Critical and analytical thinking is the ability to evaluate the credibility of a claim, find evidence to support or negate that claim, and understand how the evidence supports or contradicts that claim. It requires argument while negotiating multiple perspectives. To demonstrate this skill, I have attached a relational analysis paper from my relational communication course, COM 302. The purpose of the assignment was to analyze a relational dyad in a television series and find relational communication concepts inherent in the relationship. It was not sufficient to apply any communication concept to the relationship. The assignment required a critical approach that allowed the data to be self evident. In the research paper, I argue that the communication themes of fatal attraction, turning points, and power as disabling are exemplified in the relational dyad of Dev and Rachel in the Netflix show Master of None. In the analysis, I consider other scholarly research regarding the themes and justify my argument with examples from the show. In effectively acknowledging scholarly perspectives, determining the underlying communication concepts of the relationship, and supporting my solutions with evidence, I applied critical and analytical thinking to the assignment.
Relational Communication Analysis of Dev and Rachel in Master of None
Kennan Martin
COM 302
Dr. Sara Baker
May 6, 2018
I. Introduction
Have you ever compared the relationships in your own life to those in a television show? So often we hear the phrases “my life could be movie” or “my life could be a sitcom.” We compare the tension, drama, and situational humor of our everyday lives to what we see in television. Television shows primarily aim to be interesting to viewers, capitalizing on our emotion with interesting characters, dramatic relationships, and suspenseful or surprising plot lines. Television shows reflect our cultural values and recreate relationship benefits and challenges that we experience each day through actor portrayals. Through these shows, we might try to make sense of our own relationships.
Master of None is a critically-acclaimed comedy-drama show on the streaming service Netflix. The television series follows Dev Shah played by actor Aziz Ansari as he navigates relationships with his family, friends, and romantic interests. Dev lives in New York City, is the son of Indian immigrants, and works as a commercial actor (Ansari & Yang, 2015). Dev is still trying to figure out his place in the world and makes many mistakes along the way. Through Master of None, we can analyze and evaluate Dev’s many complex relationships.
One such relationship Dev has in season one of the show is with Rachel Silva portrayed by actress Noel Wells. Rachel is a music publicist who meets Dev on the night of the first episode. The first episode opens with them having sex in Dev’s apartment. As a result, Dev and Rachel have an interesting series of encounters before they decide to date exclusively. During their relationship interactions, Dev and Rachel learn about each other, engage in frequent witty banter, and experience conflict. They go on dates often, take a trip to Nashville, and eventually move in together. The relationship ends after Dev questions the course of their relationship and Rachel decides to move to Tokyo (Ansari & Yang, 2015). By watching season one, we can learn about the communicative forces that lead Dev and Rachel to initiate as well as terminate a romantic relationship.
This show is a useful for demonstrating concepts of relational communication because it provides a framework for how to manage relationships in our own life. The show teaches us new perspectives of not only Dev but those of other characters. We see Dev’s point of view as well as Rachel’s on a variety of topics. Furthermore, the show teaches us what is valued in a relationship. Dev and Rachel value humor and new experiences together, potentially teaching viewers about what their romantic partner might value. However, Dev and Rachel’s relationship seems to waver as they learn about each other and experience many high and low points. As we cannot know the future of our romantic relationships, we may learn from Dev and Rachel’s relational successes and mistakes.
Relational communication theories can explain relational discourse in Dev and Rachel’s relationship. Concepts that do well to describe Dev and Rachel’s relational storyline are fatal attraction, turning points, and power as disabling. Each of these concepts sufficiently explain the spontaneity and impulsivity that characterizes their relationship. As the relationship does not follow a gradual path, the audience may predict that Dev and Rachel experience frequent conflict. Just as choppy seas rock a boat, Dev and Rachel’s relationship is constantly shaky due to conflicting expectations and misunderstandings, leading to a sunken relationship. The relational concepts of fatal attraction, turning points, and power principles succeed in explaining Dev and Rachel’s erratic and short-lived relationship.
