This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 08 October 2014, At: 20:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Southern Communication JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20

Perceived aesthetic characteristics ofinterpersonal conversationsLeslie A. Baxter a & Dan H. DeGooyer Jr. ba Communication Studies Department , University of Iowa , IowaCity, Iowa, 52242 E-mail:b Communication Department , University of North Carolina ,GreensboroPublished online: 01 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Leslie A. Baxter & Dan H. DeGooyer Jr. (2001) Perceived aestheticcharacteristics of interpersonal conversations, Southern Communication Journal, 67:1, 1-18, DOI:10.1080/10417940109373215

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417940109373215

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PERCEIVED AESTHETICCHARACTERISTICSOF INTERPERSONALCONVERSATIONS

Leslie A. Baxter and Dan H. DeGooyer, Jr.

The researchers sought to describe the characteristics of interaction experiences that werereported to elicit an emotional response of aesthetic pleasure, that is, a response of deeppleasure, stimulation, and joy evoked by what is perceived as beautiful. Two hundredand thirty-six participants provided written critical-incident accounts of conversations intheir personal relationships that they found aesthetically pleasing and aestheticallydispleasing. Open coding, using the constant-comparison method, identified sevencharacteristics of conversations that were aesthetically pleasing and seven characteristicsof conversations that were aesthetically displeasing. Taken collectively, the results suggestthat aesthetic pleasure is evoked in communication encounters that achieve the realizationof wholeness through the consummation of: selves, personal relationships, andrelationships between humans and nature/God. Specific categories of pleasing anddispleasing characteristics are presented in the study.

Some interpersonal communication texts . . . say little about emotion as acoherent aspect of communication. . . . As to the aesthetics of everyday life,they are usually silent. However, without the ability to create moments that arebeautiful, thrilling, and awe inspiring, life is empty.... In such communicationtexts we see a reflection of the old psychological dualism of thinking and feel-ing accompanied by a clear preference for the rational side of the dualism.(Cronen, 1998, p. 22)

A number of recent scholars have joined Cronen (1998) in noting the bias towardrationality that frames much of the research and theory in interpersonal com-munication, and they have called for the development of alternative, comple-

mentary perspectives (e.g., Baxter, 1998; Duck, 1998; Bochner, 1998; Leeds-Hurwitz,1998). Several scholars have suggested that more attention be paid to the place of emo-tion in interpersonal communication (e.g., Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Planalp, 1993,1999; Vangelisti, 1993). The current study examines the aesthetics of communicatinginterpersonally in personal and familial relationships, presuming that the aestheticexperience is first and foremost an emotional one. More specifically, the aesthetic expe-rience is the subjective feeling of deep pleasure, stimulation, and joy that is evoked inone's encounter with what is regarded as beautiful (Williams, 1983).

Leslie A. Baxter, Communication Studies Department at the University of Iowa; Dan H. DeGooyer, Jr., CommunicationDepartment, University of North Carolina-Greensboro. The authors would like to thank Dr. Dawn Braithwaite for her assis-tance in the pilot study. We would also like to thank Dr. Erin Sahlstein and Dr. Kathleen Valdefor their helpful suggestions.A prior version of this manuscript was presented at the 2000 Western States Communication Association Convention, Sacra-mento, CA. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leslie A. Baxter, Communication Studies Depart-ment, 105 BCSB, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, or by electronic mail to leslie-baxter@uiowa.edu.

SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL, Volume 67, Number 1, Fall 2001, pp. 1-18

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

2 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Many scholars frame interpersonal communication in a logic of means-ends; theresearch enterprise is organized around determining the goals or ends that an individ-ual seeks to accomplish and the communicative means by which those goals are sought.This, of course, is the principle of rationality that organizes much of the research andtheory in the social sciences (Rosenberg, 1988). Rosenberg provided us with this formalstatement of the principle: "Given any person x, if x wants d and x believes that a is ameans to attain d, under the circumstances, then xdoes a" (p. 25). Interpersonal com-munication scholars have produced a sizable body of research that addresses the <f s, thatis, the wants, desires, or goals sought by interlocutors (e.g., Cody, Canary, & Smith, 1994;Dillard, 1990; Miller, Cody, & McLaughlin, 1994; Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988). Per-haps the largest domain of research examines a's, that is, the strategies and tactics bywhich specific goals are accomplished (e.g., Daly & Wiemann, 1994). For example, cog-nitive planning research examines how persons assemble messages in response to theirgoals (e.g., Greene, 1997). Taken collectively, the body of work framed within the princi-ple of rationality is vast and informs us a great deal about how individuals communicate.

However, several scholars have argued that such rationality-based work provides anincomplete picture. As the opening epigram by Cronen notes, rationality and emotionare not a dualism but instead complementary, interdependent aspects of the communi-cation process. Emotion is a ubiquitous feature of people's communication experienceswith others (e.g., Metts & Bowers, 1994; Planalp, 1999). Emotion functions as a keymotivator in producing goals, just as it facilitates (or interferes with) the execution of aplanned communication strategy (Burleson & Planalp, 2000). Thus, study of emotionshould have a strong presence in the scholarship of interpersonal communication. Thepresent study focuses on one particular kind of emotional experience in communica-tion—aesthetic pleasure. In particular, we are interested in the characteristics of con-versations with friends, romantic partners, and family members that people experienceas aesthetically pleasing and not pleasing.

This interest positions us in that subset of the emotion scholarship devoted to anunderstanding of the precipitating or eliciting events that evoke emotional reactions(Planalp, 1999). Considered as a whole, this body of work suggests that relationshipsare important antecedent contexts in which emotional responses of varying kinds areelicited (Metts & Bowers, 1994; Planalp, 1999). Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, and O'Con-nor (1987), for example, reported that 100% of their participants' experiences of love,91% of anger episodes, 90% of sadness episodes, 47% of fear episodes, and 40% oftheir experiences of joy were elicited in die context of relationships.

Although emotionally intense experiences tend to be situated in relationships,Planalp (1999) suggests that much of everyday relating consists of habituated routinesthat have lost their capacity to evoke emotional responses because of their predictabil-ity. Because of this habituation effect (Berscheid, 1983; Mandler, 1984), relating caneasily lapse into monotony, boredom, and lack of stimulation, all of which correlatenegatively with relationship well-being (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Thus, it is impor-tant to understand what elicits strong emotional responses in relationship parties, par-ticularly positively-valenced emotions because of their obvious implications forrelationship satisfaction.

The personal relationships research has devoted substantial attention to the emo-tions of liking and love (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1992). Interaction behavioristshave also paid attention to the patterns of verbal and nonverbal affective responses(both positively- and negatively-valenced) that characterize interactions between rela-tionship partners (e.g., Burgoon, 1994; Gottman, 1994). Doubdess die single positiveemotion that has garnered the most attention by relationship scholars is the globalizedoutcome indicator of satisfaction (e.g., Sternberg & Hojjat, 1997). Although these areimportant facets of positive emotion in relationships, diey do not exhaust the domainof positive emotionality in relationships.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 3

We focus in this study on conversational experiences reported to elicit an emotionalresponse of aesthetic pleasure. As the opening epigram by Cronen (1998) reminds us,the aesthetic experience of beauty is a fundamental aspect of living. For example, ineveryday interaction, the choice of where to live, people with whom to talk or live,clothes to wear, and even foods to eat may be greatly influenced by what is found to beaesthetically pleasing. The aesthetic eye may even enter the scientific enterprise, pre-sumed by many to be an objective world devoid of emotion. For example, in a commen-tary about the relative merits of Bern's self-perception theory (1972) and Festinger's(1957) cognitive dissonance theory, Bern and McConnell (1970) claimed that whetherone theory or the other was utilized may be based on aesthetics.

The connection between aesthetics and goal-rationality was articulated over sixtyyears ago by John Dewey (1934). He argued that means-end instrumentalism devoid ofmeaningfulness was empty, and that art—any human activity charged with the intrinsicappreciation of the meanings of life—was central to the lived experience. The tragedyof the modern condition, argued Dewey, was its partial conception of experience, aview in which action was reduced to a mechanical means-end process devoid of deeplyfelt value and meaning. Those moments that participants experience as somehowdeeply meaningful are aesthetic experiences to Dewey, and they result from a powerfulfeeling of completion or consummation, a dynamic sense of unity in which "every suc-cessive part flows freely without seam and without unfilled blanks, into what ensues"(Dewey, 1934, p. 36). An aesthetic experience captures participants in the flow of themoment, evoking a feeling that extends beyond mere judgments of means-end utility,efficiency, or success to include a deeply felt appreciation or realization of wholeness orcompletion of something. Feelings are intense—a combination of passion, vitality, andawe at the beauty of the experience. Aesthetic experiences are not easily repeatable ornameable, according to Dewey, and they are often fleeting moments that punctuatemore mundane, task-driven endeavors.

Although Dewey's work is important in theorizing aesthetic experience, his descrip-tion of the phenomenon is quite abstract and removed from interaction. Fortunately,several dialogic thinkers have conceptualized how an aesthetic experience can be cre-ated in interaction. Common to these discussions is a focus on how interactants orientto one another, respecting their differences yet at the same time transcending them.Russian social theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1990, 1993) argued for the importance of tak-ing aesthetics seriously as early as the 1920s in several seminal works that provided thefoundation of what later evolved into his dialogism theory. The basic assumption ofBakhtin's work is that social life is fragmented, disorderly, and messy (Bakhtin, 1981).In such a social world, order is not given; it is a task to be accomplished through creativ-ity, that is, aesthetic work. Through such aesthetic activity, parties achieve a sense ofwholeness in which fragments and disorder are temporarily transformed (Bakhtin,1990, 1993). These fleeting moments of completion, consummation, or finalizabilityare pockets of beauty in what is otherwise a messy and fragmented life experience.

Not all forms of wholeness are equally desirable, however. Bakhtin distinguishedaesthetic wholeness from monologic wholeness, and his lifelong intellectual project wasto challenge the latter (Morson & Emerson, 1990). Monologic wholeness, that is, a one-ness or unity achieved through the hegemony of a single fragment or voice dominantover other voices, is the wholeness of totalitarianism. By contrast, aesthetic wholenessachieves a momentary sense of unity through a profound respect for the disparate frag-ments or parts from which a whole is woven.

Aesthetic wholeness, in turn, comes from dialogue characterized by answerability,response-worthy participation, and aesthetic love. An aesthetic experience is character-ized by answerability, that is, the moral and ethical responsibility that individuals beartoward others to "author" or complete them (Bakhtin, 1990). Bakhtin believed thatselves are constructed only through interaction with another; thus, individuals, as social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

4 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

beings, owe each other the opportunity for their selves to become. "Authorship," inturn, comes through response-worthy participation; that is, an empathic response cou-pled with the "gift" of one's surplus of seeing (Bakhtin, 1990). In an aesthetic experi-ence, one shares with another the unique perspective that one has as an individual,thereby making the other person more complete than they otherwise would have been.The third feature of Bakhtin's aesthetic experience is aesthetic love, in which personsrespond to each other as whole beings, not fragments. If a person interacts with a gro-cery clerk in a store, one is probably not engaging in aesthetic love, because the per-son's response is organized around only a narrowly prescribed facet of the other, his orher role as a clerk. By contrast, aesthetic love is a response to the coherence of theother's multiple facets.

Bakhtin's treatment of aesthetic dialogue bears close correspondence to morerecent theorizing about dialogue. Most notable in this tradition is the concept of thedialogic moment conceived both separately and jointly by Martin Buber and by CarlRogers.1 Put simply, a dialogic moment is the experience of mutuality. Cissna andAnderson (1998, p. 74) have summarized the Buber-Rogers position thusly:

The basic character of such a dialogic moment, therefore, is the experience ofinventive surprise shared by the dialogic partners as each "turns toward" theother and both mutually perceive the impact of each other's turning. It is a briefinterlude of focused awareness and acceptance of otherness and difference thatsomehow simultaneously transcends the perception of difference itself.

In other words, mutuality is a fleeting experience in which the parties perceive sometranscendent sense of invented or created wholeness from the focused, complete atten-tion that each gives to the other's whole being.

The discussion of aesthetic dialogue or mutuality found in dialogic work datingback to the 1920s mirrors many of the qualities of aesthetic experience articulated byDewey. Salient to all conceptions is an emphasis on a consummately feeling of com-pleteness or unity evoked in the moment. In the context of interaction, dialogic schol-ars envision this feeling of consummation as a process of completing selves through theappreciation and transcendence of difference.

Although dialogic scholars have successfully moved theorizing of the aestheticexperience from Dewey's (1934) general level to a more particular focus on interac-tion, their work is still quite abstract and removed from the concrete everyday experi-ences of communicators. Unfortunately, empirical work on the aesthetic experience isquite limited in both quantity and scope. Research on aesthetics among scholars of per-sonal relationships has tended to focus almost exclusively on beauty as it is implicatedin physical attraction toward another (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1983). Among inter-personal communication scholars, Mulac and his colleagues (Mulac, 1975, 1976;Mulac, Hanley, & Prigge, 1974) have observed that the perceived aesthetic quality of aspoken dialect is one of three dimensions by which listeners evaluate utterances. Aes-thetic quality was operationalized through the semantic differential items of pleasing-displeasing, nice-awful, sweet-sour, and beautiful-ugly. Although Mulac et al.'s workfocused narrowly on how dialects were vocalized, it is suggestive that aesthetics is ameaningful feature of communication more generally. However, no research examinesthis issue.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The present study focuses on aesthetic experiences parties report in their personalrelationships, that is, their friendships, romantic/marital relationships, or family rela-tionships. Inductive in nature, our goal is to understand, from the "native's point ofview," what characterizes communication episodes perceived as aesthetically beautiful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 5

The two research questions that organize this study focus on features or characteristicsof conversations that persons regard as aesthetically (dis) pleasing. Following Straussand Corbin's (1990) methodological advice regarding theoretical sensitivity, weadopted an open, inductive posture in these questions. That is, in interpreting ourdata, we attempted to remain sensitive to the treatments of aesthetics discussed above,while keeping an open mind to our participants' reported experiences, including thepossibility of alternative understandings of what they perceived as aesthetically(dis) pleasing. Thus, the purpose of this study is not verification or hypothesis-testingbut rather inductive interpretation.

In addition to inquiring about the perceived characteristics of aesthetically pleasingconversations, we also seek to understand the opposite: aesthetically displeasing conver-sations. Our justification for including the opposite phenomenon is straightforward:What something means is a function of what it is as well as what it is not (Baxter &Montgomery, 1996).

The two research questions are thus:

RQ1: What are the perceived characteristics of aesthetically pleasing conversa-tions in personal relationships?

RQ2: What are the perceived characteristics of aesthetically displeasing conver-sations in personal relationships?

METHODS

Pilot Study

A pilot study was initially conducted in order to determine if the concept of aes-thetic communication was meaningful to people and whether the data collection pro-cedure (described below) was viable. A total of 37 undergraduates were asked todescribe in detail a beautiful conversation, using the protocol described below. All ofthe participants had no difficulty recalling such a conversation, thereby suggesting to usthat the concept of aesthetic communication is a meaningful one and that our data-gathering protocol was successful.

Participants

Participants for the actual study were solicited in undergraduate communicationclasses at a large, Midwestern university. In compliance with the human subjects policyof the institution, students were offered extra credit if they completed the question-naire and distributed 4 additional questionnaires to family members and friends intheir social networks. A total of 250 questionnaires was returned, with completed dataavailable from 236 participants. The sample was overwhelmingly female (71.6%) andCaucasian (94.0%). The mean age of participants was 26.3 years (SD = 11.4; range 18-86). Participants had completed a mean of 15.3 years of formal education (SD = 3.5).

Procedures

The questionnaire distributed to participants consisted of 3 parts. Part I solicitedgeneral demographic information about the participant. Parts II and HI of the ques-tionnaire employed the critical-incident technique (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, &Allen, 1993). Basically, we asked participants to provide a detailed account of a conver-sation they regarded as aesthetically pleasing (Part II) and one they regarded as aes-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

6 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

thetically displeasing (Part III). The concept of conversational aesthetics wasintroduced to participants in the following manner:

We are interested in studying conversational beauty, that is, conversations inwhich you have participated with friends, romantic partners, or family mem-bers, that you would describe as beautiful. We ask you to provide an account oftwo conversations on the attached pages: a beautiful conversation and a con-versation that you would describe as exactly the opposite (i.e., a conversationthat was not beautiful to you). There are no right or wrong answers here; basi-cally, we are interested in finding out from a variety of people what makes aconversation beautiful in the eyes of the participants.

The protocol that was used to elicit the account of the aesthetically pleasing conversa-tion was worded in the following manner: "If this conversation were a work of art, itwould merit hanging on a wall or sitting on a pedestal to be admired for its beauty, ele-gance, and artistic grace." We asked participants first to describe this beautiful conversa-tion in as much detail as possible. Participants were then asked to describe the type ofrelationship they had with the other person (s) in the conversation (friend, romanticpartner, or family member). Part III paralleled Part II, with this protocol statement foreliciting an account of a conversation the participant experienced as aesthetically dis-pleasing: "In this section of the questionnaire, we are interested in a description oraccount of a conversation that you would describe as the opposite of beautiful: a con-versation that you would describe as unsightly, inelegant, graceless, lacking in beauty. Ifthe conversation were a work of art, you would want to hide it from sight because it wasan eyesore."

Data Analysis

The researchers independently engaged in an open coding of the accounts usingthe constant comparison method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Open coding was orga-nized around the semantic relationship of attribution ("X is an attribute [characteris-tic] of Y") (Spradley, 1979, p. 111). A semantic relationship is a unit of meaning;Spradley (1979) identifies 9 different kinds of meanings that are conveyed through dis-course, of which attribution is one type. In particular, we coded with these two attribu-tion-based semantic relationships in mind: "What are the characteristics ofconversations experienced as aesthetically pleasing?" and "What are the characteristicsof conversations experienced as aesthetically displeasing?" A datum was a segment ofdiscourse that provided an answer to a semantic-relationship question; in our study, adatum was a segment of text that informed us about an attribute of either an aestheti-cally pleasing or displeasing conversation. Basically, the constant comparison method isan iterative process in which each successive datum is compared to prior data for itssimilarity or difference. Each time a datum regarded as different is encountered, a newcoding category is added. Open coding is iterative, as coding categories are added,combined, and revised in an emergent manner until the coding categories as a set donot require further modification with additional data cases. The two researchers thenmet to compare their open coding categories and resolve any discrepancies. The finalcoding manual was established, containing 7 characteristics of beautiful conversationsand 7 characteristics of non-beautiful conversations, plus an additional "miscellaneous"category for each reported type of conversation (see Results below).

One coder, trained to the coding manual, then coded all of the data. For purposesof reliability checking, a second coder independently coded a randomly selected sam-ple of 25% of the questionnaires (n = 60). The percentage of coding agreement forbeautiful conversations was 90% (kappa = .88), and the percentage of coding agree-ment for non-beautiful conversations was 91.7% (kappa = .89).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 7

RESULTS

Although our study is basically qualitative in nature, we present frequency distribu-tions for the characteristics of beautiful and non-beautiful conversations out of the beliefthat such information sheds partial insight into the relative salience of these characteris-tics for our sample. Table 1 presents the frequency distribution of the 7 characteristics ofbeautiful conversations broken down by the relationship type in which the conversationoccurred. Overall, 46.0% of reported beautiful conversations were embedded in roman-tic relationships, compared to 34.3% for friendships and 19.6% for familial relationships.

