Greetings again vague ethereal realm that may or may not be populated by audience members,
I have been thinking a lot lately. No doubt this is due to a recent personal decision to give up on academic study, at least for the next couple (read: 5-10) years. As is the case with any change, the shift from one semi-stable perspective into a new potential volatile perspective usually necessitates some degree of anxiety. For me anxiety comes as a two-fold wave of simultaneous introspection and external examination. I think about myself and I think about others.
Within this two-fold wave, there is an enormous tendency to be judgmental. I find myself hurling insults at myself (insert cliche Freudian analysis here) and I also find myself thinking spiteful things about others (insert divisive sin analysis here). In some small degree, I think there is something beneficially therapeutic about this judgmental phase. It helps to burn off the anxiety but is definitely unhelpful insofar as it also is likely to build up more of anxiety's problematic element. I should probably note that I don't think anxiety itself is a problem. History has shown us many instances when anxiety has brought about a beneficial production or reduction within individual or communal life. It may be that the pruning within an anxiety phase, of one's own regrets or one's misgivings of others, could be beneficial as part of the introductory portion of a new project in one's life. Nevertheless, the way this anxiety has presented itself for me, in the aforementioned introspection and examination, has compelled the writing of this particular blog entry. In other words, this was the longest and most unconstructive introduction ever.
One of my relationships has recently kicked off this introspection/examination in particular. Someone I know (Person A) is having a significant amount of trouble with a particular issue in their life (vagueness is on purpose). They (Person A) recently communicated their frustrations to another person I know (Person B). Person B however, is also struggling with the same issue. It is debatable whether Person A knew about Person B's shared anxiety in this matter. Nevertheless, I know that Person B feels particularly hurt and upset that Person A didn't recognize the sharedness of their plight and instead chose to contour their communication in such a way that presumed either exclusivity or a greater degree of intensity. In other words, Person A emphasized their problem so greatly that Person B felt like their experience of the same problem meant nothing (either in the grand scheme of things or in the eyes of Person A).
This event triggered my internal/external analysis in such a way that I'm now wondering about how it is that we speak and hear. Obviously these things are contextually governed. Speaking can be tailored by our education, region of birth, emotional framework, etc. Hearing can be tailored by these things as well as by our societal construction and experiences within (or without) relationships. Now I don't want to end this blog or train of thought by appealing to the cliche 'contextual' answer. That really seems like a cop out to me. So what I have been wondering, is if there are aspects of our individualized contextual makeup that carry throughout our communicative hermeneutics. Do I have a certain way of feeling within communication, that although it is created and informed by certain interactions through my life or genetic familial inheritance, maintains consistent throughout my communication in such a way that it no longer reflects who others were in my family tree or who others were _to_ me, but actually indicates who I am in and of myself? And does this sort of 'consistency as identity' apply for others? Can it be utilized as a (tentative at best) intra-communal paradigmatic map?
Concerning the 'triggering instance' mentioned earlier, Person A is strong willed. Person B is too, but needs nurturing in that strength in order to be forthright in their communication. I keep returning to these characteristics as indicative of the way these two people speak and the way in which they hear. Hopefully you can see where the problems would arise.
I remember in my undergrad speech courses and in my premarital counseling, that we were told of how rehearsing is a horrible way to go about interpersonal communication. When you talk to me about how you're going to go grocery shopping, and instead of listening I'm rehearsing my response to you about how my last grocery shopping experience went, messages aren't received well. I'm not necessarily saying that rehearsal is the problem in the 'triggering instance.' But I have been thinking about how I myself go about rehearsing.
Often times I catch myself rehearsing in my interpersonal conversations. Other times, rehearsal functions well as a preparation for future interactions. Where I find it functions best however, is when I'm trying to make sense of my own thoughts. When I am trying to sort out the myriad of voices all clamoring for the microphone, I find it best to rehearse the various hypothetical reactions. What happens if we let this part of me run this particular instance or what about vice versa? Usually this helps to resolve some problems before they actually arise. However, there is always the problematic exception.
I've mentioned this exception in the past, because it usually arises in my marriage. Don't get me wrong, my marriage is freakin' great. This is merely an illustration. Sometimes I'll think to myself, 'I should tell Sarah that I haven't paid the power bill yet.' Then she'll ask me, 'Didn't you pay the power bill?' and I'll go 'You know I haven't I told you that already,' when in fact I hadn't. There is a strange instance wherein my mind rehearses a scenario and assumes the scenario has communicatively taken place when in fact it has not. Ultimately (at least concerning this really contrived blog post) I think the solution to this problem of communication within my marriage is also the answer to the 'triggering-problem' I've been pondering.
I think communication works best when we honestly make our implicit assumptions into explicit communication. If I assume you know about me not paying the power bill yet, and I don't explicitly state that, when my assumption is wrong, the situation breaks all over. When Person A assumes that Person B hears their argument as they intend it, and Person B doesn't, the situation breaks and feelings are hurt. Conversely, when Person B assumes that Person A intends to ignore their perspective on an issue and doesn't communicate that, Person A is not allowed to honestly and forthrightly characterize themselves.
So where does all this go, in terms of how we speak and hear? I think we need to communicate in such a way that is informed chiefly by the awareness that 'life is short.' We don't get all the time in the world to cycle through the possible combinations of interlinked assumptions. Even if we did have that time, it would still be unfair to assume (again) that the other party would be faithful enough to us to stick around while we blundered through speaking and hearing. When we honestly communicate with one another, about what we know, don't know, assume, or ignore ... we're not only setting up a framework where communication has less opportunity for disconnection. We're also communicating a sense of value and priority toward the other person, that our relationship with them is so important to us, that they are so important to us, that we dare not risk sacrificing time with them over misconceptual squabbles. Whether we communicate that value and priority explicitly or implicitly, I think it is the most important thing we have to speak to one another. When we are blessed enough to hear it for ourselves, life is definitely worth living.
