Not Listening Can Have Serious Consequences

"An honest propagandist for any Cause that is, one who honestly studies and figures out the most effective way of putting over his Message, will learn fairly earl that it is not fair to ordinary folks - it just confuse them - to try and make them swallow all the true facts that would be suitable to a higher class of people. And one seemingly small but almighty important point he learns, if he does much speechifying, is that you can win folks to your point of view much better in the evening, when they are tired out from work and not so likely to resist you, than at any other time of day."

The above quote is taken from Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," a profound novel from a profound writer published in 1935. The plot of this book revolves around the take-over of the United States by a dictator, a fellow who presents himself as a folksy sort who has anything but the interests of the people in mind. Interestingly, he comes to power by ballot rather than any kind of military coup. Voters like his message, easily ignore the warning signs he himself communicates, and, ultimately, turn themselves over to him and all that they believe he represents. Sadly, once in office, it does not take long for American citizens, including his supporters, to learn they have made a terrible mistake. 

If done well, communication can be a powerful weapon. While it can be carried out for reasons that are good, the flip side is its purpose can be just the opposite. Such a reality is all the more reason why listening is such an important part of the communication process. Of course, the sender of messages must do a good job of properly putting across what it is they are saying. At the same, those on the receiving end must be vigilant in terms of paying attention to what is said rather than what it is they want to be hearing. When this does not happen, as Lewis pointed out over 80 years ago, there can be major consequences.   

Stopping Communication Does Not Work

Maybe I am the oddball, but in this case I do not think so. Have you ever noticed that when someone says, "Don't do that!", the immediate reaction or thought of the person to whom they are speaking is to do "that?" I wish I knew why that is the case. Perhaps it is the sliver of independence within us that we are going to do what we damn well please and that is all there is to it. Look at how often all of us have been told not to smoke because of its well-documented danger to health. Now look at how many folks continue to puff away. Why would any one knowingly pay money to put themselves at risk in this manner? Yet we do.   

A few days ago, employees within the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency were told that they may no longer be able to speak to the public. In essence, a gag rule may be placed on them. I will leave it to others to examine the reasons for this. My purpose here is to focus on the possible directive itself: do not speak. If this order happens, then my guess - slowly at first - more and more persons within the EPA will seek out ways to circumvent or disobey this new rule. Orders to not-speak never go well. At some point, a breakdown occurs that compromises the directive along with the person or persons who handed it down in the first place.

Communication is not about the stifling of others to be heard or have input. It revolves around seeking ways to enhance the effectiveness of interaction. In the case of the EPA, telling professional men and women to not do what they are hired to do - share information and work with an array of entities in the public - runs counter to their innate need to communicate. This proposed gag order, as it currently stands, is not about controlling communication. Rather it is geared to stop it. Big difference. Not only will such an order not work, but its mere existence will ignite resentment and ill-will. May its reversal happen soon.

"Alternative Facts"

There mere using of the phrase "alternative facts" should send chills up and down the backs of any one who even claims to value the truth. Yet there was President Trump's primary spokesperson, Kellyanne Conway, on NBC's Meet the Press" introducing it as a way to explain the administration's claim that more people attended the inauguration ceremony then was reported by the national press. Does she and those she represents, including the 45th president, truly believe whatever they say is "the truth" and anything contrary to that is false? Even more to the point, how can there even be such thing as an "alternative fact" in the first place?

Facts may be a lot of things, including inconvenient, beyond comprehensive or even controversial, but what makes them what they are is their being locked-in or set-in-stone. One plus one equals two. That is a fact. Until one comes along to successfully challenge or prove it is not the case, there is no arguing or disputing it. Yet "alternative fact" suggests there is. It suggests that, actually, one plus one can add up to two and a half or some other number. Facts are the basis around which decisions and choices by all of us are based. If that is no longer the case, then what is left is chaos of the mind and chaotic behavior. Further, it feeds into the notion that "might does make right."

