In which communication contexts might you use the view that presumption rests with existing institutions?
The view that presumption rests with existing institutions can be seen in the communication context of simply talking or arguing with your parents. In the Philippines, family is a sacred word, and we are known to have close familial ties with our relatives and acquaintances. Once we argue with our parents about a specific topic, the mindset of most Filipinos will be that the child is in the wrong and that the parents are always right. This is because Filipinos acknowledge the presence and authority of older people. Most baby boomers and some millennials think that someone more senior is automatically wiser, resulting in that Jurassic point of view. Moreover, this mindset has become the "prevailing order" of things when talking about family relationships, as most of our fathers and mothers acknowledge that there is a hierarchy within the family.
In my opinion, authority in this country is almost always attributed to someone older as we see them as more experienced than younger ones. This mindset should be erased and not be tolerated because, as Taylor Swift once said, "Only one thing can save us...Only the young".
In my opinion, authority in this country is almost always attributed to someone older as we see them as more experienced than younger ones. This mindset should be erased and not be tolerated because, as Taylor Swift once said, "Only one thing can save us...Only the young".
That is a great example, Quim! Certainly, the perspective of Filipinos in honoring the customs and words elderly has been ingrained during our youth. Oftentimes, it is challenging to put forth a different insight and opinion due to these "unspoken rules" that we all have been told to simply follow. Speaking of having established hierarchy, this can also be applied to organizations that often put heavy emphasis on positions and titles.
I love that your names are Quim and Kim. Anyway, these are great points! They are moments, especially the critical ones, where we need to be heard. But as what I have been telling people, a personal belief of mine, we can always do this with respect. Whether in a family or work set-up, they are ways to assert our opinion in a way that it will appear as if we are just simply trying to have a conversation. It is like one of our discussions in synch class where the burden to prove something is on us, thus a strategic way of encouraging or influencing the other party is needed.
I agree, Quim. As younger people, it's also up to us to make sure that Jurassic points of view are also able to be challenged by future generations. I have seen how these presumptions have hurt my closest friends. It is also an artificial presumption that challenging presumptions is wrong, ironically. Only the young can be able to make challenging presumptions the norm.
This is so true, and I love that you quoted Taylor Swift! I also do not believe in that presumption, because it imposes an artificial hierarchy on people. I also feel like this presumption has not been very productive because we fail to give chances to younger people who do show incredible potential. I can't imagine how much progress society could have achieved if only we did not shut people down for being young.
This is sadly true, Quim. I'd like to add to what you said about family presumptions as I saw our other classmates commenting on gender-related situations as well. It is also presumed for the father to be the "head" or "authoritative" figure in the family and they're expected to be the one who provides and leads the household. All of these tie back to our culture and how these roles were established to us in our households and in schools.
Yes, I understand where you're coming from Quim. With that mindset as well, talking back to older people is a big disrespect, even if you were just merely explaining yourself or reasoning out with them. Also, I agree; I also think it's because they have more experiences compared to us that is why we value their opinions. Aside from this, respect is also deeply embedded in our culture so presumptions against talking back to older people is understandable.
Viewing the presumption resting with existing institutions within a communication context can be seen through conversing with those that are more knowledgable or have the authority regarding the matter. An instance would be in the intercultural context where we deem that those born or have been widely exposed to the culture and norms would have more influence in the conversation as they are seen as knowledgeable and (potentially) have first-hand experience to contribute to the topic.
What an insightful answer, Kim! I agree that presumption can be seen in intercultural communication, especially if we travel overseas. Bilingual people would often be seen as more knowledgeable than those who are not. A great example would be a Filipino tourist knowing how to speak English in South Korea asking for instructions on a place where cherry blossoms are prominent.
When you are in a job interview, it is presumed that you are interested and knowledgeable about the role you are applying for. From the HR perspective, you have understood the job description and you are willing to render service for them. Thus, they have the right or authority to check your background, ask for your relevant experience, and sometimes test your character and values. On the other hand, you as a job seeker have the responsibility to answer their questions truthfully and comply with what they ask you (in relation to the job).
I agree with what you stated here, Vince! It is automatically presumed by the HR department that if an interested applicant goes to a job interview that they are prepared and knowledgeable about the job descriptions for the role that they are applying for. The main reason is the logic that a person will apply to a job that is in their field of expertise or is in line with what they have been taught when they are in college. In my experience as an HR intern, I screen applicants for interviews based on their resumes and how fit they are for the job that I posted on LinkedIn.
