than that, we need to recognize that the goal is not to find answers so much as to explore possibilities in our interactions with others--possibilities that can open up room for difference and go beyond tolerating it to valuing it for what it contributes to meaning making. It's a recognition that not only are we not in control of the meaning that emerges, we don't wish to be in control--as that would hinder the process of dialogue and its benefits. That's the scary part for a lot of people--the acceptance of an absence of control over the message that emerges from the interaction.

    So yes, it does take humility and a recognition of our limited understanding...that's an essential and difficult first step. An even more difficult step in this process is possessing a willingness to critically consider the power inherent in the positions of each communicator--and then challenge that so that all voices are heard and can impact the creation of meaning in authentic ways that serve no over-arching perspective, but that are free to develop independent of the dominant cultural perspective. This is the step that I see as the biggest stumbling block in this process, as it impacts and is impacted by the socio-historical and cultural contexts in which the communication occurs.

    I wonder, then, how our ability to do as you suggest is impacted by these contexts...and how we might challenge them so as to create more space for dialogue?
  • +2

    A comment on Conversation: Do individuals have a social media strategy

    Feb 20 2012: I absolutely have a social media presence--whether it's a strategy or not, I'm not sure. I think it's vitally important to assert yourself in social media mainly because I wish to have a voice--and without a clear presence in social media, I am not able to contribute meaningfully to the global discussion. My social media presence is my way of countering the absence of power I have in traditional media--it's my way of pushing back a bit against the messages that are imposed on me to which I cannot respond in the formal media environment. So, yes, I do have a blog, and a website, and a profile on LinkedIn and an active Facebook page and I use Twitter to a certain degree. As an individual who hopes to make some kind of a difference in the world around me, I see this as one viable avenue through which my voice can have an impact. My blog: http://kathy-momphd.blogspot.com My website: www.kathycastle.com

  • A comment on Conversation: What is the most important piece of advice/knowledge that you have to hand down to your children?

    Feb 19 2012: My most important piece of advice would be "Know yourselves...and nurture who you come to know". This of course, followed by teaching them the skills required to follow that advice.

    The skills they need are first how to be self-reflexive...how to know themselves...and second, how to enact who they are in their interactions with others. This requires teaching them to love, cherish and nurture who they know themselves to be. There are times this is easier said than done, especially when faced with others who don't value their uniqueness and who would expect them to conform to some standard that inhibits their growth and ability to love themselves and nurture their inherent talents and gifts.

    It's often hard to parent kids toward making this choice when we can see that the path of conformity is less painful...and has some very real rewards in the form of acceptance and popularity and social approval. Sometimes conforming to social expectations is an expression of who they are...but other times, it's not. Learning the difference and possessing the skills to navigate these kinds of situations is, in my view, essential to their happiness and well being as individuals.

  • A reply on Conversation: Can we ever know how another person "senses" the world?

    Feb 18 2012: Ultimately, all perception is filtered by the institution of language, and therefore cannot be understood without the language in which it is articulated, both internally in how we think about it and externally/socially in we communicate with others about our experience. We experience nothing that is not filtered through the institution of language and the frame of reference it shapes as we encounter the world...so my experience and perception of one thing will always be unique--and will always be an interpretation of the experience through language, well before I articulate my perception externally. Our communication with others about these experiences adds complexity to the process, as these other communicators also possess "filters" that are inherently empowering and limiting in facilitating understanding.

    As you mention, each communicator will impact the other, and often social positioning and varying degrees of power within the interaction can lead to an unequal influence. This is precisely why we have an obligation to better understand and embrace dialogue as we interact with others. We have this responsibility to ourselves, to others and to the world that we co-create in our communicative processes. As we strive to understand our world, we communicate with others, some of whom share similar and others who share completely different perceptions, but all are unique--and all should be regarded as being of equal value. For me, that's one of the most beautiful aspects of our humanity--when we engage it and embrace it.
Load 10 more Comments (Showing 1 - 10 of 26)

Favorite talksSee all »