The longer I study communication the more convinced I am that none of us communicates in a vacuum. Everything we say and do - even if we are alone when we say and/or do it - affects others. Granted, the impact may be slight, but it is real and inevitable. This reality represents the physics of communication. Communication is a social science but it is also a social force. It is an act that triggers reactions in terms of reactive thoughts and sometimes even behavioral changes in others. I see little, if any, difference in this than the physical affect a person ignites by driving their car into the side of a building.
In the eighteenth century, scientist and philosopher Sir Isaac Newton put forth what he termed laws of motion. Of the three, the one most well known is: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." In simple terms, Newton's observation identified a fundamental reality of our physical world. There is no physical action or movement that does not create a counter action or movement. Two people dancing is an example I see no reason why this does not apply equally to communication. For instance, if we think of our acts of communication during the course of an average day, then what appears is a list of vivid examples as long as any interstate highway.
All of us are in relationships. They may not necessarily be ones of romance or marriage, but instead may include connections we have with neighbors, family members, the cashier at the local grocery store or co-workers. The acts of communication we exchange with any of those other individuals cause a range of mutual adjustments that continue for the duration of our interaction. My concern is that I am not certain how much we really appreciate this reality. It is my hope that knowing everything we verbally and non-verbally communicate affects other, even slightly, then this will make us communicators who are more respectful and thoughtful.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Baby Bites Baby
I have a grand daughter who, of course, is wonderful. She is cute, fun, full of wonder, and, as I write this, a little over 14 months old. She is also a biter. The other day at her preschool day care center she bit another baby. I was not present when this happened, so I can only assume what provoked this Hannibal Lector-esque action was some type of action taken by the other baby. Perhaps the other baby invaded my grand daughter's space. Perhaps the other baby attempted to take something my grand daughter did not want to share at that particular moment. No matter the cause, my grand daughter was compelled to protect her turf.
Do not misunderstand, I am not here to defend my grand daughter's action. Biting is wrong unless it is a hot summer day, you are sitting in the backyard with friends and cold drinks, and you are holding in your hands a corn-on-the-cobb that is dripping with butter. Who among us would not bite down on that morsel until every edible part of it was gone? But I digress. My grand daughter did what she did because, at this time in her young life given the situation and her limited resources, she communicated in the only way she knew how. I say this not to excuse her behavior, but rather to state the reality of the situation.
If a similar situation occurs, say, five years from now, it is my hope and assumption that my grand daughter will handle matters differently. At that point, instead of biting (even though it will still be part of her arsenal) she will invoke a different communication strategy such as yell, make use of her hands, share her displeasure directly with the now older other baby, or bring the situation to the attention of the teacher and let that person work it out. Whatever she does then, no doubt she will communicate differently because she will know more and have more tools at her disposal. Her challenge, five years from now and for the remainder of her life will be to use communication tools that properly convey her message, yet in a manner that is honest and respectful
Do not misunderstand, I am not here to defend my grand daughter's action. Biting is wrong unless it is a hot summer day, you are sitting in the backyard with friends and cold drinks, and you are holding in your hands a corn-on-the-cobb that is dripping with butter. Who among us would not bite down on that morsel until every edible part of it was gone? But I digress. My grand daughter did what she did because, at this time in her young life given the situation and her limited resources, she communicated in the only way she knew how. I say this not to excuse her behavior, but rather to state the reality of the situation.
If a similar situation occurs, say, five years from now, it is my hope and assumption that my grand daughter will handle matters differently. At that point, instead of biting (even though it will still be part of her arsenal) she will invoke a different communication strategy such as yell, make use of her hands, share her displeasure directly with the now older other baby, or bring the situation to the attention of the teacher and let that person work it out. Whatever she does then, no doubt she will communicate differently because she will know more and have more tools at her disposal. Her challenge, five years from now and for the remainder of her life will be to use communication tools that properly convey her message, yet in a manner that is honest and respectful
Friday, July 13, 2012
Louis Brandeis With a Twist
One of the fundamental debates within our country since its beginning days has revolved around freedom. Yes, we want it and, yes, it defines the principle of our nation. But what limits, if any, should we place upon it? Should we literally have unlimited freedom in all areas or should parameters be imposed, for example, that restrict our citizen's ability to speak, bare arms, puruse a free market, or vote? Rightly or not, the consensus has been to impose limits. Since the time of our Founding Fathers, the decision has been consistant: freedom - yes - but within certain guidelines. Thus, we are not now, nor have we ever been, a pure democracy. An easy example is the famous restriction that forbids a person from yelling "fire" in a crowded room.