I love that you gave an OrCom-related topic, Vince! This really shows that both presumptions and argumentation, in general, are applicable to our day-to-day life and not just as students in the university. In fact, as I remember from our Orcom 104 class, we often tweak our answers in HR interviews and even clear out questionable content on our personal social media accounts as a form of preparation for the worst-case scenarios. We try to give our best shot in this impression management technique without realizing that this is actually a form of veering away from possible arguments with the company we are applying for or thinking in advance to refrain from being in a position where the burden of proof is on our end.
Thanks for this fresh insight, Vince! It's absolutely true that interviewers do expect job candidates to come prepared for their interview. This is why "first impressions count" as you're putting your best foot forward as a potential employee and do your best to prove you're the best one for the job. This is also one of the reasons on why we've been taught to do research and practice answering difficult questions beforehand.
Our common experience of online classes is actually a good example of where presumption rests with existing institutions. During synchronous sessions, there is an existing presumption that students were able to browse through the assigned readings and participate actively in the discussion. This is a form of presumption because there has been an established guideline since we started doing online classes last 2020 that asynchronous sessions should be spent reading the materials given by professors to provide more structure to once-a-week synchronous meetings. Similarly, there is also a natural presumption that if you show up in class, you should come prepared and participate in the learning process by contributing questions, clarifications, or comments about the lesson. Preparation may be in the form of reading the materials beforehand or submitting an assignment on time.
Another good example of this is the presumption that when the professor asks if there are any questions and the class remains silent, it means that everything is clear. Though this silence does not automatically mean that the students really understood the instructions, it stems from the general knowledge that "silence means yes", an unspoken language rule that is assumed to be true in previously established one-way communication styles.
Another good example of this is the presumption that when the professor asks if there are any questions and the class remains silent, it means that everything is clear. Though this silence does not automatically mean that the students really understood the instructions, it stems from the general knowledge that "silence means yes", an unspoken language rule that is assumed to be true in previously established one-way communication styles.
How I wish I apply this to myself hahaha. But this is also a great way to concretize our lesson on presumption, AJ! The "silence means yes" is almost always applicable not only in the university but also in a corporate setup such as large team meetings or town halls.
Certainly a very relatable example or rather experience there, AJ! I do agree that the presumption of "silence means yes" is applicable in practically every group interaction and conversation as Vince had shared. Often this is also followed by the feeling of hesitance when the conversation had already veered away from the topic. Although, mayhaps asking for clarifications and/or questions can also be another opportunity to reengage in the topic and start a discussion - or a debate.
"Silence means yes" feels kind of off when I think about it. A lack of an answer apparently equates to a positive one. However, I do agree that it a common unspoken rule. Many presume, especially in class, that if there are no reactions, that communication should keep going.
This is a great example AJ! Similar to Vince, I too wish I could apply this to myself. Although I feel like some professors don't appreciate the "silence means yes" sometimes but I guess it depends on the context.
Another presumption institutions like our university has for online classes is that all their students are fully equipped for this new environment. This in turn makes them less considerate regarding certain areas. This was a really good take, AJ!
I would like to give a personal, very relatable example of a communication context that uses the view that presumption rests with existing institutions. There have been numerous times when I am at the receiving end of rhetorical questions such as “Nagpupunta ka sa rally no?” or “Aktibista ka siguro?” These questions that do not really wait for an answer are often asked by older people (mostly boomers) whenever they find out that I am a UP student.
Obviously, there’s this presumption about UP students that everyone is an activist. What’s more frustrating is the negative connotation that lies in the word "activist." Because of how (older) people perceive activism, it becomes a common scenario (at least for me) when people half-praise and half-criticize you for being a UP student and an activist (even when you're not).
Obviously, there’s this presumption about UP students that everyone is an activist. What’s more frustrating is the negative connotation that lies in the word "activist." Because of how (older) people perceive activism, it becomes a common scenario (at least for me) when people half-praise and half-criticize you for being a UP student and an activist (even when you're not).
This is a good and very relatable example, Ely! Hopefully, after this argumentation course, we would be able to argue our way into how these people are actually committing a logical fallacy called hasty generalization. It is both challenging and frustrating to convince other people to believe in the power of activism and social change, but I believe that through sound arguments and argumentation techniques, we can make a difference with this problematic mindset.