Successful communication among people and within society is based on the premise that truth - facts - serve as the bedrock for all meaningful interaction. Yes, people have their interpretations of what is true and perspectives on how the truth should be handled or processed. But those interpretations and perspectives are based on ultimate and universally-accepted truths. If we, including those in power, begin turning away from facts, then all of us are about to fall down a black hole from which we may never climb. This cannot be allowed to happen. Facts should be beyond debate. They are far too vital for our survival.       

       

Transition

These days "transition" is a word lots of people are using. "In with the new and out with the old." Change. While folks have varying opinions - positive and negative - about it, without question one commonality is that it represents a challenge for all. In Washington, D.C., for instance, there are those very excited to be taking on new challenges with new perspectives and priorities. Others, though, are dreading making adjustments to the status quo. Whether one supports transition or does their best to combat it, without question it is a reality of life that is ignored only at one's peril. Change that leads to transition is inevitable. How well one deals with it is not.

Transitioning from one point to another is also a communication challenge. Soon the Department of Energy, to cite another example, is going to have a new director whose style of leadership, vision and priorities will be different from the person being replaced. How will those differences be explained? Who will be explaining them? Who is the intended audience? How will success of such an effort be measured? Will these communication efforts be carried out with a level of sensitivity to give folks most affected in the transitioning time to adjust? Answering these and other fundamental questions is part of the communication process.

One of the major problems within the United States is the varying degrees of willingness people have in adjusting to and/or coping with transition. Same-sex couples can now marry. Marijuana is legal in a number of states. More and more people come from multi-cultural backgrounds. A female came extremely close to being elected President. There are lots of folks who had and still have major difficulty in accepting these changes and even more problems adjusting from how life was before these things happen to how they are now. Effective communication can help ease the stress that comes with change. It can make the path down the road of transition less bumpy. 

Nat Hentoff

2017 got off to a rocky start with the passing of one of one of country's most prolific and favorite writers: Nat Hentoff. I was a fan of this knowledgeable and thoughtful "soldier of the pen" for as long as I can remember. Hentoff first came to my attention in his capacity as a jazz writer/critic. (He had his own column for the Village Voice for over 50 years.)  I was always fascinated by Hentoff's seeming endless wealth of knowledge about many of the world's great jazz performers, including Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Theolonius Monk and Charles Mingus, to name a few. His insight always seemed spot-on.

At some point, I could help but notice that the Hentoff byline kept popping up in areas outside of music: free speech issues, politics, social commentary. Is there anything this guy does not know about?, I remember pondering on more than one occasion. Of course, Hentoff himself would probably smile at such a comment and shrug, "Plenty." But that sure did not jive with my assessment of him. He was steadfast in his defense of free speech, inspirational in his views on civil rights, and provocative in his observations on the politics of the day, including that the soon-to-be ex-President Obama should be impeached due to his over-the-top use of executive orders.

Hentoff died at the age of 91. Whether it was through his many commentaries or books, it is difficult to remember a time when his "voice" was not part of the national landscape.  Whether it was found in publications viewed to be conservative or liberal, Hentoff seemed to be everywhere on a very consistent basis. He was living proof that solid and thoughtful writing will always have place in the world. Certainly not me and many others did not always agree with him, but what Hentoff communicated was worthy of consideration. In a basic way, is that not the ultimate when it comes to communication? For that, we had and will continue to have Hentoff to thank.

Respecting Ice

The other day we had the first snow fall of the year in our area. Fortunately, it was not too bad as it was not enough to close schools or cause people to do any meaningful digging in their driveways. Still, it called for those of us who had to go driving or walking in it to be exercise caution. Cold weather, after all, does contribute to snow fall just as it certainly causes the ground to freeze. To me, a frozen ground can often be more treacherous than one covered with snow. Not only is an icy ground slippery, at times it can be difficult to see. As I have done from time to time over the years, one can step onto an icy patch without realizing it and suddenly find themselves on the ground without warning.   