The purpose of this kind of limitation has been to allow our nation to practice its freedoms but do so in a common sense and reasonable way. One hundred per cent freedom removes the purpose or effectiveness of laws or rules that define and ensure behavior supporting the welfare of all. The laws represent compromise toward achieving a nation that properly protects a person's ability to advance, take advantage of their opportunities and talents, and advance as far as they can in terms of wealth and standing. All this leads me to a famous quote I recently came upon by one of our nation's most famous and acclaimed jurists: Louis Brandeis.
The former member of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Brandeis was referring to the economics of our nation and the dangers of a plutocracy being formed in which a select few end up controlling the nation's purse strings, thus seriously compromising everyone else's opportunity to prosper. Such a sentiment is significant to communication as it speaks to our ability as people to express ourselves, be heard and access information without fear of that "right" being dominated. It is essential that we not fall into the trap of a communication plutocracy being created within our nation in which the wealthy and super wealthy control our information agenda as well as those who make decisions that affect it.
The purpose of this kind of limitation has been to allow our nation to practice its freedoms but do so in a common sense and reasonable way. One hundred per cent freedom removes the purpose or effectiveness of laws or rules that define and ensure behavior supporting the welfare of all. The laws represent compromise toward achieving a nation that properly protects a person's ability to advance, take advantage of their opportunities and talents, and advance as far as they can in terms of wealth and standing. All this leads me to a famous quote I recently came upon by one of our nation's most famous and acclaimed jurists: Louis Brandeis.
The former member of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Brandeis was referring to the economics of our nation and the dangers of a plutocracy being formed in which a select few end up controlling the nation's purse strings, thus seriously compromising everyone else's opportunity to prosper. Such a sentiment is significant to communication as it speaks to our ability as people to express ourselves, be heard and access information without fear of that "right" being dominated. It is essential that we not fall into the trap of a communication plutocracy being created within our nation in which the wealthy and super wealthy control our information agenda as well as those who make decisions that affect it.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Two Fathers
One of the interesting things about the field of public relations is that it has two fathers. At various times by numerous scholars and historians, two of the field's most famous pioneers - Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays - have been called "The Father of Public Relations." Upon hearing that, one's initial reaction might be to challenge that declaration and say it does not make sense for any field or science to have more than one person be given such a distinct label. But then I think of the United States and how all of us are comfortable with historians writing about its "founding fathers." So, perhaps having just two is not so bad or confusing after all.
While it is true that both Lee and Bernays were at the ground floor in the early 20th century when the profession of public relations began to really get underway, what is interesting is they both practiced and advocated diametrically opposite styles of public relations. Lee, under the heading of his famous "Declaration of Principles," said it was the role of PR types to simply share or report the facts about a client or issue without making any attempt to shape, sugar coat or manipulate them. Lee saw the role of public relations officer as being an objective conduit of information. On the other hand, Bernays, perhaps because he was influenced by his uncle Sigmund Freud, believed PR was a science of persuasion and mass manipulation. He, too, believed in honesty but he advocated presenting facts to the advantage of his clients.
As to which vision of public relations is correct, that debate has not yet been settled. But in terms of which style is most utilized, then hands-down it is the one practiced by Bernays. It is rare in today's world to see public relations practitioners who are content to simply share unvarnished facts with a targeted audience, for example, and then leave it to that public to make up their own minds about an issue or a client. The temptation is too great to let people make up their own minds. This is not what organizations that hire PR professionals want. They want profit. They want people to like them. And they want communicators who can make that happen.
