What can be communicated?
This question has been hanging over my head for more than a month, still, I find it confounding. I feel that my knowledge has been significantly increased over this time, my perspective feels more satisfying. I still think the answer to this is beyond my abilities and my resources. Having posed it is almost enough for me. I have to try anyway.
It's always best to start at the surface and dig deeper when confronted with a difficult question. In fact, this may be the only approach. So, what is the most superficial way in which humans communicate? Damn, that's a doozy too. Does this mean the most transparent attempts at communication or the most functionally insignificant?
Let's say functionally insignificant.
Talking about the weather or about topical, universally known facts or concerns.
"Damn, it's been hot the last few days."
"Seriously. I've had to spend all day indoors with the air conditioning on!"
"That'll jack up the ol' electric bill."
"Yeah, tell me about it. And I definitely don't have the money to spare, either."
"Amen to that, brother."
Apparently, no information has been exchanged here. Both parties are talking about obvious issues that everyone in the climatic (is that an acceptable use of that word?) area knows about. Also referenced are the general scarcity of money and the difficulties associated. Another obvious issue that most people deal with daily and are intimately familiar with.
But what else?
Discomfort associated with the heat and financial hardship imposed through an attempt to deal with this discomfort are wide ranging concerns. However, presumably, not EVERYONE in the area is troubled or annoyed by them. For example, some people might prefer the high heat to spring-like temperatures. Others might not be the least bit concerned about the additional cost of air conditioning. So, in this exchange, it is confirmed that both individuals are indeed concerned about these current problems. On a certain level, both parties end this exchange knowing that they share some common ground and their minds are, at least to some degree, on the same issues.
This is important. Knowing that another's mind is similarly engaged is, I find, calming. Sometimes people can become isolated in their own minds, feel that they have unique problems that no one else faces, that they are up against impossible odds. The recognition that others are engaged in the same struggles is heartening, even if this is irrational. I would say that talking about local sports falls into this category, even if these concerns are a bit more abstract and artistic in nature. Something like gas prices affects a wider group of people than any weather front, but I believe the principle is the same.
So much for that.
I'm going to try to distinguish this form of communication from that which discusses a Specific topic that is known only to the two people discussing it, or perhaps, a small group. I don't feel it necessary to work all the way down the continuum of less and less universally acknowledged problems. Still, I wonder whether this example will be too big of a jump from the last.
Discussing a friend.
"I'm really concerned about (name). (Pronoun) seems to be isolating (Pn)self a lot lately and isn't coming out with us the way (Pn) used to. I wonder if (Pn) still hasn't gotten over that big breakup?"
"Oh, I know what you mean. (Pn) really hasn't been the same since that. Maybe we should throw (Pn) a party or something. Or just get the whole crew together. Let (Pn) know that we're all behind (Pn)."
"Good idea."
The first thing I notice about this example, contrasted with the first, is that the problem being discussed is one that the two individuals feel they can do something to correct or resolve. They are not merely commiserating on the unfortunate effects of the problem, they are planning to attack it. Indeed, this is a big jump. Take a half step back. Perhaps an intermediate stage would be a problem that no direct action could be taken towards but to which potential solutions could be posed. (nothing can be done to change the weather)
"If the two parties could just work together maybe we could get some real health care legislation passed that would benefit everyone."
Half step back forward. Deep breath.
I can feel my logic, as it is, slipping away. I must attempt to continue.
The example at hand is an exchange between two people. It doesn't involve a lot of communication because there is no tension or disagreement - both agree as to the best course of action. However, that is the key, the conversation is a prelude to action as opposed to pure commentary. It is goal-directed. It focuses the attention of both parties on the problem and gets them thinking on the details of how the plan should be carried out. It forces an allocation of resources, in a sense. It carries an obvious functional purpose (as the general speculation about potential solutions for problems out of reach does not).
I'm going to endure internal argument and self-criticism over this, but, I believe that the communication of emotions is somehow more significant, or, at least, requires the transmission of more information than talking about the external environment whether it be comment or problem solving. I'm not saying that emotions are more important, merely, that communicating them is more difficult and therefore stretches communication further, deeper. I will try to demonstrate this with an example.
Fuck.
As I'm trying to write out an example, I realize that emotion is the most universal concern/experience. Everyone is trying to feel happy, good. Everyone knows what it is like to feel angry or sad. While we can't (at least easily) convey the richness and nuance of our emotional experience, people can empathize with us if we say "I am so sad" or "I am so happy". While their experience is probably not just like ours, they can easily relate.
I've been beaten by this question, but, I did make a forceful and somewhat effective attack.
This isn't over, communication. I'll whoop you yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment