Relationship Dimension, Communication And Relationships In Witness

In order to understand the relationship dimension, the communication and relationships depicted in the movie, Witness, need to be analyzed. In the relationship dimension, there are two extremes, with individualism being at one end and collectivist at the other. Individualists believe in satisfying the needs of them as an individual over those in the group. They also are known for having short- term relationships, being self-sufficient and stressing rights. Collectivists, on the other hand, believe in the wellness and the survival of the group over themselves. They are also known for having long- term relationships, being exclusionists, and stress duties within the group. The results of collectivist and individualist polarity can be seen in the relationships between John Book, Rachel Lapp, and Eli Lapp.

John Book showed to be on the individualist end of the relationship dimension in the movie, Witness, while he was in Philadelphia. John exhibited this individualistic behavior in the cop car scene. During this scene, John explained to Rachel that they believed the suspect was still in the neighborhood and they wanted Samuel to look at him. Rachel then said, “You have no right to keep us here.” John replied with, “Yes I do. You’re sons a material witness to a homicide.” This scene showed that John was individualistic because he was being very direct, also known as using high context when explaining to Rachel why they needed them to stay in the cop car with them. It also proved it that he is individualistic because also stressed his right to keep Rachel and Samuel in his custody. Another example when John is shows individualism is in the scene where John tells his colleague that he chose to keep Rachel and Samuel in his sister’s house instead of a hotel. This shows that he is individualistic because he did not have to ask anyone superior to him; he made the decisions on his own. If he was collectivist, he would have to ask the chief, in this case, for permission to do so. This scene also showed that he is individualistic because he did what benefited him not the whole group. Instead of letting Rachel and Samuel go to see Rachel’s sister he made them do what would benefit him and his career. For these reasons, John Book was placed on the individualist end of the spectrum.

Rachel Lapp, on the contrary, was on the opposite extreme and showed to be more collectivist while was among other Amish. A scene that revealed Rachel being collectivist was when she asked Eli if John could stay in his house, amongst the Amish. This showed that she is collectivist because she asked permission from the head of the group. She knew that it was best her and the group if John stayed, but since she collectivist, she had to ask permission from the head of the group. One more example that reinforces Rachel being a collectivist was is the barn-raising scene. During this scene, everyone had their own duty to perform for the construction of the barn to be completed in one day. Rachel’s job was to prepare the meal for the men and pass out their drinks when it was lunchtime. This shows she is collectivist because the duties of everyone in the group are very important. The Amish have an interdependence on each other, and it is stressed to ensure that the barn gets completed. Rachel was placed on the collectivist end, for these reasons.

The relationship worldviews affected Rachel Lapp and John Book’s development and the eventual end of their relationship. At the beginning of Rachel and John’s relationship, the two were volatile toward one another and the relationship dimension was an obstacle that was standing in their way. A scene that exemplifies this is the cop car scene. In this scene, John and his colleague are driving them around to hopefully find a suspect to the murder that night. Rachel being collectivist says, “You have no right to keep us here.” Rachel did not want to help find the suspect because it did not involve her group and she did not want any part in it. John being an individualist replied with, “Yes I do. You’re sons a material witness to a homicide.” John stresses his rights and likes to utilize them. This strained the relationship between the two because John felt Rachel was being unsympathetic of them losing a colleague and trying to receive justice. While Rachel felt John was being inconsiderate of them needing to get to her sisters. Toward the middle of their relationship, the relationship dimension did not pose as a problem between Rachel and John’s relationship because John was willing to help the group and perform the duties that the Amish needed him too. An example of this was shown in the scene where John and Rachel were dancing to the radio. This relationship dimension did not stand as a barrier at this point. Rachel was not following her collectivist values and she did not care how this would affect the Amish. John also did not follow his individualist values and chose to not just worry about himself, but he focused on the two of them at that moment. They were both living in the moment without the relationship dimension coming in between the two. This scene strengthened their relationship and was the turning point for them becoming more romantically involved with one another. Toward the end of their relationship, they understood that neither of them could completely surrender to each other’s perspective on relationship. A scene that displays this is when Rachel was gathering eggs and John came to converse with her. Amid this scene, John revealed to Rachel that they could have made love the prior night, however, he knew in his heart that it was an awful thought on the grounds that there was no chance he could live in her reality or that she could live in his. They both encountered each other’s perspectives; when Rachel was in Philadelphia and John remained in the Amish people group and could acknowledge them in these brief timeframes being encompassed in that culture, yet not for the remainder of their lives. This, in the long run, prompted their goodbye where they acknowledged each other’s perspective of relationship however couldn’t change their identity or their social contrasts before they had met.

Another character that showed to be a collectivist, while he was among the Amish, was Eli Lapp. This collectivist attitude was shown in the scene when he first met John. During this scene, Eli did not want to help him because he was an outsider. Eli was trying to convince Rachel that he needed to go to the hospital. This showed that he is a collectivist because he did not want an outsider in his group; this is also known as exclusion. Eli did, eventually, let John stay. Only because Rachel told Eli that if the people who shot John found him, then they would then come after Samuel. This also shows he’s a collectivist because he makes decisions that are best for the group. Eli does not want John there at all but since Samuel life is endangered, he chose to protect the safety of the group over his own personal feelings for John. Another example that shows that Eli is a collectivist is when he sought permission, for John to stay within the Amish community, from the Elders. This showed he is collectivist because he had to ask for consent from the leaders of the group to have John, an outsider, stay amongst the Amish community. Therefore, Eli was placed, accordingly, as a collectivist.

Eli Lapp and John Book’s relationship in the film, Witness, fluctuated quite a bit because of their differences in how each of them views the relationship dimension. Eli is on the collectivist end of the spectrum whereas John is polar opposite in being individualistic. Through most of their relationship, John and Eli had a warm relationship. An example would be when John first arrived in the Amish community. Eli did not want John there at all but since, him being a collectivist, knew it was best for the group. John was willing to conform to the Amish and everything Eli asked of him. An example would be when John woke up at 4 o’clock in the morning to help Eli milk cows. At this moment, the relationship dimension did not pose as a problem because John was willing to conform for his own survival. Close to the finish of John and Eli’s relationship, it was disdain. An example that this is shown was in the scene where John got into a fight with the “English”. The Englishmen were tormenting the Amish men by taking their hats and putting ice cream on their faces. Eli told John to wait for them to just go away and to not act on his feelings. Well, John disliked the thought because to him that’s not how you stand up for yourself; he then punched the Englishman. This is where their relationship was strained by the relationship dimension. John being more individualistic expresses his feelings using low context. While Eli being more collectivists, he expresses his feelings using high context meaning he conceal his feelings. This caused problems because John felt as though Eli was being inconsiderate of the other Amish men getting bullied. On the other hand, Eli felt that John was being dishonorable to the Amish community. At the end of their relationship, there was a mutual affirmation. John and Eli acknowledged and see each other’s perspectives of the relationship dimension yet do not care to act in one another’s version. They demonstrated this in the scene where they said their farewells. Eli poked his head out of the barn and said, “You be careful out there among them English.” John grinned after Eli said that. Eli saying this meant that John was accepted by the Amish and by him. John signified that bond by grinning back at Eli. Their view on the relationship dimension did not become a problem at their goodbye, and they had mutual respect.

John Book’s behavior with the Amish promoted effective cultural understanding. John learned to understand the Amish culture because he immersed himself into the culture without questioning what they were doing or what they were asking him to part take in. He chose to learn about the culture while living in it. He embraced what being an Amish man was like and truly learned how to appreciate their way of living. This behavior of John’s was an extremely effective way for him to reach this cultural understanding.