The writings and articles of Becoming Human. Here are the thoughts, ideas, and practices to help us understand the world so that we can better live in it.
Verbal rhetoric such as public speaking is useful but has limitations. This communication is great for goals and inspiration but does not produce behavioral changes. This is the myth of transformative information.
Transformative communication requires more than speaking. Why do we prefer verbal rhetoric, what culture is produced as a result, and what else should we try to do?
Read More
Looking from the periphery, especially at social media, the 2020 Presidential Election has shown us, at least, that our culture ain’t so hot at handling conflict. Some display a childlike, filter-less barbarity in espousing their unnurtured, uninformed, confused vomit of opinions under a veil of objective truth. Others are simply so over the trite goulash of chaos that they are actually asking for cat pictures.
Well, I think it is time to talk about conflict resolution.
At the least, I hope I can offer some semblance of information that can potentially make the process better understood. And not just for post-election politics. From marriages to siblings, co-workers to intercultural failures, we have a lot of conflicts that can be handled better.
Conflict is a disagreement that results from the perception of incompatible goals or uncertain relational trajectory.
Conflict comes from the Latin phrase ‘con-fligere’ which literally means “to strike with” or “to strike together”. When multiple elements of the world come in contact, friction and tension results.
The first implication is that conflict is natural and inevitable. If you have any kind of contact with another being, there will be conflict.
The second implication is that conflict is not necessarily negative. Your experience of the world is going to be hard. There is going to be conflict. You have very little control of that likelihood. You do, however, have control of what you will do with the difficulty and how you will respond to the conflict.
Conflict itself has no moral value. How you respond to conflict does.
If you want to explore more about the invitation conflict offers and how we ought to respond, you can do so here: The Invitation of Conflict —To never be the same — conflict could be the very answer we are looking for.medium
Once we recognize the ubiquitous certainty of conflict and that it is natural, inevitable, potentially constructive, and contextual, we can begin the adventure of understanding its nature.
Why does conflict happen?
What is the cause of such striking together?
While there are many approaches to this question, a helpful perspective comes from Leslie Baxter; particularly because her explanation involves the role of communication in disclosing the unavoidable experience of conflict.
Essentially, Baxter discusses how the use of verbal communication is our means to handle the constant contradictions that occur in a given relationship. A relationship comprises two (or more) variables in your identity.
You have yourself as a singular person with your own consciousness and experience, but you also have yourself as an interconnected being with this other being. In response, contradictions emerge in reality when these two identities clash.
As communicative beings, our use of language, then, is how we manage the tension and maintain the relationship. Most of the time this is quite mundane. There is a seemingly innate process of managing various contradictions so that the relationship can endure. Baxter calls this relational progress ‘Praxis’ — we continually generate experience with the other person and develop a process to communicate effectively through the contradictions. While the identities still continue to clash with our opposing wants and needs, we make practical decisions to healthily progress the relationship and accomplish as many of the various needs between the people involved as possible. Finding this balance is what Baxter calls ‘Totality’ — the contradicting opposites unite and their contradictions are sustainably in balance.
You, then, already know how to properly engage in conflict resolution.
If you have had one healthy relational moment in your life, you’ve proven that you can do this.
However, these compromises are capable of building a head of steam. When the pressure gets to a point where our developed processes are not capable of resolving the contradictions, we experience a heightened conflict where the relationship’s continuation is in question.
Essentially, as we continue to make compromises, dissatisfaction grows and, if not proactively and constructively confronted, we will be at relational odds with one another.
Baxter has a list of the various contradictions that we experience. While not necessary for the meta-level view on conflict resolution, they are certainly intriguing to consider:
Openness and Closedness: Relational partners expect openness while the individuals that make up the relationship desire privacy.
Certainty and Uncertainty: Certainty bonds the relationship and creates predictable comfort. However, predictability and stability will never be constant and, as people naturally change, the need for difference and surprise clashes with our desire for certainty.
Connectedness and Separateness: The physical, mental, and emotional bond of a relationship are necessary to promote commitment. However, too much connectedness can make one feel as if they are no longer exist individually.
How we engage with these — whether through altering our behavior and alternating between the dialectical contradictions, denying or segmenting one side of the contradiction, developing methods to integrate, balance, or accept the contradictions, or simply terminating the relationship so you don’t have to deal with contradictions — will determine the health and satisfaction of the relationship.
Frequently, you meet partners, couples, family members, or friends who once experienced incredible openness and have begun desiring more privacy; or who feel like their relationship is monotonous. Though a stereotypical trope, how many spouses have lost many of their friends because of poor handling of the ‘Connectedness and Separateness’ dialectic in their marriage?
This exploration, however, is not the intention of the writing.
We only need to understand conflict as an inevitable, natural, potentially constructive, and contextual certainty in our relationships and that communication is essential to navigating a conflict-ridden world.
At this point, you can use your natural life experience to handle the conflict.
At best, you’ve garnered good experience and the conflict will find mediation.
More likely, you are guessing at what to do in engaging the conflict. A successful mediation would be a stroke of luck.
At worst, you will fumble your way through an argument; objects may be thrown, couches may be slept on, and the future of said relationship will be in question.
If your self-confidence in being a seasoned conflict reconciler is high, read no further. If, however, you wouldn’t mind being a little more informed as to what is happening in a conflict resolution situation and how it should and should not work, there is much insight to be gleaned and, therefore, healthier conflict resolutions to be had.
In approaching conflict, there are four general categories that one may be predisposed to:
Active Constructive — exemplified by the use of voice.
Active Destructive — the disposition to exit the conflict.
Passive Constructive — the prioritization of loyalty by at least one member of the conflict.
Passive Destructive — the disposition to neglect the conflict while allowing it to linger.
As you can probably assume, Active Constructive is generally agreed as the most effective means of engaging with conflict. But how does this happen?
First, let’s look at various styles of conflict.
The following strategies, or styles, of conflict situations are commonly discussed in terms of what is called a ‘Dual Concern’. The assumption is that a person in conflict will generally fall somewhere on a spectrum of two primary concerns:
Concern of self
Concern for other(s)
Self-concern typically leads to assertiveness and other-concern is usually described as the use of empathy.
If we look at the five most common strategies, we can see how these concerns develop the disposition of those in conflict and the environment of the mediation situation.
Strategy #1 — Avoidance
You may be a conflict avoider. If not, I’m willing to bet that you’ve met someone who proclaims a tenacious avoidance of conflict.
Avoidance is a strategy that has low concern for the self (and is not active in asserting their desires) and low concern for the other (and does seek to fulfill the other’s desires). Psychologically, a conflict-avoider uses reactive approaches to issues and seeks to neglect them or pretend they don’t exist in the first place. Physically, mentally, and emotionally, they remove themselves from the experience in hopes that by withdrawing, the conflict will magically disappear.
With much dust under the rug, the conflict, however, remains and the outcome is lose-lose.
Strategy #2 — Yielding
Also known as accommodating, yielding happens when we suppress our experience and submit to the other. Especially if the other is dominant (see Strategy #3), we seek to be a peacemaker.