The rest of this paper will review what previous relevant literature has found about the discussed key relational concepts, a thematic analysis of Dev and Rachel’s relational dyad using these key concepts, and a discussion of the implications of these connections. The literature review will include the work of communication scholars on the topics of fatal attraction, turning points in relationships, and power as disabling. The thematic analysis will be the application of these concepts to Dev and Rachel’s relationship to explain the sequence of relational events and interactions. The discussion section will include what we can learn about these concepts through Dev and Rachel’s relationship and what we can learn about relational communication in general, so we may make valuable conclusions to apply to our own lives.
II. Literature Review
To effectively analyze the relational communication of Dev and Rachel in Master of None, this paper will review the relevant literature regarding three key communication concepts to provide a thorough and current understanding. The topics of fatal attraction, turning points, and power as disabling are useful in explaining Dev and Rachel’s relational communication. Guerrero, Andersen, and Afifi (2018) provide a relational communication textbook that will be used to provide a general definition of these concepts in the beginning of each section. With a general understanding of these three concepts, the literature review may effectively analyze the strengths and weaknesses of our knowledge in these areas.
Fatal Attraction
In Close Encounters, fatal attraction is described as “occurring when the very qualities that draw us to someone eventually contribute to the relational breakup” (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2018). Felmlee (1998; Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010) has conducted much of the research regarding fatal attraction through a number of studies. These studies not only provide insight into fatal attraction in heterosexual relationships but same-sex relationships as well. Studies on the popularity of narcissists also suggest that narcissism may be a type of fatal attraction. The research on fatal attraction suggests a concurrence that, often, certain novel, initially attractive qualities are ones that may drive relational partners away as we see with Dev and Rachel in Master of None.
Felmlee (1998) studied the paradox of fatal attraction within romantic relationships. In her study, she analyzed questionnaire data from 301 terminated romantic partnerships to learn about the circumstances in which initially appealing qualities such as humor or sociability lead to the termination of the relationship. Felmlee explained that “individuals are expected to be prone to fatal attractions when they are attracted to a quality in a romantic partner that is ‘different’ in any of three ways: (1) different from the individual’s own expectations (i.e., dissimilar); (2) different from average (i.e., extreme or unique); or (3) different from normative expectations (i.e., gender atypical)” (Felmlee, 1998). Her qualitative analysis of the questionnaires supports these differences as common qualities leading to disillusionment and termination of a romantic relationship.
Felmlee, Orzechowicz, and Fortes (2010) completed a similar study in which questionnaires were given to same-sex couples and qualitatively evaluated. The researchers found similar results in these terminated relationships. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples reported instances of fatal attraction in their relational process. The second study notes that “a number of individuals describe in their open-ended responses disliked qualities in their partner that are closely linked to those that initially attracted them to that same person” (Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010). This supports Felmlee’s first study findings of common instances of fatal attraction. This study also rejects the idea that there are discrepancies among opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the attraction process when it comes to factors of initial attraction and relationship termination.
Back, Shmukle, and Egloff (2010) studied the effect of narcissism on individuals perceived popularity with strangers. In their study, freshman psychology students were recorded introducing themselves to a room of evaluating strangers. The researchers performed two more studies where they showed the recorded introductions on a screen instead of in person for strangers to evaluate and showed the recorded introductions on a screen with no audio so the strangers only evaluated non-verbal communication of the speaker. The researchers found that narcissists tended to be popular at first acquaintance, especially those with a sense of entitlement or tendency to manipulate others. The researchers hypothesized that “the immediate popularity of narcissists might ironically be a major reason for their interpersonal problems in the long run” (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010). As this set of qualities attracts others at first, it becomes problematic as arrogant, self-absorbed, or insensitive behaviors appear.
Felmlee (1998; Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010) has been important in studying the notion of fatal attraction, supporting with studies of both opposite-sex and same-sex couples commonly experiencing fatal attraction. Back, Schmukle, and Fortes (2010) provide the effect on narcissism on popularity and discuss its implications on attraction as a short-term positive quality and a long-term negative quality in a relationship. In this form, narcissism as a fatal attraction aligns with Felmlee’s view of a fatally attractive quality as unique, however, timeworn. The positive qualities of charisma and popularity are perceived as different and lead to attraction while the same traits might accompany negative qualities like self-absorption and insensitivity which can lead to a relational end.
