Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Questions About Yelling


Raising our voices is something pretty much all of us do when we get angry. We are upset and seem to feel a need and desire to shout or yell. But does that make us feel better? Does yelling make our anger go away or, at the very least, take the air out of it? I am not sure it does. Is yelling a natural progression of anger? What happens after that? Is it some sort of physical act such as lashing out at someone, throwing something or some other form of physical exertion designed to do harm or destroy? Inside us, do we each carry around within us a kind of internal Hulk that knows little else but to smash?

Is there a way to express our anger without yelling? The answer, of course, is "yes." I see that as a good thing but recognize being angry without yelling is not easy to achieve. I view it is an aspect of communication that requires discipline. Getting angry by itself is not necessarily a bad thing as it is as much part of our disposition as laughing. The challenge is found is being able to control the release or unveiling of that anger without being destructive to others or to property. Anger is an emotion that is about us. Someone may make me mad but how I express that feeling is about me, not the root cause of that feeling.

As each of us constantly wrestle with ways to most effectively express ourselves, when it comes to anger and wanting to yell, the question becomes, "Is that the best way to communicate what we are thinking and feeling?" Yes, we may be upset but is raising our voice the most effective way to impart what is driving that emotion? A raised voice certainly tells others that we are upset. But does it explain why we are upset or does it leave open a door for extended conversation or dialog? Are those on the receiving end of our yelling more or less apt to properly listen to us if our voices are raised? Yelling as an act of communication is not uncommon, but it is a tool that one should think through before using.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

One Contradiction After Another

If you look at what I will loosely call most any normal person and the life they lead, it is a wonder that we all do not concede that we are all simply "crazy." I say that based on the vast number of contradictions in our persona and the choices we make most every day. Let me rattle off a few examples: We crave the freedom to live our lives any way we want yet take comfort in the rules and law that give our behavior boundaries; We love comedies that strike our funny bone, yet also enjoy serious dramas that capture our attention; We focus so much on sexual intimacy yet, the older we get, the more we would so much rather just get a good night's sleep; We want our lawns to look well-manicured yet time after time when we tackle yard work chores like cutting the grass and pulling weeds we zip through them as quickly as possible. The list goes on and on and is as diverse as diverse can be. You may ask, What about communication? Well, my friends, do not get me started.   

The biggest contradiction regarding communicating with others is found in the whole putting forth messages versus listening to responses such effort triggers. For myself, when I speak I want to be heard. I want what I have to say to resonate and result in a favorable response from those on the receiving end. But for that to happen, then I need to be open to what those persons to whom I am  speaking have to communicate back to me. For instance, do they have any questions? Do they have their own perspectives that they want to share? Do they simply want to give me a verbal "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to my initial comments? The dicey thing about communication is that it is more than simply speaking out. For it to really work the best, equal time and effort must be given to being mindful of feedback and/or response. And once that begins, who knows where will follow? No doubt more complications. Let's be honest: communication is like life itself: one contradictory act after another.

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Dealing With Tension

No good comes from a lack of communication. Even when there is tension in the air, not communicating is not the way to handle it. One of the great things about my wife and I happens during those times when we bump heads. It is not uncommon for one of us to say to the other, "I want us to talk but I need a little bit of time first to calm down and collect my thoughts." (I am paraphrasing here but that is the essence of what is said.) Such a comment is a perfect example of effective communication, particularly during a time when cooler heads are on the verge of giving way to non-cooler ones.

Such a statement is a declaration that it is important for the parties to talk. At the same time, this statement emphasizes several key points: (1) for the conversation to be of the greatest benefit, both parties need to be calm; (2) despite the disagreement, both parties want to return to a more positive place; (3) mutual respect remains very much on the table; and (4) both parties want to be heard but are also willing to hear what the other has to say. It is important to inject here that even with this understanding, it does not mean the conversation that eventually follows will be a totally smooth one or that the parties will not continue to "agree to disagree." At the same time, it does put them on a positive path toward resolving their differences.

The statement where one party asks for a time-out and the other agrees to that request represents a  verbal contract where ground-rules have been set. This gives both parties a tangible path for each to follow as they strive to reconcile whatever misunderstanding may have occurred. Without such understanding, whatever communicating that may follow will in all likelihood be more chaotic, off-topic and hurtful. In other words, it will increase the tension rather than take the air out of it. Tension as a result of a disagreement only becomes a relationship-breaker when the parties involved cease to  communicate effectively.      

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Ambition

Over 200 years ago, future United States president James Madison wrote, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." A number of historians consider this to be the most famous sentence in the series of Federalist papers that this Founding Father wrote in helping guide his peers toward forming our country. At the time, Madison was commenting on Americans striking a balance between their own individual interests versus those being identified in the form of a new constitution; that is, the priorities of the new country. As explained by historian  Noah Feldman in his 2017 biography, "The Three Lives of James Madison," it was a matter of crafting a structural balance between human nature and constitutional powers.

Such a confrontation is classic and not all that uncommon. Example: I have an ambition to become extremely rich. But laws restrict how I might go about achieving that personal goal. For instance, I can not go out and rob banks nor can I embezzle money from my office payroll. Thus, my ambition to put more money in my pocket needs to be tempered by coming up with legal and, yes, ethical ways to achieve that end. One of the great challenges of our Founding Fathers was to figure out a way for citizens to pursue their dreams but doing so in a way that came within the parameters of their newly-formed government.

To my mind, this relates to communication. I want to be heard and be free to say whatever I might want to say. My challenge with that ambition is to balance it with a number of social norms that have evolved over the years. These range from being sensitive to the communication wishes of others and laws such as disturbing the peace and threatening others with language they may deem to be offensive. Thus, my primal ambition needs to carried out in ways that adhere to more overriding ambitions designed to address the greater needs of society: rules and guidelines that allow society to safely administer individuals.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Symbols

Symbols are powerful communication tools - sometimes in loud ways and other times in subtle, quiet ways. In one's home, for instance, how we decorate our rooms with such things as pictures, posters, artifacts, etc. give insight into us. The represent an array of snapshots into our preferences, histories and even wishes. We draw pleasure from our personal symbols as they give us comfort and a certain level of inner-security because, in part, we are the ones who have chosen them to showcase us to outsiders that may see them. In essence, they say, "This is part of who I am."

Outside our homes, we are surrounded by symbols that speak more to us as part of a larger society. How do we as a community or society want others beyond our borders to view us? We answer that, in apart, via our symbols. These days steps are underway to remove certain symbols that have been part of our societal landscape for generations. Specifically, I am referring to a number of statues of various Confederate generals from the U.S. Civil War that was fought over 150 years ago. In fighting for the Confederacy, these soldiers played an active role in leading an effort to help the southern part of the country that supported slavery form its own nation.

With a movement underway to remove the statutes, our nation is taking a significant step to tell whoever might be paying attention that we no longer want these entities to represent who we are. We no longer want to be assessed on the basis of these symbols. As a result, they are being taken down and will possibly be replaced by symbols that we feel are more representative of who we as a people are today. Make no mistake, the removal of these symbols is a powerful effort to adjust how we wish to communicate with not just the rest of the world but with ourselves as well. I should note that some support this movement while others do not. Boldness is rarely a unanimous act. But without question, it is significant.

Thursday, June 11, 2020

"GWTW"

Growing up, from time to time my friends and I would ask each other what we thought was the best movie of all-time. Without exception, "Gone With the Wind," the 1939 classic that copped a bunch of Academic Awards, would top our list. Over the years, this movie of the South before and during the Civil War would remain much beloved not unlike other classics such as "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz." These were among those select group of films that everyone had some point in their lives had seen and embraced. In my time, I have probably seen "Gone With the Wind" three or four times.

Fast forward to today and it seems as if "Gone With the Wind" has lost a great deal of its magic. In this time of nationwide protests against the ill-treatment of African Americans by a number of law enforcement agencies and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, the public is beginning to look at "Gone With the Wind" through a different set of eyes. The movie takes place when the nation was largely divided over the issue of slavery. Despite that, Blacks in the film are depicted as if they were treated with love and respect. This, of course, runs counter to the reality of those times.

For nearly 40 years, "Gone With the Wind" has served as a powerful communication tool regarding a very dark period in our nation's history. It is a tool that a great many people are now viewing as outdated, inaccurate and offensive. One result of this change, I should note, is that HBO has announced that is it removing this movie from its roster of films. This dramatic change illustrates how communication is ever-evolving. What was once embraced now offends. One result of this is that we all now are being called upon to assess how we perceive our own histories, including movies we grew up with. We are being forced to recognize that our communication tools of today must not be once they were before.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Words Matter: Case Study

There is an interesting and important debate underway that, in my view, is being made all the more challenging over the use of a single word: "defund."  In the aftermath of the killing George Floyd of Minnesota by police officers, a number of governmental officials at all levels are proposing legislation that calls for the defunding of police departments. Taken literally, this would mean jurisdictions would stop funding their law enforcement agencies, thus causing them to, in a real sense, cease to exist. But despite the word "defund," this is not the intent of any of the proposals. What is actually being called for is a redirection of funds.

None of the proposals call for the elimination of police departments. Nobody wants this. Yet by recommending the "defunding" of this vital agencies, folks of all political persuasions are suddenly arguing over the merit of whether law enforcement agencies should be allowed to continue at all. This misses the point of the well-intentioned proposals entirely. It also illustrates profoundly just how much words do matter. Using a word that can be easily misinterpreted, particularly in the context of a very "hot" topic, is dangerous because it jeopardizes the specific point of the issue at-hand. As I write this, folks behind the proposals are now having to explain what the meaning of the their proposals rather the actual issue itself.  

At the very least, this is a debate worth having. How can jurisdictions use their police departments most efficiently while at the same time better address the social ills of their communities, including such issues as domestic violence, child abandonment and malnutrition within families?  One would be hard-pressed to identify a topic more relevant to our society than that. How tragic would it be to have such a debate sabotaged because of the misuse, misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding of one word? The answer to that is in another word: extremely.

Saturday, June 6, 2020

Power On Display

If one needs a powerful reminder of just how far-reaching the communication tools of today are, then they need to look no further than the recent, most tragic death of George Floyd, the citizen of Minnesota who was killed by a police officer. The officer cut off Floyd's ability to breath while attempting to apprehend Floyd. The whole incident - which lasted not quite ten minutes - was recorded by a witness who filmed it all on their cell phone. Moments after it happened, the witness shared the video with friends and family, who in-turn shared it with their friends and family, and on and on. Along the way, the media also obtained a copy of Floyd's killing.

The video of the police officer-Floyd incident eventually was picked up by people and media outlets throughout the entire world. Shortly afterward, protesters took to the streets to voice their outrage at the fatal violence that the police officer had inflicted upon Floyd. The protesters were not just in Minnesota or in parts of the United States. They were seen in every state of the union as well as cities and countries throughout the world. As I write this, they are still happening. And all was set in motion as a result of what one person captured on their cell phone and then shared with others. Putting aside the needless death of  Floyd for a moment, the power of this simple communication tool cannot be denied.

Historically, it was not that long ago when it would take months and even years for news of significant events to reach the general population. Nowadays, that time span has been reduced to seconds. Such a reality reinforces the notion that our world, indeed, is much smaller than it used to be. Regardless of one's home address, the connection between all people everywhere is much stronger and immediate than we realize. For that, we have our enhanced ability to communicate to thank.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

The Challenge of Listening

When it comes to effective communicating, one thing we all share is that we want to be heard. We want "the other guy" to hear what we have to say and, best case scenario, agree with us. When that happens, we feel validated. It gives our ego a pat on the back as if to say, "You are important and you make a difference." Who doesn't want that? On a fundamental level, all of us want to be reassured  that we are thinking, well-functioning human beings with much to contribute. Being heard, even if it is by just one other person, does that. On a broader scale, so much of public relations revolves around that basic premise.

But when it comes to communicating effectively, being heard is only one-half of the process. The other half is listening. To make a true and well-rounded connection with others requires sending out messages that are understood and also receiving whatever feedback or response the initial outreach effort triggers. If one only sends but does not receive, then an effective act of communication has not occurred. The listening part of the equation, sadly, is often overlooked or not given the weight it deserves and needs. When the listening component is short-changed, then whatever connection we hope to make with others is compromised.

So, what's the deal with listening? Why don't more of us do a better job of giving this key piece of the communication pie the focus it deserves? My own theory is that many feel listening is not as satisfying as being heard. It does not make us feel as good or feed our ever-present need for validation as being acknowledged by others. In short, many feel it is better to be validated than validate others. More fun, too. Bottom line: listening well is hard. Listening well does not feed our ego nearly as well as being heard does. Ironically, in my view, the most effective communicating occurs when both sides are more focused on listening.