This approach, then, has low concern for the self (and is the opposite of being self-assertive) and high concern for the other (using empathy to satisfy their desires at the expense of your own). They win and you lose.
When both people yield, you end up with a quaint, slightly passive-aggressive conversation of which comedians make fun of Mid-Westerners for.
Strategy #3 — Competitive
A competitive approach is most evident by the use of force; mostly rhetorically, but can certainly occur with the use of physical force. At least one individual asserts themselves to dominate the other making for a high concern of self and a low concern of the other.
These conflict situations are described by the use of argument, insults, and power tactics used to intimidate the other person and get them to accept your views in the hopes of satisfying your desires at the expense of theirs. You win, they lose.
Don’t look too hard for an example. Pretty much all of 2020 is a case study in this approach. American politics, in general, is founded on such a principle.
Strategy #4 — Conciliation
This strategy is best described as the process of compromise — a sort of bargaining that has a moderate concern for self (and will assert some desires) and a moderate concern for the other. Conciliation desires fairness by using a mutual give and take so that both parties (kind of) win.
There is a hint that, while this strategy seems better than the others listed so far, we aren’t quite there. At the same time, this is the assumption most people have concerning what conflict resolution consists of.
Strategy #5 — Cooperation
Here, competition is off the table. Instead, those in conflict, as opposed to holding onto specific positions, articulate their interests and use creative problem-solving to integrate the desires of both parties.
Cooperation has a high concern for self (and asserts the self’s desires) but also a high concern for others (and actively engages in empathy to promote the interests of the other). The goal, then, is a full-scale win-win.
You may notice that there is some yielding occurring so that the self doesn’t assert itself at the expense of the other. However, there is a mutual interdependence amongst the participants so as to satisfy everyone involved to the greatest extent. When the approach is taken that each participant is invested in themselves and one another, the interest of all can be integrated with the hopes of finding collective agreement.
In Western society, this disposition is rare. An exploration of individualism versus collectivism reveals roadblocks to accomplishing this strategy as neither cultural disposition is certain to produce healthy cooperation (Individualist cultures tend towards competition, Collectivist cultures tend towards avoidance or yielding), yet both are capable of fostering a cooperative, collaborative approach to conflict resolution.
A brief glimpse at a small survey of common conflict resolution theories shows the emphasis on attaining the strategy of cooperation while also unpacking some of the practical requirements of doing so.
Various models presented in theories are interacting with what is sometimes called the ‘Conflict Resolution Curve’ which acts as a sort of spectrum to the amount of aggression and accommodation suggested for successful, healthy mediation.
Let’s look at how the following theories may relate to particular strategies.
Cooperative Model — (Deutsch)
This model suggests that one must bring a cooperative orientation to negotiation. Through trust and mutually beneficial intentions, both parties can win.
What this theory emphasizes is that one must have a balance to their goals. They must still hold onto their self-assertion, thereby confronting avoidant or yielding strategies, but must also consider the goals of the other, thereby confronting a competitive approach.
Taken at face value, the Cooperative Model can easily stop at conciliation and is more concerned about getting participants to consider win-win scenarios and pay attention to the concerns of both the self and the other.
Principled Negotiation Model — (Fisher, Ury)
One of the most mainstream articulations on conflict resolution, the Principled Negotiation Model is one of the best approaches to accomplishing the cooperation strategy.
The most effective function of this model is the suggestion to view a conflict through the lens of interests as opposed to positions. The example they use is of a conflict over an orange. If two parties simply fight over the orange, one will have to win and another will have to lose or they could compromise and split the orange. However, they may find that their interests in the orange are different — one may want the juice and the other may want the rind. Approaching a conflict from the perspective of inherent interests allows both parties to fully win while still respecting their concern for themselves and their concern for the other. The language of mutual satisfaction, integration, and invested problem-solving find fulfillment.
Particularly, Fisher and Ury suggest four standards to enact this model and, therefore, fulfill a truly cooperative approach:
Separate the people from the problem.
Focus on interests, not positions.
Generate options (creative problem-solving).
Find agreement based on objective criteria.
Psychologically, there is a particular disposition towards the relationships within the conflict situation that allows for not just conflict resolutions, but constructive relational futures, as well.
Human Needs Model — (Burton)
Principled Negotiation is a monumental step in conflict resolution progress, however, like most progress, finding one form of achievement leads to new problems in other contexts.
The issue raised in the Human Needs Model is that interests and agreement are good if the conflict does not deal with basic human needs.
Here, the denial of fundamental needs means that both sides are not intrinsically functioning interdependently and, therefore, cooperation will mean one party continuing to forego certain health. Namely, both parties cannot win in a situation of inequality because one party has already determined control and power over the other. If said person does not make compromises, then the unstable relational structure will continue. As a result, that person should not be satisfied with fulfilling their interests if their interests are dehumanizing. Also in contradiction to the Principled Negotiation Model is that, in a case such as this, you can’t separate the person from the problem if their forceful disposition is the cause of the problem.
Issues like boundaries and third-party mediators become essential here, but the Human Needs Model still proposes a methodology for interacting with a conflict resolution situation.
First, the mediation must begin by identifying the needs that are threatened. If the person doing the threatening is truly cooperative, this can happen amongst the parties themselves. Often, a formal mediator is required.
Second, before the conflict can move into a Principled Negotiation approach, the relational dynamic must be restructured so that both people can be accommodated. In short, in situations of human need discrepancies, counseling must precede conflict resolution.
Also of interest, though we may assume this is concerned with interpersonal relationships, this model has been highly useful in national conflicts where tyrannical or imperial relationships exist.
Conflict Transformation Model — (Bush, Folger, Lederach)
Many theories exist utilizing this concept which seeks to eliminate unequal distributions of concern for either the self or the other by various parties. Conflict Transformation, then, is about addressing potential negative attitudes and communication patterns that are inhibiting the cooperation strategy.
This model assumes that cooperation is the goal, but practically understands the need to transform the participant’s dispositions before such a strategy is realistic.
Namely, there is a focus on discourse to understand one’s own concerns, recognize the other’s concerns, and give attention to how previous postures, behaviors, and communication patterns have inhibited mutuality.
Conflict Transmutation Model
Various theorists have expanded on the Conflict Transformation Model with a slight adjustment. Both of these models are primarily in response to Principled Negotiation and the goal of the cooperative strategy, but the focus of the Conflict Transmutation Model, which takes its cue from alchemy, is about altering the state of the participants so that they can engage the conflict in another form inherently different from the approach which brought them to the conflict.
The focus of this model is not just addressing negative attitudes and communication patterns, but addressing the underlying factors and sources which brought them to a place of avoidance, yielding, or competition and those factors which caused the conflict in the first place.
Only then, the model argues, can both parties mutually problem solve and search for agreement.
Looking at the various models and strategies, the desired outcome ought to be cooperation, even if you need to take some other steps to get there.
At the end of a meditation situation, if both parties leave with both of their interests fulfilled at the same time and with a deeper sense of connection, mutuality, and investment as interdependent collaborators then the hopes of having high concern for both the self (assertiveness) and the other (empathy) will lead to a satisfying win-win.