Turning Points
Turning points “can be thought of major relational events...turning points help tell the story of relational change” (Guerrero et al., 2018). The turning point approach to relationships helps map the events in a changing relationship that steer high or low. Baxter (Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Baxter & Pittman, 2001) has participated in many studies of relational turning points. These studies offer insight into the utility of the turning point approach and types of turning points frequently recalled during dyadic tradition. It is also important to note that there are differences in turning points between romantic relationships and friendships. Turning points are appropriate in evaluating a relationship characterized by frequent extreme changes or turbulent events such as those in the relationship between Dev and Rachel.
Baxter and Bullis (1986) examined turning points in developing romantic relationships. They interviewed 40 couples of 80 individuals independently regarding the turning points of their relationship. They found using the turning point should “provide a fruitful construct for relationship research” (Baxter & Bullis, 1986) and that it is useful for gauging congruence of perspective, total satisfaction, and commitment levels of the relationship. Their results support that relational changes can occur through positive or negative “explosions of relational commitment” (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). The turning point approach recognizes the deviation that events cause in the relationship. This opposes a view of relational change as a gradual and incremental process.
Baxter and Pittman (2001) studied the extent to which romantic partners communicatively remember the turning points of their relationship. They found that “the turning points of quality time, passion, get-to-know time, and exclusivity were most likely to be communicatively remembered through multiple kinds of dyadic tradition” (Baxter & Pittman, 2001). This research contributes the common types of turning points that partners reflect on in dyadic traditions such as storytelling or reminiscing. Through the study, researchers concluded that turning points are not only important at the time of the event but also in later communicative traditions.
Johnson et al. (2004) studied whether development and deterioration events in friendships that have terminated could be explained with linear models. They found that approximately half of the friendships followed a traditional liner path and the other half of friendships reported nonlinear trajectories. They found that certain turning points like taking a trip or conflicts were either associated with increases in closeness or decreases in closeness respectively. Also gender differences were found in the friendship turning points that suggests a difference in the definition of closeness for same-sex friendships. For example, they found that female same-sex friendships were more likely to cite “conflict” and male same-sex friendships were more likely to cite “common interests” as turning points.
Concerning romantic relationships, studies Baxter and Bullis (1986) and Baxter and Pittman (2001) have found the turning point to be an insightful measure of relational commitment and satisfaction, not only in the events themselves but also in subsequent dyadic traditions. The work of Johnson et al. adds to the research of turning points in romantic relationships “by examining friendships, which are found to differ from romantic partners in the way they develop and deteriorate” (Johnson et al., 2004). Overall, the turning point is applicable to romantic and friend relationships that follow a nonlinear path, and it provides an analytical approach based in changes through relational events rather than prescriptive stages.
Power as Disabling
Power as disabling supports that “power can be enabling or disabling,” and “power is disabling when it leads to destructive patterns of communication” (Guerrero et al., 2018). A major destructive pattern is emotional insensitivity. Research is varied on the relationship between power and emotional insensitivity. Some studies suggest that positions of power decrease emotional sensitivity and increase dehumanization of others. This may be a coping mechanism when people make difficult decisions. Other research finds that those in power show an increased emotional sensitivity as people feel respected and inclined to act empathetically, suggesting that it is a conscious choice and not an inability to recognize emotion.
Mast, Jonas, and Hall (2009) investigated the effects of high or low power status on interpersonal sensitivity. Their studies involved assessing participants when asked to remember a time in which they felt low power or high power. The researchers consistently found that “high power resulted in more interpersonal sensitivity than low power” (Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009). In other words, people who felt more power in a situation exhibited higher empathy for others. Researchers conclude that individuals who are in a position of power associate it with positive feelings like pride and are more likely to exercise empathic power because it makes them feel more valued.