The most frequent characteristic of aesthetically pleasing conversations was Comple-tion of Self through Other. Conceptually, this category includes interaction events in whichone person feels somehow better, improved, affirmed, valued, or completed throughinteraction with the other. Usually, this interaction event involves an individual's receiptof some valuable feedback, social support, or affirmation of some kind from another.Representative is this account by a 43 year-old woman about an interaction in which shefelt completed by her spouse:

I am married with three children. I left for Copenhagen, Denmark, for twoweeks to visit a friend. My husband and children were left to fend for them-selves. Upon my return the warmth of my family was oozing with love, appreci-ation, and increased respect. My husband lavished me with his undividedattention, repeatedly told me how much I was missed and how much he lovedme. He then gave his account of events with children and chores of daily livingwhile I was gone that included tones of being overwhelmed at times. I felt like aqueen and knew that there was a newly found appreciation and respect that wetend to take for granted in a spouse. I might add that for the most part thisconversation was one-sided. I just let my husband tell me how wonderful I wasand I listened with a warm feeling and a smile. (#125)

Table 1Frequency Distribution of Characteristics of Aesthetically Pleasing Conversations by Relationship Type

Characteristic

Completion of Self through Other

Relationship Temporal Continuity:Present to Future

Relationship Closeness:Present-Focused

Relationship Temporal Continuity:Past to Present

Conversational Flow

Cosmic Oneness

Deep Talk

Miscellaneous

Friendship

22 (25.9%)

6 (7.1)

14(16.5)

11 (12.9)

15 (17.6)

7 (8.2)

14 (16.5)

2 (2.4)

Relationship Type

Romantic

14(14.1)

38 (38.4)

20 (20.2)

17 (17.2)

11(11.1)

13(13.1)

3 (3.0)

6 (6.1)

Family

25 (49.0)

5 (9.8)

9 (17.6)

3 (5.9)

4 (7.8)

3 (5.9)

—

3 (5.9)

TotalFrequency

61 (26.0)

49 (20.9)

43 (18.3)

31 (13.2)

30 (12.8)

23 (9.8)

17 (7.2)

11 (4.7)

Note. In columns 1-3, values in parentheses represent percentages of accounts of a given relationship typethat featured a specific characteristic of beautiful conversation; totals exceed 100% because of multiplecodes per account. Values in parentheses in column 4 represent the percentage of accounts overall that fea-tured a given characteristic of beautiful conversation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

8 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Through her husband's words, this woman felt more respected and appreciated. Herhusband's increased, and salient, love and respect are evident in his attention andappreciation of her daily acts. The conversation evoked a very positive responsebecause she felt less taken-for-granted and more valued. This category was particularlyprevalent in interactions with family members, and secondarily with friends.

The second most frequent characteristic of aesthetically pleasing conversations,particularly evident in the context of romantic relationships, was Relationship TemporalContinuity: Present-to-Future. Conceptually, this category refers to efforts to create a tem-poral linkage between the present and the future, thereby attempting to create a rela-tionship whole that is continuous through time. Unlike the first category, in which anindividual self is made to feel more whole, this category introduces wholeness at therelationship level for both partners in the relationship. The focus of conversation is therelationship in which the parties are deeply embedded. Representative is this accountprovided by a 22 year-old man about a conversation that took place with his femalepartner:

We were working through a questionnaire about our relationship, answeringquestions pertinent to our separation for my time in the Peace Corps. We spentmuch of the time talking about our relationship and where it was going in thenear future. We discussed our fears for what could possibly happen and ourdreams for what might be possible. We both cried, but it was as much from ourfear of what the future may hold for us as it was from a feeling of love that wewere getting from the other person (I should speak for myself only I suppose).I felt scared for what could happen to us, but I also felt lucky to be in such aposition in the first place. What made the conversation beautiful, I think, wasthe total honesty we developed and the unashamed way in which we showedour emotion—not something that happens daily for either of us. (#171)

This pair was involved in a highly emotional effort to create a bridge between theirpresent relationship and their relationship in the future. The future emphasis on theirrelationship is demonstrated in their discussion about their "fears" and "dreams" oftheir future relationship together. According to this participant, honest and emotionaltalk about their joint future was not a frequent topic of discussion for the pair, makingthis conversation particularly poignant.

Unlike the second category in which the future features prominently, the third cat-egory is exclusively focused in the relational present. The category oi Relationship Close-ness: Present-Focused refers to conversations that are perceived to bring a relationshipcloser in the moment; talk between parties functions to create a relationship wholebetween separate individuals. This relationship wholeness is felt at the moment, the"now" in which the event is transpiring. Typical is this account provided by a 22 year-oldwoman about a conversation with her male partner:

We were sitting next to each other on a couch, but slightly turned to face eachother. There was soft music on in the background, and a relaxed atmospherepulsed the room. We had been together for a little over a year, bu t . . . there wasa barrier between us. He showed genuine interest in me—my fears, desires,and dreams—and I felt like I could say anything. Over the night these roles ofspeaker and listener changed several times, depending on who needed to talkat the time. By the end, we felt closer than ever before, and it was a feeling thatlasted past just the moment. (#175)

This account evidenced a focus on the relationship, and the beauty of the conversationwas the greater connection, or wholeness, in the relationship that came from anintense evening of reciprocal disclosure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 9

Relationship wholeness features centrally in the fourth category of aesthetically pleas-ing conversations, one that we labeled Relationship Temporal Continuity: Past-to-Present.Unlike the prior two categories, which describe relationship wholes between present andfuture and between parties in the present, respectively, this category captures efforts tobridge a relationship's past with its present. These interaction events often involved remi-niscing as a way to bring past events into the present, as the following example illustrates.An 18 year-old woman provided us with this account of an interaction with her mother:

The night before I left to come to college my mom and I stayed up until thewee hours of the morning talking about the upcoming changes in my life. Weboth cried and reminisced. We went through my baby book together for thefirst time in my life—more tears! Then, my mom really started crying andbegan to apologize for all the things that she'd done wrong in my childhood.Most of the things that she'd regretted or felt guilty about were things that Ididn't even remember, but I appreciated the fact that she remembered themand wanted to make it right! (#212)

This conversation was full of reminiscing, with mother and daughter interweaving their pastrelationship history into their present relationship. They account for past actions in thepresent conversational and emotional moment at a historic transition point in the life cycle.

The fifth most frequent category is one we labeled Conversational Flow. This categoryrefers to a sense of emotional connection with another achieved by somehow being "insync." Participant accounts described these interaction events as effortless, easy, andflowing. The parties reported experiencing a sense of seamlessness, as if they were com-pleting each other's thoughts. This category is not about constructing a relationship,although the parties certainly experience a momentary connection to one another.Rather, the focus is on the moment and the way the parties are able to craft jointly anenjoyable, effortless exchange. Often, participants made a point of telling us that theycould not recall the details of the conversation—the topics of discussion, who said what.Rather, the event's meaning was derived from the way in which the conversation wasenacted. Representative is the following account provided by a 42-year old man about aconversation with a friend: "The details of the conversation escape me—what I recall iseasy laughter—often—anticipating correctly what the other person was going to say—his response—when and how he would laugh. A warm feeling that there was a connec-tion on an emotional level." (#18) The seamlessness and effortlessness of the partici-pants' conversation is evident in the anticipation of each other's words and responses.The "easy laughter" reflects the smoothness of the conversation. All of these facets ofthe conversation appear to facilitate the emotional connection and synchrony.