In terms of the types of conflict, this would be the Active Constructive type which is exemplified in the cooperative strategy.
While the other strategies have their place — even conciliation can be positive — cooperation is resoundingly promoted. Principled Negotiation may be the most tactile model for achieving such ends, but, because of our tendency towards other strategies, the other models are certainly worth considering in accomplishing the active, constructive vision of cooperation.
But here’s where the goal is most important.
Because when you interact with the natural, inevitable reality of conflict in this way, you are not just resolving a conflict.
You are exemplifying the greatest propensity of being human.
Embedded in the theories, models, and strategies are some clear behavioral and mental actions that are worth emphasizing.
If remembering all the nomenclature is not high on your agenda, there are some practical steps to accompany the theoretical guise.
First, focus on reaching agreement. While this can still occur in making compromises, full agreement should be pursued by fully satisfying both parties. When those parties also stop seeing themselves as separate parties, but as a singular, interdependent unit, the likelihood of agreement is exponentially increased. Beyond an agreeable outcome, however, those involved should be spending time finding agreement on what the problem is, where the problem came from, what behaviors and communication have been problematic for the conflict, and how each one perceives the nature of all of these components.
Second, reduce tension and de-escalate hostility. Doing so may require an unbiased mediator. Sometimes, this will involve separating those in conflict and allowing each to process the situation independently. However, eventually, a catharsis must occur in which each person has the opportunity to explain their experience and acknowledge the other’s experience. Both understanding and expressing all perspectives are instrumental in fostering an active, constructive approach to conflict resolution.
Third, pay attention to communication. How information is relayed can greatly promote or detract from the purpose and goal of mediation. This will be addressed further below.
Fourth, focus on issues singularly. The complex web of relationships often leads to intersecting various problems and making connections that cannot be solved as a conglomerate. When approached singularly, however, solutions begin to intersect and the various problems of a large conflict begin to clearly emerge.
To further explore the above tips and, in the admission that we tend to naturally engage with conflict poorly, it is worth emphasizing what not to do before we consider the primary practices we ought to do.
Let’s first come back to communication.
The non-verbal and verbal communication used can greatly inhibit our goal in conflict resolution. Here are forms of communication that are, typically, not helpful:
Silence — (usually a reflection of withdrawal or avoidance).
Reactive communication — (emotive outbursts or verbal attacks to detract from the real issues).
Indirect communication — (often passive, sometimes passive-aggressive, we need to be clear about what we are trying to say).
Arguing — (our initial response to information about us is to defend ourselves. Remember, cast aside your position if you are going to achieve the interests of both).
Ascribing motives — (don’t assume you know why they did what they did or how they are feeling. Listen and give them the chance to directly express themselves).
Ad Hominem arguments — (if the person expresses something, separate the person from the problem; separate their position, emotion, or action from their inherent identity as a human being).
Counter blaming — (when feeling attacked or in the wrong, don’t attempt to shift focus away from yourself by blaming others).
Demanding withdrawal — (often as a means of escaping, don’t try to forcefully end a conflict situation by intimidating the other into giving up. You may avoid negative ramifications, but you will also ensure constructive possibilities are eliminated).
False logic — (synonymous with the problem of conflating separate issues and combining categorical conflicts into a singular conflict, avoid presenting your interpretation of a behavior or situation as fact. You can certainly express your interpretation, but don’t assume your story is the only, objective story. Humans have a tendency to fill in the blanks with their imagination. Approach the content of a conflict as objectively as possible while honoring the subjectivity you have experienced).
Arguing about different issues — (a potential unintentional act, be aware if your responses to issues are about the same issue. Bringing in separate information to explain your response to what the other party said will keep from addressing the issue at hand).
Spiraling negativity — (a conflict meditation can easily get out of hand. Using tactics such as ascribing motives, counter blaming, or arguing about different issues can easily create an environment of slewing the negative and, therefore, digging in on your positions).
Stubbornness — (again, holding onto a position and competing for your concerns at the expense of theirs is undeniably a quick way to stalemate a conflict and ensuring satisfaction and constructive outcomes will be at a minimum).
Quite simply, the opposite of the above should occupy our dispositions, but I’d like to elaborate on a few specific approaches to conductively realize cooperative conflict management.
Reflective Listening:
A signpost of empathy (and, therefore, upholding concern for the other), reflective listening is not just listening; it is affirmative listening that pays attention to details, emotions, and non-verbals while using unobtrusive feedback to affirm the person’s communication and invite further expression and response.
There are six different forms of feedback that are all designed to convey understanding and promote continued discourse.
Not all communication, verbal or non-verbal, is reflective. Eye contact is important and a slight nod can be helpful, but you can also interrupt with non-verbals or act bored.
Essentially, reflective listening is a way to reflect back to the person an undistorted and accurate image of their own process. Mastering this art is complex, but the intention is half the battle.
Accepting Criticism:
To deter your inherent defensiveness, a posture must be owned of willingly hearing critiques. Accepting a rebuke does not mean that their criticism is objectively correct. It simply means that you accept their experience. The attack they offered is likely not absolutely true. It is true, however, that they have physically, mentally, or emotionally experienced that issue. In so being, that is now information that the mediation must work with — whether or not it is factual.
Be Honest About Your Own Subjectivity:
Just as their experience is not the whole story, neither is yours. Your perspective is valid and must be honored, but it must be recognized as limited. Neither party is working with all the information. If the answers and the truth were so easy, we would not need mediation and, most likely, we wouldn’t have conflict.
Complexity, however, abounds.
If both parties can admit their limited, finite place in the world, opportunity for leaving with a more informed perspective exists.
More must be said about this reality and you can find an in-depth take here: Let’s Talk About Your Perspective — What is a ‘perspective’? And how can you change it?
Mapmaking Vs. Arguing:
We’ve already addressed the detriment of argumentation as a means to resolve conflict. In its place, and in collaboration with the cooperative strategy and the Principled Negotiation Model is a technique called mapmaking.
The simple version is that, instead of approaching an issue in terms of competition, where you must hold to your position and defend it, mapmaking encourages both parties to take the information they are working with and add it to the pool of knowledge for both to share. At the end of the venture, both people will have a more full version of the map than when they started; especially if they realize the insanity of arguing about whose version of the map is better.
Again, a fuller treatment can be found here: Mapmaking Vs. Arguing — In the age of debate, here’s a suggested method for disagreeing well
All of this is an ideal approach to conflict resolution. Needless to say, there are (at least) two people involved in a conflict. Problem is, you can only control one of those people.
So what do you do if cooperation is not possible, especially if such lack of participation can be harmful to you?
Our first final word — create boundaries.
There may come a time when potential resolution is no longer possible. Please attempt the healthy processes above as much as possible, but be willing to admit when peace is hopelessly futile.
Conflict resolution is certainly desirable, but it is available in certain contextual realities in which a person has chosen termination over healing. The only suggestion I can give if you find yourself in this situation can be found here: The Taboo of Changing Other People — How we can change people well — via tigers, prophecy, & Pygmalion
But let us end by speaking a second word to connect the dots of navigating a world in which conflict will be constant.
