This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 am and is filed under Communication. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Part II
The practice of mumbo-jumbo conversation is the basis of bad manners. In homes where there are several children, bedlam is common because when a child wants something he simply shouts until he gets it. The habit of shouting develops because the parents do not listen either to each other or to the children. Following the model set by the parents, the children may run in and out of others’ conversations in track shoes.
One method of installing the principles of good communication in children can be practiced at mealtime. The parents can insist that when a family member wants something passed to him, something like the following dialogue must occur.
CHARLES: Joannie?
JOAN (turning her head): What? (This is her way of saying, “I’m listening.”)
It is important that this little routine be practiced if there are several people present. If a name is not specified, no one mows who is being addressed. If the person who is named does not turn and acknowledge the communication, the original speaker, in this case Charles doesn’t know if he has been heard. We now continue the dialogue.
CHARLES (original message): Will you pass the butter, please? (JOAN passes the butter to CHARLES; this is her acknowledgment of the original message.)
CHARLES (acknowledging the acknowledgment): Thank you, Joannie.
The second type of major breakdown in personal communications occurs when the message sent is not the message received, as was pointed out in an earlier chapter.
How do husbands and wives manage to misunderstand each other so completely and so successfully? The major reason is that people are separate one from the other, and can transmit the state of their feelings, desires, intentions, and expectations only by verbal or nonverbal communication.
It will be recalled that the significance of a message is determined not only by its literal meaning (the report aspect), but also by the accompanying gestures, facial expressions, and the like (the command aspect), and by the nature of the total situation in which the message is sent (the context aspect). Communication between intimates is especially difficult in some respects because the sender may not realize that the understanding of his message may be affected by his nonverbal behavior or by a misinterpretation of the context. The most practical method for clarification of a message is for the receiver to ask the sender to elucidate, if there is any doubt about its meaning. For example, if John comes home a little bit tired and angry and finds the house looking slovenly, he may say to Mary, “I had to call on the Hatfields, and my gracious, Louise Hatfield keeps a lovely home. It’s a joy to be in it.”
In this instance Mary may say, “John, you said that Louise Hatfield keeps a wonderful home. The message which I hear, what I think you’re trying to tell me, is that our home looks like a pigpen. Is that right?” If John says yes, that’s what his message was, and then Mary can say, “I know the house looks a mess this afternoon, and I don’t like it any more than you do, but the water pipes burst at four o’clock and I had to go after the plumber and I haven’t had time to clean up.” The ambiguity of the message is cleared up unless John feels that Mary’s response is an old ploy; in that case they must continue struggling for a resolution.
A similar exchange may occur at a party when Mary says, “Isn’t it wonderful the way Jim Power always holds his wife’s hand and sticks with her throughout the party? It sure is nice to see people so much in love.”
John can understand this message either as an expression of sincere admiration for the Powers or as a criticism of himself. He is not sure which interpretation is correct, so he says, “Are you implying that I’m neglecting you at the party, Mary? Does it bother you when I leave you and talk with the boys?”
Mary can answer “Yes” or “No,” and again, the problem can be resolved because what they are talking about has been made clear.
Suppose John says instead, “Yes, the Powers are a lovely couple.” He is choosing to take Mary’s remark literally and thus while appearing to be in polite agreement, he is actually blocking off clear communication. When spouses repeatedly encounter obstructions of this sort, they begin to despair and lapse into permanently unclear communication.
As soon as families begin to squabble, the number of messages incorrectly received increases. People who are quarreling fall into the trap of saying one thing when they mean another, or of hearing one thing when something else has been said, because they are angry, hurt, or frightened. It has often been remarked that none are as blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, we may say as well that none are as deaf as those who will not hear.
A communication problem occurs when a message has two or more possible meanings: The “meaning” is therefore dependent upon the interpretation of the listener, which may be different from the interpretation given by the speaker.
For example, one spouse may attempt to be witty at the expense of the other, either as a way of retaliating for previously incurred injuries, real or imagined, or to make himself look good in the company of others, without regard for the partner’s feelings.
The spouse who is always making sarcastic jokes at the expense of his partner can usually be stopped if the victim says, “John, the message I get from that bit of humor of yours is as follows . . . ,” and then spells out the message. The sender will usually try to laugh, and say, “Oh, you know I was only kidding.”
‘Well, maybe you were kidding, but that’s the message I got.” “You shouldn’t be so thin-skinned.”
‘Well, darling, would you please not pull that kind of joke on me in the future? I would consider it a great favor because it embarrasses the hell out of me. Or if you really are angry with me, let’s talk about it and knock off the sarcasm. Otherwise, I won’t be able to appreciate your humor because I’ll always be watching out for digs at me.”
The argument in this case arises over the nature of the command aspect of John’s message. His spouse takes the message literally, while John insists he wanted it to be taken humorously.
A response of this sort may cause some small fights in which the sender of the “kidding” messages accuses the receiver of being thin-skinned and oversensitive or perhaps of having a persecution complex. It may result in an admission by the “teaser” that something is indeed “bugging” him or her. But the essential point is that this confrontation permits the couple to discuss their problems openly and explicitly, so they can be dealt with. The communication system has moved toward a higher degree of functionality.