Contrastingly, Lammers and Stapel (2010) found that when people hold power they are more likely to dehumanize others and deny aspects of their humanity. They proposed that dehumanization is associated with power because those in power make decisions that make others suffer. They found that “high-powered participants were more inclined to make a tough decision, and this led to a more dehumanized view of the social target” (Lammers & Stapel, 2010). Their series of studies established that dehumanization can help people in power deal with causing suffering in others for long-term benefits. In this way, their studies suggest that dehumanization is not exclusively negative in power situations.
Moeller, Lee, and Robinson (2011) studied interpersonal dominance as a predictor of emotion decoding accuracy. Their studies observed that “interpersonally dominant (vs submissive) individuals exhibited lesser sensitivities to emotional cues, whether on the basis of auditory information (Study 1), multichannel information (Study 1), or facial expressions (Study 2)” (Moeller, Lee, & Robinson, 2011). These researchers found that dominant rather than submissive people tended to ignore others’ feelings on the basis that more submissive individuals need to be aware of others’ emotions because they are dependent on others. However, these researchers recognize that dominance is more of a personality trait and power is more of a socially-defined status. Therefore, an individual could be highly dominant and in a low position of social power, suggesting that dominance operates similarly yet independently of notions of power.
Moeller, Lee, and Robinson’s findings counter those of Mast, Jonas, and Hall (2009) and obfuscates the conclusions that high power is a hindrance to empathic tendencies. Lammers and Stapel (2010) offer that emotional insensitivity can be advantageous for powerful people when making difficult decisions. Mast, Jonas, and Hall (2009) suggest that interpersonal insensitivity is a choice to be made by individuals rather than weakened empathetic ability. There is no comprehensive view to the effect of power on the destructive communication pattern of emotional insensitivity. In general, having a neutral position of power or dominance can lead someone to exhibit emotional insensitivity as a coping strategy or an unwillingness to individuate others.
III. Thematic Analysis
Fatal Attraction: Poison Dart Frog
Dev and Rachel’s relationship in Master of None is like a poison dart frog; brightly colored, intriguing, and extremely deadly. In the beginning of the first season, Dev and Rachel’s relational development relies on humor-filled interactions. Near the end of their relationship, they begin to resent these comical efforts in one another. Dev also tends to display a narcissistic self-importance towards Rachel that is initially attractive, but Rachel becomes annoyed with his insensitivity. Fatal attraction is evident in Dev and Rachel’s relationship as the qualities of humor and narcissism attract as well as deter them from one another as the colorful poison dart frog catches your attention and can kill you upon contact.
Dev and Rachel are initially attracted to each other for their comical wit. In the beginning of the relationship, they frequently banter with each other through playful sarcastic comments. Before going to Nashville on their first official date, Dev flirtatiously teases Rachel that they are going to Trenton, New Jersey instead of Nashville explaining “ooh actually slight change of plans, we’re now going to Trenton, New Jersey. My friend told me about this chemical plant there, it’s supposed to be really awesome, so I booked us a tour” (Ansari & Yang, 2015). Rachel catches on to his humor and enthusiastically participates in the joke by teasing “there’s also this great landfill, we have to check it out” (Ansari & Yang, 2015). To start, Rachel and Dev’s relationship thrives on this form of lighthearted teasing.
Early on, Dev appreciates Rachel’s ability to do funny impressions. After spending time together at a bar, Rachel does an impression of a character from the TV show Southpark. After Rachel says the catchphrase, Dev sincerely commends Rachel stating “woah, that’s a pretty good Cartman...yeah well done” (Ansari & Yang, 2015). Dev sees this interaction as fun and is attracted to Rachel’s sense of humor. This aligns with studies that find humor to be a highly attractive quality as it suggests sociability (Felmlee, 1998; Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010).
Near the relationship termination they reject attempts of playfulness or flippancy. After almost a year of living together, the light teasing that once characterized Dev and Rachel’s interaction is seen as a hostile attack. Soon after Rachel tells Dev that she is thinking of moving to Chicago for six months, Dev struggles with the idea, wanting Rachel to stay. As Rachel becomes emotionally upset, he attempts to console her through a joke saying “c’mon, you want me to call Princeton Jay from Reply All and have him sing a song to make you feel better?” to which Rachel asserts, “Don’t be fucking silly. This is serious” (Ansari & Yang, 2015). Dev takes the joking too far, and Rachel resents his lack of seriousness, supporting that “regardless of the particular characteristics that are enticing in a romantic companion, those that are perceived as striking, unique, or extreme are especially susceptible to disillusionment” (Felmlee, 1998).
Despite enjoying Rachel’s antics early on, Dev takes offense to her impressions as the relationship deteriorates. One day, Dev asks Rachel to pick up her clothes off of the floor of his apartment, and Rachel is hurt by the fact that Dev called the apartment his and not ours. In anger, Rachel sarcastically proceeds to do an impression of a cleaning lady. Dev negates her sarcasm by saying “All right, whatever accent you’re just doing is very offensive, so you’re a racist boo and a dirty boo” (Ansari & Yang, 2015). Not only does Dev criticize Rachel’s behavior, but he inserts his own humor into the situation to which Rachel reacts negatively by throwing the clothes back on the floor. While both individuals enjoy humor to begin the relationship, it becomes extreme and hurtful, leading to the relational termination.
Dev displays attributes of a narcissist that attract and eventually irritate Rachel. Dev displays many attributes of a narcissist that have been found to attract such as charming facial expressions, self-assured body movements, and humorous verbal expressions (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010). Thus, Rachel sees Dev as extroverted and outgoing in his proud success as a commercial actor. Dev emotively boasts to Rachel about his role in a new film (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Rachel: So what’s been going on with you?
Dev: Not much. I’ve been filming this black virus movie called The Sickening. You’re not gonna believe it, but I play a scientist.
Rachel: Ooh, what kind?
Rachel is impressed with and attracted by Dev’s self-confidence in his rise as an actor. This self-assured charm initially draws Rachel in to Dev.
Later in the relationship, Dev expresses a narcissistic selfishness in ignoring Rachel’s aspirations of moving to Chicago. Dev and Rachel argue back and forth as Dev dislikes concept (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Dev: Six months? Wow, that's a long time. Would you come back on weekends?
Rachel: Yeah, I-I can come back on some weekends. But it's a great opportunity, and I can make connections I can use with some of the cooler bands I've always wanted to work with.
Dev: Yeah, I get it.
Rachel: You get it, but it doesn't seem like you support it.
Dev: I support it.
Rachel: That doesn't sound very convincing.
Dev: I support it!
Rachel: You don't have to be an asshole about it.
Dev: Hey, I'm not being an asshole.
While Dev insincerely agrees his support, attempting to appease Rachel, Rachel becomes offended with his artificial and pretentious comment. Protecting his own ego, Dev exacerbates the conflict when he denies to Rachel that he is being an insensitive person. In the beginning, Rachel overestimated Dev’s positive qualities and underestimated his negative, first seeing him through rose-colored glasses. Dev pushes Rachel away as he seems to care about his own feelings more than her aspiration. Dev’s exemplified narcissism appeals to Rachel at first as a confident extroversion but contributes to the relational degradation in the form of arrogant insensitivity, demonstrating fatal attraction.
Turning Points: Keep Your Arms and Legs Inside the Ride at All Times
Dev and Rachel’s relationship is full of twists, turns, highs, and lows like the wildest roller coaster at your local amusement park. The turning point approach to changing relationships is useful for understanding relational development and degradation that does not progress gradually. Rather, the turning point approach recognizes the extreme positive or negative changes that may occur through events in the relationship (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2018). In Master of None, Dev and Rachel’s relationship is extremely inconsistent in the upward or downward growth throughout their relational events. Their closeness increases after their trip to Nashville and decreases after a heated argument over their future together. Their relationship throughout the first season exhibits extreme changes in a bumpy ride of relational commitment that might make you nauseous.
Dev and Rachel’s relationship does not follow a smooth or gradual path. The season begins with them having sex shortly after meeting each other and parting ways by the end of the night. Their relationship picks up again when they meet at the bar, share drinks, and dance. That night, Dev tries to kiss Rachel, but she reveals that she her ex-boyfriend is back in town, intending to get back with him. They separate again until she texts Dev that she is done seeing her ex. Through these events in Dev and Rachel’s relationship, it is clear that “turning points are the substance of change” (Baxter & Bullis, 1986). This episodic interaction is highly chaotic as Dev and Rachel experience an intimate connection in one event to a stark disengagement in the next.