Hello Ely! I get this a lot as well. I get them from older people as well so I feel like they would be the ones to serve as existing institutions here. They impose these stereotypes on UP students because that is the view they've had for years already
Hi Paula! Thanks for sharing a different view. I understand your point, but I also feel that there is a cycle going on here. At some point, the burden of proof has been transferred to UP students, and thus there comes a need to disprove these assumptions.
Hi Ely! I too get this alot especially when I go home to the province. There are alot of presumptions about being a UP student and sometimes those presumptions are not always positive. Oftentimes, they asumme we are arrogant and are ungrateful.
You are not alone, Ely! I notice this presumption as well, and I have experienced it first hand from family members too. There is nothing wrong about being an activist, but many institutions have conditioned our families to believe that it is inherently evil, and that our university is the breeding ground of that evil. The government, churches, and many other authorities contribute to those harmful narratives, and it is just quite upsetting to know that our loved ones would believe them more than they would believe us.
The Church could used as an example of existing institutions. In a mostly Catholic country like the Philippines, morality is often defined by the teachings of the Church. It helps define the status quo. In issues about abortion or the LGBT, many who share those beliefs are likely to be against those issues. Because Catholicism and Christianity is so common, it is presumed that you believe in those religions and abide by their teachings. Thus, communication with someone who is deeply religious and someone who believes that abortion should be legalized could prove to be quite the challenge.
That's a great take Paula! In addition to that I think when you are a member of a church, you are presumed to fully embrace their teachings on most things. There is a presumption that you are abiding by their belief, so when you deviate, it would take a long and a great deal of arguing. From my experience, even if I prove my point, and present my church with concrete proof, in the end, I would just be tasked to pray. However, I have heard of faith-based organizations that are moving towards a more progressive and open culture.
Presumptions are present in different types of existing institutions. For example in a family which is considered as a social institution, that are alot of presumptions that that are expected by society. This could be the presumption that parents must take care of their children and provide for their basic needs or that children are expected to follow their parents and not rebel against them. Although these are presumptions that most of us have, we can't deny the fact that this isn't the case in all situations wherein some don't even have parents to take care of them or some children choose to rebel against their parents for various reasons.
Another example is regarding the church and people who are religious. There is an assumption that if you are an active member of the church then you must be someone who is kind, compassionate and righteous. However, this is not the case as all of us commit sin. Sometimes even those who are in a higher position commit acts that are deemed to be unkind or even heinous at times.
Right on point, Ferida! I must say our social roles could entail a lot of presumptions. Moreover, I appreciate that you pointed out the exceptions to some cases. It only shows the true nature of presumptions -- something fallible. And because our presumptions cannot always be absolute, we have rooms for doubts and spaces open for arguments. :)
That is truly insightful Ferida! There are presumptions indeed in a family. For instance, in our country, when you are talking to your parents or even older relatives in general, there is this presumption that you have to be more understanding, and respectful (even if they are wrong). While in fact, you should be communicating, hence two-way. But instead, the youth cannot argue without hearing the words "bastos" or "walang galang". I think, in this case, presumptions are rooted in culture.
This is unfortunately true. I know many Filipinos who have no remorse for their wrongdoings and still believe themselves to have redeemed themselves for the sole reason of attending a confession. Relevant to many social institutions like the family is that many Filipinos also treat authority with no respect and simply presume that their authority grants them freedom from accountability and that authority in the family is derived from their capacity to provide financially.
I agree with Ferida that presumptions exist in all institutions. From the family, considered to be the simplest of social institutions, to the church, one of the oldest social institutions in history, there are presumptions that are set. This makes it rather difficult to deviate from the norm as people tend to forget that presumptions are not absolute.
Many artificial presumptions exist in Philippine society. Philippine society values seniority and adopts sexist beliefs. Unfortunately, it is an artificial assumption that "men will be men" and that children should honor their parents no matter what, or that family relatives are entitled to forgiveness for what older-generation Filipinos think is filial piety. Aside from the family institution, artificial presumptions about class also exist and are also endorsed by institutions such as the government; such as the artificial presumption that less-financially privileged classes of Filipino should be able to easily climb out of poverty through sheer hard work and willpower. The contexts in which artificial presumptions rest within institutions are most often social contexts that underpin the communication context to follow.
There really is a number of Filipino values that carry problematic presumptions. Unfortunately in our society, these are ingrained to our culture, norms, and habits as these have been traditionally and historically regarded.