Common bond.
The key to unlocking conflict resolution is the collaborative, cooperative approach where invested trust and commitment set the stage for mediation.
Your commitment to the person on the other side of the table must transcend the conflict itself.
Here’s the deal — we are strange beings. When we come in contact with each other, our contradictions make the potential beauty uncertain. Our diversity may drive us apart.
Recognizing the common bond that holds us together gives us a unity in which our diversity can be held — even utilized — to foster the relational potential of human such as us.
In whatever conflict you find yourself, commit to the process of cooperation.
Because if we don’t, one of us will lose.
And if one of us loses, we all lose.
Many concepts and practices were alluded to in this piece that, if you are interested, may be worth your time to explore further.
Here is a selection primarily focused on relationships and communication outside of the ones already linked in the article:
Relational Attachment Patterns For Healthier Relations
How Do We Engage With Others?medium.com
People Pleasing & The Way Out
What is “people pleasing” and what can we do about it?medium.com
Community: The Four Defining Ingredients
How community was lost and how we can recover it.medium.com
You are constantly communicating. And everything you do says something.
Read More
A Primer on Language and its implications for the entangled web of our existence as fellow human beings sojourning through the earth.
I want to take you through a journey of something called The Semantic Triangle — utilizing the fields of communication and linguistics (which I have a degree in, so obviously, I am [not] an expert) — because this simple little triangle just might inform a healthy response to one of the most complicated, confusing, and frustrating components of human life:
How communication works.
So let’s start with two questions and a quote:
If you hear the word “orange”, what comes to mind?
It’s an important question for one reason — multiple options can be represented by the same word.
Overly simple? Yes. But this example reveals one of the foundational issues with communication and with words — we are not given a pre-determined set of words with their singular meaning. Would that make communication easier? Probably. But you can say, “Orange” and mean a color or a fruit or maybe something else entirely.
Another problem — you can say orange and it could mean nothing to you.
For example, if you didn’t subscribe to the English language, “orange” would just be a random set of squiggly lines or an interesting sound coming out of someone’s mouth. Just because it means something specific to you doesn’t require another human being to derive the same meaning. It also doesn’t require that human being to share any meaning with the word “orange” at all.
If I said the Hebrew word “melek” to an English speaking audience — it would mean nothing.
Point being, words and language aren’t as clean cut as we might wish for them to be.
Second question — how many words are added to the English language every year?
Well, depending on who you ask, anywhere from 100 to 4000, though the Oxford Dictionary usually adds about 1000 per year (and gets rid of just about as many).
So if you still needed some credibility to the ever-evolving, non pre-determined nature of words…I think that should do it.
Now for the quote:
“The finger pointing at the moon isn’t the moon.”
It’s a great way to explain metaphysics, but it also accurately describes how words & language works.
If you are feeling a bit nihilistic at this point, you are right where you need to be. Language and communication are messy. In my experience working with individuals and organizations, communication could, quite possibly, be attributed as the most common cause of issues. However, before we can discover a healthier, more productive, & more effective way to use this mysterious thing called language & communication, we need to be honest about what it is and what it isn’t.
Only then can we make communication great again.
Maybe an over-simplified version of the history of language will help us.
A person made a sound or drew a shape then someone else heard or saw their attempt at communication and, finally, they agreed on what it meant.
In response to this process, you now have language.
If you delve even further into communication theory, you notice that communication is more than language — it is the passing of some sort of information from one source to another. Do babies communicate? Yup. Do they use words? Well, not as we might define them.
We will get to a standard definition soon, but let’s start with the core principles to communication — of which there are five:
Communication is Goal-Oriented (every act of communication has a purpose).
Communication is Constant & Continuous (it is ongoing in every moment — you are constantly communicating).
Communication is Transactional (there is a give and take — often referred to as message and feedback; or sender and receiver).
Communication is Relational (every communication act involves people — even if the sender and receiver is just you, which is called “Intrapersonal Communication”).
Communication is Irreversible (every communicative act is permanent…once it is out there, it is out there for good).
Now, there are a variety of implications for these various principles. We could explore the intricacies of how we have goals, whether we are aware of them or not, for every piece of communication. We could look deeper into the field of Non-Verbal Communication. We could dive into theories on the transactional model of communication and all the parts included in a communicative moment (which is incredibly and frustratingly complex). Or we could examine what is implied in the relationships that bring forth communication, especially power distinctions. And, of course, it is always a good time when you ruminate on how communication is what creates the world as we know it (Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel may have said it best — “Words create worlds.”)
But our goal here is to understand where language comes from and that it is more than just having singular & absolute definitions for the words we assume are normal.
Back to that first act of language — when some being grunted to give a more effective way of working with another being and they both agreed. Whatever that first noise was, based on the principle that “Communication is Constant & Continuous,” we could conclude that this first noise was not the first act of communication. Up until this use of language, no matter how primitive it was, those beings were already communicating with each other because we are constantly communicating. The phrase “non-verbal communication” is actually quite accurate — because we are saying things all the time even if we aren’t using words.
Words, then, were a way to make that communication easier.
If instead of making a facial expression and offering a multitude of gesticulations, you could use a specific sound alongside of those facial expressions and gestures, the desire to communicate could be sped up and made more effective and efficient. Thus, somewhere along the sociological development of human beings, we started making language our primary form of communication.
Why is this important? Because it is helpful to humanize the norms of language that we may take for granted. At the dawn of history, a giant book did not fall from the sky with all the available words and their exact, precise meaning. Rather, there was a slow evolution over time that brought forth our language. The words you are reading are the result of generation after generation trying to ease the process of communicating with one another. Take heart, my friend, because if you find this comforting…you shouldn’t. This also means that the words are still evolving and the language we might assume is innate is still subject to its relativeness.
Not to get all “Tower of Babel” on you, but this means that language is a technology (though there is some debate on the exact nature of this, let’s just stick with a general definition of technology). It is not an inherent system pre-ordained in the universe that we just have to uncover and learn — it is a tool we came up with to use in order to make life better.
Communication is a construct.
The most obvious way to recognize this is to consider why different people and cultures have come up with different languages — they wanted to communicate more efficiently, so they agreed on certain sounds and images that meant certain things to their particular context and formed their own language.
Another important understanding alongside of the humanized creation of language is how the language was formed — it deals with a phrase that will come up again shortly — “shared meaning.”
If words have no inherent meaning from the book that fell out of the sky, how do we know what they mean? Consider, again, the word “orange.” This word can imply all sorts of different things, so how do I know what you mean when you use that word? I can recognize the squiggly lines or the sound as a familiar word — so there is at least some agreement — but I also have to know what you mean and share that meaning in the context.
Words don’t mean something, people do.
The only definition that exists for a word is the definition we agree on.
Ludwig Wittgenstein popularized this concept in a theory that is often referred to as “The Language Game” — essentially that you can come up with any meaning of a sound to make communication easier. Whatever definitions you assign to a particular sound or squiggly line are constructs that assist in playing the game.
There are examples of language experts who either create a language or use some old or fantasy created language and teach it to their children. Why does this work? Because they are just taking sounds and shapes and creating a shared meaning between the individuals (which also means that those children grew up to realize they couldn’t communicate those sounds and shapes to people who had not also learned them and usually defaulted to only using the culturally common version of language).
Fortunately, things like dictionaries and sociology and the forces of pop-culture have made creating shared meaning out of our linguistic constructs quite easy. If you are reading this, there is a good chance that you were taught how to read, you were taught similar rules of grammar as I was, and that you were even handed definitions that became normal in our culture. This doesn’t mean that we have mastered the technology of language and finally ended its ambiguity, it just means that we have found ways to share meaning with the masses. With more globalization and centralization in political structures and cultural spheres, it is no surprise that we made a priority of creating common definitions. More effective and more efficient communication has made much progress possible (again, you wouldn’t be able to read this if shared meaning wasn’t widely established). If Kentucky Fried Chicken can be made popular in Japan, then we shouldn’t be surprised that we’ve developed a common understanding of most words.
However, that doesn’t eliminate the fact those words have no inherent meaning — it is still a shared meaning that we came up with even if it is widely accepted.
This is often called the Proper Meaning Superstition — that words have a precise meaning. We may have created a common meaning, but we have to understand where those words and sounds and shapes and meanings came from in the first place.
They were created.
When we are honest about the nature of communication, we can begin to imagine how to more properly navigate our lives with it. Even though it feels more ambiguous and possibly more frustrating than a simple, straightforward explanation, we now are more capable to handle communication’s fragility. We can understand why communication causes such complications and, possibly, learn to avoid them.
This is getting out of control, let’s just get to the “The Triangle.”
Because there are all sorts of problems that have come up so far if this stuff is true — from how this can get real nihilistic real quick to how a group of people can decide to make a word “official” in a language or dictionary even though it is just the shared meaning to babies communicating to why different languages might exist at all.
The Semantic Triangle (which is also called by lots of other names…which is quite fitting in comparison to what we’ve already discussed) is a way to give a concrete image to what is happening in communication. It’s just a geometric shape, which means that it is just a use of the communicative technology to help communicate better. Communication theorists wanted to come up with a way to make sense of all this language and shared meaning stuff.
That’s how we got the Semantic Triangle.
You have the word — let’s stick with “orange” for now — it is a sound or a bunch of squiggly lines. The word is a symbol.
Then you have the actual thing — the color or the fruit — the actual concept you are referring to. This is easier with something concrete that you can actually see or touch or hold…it gets more complicated with abstract concepts (which we will get to shortly).
Then you have what you actually mean — the meaning, or, how you interpret the sound or shapes in reference to the concept being discussed.
All three of these parts work together to create language — the symbol in reference to a concept that we deduce meaning from.
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
The word is not the thing and the thing is not the meaning and the meaning is not the word — they point to each other. Words or symbols, then, are the finger that points to the meaning. The concept is also a finger that points to the meaning. But the symbol can also point to the concept. And the meaning (the moon) directs itself back to the other two.
Don’t worry, I’m confused, too.
So how about an over-generalized blanket statement to further what was discussed in Part One?
The Semantic Triangle reveals that words by themselves are meaningless.
They are just arbitrary symbols.
Quite literally, they don’t mean anything.
Therefore, we came to the conclusion that words only mean what we agree they mean. Again, shared meaning. Because every symbol has to be interpreted by the person receiving the symbol to agree on the concept trying to be communicated. The finger points and there has to be a common agreement that the moon is the object of the pointing.
This is why that dictionary you use to look up a word is not a standard, set definition engrained in the fabric of the universe and why it constantly changes — because the generally accepted interpretation of words changes. A dictionary, or even a common usage among a group of people, simply exists to aid the communicative process and create shared meaning. The current definition exists as it is shared by the users; which also means that definitions can change.
If language is indeed a technology that has been influenced by the concept of the Semantic Triangle, it is also why words can mean different things and the same word can change meaning over time. For example, the word “gentleman” — which was a formal title with specific legal implications such as someone who owned land — may have been commonly understood that way at one point of human history, but now might mean something else. Or the word “meat,” which used to be a general reference to food, now means a specific type of food. Words evolve — because, I’ll say this again, they have no inherent meaning.
This is also why two people can say the same word and mean different things. Because a shape or sound only means what you want it to mean — if we happen to agree on that meaning then we will be more efficient in how we communicate with each other — but there is a necessary and ongoing process to develop that agreement. Or if I decided, when I said “orange,” that I meant the concept of snow or that I was referencing a business called “Orange” that distributed computer software, which I am certainly allowed to do, it would only work if we both understood what I was talking about.
This is why, for the “Meaning” part of the triangle, meaning only exists when it is shared.
Or, you could say, a word only has a definition based on the shared meaning two people agree on for the word. Whatever two or more people agree on, that is what a word means in that specific context.
You see, words don’t mean anything and, while that is only technically true, if we are going to use language more effectively, we need to be honest about its nature.
If a word is just a sound or some squiggles it means that words, themselves, are only symbols. Symbols, then, have no inherent meaning. There is nothing built into the fabric of the universe that gives us a sound or a squiggly line some absolute, eternal value. Our only hope is to be able to interpret the symbol in its used context. This is what we see in the triangle — that a word is not directly connected to what it represents and an interpretative jump is required to take the word and associate it with a thing. The word “orange” is not an orange and it is not a color. The written letters that, in English, spell “love” is not itself love. In a proper context with proper understanding of the shared meaning, we can make these interpretations. With physical items, this connection will be easier. With abstract concepts, well, this is why we often say that words fail.
Maybe we could say that words are like maps — helpful guides to explain what is actually being said, but not the thing itself.
As a society, this has been made easier because we have worked hard to generate shared meaning by teaching a common usage of the technology of language for what specific symbols mean in relation to their concept. This is why Oxford can produce a dictionary — it isn’t what the words mean by default, they are telling us what sounds & squiggly lines commonly are interpreted as in a democratic fashion.
But it isn’t what the word means, it is what we agree the word means for our common convenience.
You could use that same word with someone who has a different meaning for that word and now the shared usage no longer exists.
Consider the reality of translating from one language to another. If you are someone who knows how to speak multiple languages, you are probably more acutely aware of this issue. Because the shared meaning that is generally accepted for the word “naranja” in Spanish translates as “orange” in English, but the value system, perspective, and, therefore, the interpretation in Spanish won’t transcribe on a 1:1 ratio in English. If we might have different interpretations of the same sound or shape in a shared language, how much more so for different words in different languages?
What we need to realize is that though we think we might have the same definition, while it might be close, there will always be at least minor differences in how we are interpreting the meaning of what is being said.
In a more philosophical argument, you could synthesize that the only real way to know exactly what someone means is to have a lifetime of shared experiences with them. You can never fully get into the head of another; which means you will probably never fully know what they intend when they use a word.
If we are going to make communication great again, we are going to have to work with the messiness that makes communication so difficult.
That communication and, therefore, language, is a construct.
That words and sounds are symbols.
And that they have no inherent meaning, only shared meaning.
I hope you can conclude that communicating will be no easy task — there is a reason communication is often the fault of so many problems — but also that if we can harness its nature, it can certainly be utilized well.
So how do we do that?
You know what I said earlier about the Communication Principles and how exploring the other principles wasn’t pertinent to our goal? I now recant that statement. Before we get to how to harness communication well, we need to cover a couple of other difficulties because, on top of the vague nature of words, there are some added complications.
While understanding the root of communication in the Semantic Triangle is the most important framework necessary to reframe our posture towards how we communicate, let’s shake up our frustration with the complexity of communicating even further. If our goal is to understand the nuances of communication with more awareness so that we can better use this tool, here are a couple of other issues to keep in mind:
1 — The Complexity of Communication Reveals Its Power — And Nothing is Going to Shape Us More
Depending on where you look and whom you talk to, you will get a variety of definitions on what communication is. However, in my exploration, this is one that emerges as the most complete:
The process of a continuous series of behaviors leading to a purpose through which people create and manage relationships exercising mutual responsibility in creating shared meaning.
Even the standard definition is weird. Who comes up with this stuff?
If you’ve read this far, you will notice several keywords that we’ve already discussed. Essentially we could break this down into three parts:
There is this constant act of giving and receiving messages that have a goal to them (Principles #1, #2, & #3).
This act shapes the people involved while being dependent on the uniqueness of each person involved (Principles #3, #4, & #5).
Which creates the shared meaning that results from the interaction (Principle #5 and pretty much all the others).
To answer your question — yes, communication is as messy as my handwriting.
If we consider this reality every time we communicate (which is, of course, all the time), then the act starts getting even more messy. Maybe an image would help:
This diagram shows us that, along with the nature of words and the construct of language, you also have to keep in mind a myriad of other complications. To start, you have a sender and a receiver. The sender sends a message using various symbols that have meaning and the receiver receives the message. Once received, the receiver gives feedback using the same kind of message.
Simple enough.
Except that, interchangeably and constantly, the sender and receiver switch roles. While the sender is sending a message, the receiver is also sending a message as a sender that the original sender is receiving and they are both giving feedback to those messages at the exact same time.
But then, there are a bunch of other messages impacting the communication process.
The context — which could be the physical setting, the social situation based on the nature of the individuals and their relationship, the historical setting that each brings into the process, the psychological situation of each participant, and the cultural situation that must be navigated based on who is involved, where they are from, and what values, meaning, expectations, norms, and beliefs come from their cultural understanding of the world.
Or the noise — anything that distracts from the communication. Whether external effects like sounds or visible effects of the room or the internal noise of how each participant is feeling or thinking.
You also have the channel — the component that the sender and receiver might not be in a room and they might not even be in the same space — the media or channel used to communicate a message can be almost anything or anywhere.
It would be convenient if communication was constricted to two people sitting in a vacuum of a space where they say one completely understood word at a time with no visuals, noise, context, or complexity. It would also be much less valuable.
All these parts are constantly happening and it makes for an infinitely difficult process. For something that is supposedly innate to our daily existence, this should trouble us just a little bit because we might not be intentionally understanding the very dynamic that shapes the totality of our lives.
Understanding this part of the communication dynamic should reveal that we are handling something difficult — which is why communication deserves a deeper look than we normally give it — but it should also reveal how powerful it is. Because communication deals with everything and is influenced by everything, nothing is going to shape us more. The more we are aware of its complexity, the more effective communicators we will be. The more effective communicators we are, the better we will be as human beings.
2 — Everything You Do Says Something
This complication is the outcome of Principle #2 — that you are constantly and continuously communicating…even when you aren’t talking.
The more common term for this is Non-Verbal Communication.
A couple notes on this from what we know about its impact on the communicative act:
Non-verbal communication is primary to verbal communication. A non-verbal takes precedence over something that is spoken as it is perceived to be more believable and genuine than words. Someone saying “I love you” while gritting through their teeth is an example of this.
Non-verbal communication can be intentional, but it can also be unintentional and often is the latter. We don’t always realize what we are communicating or even that we are communicating.
Non-verbal communication is ambiguous — just as with words, one act or image can have an infinite number of meanings and it is based on the audience and how they interpret it. There is no 1:1 ratio of what something means and the ensuing meaning can be different for every different context of the message or for every different receiver of the message and how they interpret it.
Non-verbal communication is multi-channeled. What does this mean? That non-verbal communication is everything except the words themselves.
There are also a plethora of non-verbal communication types:
Kinesics — any movement from your body. Eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, posture, touch.
Paralanguage — any sound associated with the message. Pitch, volume, rate, speed, or the quality of what your voice sounds like function as paralanguage.
Vocal Interference — the extraneous sounds or vocal tics we make while saying something.
Proxemics & Spacial Usage — what is in the space, what objects are present, and how does a person exist in and use that space or those objects.
Self-Presentation — The physical appearance and sensory effects of you and the space. Scent is the most dominant to our perception, but it is everything from how you dress to what you look like to what kind of presence you give off.
I’m not sure if we realize the immensity of what this implies. You and everything involving you is a communicative act. How you speak, when you speak, the timing of your message, the faces you make, how you stand, how you sit, whether you are standing or sitting, how you look, what shirt (if any) you are wearing — these are all ways you are communicating something.
But it goes further — how you keep your house, what decorations you put in different places, the objects you call your own, how you drive, or even your profile picture you use for social media — these are all communicating something.
Everything.
Absolutely everything.
Is communicating something.
The responsibility this implies can be overwhelming — because non-verbal communication begs us to be aware of everything we do. There is an implied responsibility to be intentional and meaningful, not just with the words you use, but with every part of your existence.
3 — Words (and Actions) Do Create Worlds
I’ll just let this sit — once you communicate something, it is there forever.
The all too common experience is the desire to take back something you have said and realizing, in futility, that you can’t. Once you say that thing, you can’t erase it and you now have to work with the world you have created.
Your words, your actions, your thoughts, your decisions — if they are all communicative acts, then they are all permanent.
Your life will build the world as we know it.
Now, this also means that communication itself is morally neutral. Communication is not good or bad alone — it becomes good or bad, helpful or destructive, by how you use it. Such care cannot be more emphatic. You have within you a powerful tool and you need to decide how you use it.
Because however you do, it will be irreversible.
4 — Words Carry No Moral Value
This implication is a bit of a soapbox and may not be useful or, even, agreeable to you, but in light of the permanence of words alongside of the moral neutrality of communication as discussed above, I want to add this thought:
A word can’t be bad — because words don’t carry meaning in and of themselves — only a meaning can be bad. Even that, though, is subjective.
This is why our culture doesn’t use certain four letter words in some contexts, but we do in others. We understand that the shared meaning the people in those contexts have will make it a positive or negative experience.