The point is one can find themselves in a dangerous way - walking on ice - without even realizing it. To avoid any kind of injury or fall in such conditions, the trick is to recognize the warning signs, freezing temperature being one of them. If one is aware of their surroundings, then they are less apt to find themselves caught off guard by what I will call negative fall-out. This is not unlike conversations folks have whey they are sharing opinions. When exchanging opinions, people can and do often become animated and forceful in noting how their view is best and anything contrary to that is totally off-base.   

Doing so can be likened to stepping onto a patch of ice. Unless you are careful - respectful - criticizing the heartfelt perspectives of others can have unwanted consequences. Given the current great divide within our country when it comes to folks of differing views, one of the problems is people tend to put forth their views in the same way one steps onto a patch of ice. If they do not do so with respect, then the result in all likelihood includes hurt feelings, distrust, yelling, and lack of desire to engage in further dialog. In other words, too many of us these days are falling on our butts because we are not respecting others. Bottom line: if you respect ice, then the odds of falling down and getting hurt are greatly reduce. At the same time, respecting the views of others will raise the level of future conversation and possible collaboration.    

Censorship Revisited

I take any conversation revolving whether to censor any form of communication very seriously. By definition, a free society is one where people are free to communicate without restriction. The fewer the barriers the more open the society and more free are the people living within that society. In the United States, we pride ourselves on being such a society. Regardless of how inappropriate or offensive an act of communication might be, our government allows folks to express themselves. "Freedom of speech!" one is quick to shout should any attempt be made to curtail their expressions. Such a reality defines the U.S.

Of course, another reality is that the U.S. is not a totally open society. While the constitution under which our government functions allows for free speech, the government charged with carrying out our laws has set certain restrictions. Acts of communication that threaten the welfare or safety of others, that restrict access or movement, or that compromise national security are not allowed, for instance. At various times, Presidents have imposed censorship upon the citizenry. Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, directed the censorship of telegrams and, later, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt even went as far as to establish a U.S. Office of Censorship.

Currently, we live in a time when perhaps the defining tool of communication - social media - is being used more and more as a means to spread falsehoods, hurt people and, ultimately, conduct war. Over the past few years, the terrorist group ISIS has made strong use of social media to recruit members and boast of it actions. Even more recently, we have learned the Russian government used social media to help sway the 2016 presidential election. Is some form of censorship needed now? Should the government once again consider taking steps to censor or curtail such negative acts of communication? While such questions may cause many, myself included, to squirm in their seats, they are at least worthy of discussion.

Being Original

Growing up, I had an aunt who, it seemed, nearly every time I saw her would exclaim how I was "Growing like a weed!" As the years passed and I, along with her children, grew up and eventually had children of our own, she would continue to note how all these young ones were - wait for it - growing like a you-know-what. I remember thinking how annoying that was. Couldn't she think of any thing else to say? I wondered. Was that the only way to note how much taller people were compared with the last time you saw them? For my aunt, I suppose, the answer was "yes." Perhaps because of her, nowadays I find myself avoiding that phrase (except, of course, when I am commenting on how fasts weeds in our yard grow).

Reflecting on my aunt's use of that particular cliché, I am reminded how often all of us rely on well-worn phrases to express ourselves or, at the very least, fall back-on in various situations. "I'm still kickin'," is a phrase I use a lot when asked how I am doing. In his just-released autobiography, Bruce Springsteen talked some about his early song-writing days. "I started out with cliche', cliche', cliche' and then I caught a piece of myself  and the moment."  To me, this illustrates Springsteen's effort to find his own voice, communicate in a way that best captured his own feelings and perspectives. Unlike my aunt, he was not content to express himself in ways done by countless others.

Originality is not easy. More often, the path to the unfamiliar is traveled what is familiar. After all, what better way to recognize that which is unknown then by having a firm grasp of what is known? Even attempting to step into unchartered territory in the use of words is risky and most definitely without promise of success. This is why I applaud those who try and do so more vigorously who do so successfully. If communication represents a fundamental way for all of us to express ourselves, then trying to do so in a way no one before you has tried is downright admirable.