Under the eyes of the law, there is always the presumption of innocence -- that unless there is sufficient evidence to declare someone guilty of a crime, he or she is presumed to be in the clear. While this is an extremely valid presumption, this is not the case for many progressive spaces or institutions. Progressive institutions believe that this is a presumption detached from critical analysis of justice systems that are inherently unfair to certain minority groups, which would make the presumption invalid. For example, a lot of feminist groups and liberal spaces are more inclined to believe complaints of harassment victim despite there being no "concrete evidence" of the incident happening. This is because they believe that the nature of harassment incidents would make it significantly difficult or nearly impossible for victims to acquire proof. Moreover, under their critical analysis, they believe that justice systems are socialized to be biased and dominated by patriarchal structures that are likely to dismiss complaints by female victims of harassment. Therefore, when dealing with societal issues like these, it helps to understand that different presumptions exist in different institutions, and more often than not, the presumptions are also influenced by social structures that help build and maintain them.
I agree with Lette that there are different presumptions for different institutions. Even the seemingly simple presumption of innocence has many layers to it, depending on which or whose lens it is viewed.
In line with the 2022 elections, leaders who wanted to run for government positions can be a good example of how presumption rests with existing institutions: It is presumed that candidates already have an in-depth knowledge of the Philippine law, leadership, and the country's current issues. This is why journalists, broadcasting networks, and the general public have the right (and expect such government leaders) to participate in discussions, debates, and ask questions on each candidate's background / experiences. Expounding on this further, it can also be said that it is a presumption for government leaders to put service above themselves as they are working for their country. This is why it should be more acceptable for Filipinos to question their projects, plans, presence, and character especially during crucial times.
I agree with you, Jia! This is a sad reality in the Philippines and is quite apparent in provinces where politicians take advantage of people by using their own educational background, wealth, and even the English language to prove their intellect.
Since a big part of the Philippines is still somehow living in the 1800s, our society heavily abides by patriarchal presumptions such as "the devil must be within you if you have mental health problems or if you are gay" or "you are a woman so you must know your place in the kitchen." This is strongly supported by the Church as well, which also has a big influence on society seeing as we are a predominantly Catholic country. These existing institutions continuously affirm these presumptions which is why it is still hard to trample them despite the good progress we have made. I think that is why younger people, or people who oppose these ideas, tend to be more careful when communicating regarding these topics especially in the presence of older people, moreso older people in the family.
This is frustratingly true, Justine! Since this kind of thinking is seen everywhere, even during our younger years, it can be very hard to unlearn. Staying informed, opening your mind to new information, and objective thinking is really needed to move forward as a society.
Living in a religious family does impose this presumption. I like that you contextualized it to how catholicism strongly influences the majority of the Filipino population. It is just sad that because of this dominance, the LGBTQIA+ community has to adjust to the existing institutions, even if it does not bear any benefit to the community.
I would say that the view that presumption rests with existing institutions can be seen in the communication context of any academic setting. As students, we are told to learn our school's values and absorb the knowledge we receive from our teachers, as we look to them as trustworthy and intellectual. While most experiences are good, an example of how this can be problematic is when teachers themselves influence the kids on their own opinions on the subject material at school. Something as simple as this can shape how they perceive the world growing up and is usually not questioned, as they are perceived to be "always right". Parents or guardians need to be vigilant and be a safe space for their kids to think and ask things they do not understand.
In the Philippines, there is no doubt that those who are in authority abuse the power they have. Thus, 'the view that presumption rests with existing institutions' is easily seen through how Philippine authority takes advantage of their position/role. We have heard stories where ordinary Filipinos are questioned by the police just because "they are police and they have the right to do so since it is part of their so-called job." Because of their role in society, it is presumed that their decisions and actions are right, even if we perceive it as illegal or unconstitutional. Unfortunately, for cases like this, the innocent Filipinos victimized by the police carry the burden of defending themselves, which cost them financial, physical, and emotional means.
Since the presumption of innocence was mentioned here, let me give the perspective of the other side - or rather the layers beneath it as to why it isn't that simple. If progressive institutions view it under the lens of the critical analysis, the prosecution and the police are on the other side of the spectrum. As investigating institutions, suspect rather than presume innocence. It is their job to do so, anyhow. They advance their investigation by suspecting then gathering evidence. As the burden of proof lies on them, the evidence they gather must be meticulous and sufficient. However, the lines blur when they assume guilt rather than just suspect, as that would mean bypassing the rule of law and taking matters of judgement into their own hands.