Gandhi as communicator writes an essay
Answers
Answer:
sorry I didn't know the answer forgive me
Answer:
Although Gandhi might appear to be a well-studied subject, there are indeed aspects of
this subject that await serious scholarly attention. In our view, Gandhi as a communicator
is one such. It is generally held that Gandhi was a great communicator and it has often
been observed that Gandhi’s success as a communicator was due to the various strategies
that he had insightfully designed to communicate with the people of India, but this is
perhaps only part of the explanation. Besides, one might argue that those strategies
worked primarily because it was Gandhi who used them. The language and the style of
Gandhi and his use of the verbal and non-verbal resources for communicative purposes
await careful study. To understand his effectiveness as a communicator one might also
consider studying his ideas and thoughts, although communication theorists tend to
neglect the content or the interest value of what is being communicated in their attempt to
build models of communication. Here we do not aspire to go beyond merely scratching
the surface of the subject under study, namely, Gandhi as a communicator, and we
propose to present our observations in the form of somewhat loose notes, rather than of a
well structured essay containing a well formulated thesis.
It has often been asserted that Gandhi’s impact on the people he met and spoke to was
simply electrifying. These people were not just freedom fighters and politicians, writers
and thinkers; there were among them slum dwellers and villagers, farmers and labourers,
little-educated people and illiterates. But Gandhi wasn’t a populist, saying what he
thought his audience would like to hear; he was on the contrary quite capable of saying
things or doing things that were rather incomprehensible to the people at large or were
considered unacceptable, which may not be surprising since he was a great deal more
than the leader of a freedom movement; he was a social reformer too.
Communication theorists see communication essentially as sharing: sharing of
meaning, although they are not unanimous with regard to who are involved in this
sharing (Fiske; 1990). Does this sharing involve, in all instances of communication - real
life, day-to-day interactions, and reading of texts both - only the speaker (the writer) and
the hearer (the reader) – one might use the term “speaker – hearer” in the context of real
life interaction - or does this involve only the readers, who engage themselves with the
text, the writer not coming into the picture at all? How much is shared in communication:
only the basic meaning or the meaning and the entire emotional field in which this
meaning is created? There could be obvious difficulties in knowing, except in the clear
cases, whether in some specific instance there has been a considerable degree of sharing,
no matter who the “sharers” are.
Explanation:
mark me as brainly