While it is true that both Lee and Bernays were at the ground floor in the early 20th century when the profession of public relations began to really get underway, what is interesting is they both practiced and advocated diametrically opposite styles of public relations. Lee, under the heading of his famous "Declaration of Principles," said it was the role of PR types to simply share or report the facts about a client or issue without making any attempt to shape, sugar coat or manipulate them. Lee saw the role of public relations officer as being an objective conduit of information. On the other hand, Bernays, perhaps because he was influenced by his uncle Sigmund Freud, believed PR was a science of persuasion and mass manipulation. He, too, believed in honesty but he advocated presenting facts to the advantage of his clients.
As to which vision of public relations is correct, that debate has not yet been settled. But in terms of which style is most utilized, then hands-down it is the one practiced by Bernays. It is rare in today's world to see public relations practitioners who are content to simply share unvarnished facts with a targeted audience, for example, and then leave it to that public to make up their own minds about an issue or a client. The temptation is too great to let people make up their own minds. This is not what organizations that hire PR professionals want. They want profit. They want people to like them. And they want communicators who can make that happen.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Sweet Dreams, Sweet Communication
"Dream when the day is blue. Dream and they might come true." That is one of the lyric lines from the song, "Dream," one of the late Johnny Mercer's many classics. I begin this posting this way as it comes right after my reading in a recent issue of Time magaine an article on dreams. It is an interesting piece as it pertains to a challenge so many of us face: nightmares. We all have them from time to time. Some are silly. Some are scary. Some are disturbing. Collectively, they cut into our sleep time and that is something no one wants. One recurring nightmare I have involves being chased by hungry crocodiles (or is it alligators?) and not being able to stand up to run to safety.
The article highlights the efforts of researchers now working with patients to help them reformulate their dreams. One of the scientists, a person named Stephen Laberge who gained famed while teaching at Stanford University, believes dreams are as manageable as any one else's behavioral experience. It is Laberge's contention that people can be taught how to take more control of their dreams, so that they are better able to ensure they get a good night's sleep and feel better when they approach a new day. One group such a skill would benefit greatly is combat veterans returning from war who lose much sleep due to recurring dreams they have regarding things they either witnessed or, in some cases, had to do.
Dreams are a form of communication. Even though it happens within our own heads and at a time when we are not interacting with others, dreams, particularly bad ones, can and do affect our ability to cope in society and present ourselves in a consistently favorable light. I find the work of Laberge interesting because it seeks to build on our ability to manage communication when we are awake. Moving such a skill into the realm of sleep strikes me as being quite revolutionary. This research is very much at the beginning stage, so no one should get overly excited at the prospect at being able to ensure their nights of nothing but pure bliss. Yet.
The article highlights the efforts of researchers now working with patients to help them reformulate their dreams. One of the scientists, a person named Stephen Laberge who gained famed while teaching at Stanford University, believes dreams are as manageable as any one else's behavioral experience. It is Laberge's contention that people can be taught how to take more control of their dreams, so that they are better able to ensure they get a good night's sleep and feel better when they approach a new day. One group such a skill would benefit greatly is combat veterans returning from war who lose much sleep due to recurring dreams they have regarding things they either witnessed or, in some cases, had to do.
Dreams are a form of communication. Even though it happens within our own heads and at a time when we are not interacting with others, dreams, particularly bad ones, can and do affect our ability to cope in society and present ourselves in a consistently favorable light. I find the work of Laberge interesting because it seeks to build on our ability to manage communication when we are awake. Moving such a skill into the realm of sleep strikes me as being quite revolutionary. This research is very much at the beginning stage, so no one should get overly excited at the prospect at being able to ensure their nights of nothing but pure bliss. Yet.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Working Together
I live in one of those parts of the country that is currently getting blasted with a giant heat wave. If that wasn't enough, just as the temperatures were rising, a big storm came along and ended up knocking out the power at our home as well as hundreds of thousands of others in the region. The result was several days of misery. We faced temperatures hovering near 100 degrees without having the ability to turn on a simple fan. To say the least, it was not fun. I understand this was a way of life for our forefathers. But in fairness to us, our forefathers never had the sweet taste of air conditioning, so they never knew what they were missing. We did.
But now that our power has been restored and we are in a better disposition to deal with the uncompromising heat, I can more easily look back and see how the shared misery that so many of us experienced actually also brought out the best of our inner communicator. Let me begin with traffic lights. Part of what stopped working were the traffic lights at intersections around town. With those out, drivers had to carefully negotiate with other drivers in order to safely navigate through intersections. Consequently, regardless of the direction from which they were coming, drivers would either stop or slow down to ensure not just their own safe passage but that of other drivers as well.