I would really like us, as a culture, to get over the taboo of certain words by claiming they are bad words or swear words. They can be negative and if that particular word has a shared meaning that could cause harm, let’s not use it! I completely agree with that kind of restraint…its a great idea! But what else are the words capable of that we lose if we just civically try to eliminate them altogether?
At this point, we could bring up words that are almost unanimously destructive — words that specifically deal with the identity and dehumanization of other people. Because I understand that my usage of some of these words will generally cause harm, I will not write them here, but there are certain phrases or labels that get put on groups of people that can, and normally are, painful. However, because words have no inherent meaning, I would caution against legislating them as unusable. The reason why is because that then keeps us from allowing the word to evolve. As a person not associated with the victim-role of these words, but rather with the potential destruction (namely, I am male, white, heterosexual, and American), I will oblige that I am not going to be the one to subvert its destructive usage and I will continue to refrain from using them because of the shared meaning that my moral decision reveals will be negative. But if we eliminate the usage altogether, we steal the opportunity for the people subjugated by those words to subvert them into powerful rebellion.
In these contexts, I will use my communicative power to refrain from destructive use while allowing those who have been harmed to determine how they choose to interact with said words.
Again, not because the word is bad, but the meaning has become bad. Therefore, individuals need to make moral decisions on how they will use words with such meaning — and take responsibility for the permanence such usage will cause.
Back to the “bad words” of culture, though — there is an example that comes from my personal experience of how we might process making these determinations on shared meanings that are less obvious as the example above.
For example, sometimes my children, who are quite young, will “swear” as you might say. They might drop something and it breaks and innocently react with, “Aw, fuck.” Or they might be given some un-ideal news and respond with, “Dammit”. In our familial context, we try to be adamant that those words aren’t bad — but we always push to be clear on the shared meaning.
“What did you mean when you said that?” is usually the follow up question. If they can adequately explain their “concept” and have it result in a healthy “meaning” then that’s fine. If they aren’t able to do that, we ask them not to use that word in that way again. Either they use discourse to defend a proper usage that makes moral sense in the context or they repent from its usage — because the word isn’t bad, but the meaning might be. Our moral compass, then, needs to direct how we use the meaning of words (and not just “swear” words, by the way, but all words — I’ve noticed that a lot of people who have legislated a refrain from certain words still use language and communication destructively). My spouse and I want our children to be aware of this communicative dynamic.
But then there is a larger layer — because there is a macro meaning they must be aware of — so we always tell them, “Be careful of who you say that around…some people don’t understand those words the same way you do.”
Some people can’t handle an F-Bomb…and we need to be okay with that, too.
Bad parenting? Maybe. But we desperately want for our offspring to communicate well, not just avoid certain words because culture tells us to.
This concept is important because it makes the usage of words more complicated. Harping to Orwell’s “1984” and the concept of New-Speak shows the danger of legislating communication. It is a concept called Epistemological Injustice where we determine for others what can and cannot be said or known and implies that certain words might be inherently bad.
A better way to navigate how to determine the usage of words and their moral outcome (whether they are positive or destructive) is through community — by knowing, as much as possible, the full context of another as to do as little harm as possible. We can only think contextually and act appropriately when it comes to words. Therefore, we should stop saying certain words are “bad.”
5 — Communication is What Defines Your Existence
Here are just some of the functions of communication that should prompt us to take this more seriously:
Communication is how we meet our social and psychological needs.
Communication is the medium for us to achieve our goals in daily, corporate, or even organizational life.
Communication is how we develop a sense of self — namely that our self is social and the world arounds us reflects back to us who we are like a mirror. We find out who we are from others.
Communication is how we acquire information.
If we are going to become who we are not yet, but ought to be — understanding our communicative life that we seemingly take for granted might be the best place to start.
Communication is the foundation for who we will become & how we will meet our needs.
If only we had some concepts to help us do this better…
If only we could make communication great again!
Certainly, this tag — “make communication great again” — isn’t meant to be a factual statement, I’m just playing with a phrase so that we might consider re-thinking our assumptions about the communication process that seems so natural and yet also proves so difficult. Communicating is one of the most taken for granted parts of our lives while also being one of the most common and one of the most impactful. It is the thing we use every day that we tend to think the least about.
Let’s be honest, we’re not going to make communication great again — it will always be a road full of fallacy and complication. It is also debatable whether or not it was ever “great,” by whatever definition you interpret that word to be, in the first place.
What we can do is make communication healthier.
Hopefully, by considering all of these nuances in where language comes from, what is happening in the communicative act, and why communication is so fervently complex we will be able to incorporate these concepts to help make our communication better.
So a couple implications and then a final example:
You are reading this, understanding it in your own unique way based on how you interpret the meaning of the hundreds of symbols being used called words — this means we aren’t going to completely see this the same way.
My communication will never fully align with yours because my view of the world will never be the exact same as yours. Even how you use the word orange — though we might agree in the moment you are referencing a color — how you perceive the color, the history you have with the color, and the meaning you ascribe to the color will always be a little bit different. Needless to say, whenever you communicate, you are opening the door for disagreement.
You will never fully communicate exactly what you are trying to communicate.
Because language is limited.
Therefore, we must use language with an awareness of its limitations.
Unless you can fully get inside my head and share every piece of context with me without bringing any of your own, our communication will never be entirely symmetrical. This writing doesn’t completely work for this reason. We may have some semblance of agreement on how we interpret the meaning of each and every single word, but we aren’t going to fully understand what I am communicating in the same exact way.
This isn’t all bad — it means we have the unique expression of billions of people to add to the world’s story — but it does mean it is messy.
Once we acknowledge our limitations to communicate, we will be able to utilize its diversity.
Each particular perspective adds value. Each language that exists expresses a different take on existence (which is why it is such a bummer when a language goes extinct — whether because of the elimination of that group of people or because of the recipients of that language trading theirs for a more common one. When a language doesn’t get passed on, it might make the world more convenient, but we lose something of human history in the process). This is related to how you think about your perspective (See: “Let’s Talk About Your Perspective”) and how you engage with the process of disagreement (See: “Mapmaking Vs. Arguing”).
It would be convenient to have exact definitions that are completely fixed implanted into our brains at birth, but we don’t…and I don’t know that this convenience would necessarily be a good thing because we would lose the potential of a diversity of voices.
We will have to accept the limitations and, therefore, the messiness of language.
And when we do, we can actually have a conversation to know the world a little more fully by utilizing that messiness that comes from the unique individual.
Accepting our limitations and learning to work with them will not be convenient in the short term.
But it might be more powerful in the long run.
To make our communication great, we need to be continuously aware of every facet of the communication process.
I invite you, therefore, to the discipline of waking up to the vast components of the communication model in your life.
At the core of this is determining what message the other is trying to send and being honest about what message you are trying to send. But then you can take this further by considering all of the different factors in play during a given communication moment:
What messages are you sending in response to their message (feedback)?
Who is the sender of a particular message?
Who is the intended receiver?
Are there any unintended receivers?
What is the medium being used to send this message?
How does that medium positively or negatively affect the intended message?
Are there any outside influences impairing or affirming the message?
What is the context of the message — especially in relation to word choice?
Is there any noise that is conflating the message?
What are the role of non-verbals in the message?
The more awareness we can have of the variety of pieces involved in our communication, the more poignantly we will be able to encode and decode what is being said.
Back to the moon — if you point to it, your finger is not the goal of your communicative act…the moon is.
We have to see that the word you use or the non-verbal you are communicating with is a medium to get at what you really want to point to — the concept or the meaning.
Our culture tends to be very loose with words — we talk a lot, but we don’t always point to something. In our common and frequent usage, then, very familiar words can become unfamiliar. If we are going to navigate the complex & messy situation we find ourselves in with words being so subjective and contextual, we will need to learn to differentiate between what we say and what we mean.
The invitation here is to begin processing what you are pointing to when you use a particular word. Instead of starting with a word, then, you might want to start with the concept (or the meaning) and then adapt to your contextual audience to best communicate. Choosing the best symbol to use will require empathy and will change depending on various contexts. For more on the role of empathy in the communication process, see “How to Use Empathy For Better Communication.”
If this whole ‘nature of words’ thing is true — then it means we’ve got some work to do.
If we are going to communicate well, we can’t just assume that people will either learn our meaning or be left out of the loop. We will have to go a step further.
We will have to be more intentional & deliberate in communication. If we don’t, we will drift away from one another and lose the possibility of further, more intimate, and more meaningful connection.
If we do this extra work, we will be able to transcend our non-parallel means to still navigate the world effectively.
So for example, if you are translating a language — the more depth you can give to the words being used, the more you can assimilate your perspective and intended meaning, the better the communicative outcome will be.
If you are trying to describe something to someone, especially a child, using words needs to be intertwined with pointing to concepts and further unpacking meaning so that it can be shared.
This is why there is a difference between teaching a child to talk in a language and teaching a child to communicate using language. Young minds can replicate and repeat words all day, but creating a shared understanding for what they mean is more difficult.
Essentially, communicating should be slower and it should be more direct.
Because the goal of communication is shared meaning.
Yet, slower and direct is not always desirable. However, if we can accept the compromises that come with a dependence on such a complex technology, we might discover more meaningful and more effective communication. Otherwise, we just assume we know what someone means and the familiarity drifts towards unfamiliarity.
Clear and direct communicating that takes the time to unpack meaning will lead to better shared meaning — and the best way to make communication great again is to make our communication relevantly shared with the people we desire to connect with. (For more on direct communication, see: “Say It Like You (Actually) Mean It.”)
We ought to take more intentionality, more time, and more awareness of our subjectivity if we are to keep this technology aiding & upholding our human journey as opposed to becoming meaningless jabber.
Have you ever said you “love” someone?
Well, the English expression of “love” is already different from other technological inventions of language because love has lots of meanings. Most language groups, therefore, have lots of different words to express the different meanings that can be implied for the different kinds of “love”. My background has shown Koine Greek as a great example of a language with a more nuanced take on what we call “love.”
So let’s say you are the stick figure in the middle of the triangle and you express the symbol “love” (it’s the heart at the top). This gets tricky because for the word “orange” its concept is concrete. Love, however, is abstract. You can know love, but it is hard to draw it.
Therefore, when you say the word “love” you have to know the concept you are referring to — which could be an infinite amount of options. You can say you love sports and you can say you love your spouse. Same words, different meaning (I assume).
The next question would then be, “What do you mean by that?” Or better put — what is love? (baby don’t hurt me…dont’ hurt me…no more). Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Can you see why this might get a little difficult when you are trying to tell another person you love them?
Can you see why it might be possible for you to say the word love, but without the shared meaning of what you are implying, this could get interpreted differently — or it could just go without being recognized as anything significant because you said a word that is not rooted in any shared meaning.
The word itself is not love and you can say it all day, but it only means something when you go through the process of making it into something real with who you are communicating with. The non-verbals involved and the time you take to show that love and expound on your meaning of how you use the word — eventually you will end up with a shared meaning of what you intended in the first place.
But it will take time.
And it will take a full embodiment of the communicative process.
If we can be as intentional with all of our words as we ought to be with the word “love” — we will make communication great again!
You can use words and construct culture and institutions and identities with words, but you must acknowledge their limitations & their constant evolution.
How we communicate with words must assume their fragility — that we will then work to be clear on developing shared meanings and accept that the words we use are a medium standing in for the real thing (the finger pointing at the moon) that we are hoping to communicate.
Which also means acknowledging their dynamic nature — that the meaning and symbolism of any word is not static and it will change over time.
In an age of pseudo-online-based relationships, our communication has become quite dismissive.
In the age of transience, our words have avoided the hard work of developing shared meaning.
In an age where communication is so assumed, our communication has lost awareness of the nuance that can make or break the messages we intend to send.
We need to re-claim our words.
We need to embrace what it means for this technology of language & communication to do what it was created to do — help us thrive together.
If we don’t do this, we will add to the already constant confusion of interacting with one another. If we do enact this, we will embrace a patience and understanding that the technology is meant to bring.
The awareness of the nature of words, with all its vague ambiguity and frustrating difficulty, is what might make our communication great again…or at least allow it to be the effective tool it is meant to be.
May you be more aware of the nature of your communication and may it exponentially move us all towards health.
Knowing your attachment style and how to live healthily with it.
Read MoreHow direct communication can improve your relationships.
Read MoreStop Disagreeing - Do This Instead
Read MoreSabotaging Our Potential By Avoiding the Risk
Read MoreOur relationships don't stay the same. This usually causes frustration...but it shouldn't
Read More[8 minute read] - We often want to change other people - so what is the healthiest way to do so?
Read MoreWhy we might reach different conclusions with all the same data.
Read MoreA thought on the importance of vulnerability.
Read More
![Say It Like You (Actually) Mean It - [The Vague Nature of Communication & The Importance of Direct in an Indirect World]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1549456919706-N8NXDG5EM6QU41MFPSD0/Say+It+Like+You+%28Actually%29+Mean+It.png)
![Mapmaking Vs. Arguing - [A Suggested Method For Disagreeing Well]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1521743792632-RNAGSS6728LXJJ2R0GNT/Mapmaking+%281%29.jpg)
![Ever Have a Relationship Change? There's a Reason Why - [The Evolution of Relationships]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1520519330943-V0VRU2QXJYD6GCGHBKPP/The+Evolution+of+Relationships.jpg)
![How To Change Other People - [Tigers, Critiques, & Prophecy]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1518558821890-GU46SLK3PNK4BAEXGGSF/OTHERS.jpg)
![Why We Disagree - [The Larger Reason]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1536756163182-IAKCWIO83R50PKCRKFVM/3+Reasons+We+Might+Disagree+%281%29.jpg)
![Candles + Mice - [A Note on Vulnerability]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1499966869499-9F22UFYS3A38PTYUC0A4/Candles+%2B+Mice.jpg)
![Three Reasons We're Lonely - [And Three Responses For Being Less So]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5963d280893fc02db1b9a659/1651234022075-7WEKZ2LGDVCR7IM74KE2/Loneliness+3+update+%283%29.png)