Sixth in overall frequency is a category we label Cosmic Oneness. This category refersto interactions in which the parties felt a sense of connection with what lies beyond theboundary of self and another, whether a connection or oneness with nature, the envi-ronment, God, or the universe. Participation in this kind of conversation made peoplesomehow feel part of a larger natural or metaphysical whole. Typical is this accountfrom an 18 year-old woman:

Talking to my cousin one evening at dusk, we were discussing the beauty of themoon. She explained to me all the reasons the moon was so important to her.She found the moon to be somewhat of an inspiration to her. I was reallymoved by this. I thought how could some inanimate object so far away, some-thing we could see but never touch, mean so much. (#166)

The moon was clearly an object beyond the boundary of the body, yet was full of mean-ing to the participants, so much so that it became a means of connecting the cousinstogether and both of them to nature—or the universe.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

10 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Last in frequency was a category we labeled Deep Talk. Basically, this category cap-tures interactions in which the parties feel as if they "open their souls" to one anotherthrough deep disclosure and are responded to on an intimate and open level. The selfis affirmed through the reciprocity of the other. Unlike Completion of Self Through Other,the affirmation is experienced through reciprocal disclosures in which both personsfeel like their unique perspectives are being taken seriously. Although reciprocal disclo-sure is certainly one way relationships become closer in the present, the accounts in thiscategory do not emphasize the consequences for relationship wholeness. Rather, themeaning of the event lies in momentary, reciprocal recognition of another's perspec-tive. Representative is this account provided by a 21 year-old woman:

I had a conversation with a classmate a few days ago which I would describe asbeautiful. We were discussing our religions; I am a Lutheran and she is an athe-ist. The conversation was beautiful because we both had very strong convictionsin the things we were stating. It was AWESOME to be able to relate to oneanother with open minds and openly discuss our beliefs and feelings. Althoughwe were speaking from two very different points, the conversation was not argu-mentative, but it was much more intriguing. (#167)

The parties to this conversation were disclosing their deep or "strong" convictions in anopen and reciprocal manner. The seriousness of their conversation was reflected bothin the topic of their conversation and in the reported awe of the conversational connec-tion. Yet, the parties did not have an obvious relational history, unlike parties in theRelationship Closeness: Present Focused category above.

Table 2 presents the frequency distribution of the 7 characteristics of aestheticallydispleasing conversations, broken down by the relationship type in which they tookplace. Overall, 42.1% of the aesthetically displeasing conversations were embedded infriendships, compared to 28.2% for romantic relationships and 29.7% for familial rela-tionships.

The most frequent category was Hurtful/Irreparable Conflict. These conflict eventscreate either temporary or permanent damage to at least one of the parties' self-esteem

Table 2Frequency Distribution of Characteristics of Aesthetically Displeasing Conversations by Relationship Type

Characteristic

Hurtful/Irreparable Conflict

Diminishment

Lack of Affirmation

Unwillingness to Engage

Banal Conversations

Awkward Conversations

Difficult Conversations

Miscellaneous

Friendship

28 (27.7%)

29 (28.7)

11 (10.9)

14 (13.9)

14 (13.9)

10 (9.9)

3 (3.0)

3 (3.0)

Relationship Type

Romantic

33 (55.0)

15 (25.0)

13 (21.7)

6 (10.0)

3 (5.0)

3 (5.0)

—

2 (3.3)

Family

33 (47.8)

15 (21.7)

14 (20.3)

8 (11.6)

2 (2.9)

1 (1.4)

6 (8.7)

—

TotalFrequency

94 (40.9)

59 (25.7)

38 (16.5)

28 (12.2)

19 (8.3)

14 (6.1)

9 (3.9)

5 (2.2)

Note. In columns 1-3, values in parentheses represent percentages of accounts of a given relationship typethat featured a specific characteristic of non-beautiful conversation; totals exceed 100% because of multiplecodes per account. Values in parentheses in column 4 represent the percentage of accounts overall that fea-tured a given characteristic of non-beautiful conversation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 11

and/or to their relationship. They are characterized by their pitched emotional inten-sity in which the parties bring up old unresolved issues. Participants also described theseconversations as involving yelling, screaming, and crying. These conversational eventsfeature relationship distance and function to invalidate parties' sense of self throughconflict-based criticism. Typical is this account provided by a 19 year-old woman:

It was a couple of years ago. Me and my friend were on the phone and fighting.We were both screaming and crying at the top of our lungs, swearing at eachother. Then we started bringing up old stuff and started insulting each othersaying things that could never be forgiven. We no longer speak. (#5)

The reported screaming and crying evidenced the heightened emotional intensity ofthe conflict. The exchange of insults, provoked by unresolved issues from the past,invalidated each of the participants in the narrative, resulting in an irreparable conflictsituation.

A distant second in overall frequency, yet slightly more frequent in friendships, wasthe category we label Diminishment. In this interaction event, one of the parties emergesfrom the encounter with a diminished sense of the other or a diminished sense of selfas a person. Usually, diminishment of the other involved the other person behaving in amanner that the participant found disgusting, leading him or her to somehow thinkless of the other. In other instances, this event involved a diminished sense of self whenparticipants perceived themselves to behave in an embarrassing or untoward manner.Three features differentiate Hurtful/Irreparable Conflict and Diminishment. Diminishment,as a category of displeasing conversations, does not: (a) entail conflict; (b) have aheightened, pitched level of emotional intensity; (c) involve unresolved issues from thepast. An example of other-diminishment is this account provided by a 19 year-oldfemale participant:

A friend of mine was telling me a story about a guy she was dating and how theyexperimented with whipped cream. I felt very distanced and a little disgusted.It wasn't something I cared or wanted to hear about. (#27)

An example of self-diminishment comes from this account from a 66 year-old woman.This account also displays a secondary theme of disgust about the other's behavior:

A relative of mine asked me for financial help for his daughter. I did not wantto give the help and said no. He persisted in stating the neediness and worthi-ness of his cause. I began to feel guilty about my disinclination to do what hewanted. At the same time I felt justified in refusing. I ended up saying somevery judgmental things about his daughter, and, less directly, about him. Theconversation ended amicably, with each of us inquiring about the other'shealth and advising each other to take care. But I continue to feel guilty andungenerous on one hand and angry and disgusted on the other, and I wonderwhat feelings he has about my refusal. (#41)

One result of this conversation was a diminished self (i.e., views of self as "ungenerous"and "judgmental"). Another outcome of this conversation was that the woman alsoviewed her relative in less than pleasing ways (i.e., she feels "angry" and "disgusted"about him).

_ The third category, Lack of Affirmation, features an interaction event in which oneparty hurts or fails to affirm the other. This lack of affirmation is shown by the other'snon-appreciation of the self. Unlike the first category above, this category features hurt-ful interaction outside the boundaries of conflict. Unlike the second category above,this category does not feature disgust, embarrassment, or guilt. The focus in this cate-gory is on the hurt received by the self as inflicted by the other. Regardless of whether

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

12 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

this hurt is intentional or non-intentional on the other's part, the participant reportedfeeling deeply hurt by the episode. Typical is this account provided by an 18 year-oldwoman: "My mother asked me if I had been doing a serious drug, which many peoplelook down on. I had never seen this drug before and could not understand why shewould ask me such a degrading question." (#81) Another typical account is providedby a 52 year-old woman:

A conversation that comes to mind is the one my husband and I had when heserved me with divorce papers. It was a hurtful conversation because throughno fault of my own (according to him) he wanted to dissolve this marriage. Hehad closed me completely out of his life. It was very confusing and devastating.The confusion stemmed from his saying "what a wonderful person I was" andyet he wanted nothing to do with me and the marriage. (#148)

This participant did not describe this conversation as one of conflict. Nor did she evalu-ate the conversation or her husband in terms of disgust, embarrassment, or guilt.Rather, she provided a view of the hurtfulness of the conversation and her felt lack ofaffirmation, even to the point of describing the conversation as devastating.

The fourth most frequent characteristic of aesthetically displeasing conversationwas Unwillingness to Engage. This category captures those interaction events in which atleast one party is perceived to be close-minded to the point of not listening or, moredramatically, refusing to engage the other in any manner at all. Illustrative of the cate-gory is this account from a 20 year-old woman:

It seems that I have had many more ugly conversations than beautiful ones.This particular conversation was one of opposing forces—a teenage girl andher mother. There was no listening going on; it was more like a nasty tennismatch. One party would serve a nasty comment and the other party would slaman even nastier one back. It left me feeling drained and full and anger and ven-geance towards her. It was a test of will, seeing which one would bend andbreak first. Nothing was solved and neither party left the "tennis match" feelingany better. I believe this conversation was ugly because the most essential ele-ment of a good conversation was missing: listening. (#189)

Obviously, the teen-ager this participant referred to was herself in describing a conver-sation of reciprocal attitude entrenchment with her mother.

The fifth category also involves an unwillingness to engage the other, but it is mani-fested differently. Banal Conversations refer to those interaction events that are per-ceived as shallow, superficial, or devoid of meaning. The other is engaged only in atechnical sense of talking, but the tone of the conversation is entirely on the surfaceand empty. Representative is this account provided by a 22 year-old woman about oneof her acquaintances at work:

A girl that I work with talks all the time! The conversations I have with her arethe opposite of beautiful. She'll talk for hours and I'll have to respond becausewe're alone together in our office all day. I can't stand talking to her becauseshe talks about things that I have no interest in, like what kind of shampoo sheused that day. I dread having to go to work because I know I'm going to haveterrible conversations with this girl. (#64)

Ugly in their banality, such conversations are aesthetically displeasing because they aremeaningless, and because they lack fun and stimulation.

The sixth most frequent characteristic of aesthetically displeasing conversation waslabeled Awkward Conversations. Parties to the conversation experience it as uncomfort-able, ill at ease, and awkward. The parties are somehow "out of sync" and the conversa-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 13

tion lacks fluidity and ease. Parties appear to be unfamiliar to each other and thisunfamiliarity is reflected in their conversation. Typical is the following account by a 28year-old woman:

We were sitting in a brightly lit room. There were a few other people around.There was a block between me and my friend. She was bothered by something;I was uncomfortable. We talked about the weather, about her nieces and neph-ews. She was going on a tirade about someone and I was trying to see her sidebut couldn't. Then there would be awkward silences. The flow of our usualconversations wasn't there. I had to work hard to come up with small talk, andthis was with my friend! (#9)

This description of the friends' conversation illustrates an uneasiness and uncomfort-ableness. The conversation had "awkward silences" and was missing the "flow" of theirtypical conversations. The conversational partners in this non-beautiful conversationalso were out of synchrony with each other.

The final substantive category of aesthetically displeasing conversations is DifficultConversations. These conversations are awkward and uncomfortable, but with a muchgreater intensity than the prior category. Further, the "stakes" are greater in these con-versations, shifting the emotional intensity from discomfort to emotional exhaustion.Representative is this account provided by a 63 year-old woman:

Probably one of the worst conversations I've had is this past December, when Iwent to Arizona to help take care of my sister, who was dying of cancer. She was65 and we talked about her young grandchildren that she would not see growup. She was an artist and had so many paintings that she still wanted to do. Herand her husband had been married 45 years and she wanted to see [their] 50thanniversary—how hard it was to leave all of her family and loved ones behind.It was hard to stay strong for her so she could talk through the dying process.(#123)

What made this conversation aesthetically displeasing to the participant was the realityand intensity of her sister's emotional and physical pain in coping with her imminentdeath, and the exhausting difficulty she experienced in trying to support her sister dur-ing this period.

DISCUSSION

In general terms, our participants' reports of aesthetically (dis)pleasing conversa-tion correspond quite well to the conceptions of aesthetic experience discussed above.Overall, aesthetically pleasing interaction experiences were those perceived to consum-mate or affirm wholeness: of selves, of personal relationships, of relationships betweenhumans and nature/God.

The most frequent characteristic of aesthetically pleasing conversations, Completionof Self through Other, is very close to Bakhtin's (1990, 1993) notions of answerability andresponse-worthy participation and to the Buber-Rogers concept of mutuality (Cissna &Anderson, 1998). Through another's feedback, advice, or affirmation, a person feltsomehow more whole, more valued, or more complete. In order to provide feedback ofthis quality, the giver, of necessity, was attentive and involved with the person's needsand desires.

Deep Talk provides a concrete description of mutuality (Cissna & Anderson, 1998).In revealing their innermost thoughts, selves are perceived to act from their core orwhole beings. When the other party responds at that level, the person experiences anintense affirmation of his or her beliefs, attitudes, and values, even if the other person

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

14 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

disagrees with him or her. Unlike Completion of Self, characterized by a participant'sreport of one person being "completed" by another, Deep Talk focuses on a mutual orreciprocal "turning toward" (Cissna & Anderson, 1998) the other.