Dev decides to invite Rachel for a fun weekend in Nashville as a first official date which becomes a positive turning point in their relationship. While on their weekend date, Dev and Rachel navigate different conversations, joke around, and learn more about each other. On their way back home, they end up missing their flight because of Dev, causing Rachel to miss her niece’s dance recital. Despite Dev’s mistake, Rachel states her appreciation of Dev and invites him out for food (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Rachel: You rock. Thank you so much. I had a really wonderful time.
Dev: Yeah, I did too. This may sound crazy 'cause I know we've been hanging out
nonstop for the past 24 hours, plus those seven bonus angry hours, but are you hungry?
You want to get some food?
Rachel: Yeah, I could go get some food.
This is a positive turning point for Dev and Rachel because they increase in closeness through participating in activities together and taking a trip together (Johnson et al., 2004).
A negative turning point of Dev and Rachel’s relationship is their argument over Rachel’s new opportunity in Chicago. When Rachel tells Dev that she has been offered a new position at work, he fails to understand her point of view, and he does not want her to leave for six months. The argument forces Rachel to question her future with Dev (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Rachel: Well-- -[sighs] Okay, maybe I shouldn't be doing any of this, but what am I supposed to do? I'm 30 years old. I can't just start over. I've been doing this for too long.
Dev: All I'm saying is to just sit for a beat and make sure this is something you want to do.
Rachel: What, I'm just gonna sit for a beat? What, am I gonna be 50? Or if I just sit around, hanging around, doing the same shit, working with the same bands that nobody likes? And I hate their music, and I hate my job, and, what, and I fucking hate my life?
After building an emotional closeness, this event disrupts their relationship and changes how they view their future or non-future together. As Rachel and Dev near the relational end, this turning point aligns with the notion that events “most often associated with decreases in closeness included stop living together” and “conflicts” (Johnson et al., 2004). The turning point approach provides excellent insight as Dev and Rachel’s relationship is extremely explosive and unstable which eventually leads to a relational termination.
Power as Disabling: A Mountain of Me
When it comes to tuning into the emotions of others, Dev is like a mountain; he seems formidable, cannot be moved, and has the emotional awareness of a rock. An individual with power may display emotional insensitivity towards a relational partner and end up damaging the relationship. Emotional insensitivity breaks down the bonds of a relationship as it “occurs if a person fails to tune in to the emotions or feelings of other people” (Guerrero et al., 2018). In Master of None, Dev employs emotional insensitivity towards Rachel to validate his own perceptions and get exactly what he wants. Examples of when he displays emotional insensitivity are in episodes seven and nine. He uses this strategy of disabling power on Rachel, and it often leads directly to conflict, leaving Rachel to climb the mountain herself.
Dev employs power as disabling as emotional insensitivity when he denies Rachel of her opinions to protect his own feelings. At the end of episode seven of Master of None, a film director overlooks shaking hands with Rachel and Denise while he shook hands with every male at the table. Rachel and Denise point out that this was sexist and Dev refuses to believe them. Rachel crosses her arms and the following argument ensues (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Dev: Are you really mad at me right now?
Rachel: Kind of.
Dev: Not that mad, though, right? Hey! What? Why are you mad at me? Your beef's with Brad Honeycutt. Do you really think that guy has something against women 'cause he didn't shake you and Denise's hands?
Rachel: You're not listening to what I'm trying to say at all.
Dev: All right, whatever. I'm sorry you missed out on the life-changing experience of shaking hands with Brad Honeycutt. What a tragedy.
As Lammers and Stapel (2010) conclude “the experience of power decreases perspective-taking, makes people more closed to others, and increases deindividuation...three psychological processes associated with increased dehumanization,” Dev displays destructive communication in using power. By denying Rachel’s perception, Dev minimizes Rachel’s adversity and exercises dehumanizing power.