What happened at out neighborhood traffic lights, and in some cases still is, is a great example of respectful collaboration. More to the point, it is a great example of effective communication. People with apparently nothing more in common than the fact they are drivers and they want to get where they are going safely, identified a greater good around which they could rally and then devised strategies to achieve results that address their mutual needs and interests. Here is the best part: as I write this, in the case of our region, I am not aware of a single traffic accident occurring at an intersection where the traffic lights were not working.
But now that our power has been restored and we are in a better disposition to deal with the uncompromising heat, I can more easily look back and see how the shared misery that so many of us experienced actually also brought out the best of our inner communicator. Let me begin with traffic lights. Part of what stopped working were the traffic lights at intersections around town. With those out, drivers had to carefully negotiate with other drivers in order to safely navigate through intersections. Consequently, regardless of the direction from which they were coming, drivers would either stop or slow down to ensure not just their own safe passage but that of other drivers as well.
What happened at out neighborhood traffic lights, and in some cases still is, is a great example of respectful collaboration. More to the point, it is a great example of effective communication. People with apparently nothing more in common than the fact they are drivers and they want to get where they are going safely, identified a greater good around which they could rally and then devised strategies to achieve results that address their mutual needs and interests. Here is the best part: as I write this, in the case of our region, I am not aware of a single traffic accident occurring at an intersection where the traffic lights were not working.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Hot Button Issues
I think most, if not all of us, have issues about which we feel great passion. When we speak about these topics we find ourselves getting animated and perhaps raising our voices. People around us might interpret our actions as our being angry or upset. That is not alway the case. As emotional beings, we tend to get excited from time to time and not always because we are angry. But there are times, of course, when we raise our voices over an issue because it does make us angry. Anger takes over our normal way of behaving and speaking. Before we know it, we are either lashing out at those around us or inciting the same type of behavior in others - either because they agree with us or because they feel we are unfairly attacking them. Then, almost without warning, we are engaged in a yelling match with another person.
Such an unfortunate scene has happened to all of us. It certainly has to me. When it does, I always walk away wishing I had a done a better job of keeping my cool. I have no problem with being passionate about an issue, but even being emotional about something is no excuse for coming across as verbally attacking another person. Beside being rude, it never leads to agreement over the issue that triggered the raised voices in the first place. This is why when it comes to hot button issues, I urge caution. While I do not believe they should be avoided, I do feel they need to be approached with the greatest respect. If we approach one without being prepared, then they can and often do bring out the worst in us.
In terms of communication, there is nothing worse than people who are interacting with no intention of being respectful or seeking any kind of civil understanding. That contributes nothing to the topic and, without question, harms how we are perceived. It is okay to be passionate about an issue. It is even ok to raise one's voice when talking about it - if that happens. But impeding communication is not ok. Interacting with another person while having no intention of listening to them is not ok either. Communication is about engagement. Good communication is an act of respect and civility. Hot button issues can be opportunities to bring out the best in ourselves.
Such an unfortunate scene has happened to all of us. It certainly has to me. When it does, I always walk away wishing I had a done a better job of keeping my cool. I have no problem with being passionate about an issue, but even being emotional about something is no excuse for coming across as verbally attacking another person. Beside being rude, it never leads to agreement over the issue that triggered the raised voices in the first place. This is why when it comes to hot button issues, I urge caution. While I do not believe they should be avoided, I do feel they need to be approached with the greatest respect. If we approach one without being prepared, then they can and often do bring out the worst in us.
In terms of communication, there is nothing worse than people who are interacting with no intention of being respectful or seeking any kind of civil understanding. That contributes nothing to the topic and, without question, harms how we are perceived. It is okay to be passionate about an issue. It is even ok to raise one's voice when talking about it - if that happens. But impeding communication is not ok. Interacting with another person while having no intention of listening to them is not ok either. Communication is about engagement. Good communication is an act of respect and civility. Hot button issues can be opportunities to bring out the best in ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)