Several of the characteristics of aesthetically displeasing conversations support indi-rectly the validity of aesthetic pleasure through consummation of self. Common to theaesthetic displeasure of Hurtful/Irreparable Conflict, Diminishment, and Lack of Affirmationis a feeling that selves are devalued and nonvalidated, outcomes that work against theconsummation of self. In addition, the categories of Unwillingness to Engage and BanalConversations display the lack of deep involvement in another's whole being. Thus, thekey to the aesthetic displeasure of these latter two features is their inability to consum-mate whole selves.

In addition to the completion of self, other kinds of wholeness were perceived to becharacteristic of the aesthetic experience. Cosmic Onenessis centered in the creation of afeeling of wholeness with forces beyond self and other—nature, the environment, theuniverse, God. At one level, one could argue that this sense of wholeness also completesa sense of self, expanding the boundaries of self through union with nature or the uni-verse. No directly opposite category emerged for aesthetically displeasing conversa-tions. However, the meaninglessness of Banal Conversations clearly stands in oppositionto the deeply meaningful feeling of connection that lies at the heart of Cosmic Oneness.

Our participants also found it aesthetically pleasing when relationship wholes wereachieved through conversation, whether present-focused conversations in which partiesachieved greater relational closeness in the moment or temporal continuity betweenpast-present-future in an already close relationship. The aesthetic beauty of achievingrelationship closeness and continuity is supported indirectly through several of thecharacteristics of aesthetically displeasing conversations. Hurtful/Irreparable Conflict isaesthetically displeasing because, in part, it results in either temporary or permanentrelational distance. The aesthetic displeasure of Banal Conversations is that its ongoingsuperficiality works against achieving or maintaining relationship closeness. Similarly,Unwillingness to Engage functions to distance parties from mutual involvement, therebyworking against relational closeness.

Conversational How provides a concrete sense of Dewey's (1934) notion of feelingcaptured in the flow of an event and its unity of parts. Conversational Flow is experiencedas an easy seamlessness with which parties mesh their unique perspectives. The aestheticbeauty of such conversational ease is supported indirectly by two of the characteristics ofaesthetically displeasing conversations. Awkward Conversations and Difficult Conversationsare displeasing because they lack an easy, synchronous flow of conversation.

In sum, then, our findings suggest that aesthetic pleasure in communication isderived from the realization of wholes through consummation of selves, synchronousinteraction, unity with nature or God, and relationship continuity or closeness. It isthese perceived features of communication that were reported to evoke an emotionalresponse of aesthetic pleasure in our participants.

Several of these features of aesthetic pleasure have been noted by other scholars ofinterpersonal communication. The consummation of self reflected in several of the cat-egories shows clear resemblance to work on confirmation and disconfirmation (e.g.,Cissna & Sieburg, 1981; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Similarly, research oncommunication competence underscores the importance of such communication qual-ities as active involvement, affirmation, and responsiveness (e.g., Spitzberg & Cupach,1989). Scholars of relationship development have expended substantial empiricalenergy in identifying the communication correlates of relationship closeness (e.g., Din-dia, 1994). Research on conversational coordination (e.g., Tannen, 1984) addressesmicroscopically how parties accomplish the interactional synchrony of a flowing con-versation. Work on the "dark side" of interpersonal communication has noted suchproblematic features as hurtful communication (e.g., Vangelisti, 1994) and destructive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 15

conflict management (e.g., Cupach & Canary, 1997), characteristics reflected in severalof the categories of aesthetically displeasing conversation.

However, these features have been studied in theoretical and empirical isolation ofone another, and they have been framed almost exclusively by the principle of rational-ity. One contribution of this study is to suggest that these features may cohere underthe theoretic rubric of aesthetic pleasure. Communicative features such as disclosure,attentiveness, and so forth, are gratifying not only because they advance such rationallystrategic goals as accurate understanding, self-presentation or relationship formation,but additionally because people experience them as beautiful and thus aestheticallypleasing. As Tannen (1984, p. 152) so eloquently expressed it:

The experience of a perfectly tuned conversation is like an artistic experience.The satisfaction of shared rhythm, shared appreciation of nuance, mutualunderstanding that surpasses the meaning of words exchanged . . . goesbeyond the pleasure of having one's message understood. It is a ratification ofone's way of being human and proof of connection to other people. It gives asense of coherence in the world.

Tannen's statement reminds us that aesthetic pleasure is but one kind of pleasure. Aperson can experience pleasure in the accomplishment of a rational goal but fail toexperience the deep meaningfulness of consummation that appears to characterize aes-thetic pleasure. Two friends can reap pleasure by getting together for a meal; such plea-sure could result from fulfillment of several goals, including the satiation of hunger, adesire for fun, or a desire to maintain the relationship. By contrast, we can imagine thepleasure that might be experienced by two old friends, who meet over a meal after drift-ing apart over the past several years; these friends quickly get into the rhythm of theirold friendship, talking to one another's souls almost as if no time had passed at all. Thefriends savor the richness of the cuisine, for it stands to them as a metaphor of the rich-ness of their lifelong friendship. Although these old friends accomplished goals of sati-ating hunger, experiencing fun, and maintaining their relationship, they did more; theyalso created an aesthetic experience in which they felt the meaningfulness of consum-mation—of selves, of their friendship, of their link with the food they were eating.

The emotional pockets of felt beauty in aesthetic interaction are probably a sourceof deep relationship satisfaction for the people involved in the interaction. However,scholars have no understanding of the frequency of aesthetically pleasing communica-tion in relationships, nor the ways in which aesthetic pleasure surfaces in relating. Forexample, scholars who study turning points of relationship development (e.g., Surra,1985) might find that high-amplitude positive turning points, that is, events that propela relationship's closeness to a significant extent, are often characterized by aestheticpleasure. Scholars of relationship rituals (e.g., Bruess & Pearson, 1997) might find thataesthetic pleasure is central to the meaningfulness that characterizes this communica-tion event. Scholars of intimate play (e.g., Baxter, 1992) might discover that aestheticpleasure is a contributing factor to the relational significance of playfulness.

Planalp (1999) has emphasized that the elicitation of emotions is a process of mean-ing-making. That is, "[M]ost of what occurs in social interaction is meaningful only as itis interpreted through an elaborate system of personally and culturally defined mean-ings, and these meanings lie at the heart of emotion just as they lie at the heart of lan-guage, cognition, and culture" (p. 19). Our qualitative study sheds initial insight intothe ways in which beautiful conversations are meaningful to persons. Conversations areaesthetically pleasing to the extent that their meaning rests in the creation of wholenessof various forms.