Similarly, Dev implements disabling power through emotional insensitivity to Rachel in episode nine to manipulate her into staying close to him instead of moving to Chicago. When Dev learns of Rachel’s news, he immediately questions her motive and tries to convince her not to go, caring only about his own needs. She notices his lack of support, and they argue (Ansari & Yang, 2015):
Rachel: Wait, so you think that I'm mismanaging my time?
Dev: No, I'm just saying, are you sure you want to move all the way to Chicago?
Rachel: No, I'm not sure I want to move all the way to Chicago!
Dev: Why are you yelling?
Rachel: Because you're right, but you're being really insensitive about it.
This supports that “dominant individuals should be motivated to disattend to the emotional displays of others because doing so better supports the self’s agentic goals” (Moeller, Lee, & Robinson, 2011). In a manipulative power play, Dev intentionally fails to understand Rachel’s feelings as he is consumed by his own agenda.
IV. Discussion
The relational dyad of Dev and Rachel in Master of None is characteristic of the communication concepts of fatal attraction, turning points, and power as disabling. These key themes expose the underlying issues that ultimately lead to the relational dissolution. We see dramatic spikes in relational commitment and closeness throughout the season. Dev and Rachel enjoy quality time together yet often argue over conflicting ideals. This turbulent relationship was doomed from the beginning.
However, we can learn from the irregular progression of Dev and Rachel’s relationship in Master of None. First, a relationship thrives on humor, but sincerity provides a stable foundation. Dev and Rachel interact using sarcasm as the main source of humor, but this compels them to tease beyond each other’s limits. They need to recognize the appropriate ways to use humor that do not target the other person. Humor can be constructive or destructive towards the relational bond.
Second, in a relationship it is important to be self-aware. Dev and sometimes Rachel struggle to realize when they take a joke too far, take advantage of the other, or act insensitively. Every action or inaction we take influences our relationship. It is important to reflect on our relational role and focus on how to best communicate ourselves to ensure a healthy, positive relationship. To maintain a relationship, we must act intentionally and know how to conduct ourselves.
Third, relational partners should work to understand each other. Dev and Rachel regularly overlook each other’s views, opinions, and desires. Often, this lack of understanding leads to conflict. When in a relationship, we are jaded by our own thoughts and agendas and may not validate the feelings of others. It is critical that we try to recognize and empathize with the complex emotions that our relational partners present. In building this understanding, we may fortify the relationship.
In any television show, relationships seem dramatic, produced to thrill and maximize the interest of the audience. Thus, Master of None shows us the choppy and comical relationship of Dev and Rachel. Ridden with issues, their relationship presents outcomes to situations that viewers learn from. In analyzing their communication, we conclude that they are victims to fatal attraction, demonstrate a sporadic relational progression best explained through the turning point approach, and deal with the consequences of power as disabling in the form of emotional sensitivity.
References
Ansari, A., & Yang, A. (2015). Master of None. Netflix Official Site. Retrieved from www.netflix.com/title/80049714.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(1), 132.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12(4), 469-493.
Baxter, L. A., & Pittman, G. (2001). Communicatively remembering turning points of relational development in heterosexual romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 14(1), 1-17.
Felmlee, D. H. (1998). Be careful what you wish for…”: A quantitative and qualitative investigation of “fata1 attractions. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 235-253.
Felmlee, D., Orzechowicz, D., & Fortes, C. (2010). Fairy tales: Attraction and stereotypes in same-gender relationships. Sex roles, 62(3-4), 226-240.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2018). Close encounters: Communication in relationships. Los Angeles, Calif: Sage.
Johnson, A. J., Wittenberg, E., Haigh, M., Wigley, S., Becker, J., Brown, K., & Craig, E. (2004). The process of relationship development and deterioration: Turning points in friendships that have terminated. Communication Quarterly, 52(1), 54-67.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113-126.
Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(5), 835.
Moeller, S. K., Lee, E. A. E., & Robinson, M. D. (2011). You never think about my feelings: Interpersonal dominance as a predictor of emotion decoding accuracy. Emotion, 11(4), 816.