However, we did not seek to examine individual or cultural differences in percep-tions of aesthetically pleasing communication. The predominandy Midwestern, white,and female composition of our sample is obviously limited. Beauty, so goes the old

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

16 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

adage, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Yet, our study affords no insight into systematicdifferences in the perception of conversational beauty. As Tannen (1984) usefullynoted in her study of U.S. regional differences in conversational style, different codesof appreciation for talk can be identified even within a single society. Differences in aes-thetic understanding between members of different cultural groups can result in frag-mented, disorderly interaction experiences in which "one cannot see the coherence inothers' behavior, [and thus] one begins to lose a sense of coherence in the world" (Tan-nen, 1984, p. 152). Although researchers have produced a growing body of work oncommunication in relationships from the perspective of the ethnography of communi-cation (e.g., Fitch, 1998), cultural differences in aesthetic communication have not yetemerged as a focus of attention.

In addition, future research should examine the extent to which aesthetic pleasurediffers systematically by relationship type. Different qualities of wholeness may be moreor less meaningful to friends, to romantic partners, and to family members. For exam-ple, our data tentatively suggest that temporal continuity between the present and thefuture is particularly salient to romantic partners, whereas completion of self throughother is particularly salient in interactions between family members. The fragility oftenattributed to romantic relationships may account for why seamless continuity with thefuture is so important to romantic partners; by contrast, family membership is a matterof blood and law, less temporally fragile than romance.

This study is not without limitations. In addition to limitations of our homogenoussample as noted above, our written accounts of "beautiful" and "not beautiful" conver-sation lacked rich interactional detail. Future research needs to attend to the behav-ioral details of conversational beauty, perhaps building upon Jefferson's (1996)conversation analytic work on the poetics of everyday talk or Tannen's (1984) work onconversational style. The experience of aesthetic pleasure is doubtless built out of suchmicroscopic interactional details as the rhythm of sound alliteration or the pauses thatproduce seamless turn-taking. In addition, we relied on people's recollections of inter-action events that evoked feelings of aesthetic (dis) pleasure, rather than studying aes-thetic emotional arousal in the moment. Future research should focus on people'sexperience of aesthetic pleasure as it emerges in the moment, thereby positioningresearchers to understand in a finer-grained manner exacdy what in an interactionevent is experienced as beautiful and thus aesthetically pleasing.

Despite its limitations, this study provides a starting point in understanding partici-pant perspectives on interpersonal communication as an aesthetic experience. Relatingwith others can be described not only with such descriptors as "successful," "produc-tive," and "competent," all of which are grounded in the principle of rationality. Inaddition, relating with others can be described as "beautiful," 'joyous," or "awe-inspir-ing," terms introduced by an aesthetic perspective.

NOTES

1For a recent bibliographic summary of this growing body of work and a detailed treatment of Buber's andRogers's separate and joint conceptions of moments of dialogue, see Cissna and Anderson (1998).

REFERENCES

Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (Eds.) (1998). The handbook of communication and emotion. New York: Aca-demic Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson &M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and answerability (M. Holquist, Ed.; V. Liapunov & K. Brostrom, Trans.). Austin:University of Texas Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

AESTHETICS 17

Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (V. Liapunov & M. Holquist, Eds.; V. Liapunov, Trans.).Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human CommunicationResearch, 18, 336-363.

Baxter, L. A. (1998). Locating the social in interpersonal communication. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication:Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 60-64). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & dialectics. New York: Guilford Press.Bem, B.J. (1972). Self perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.

6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.Bem, B. J., & McConnell, H. K. (1970). Testing the self-perception explanation of dissonance phenomena:

On the salience of premanipulation attitudes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 23-31.Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley et al. (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New York: Freeman.Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1983). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Bochner, A. P. (1998). Storied lives: Recovering the moral importance of social theory. In J. S. Trent (Ed.),

Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 345-350). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Bruess, C. J., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship. Communication

Monographs, 64, 25-46.Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal com-

munication (2nd ed., pp. 229-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Burleson, B. B., & Planalp, S. (2000). Producing emotion (al) messages. Communication Theory, 10, 221-250.Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber-Rogers position and

postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8, 63-104.Cissna, K. N., & Sieburg, E. (1981). Patterns of interactional confirmation and disconfirmation. In C. Wilder

& J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor & imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson. New York: Praeger.Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors'

goal types, strategies, and successes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communi-cation (pp. 33-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cronen, V. E. (1998). Communication theory for the twenty-first century: Cleaning up the wreckage of thepsychology project. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 18-38).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.Daly, J. A., & Wiemann, J. M. (Eds.) (1994). Strategic interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree Books.Dillard, J. P. (1990). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody & M. L.

McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70-90). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.

Dindia, K. (1994). A multiphasic view of relationship maintenance strategies. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 91-114). New York: Academic Press.

Duck, S. (1998). Helms and bridges: Relational communication as conceptual and personal linkage. In J. S.Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 47-52). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to meth-ods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Fitch, K. (1998). Speaking relationally: Culture, communication, and interpersonal connection. New York: Guilford Press.Gottman, J. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Greene, J . O. (Ed.) (1997). Message production: Advances in communication theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.Jefferson, G. (1996). On the poetics of ordinary talk. Text and Performance Quarterly, 16, 1-61.Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1998). Social interpretations, social theories. InJ . S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views

from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 332-336). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: Norton.Metts, S., & Bowers, J. (1994). Emotion in interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 508-541). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Miller, L. C., Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1994). Situations and goals as fundamental constructs in

interpersonal communication research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonalcommunication (2nd ed., pp. 162-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morson, G., & Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a prosaics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Mulac, A. (1975). Evaluation of the speech dialect attitudinal scale. Speech Monographs, 42, 184-189.Mulac, A. (1976). Assessment and application of the revised speech dialect attitudinal scale. Communication

Monographs, 43, 238-245.Mulac, A., Hanley, T. D., & Prigge, D. Y. (1974). Effects of phonological speech foreignness upon three

dimensions of attitude of selected American listeners. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 411-420.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4

18 THE SOUTHERN COMMUNICATION JOURNAL

Planalp, S. (1993). Communication, cognition, and emotion. Communication Monographs, 60, 3-9.Planalp, S. (1999). Communicating emotion: Social, moral, and cultural processes. New York: Cambridge University

Press.Rosenberg, A. (1988). Philosophy of social science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal

communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602-628.Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J. C., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of

a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086.Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Sternberg, R.J., & Hojjat, M. (Eds.) (1997). Satisfaction in close relationships. New York: Guilford Press.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.Surra, C. A. (1985). Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 357-375.Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Vangelisti, A. L. (1993). Communication in the family: The influence of time, relational prototypes, and irra-

tionality. Communication Monographs, 60, 42-54.Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interper-

sonal communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., &Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional

patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.Williams, R. (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 2

0:14

08

Oct

ober

201

4