Our life in society is based on interpersonal interaction. And it depends on how we are able to understandssed with The quality of our life (often including its material component) depends on the way we treat ourselves and other people. Numerous scholars have studied the phenomena of communication among people. We propose to start with the conventional classics, which at one time made a small revolution in psychotherapy approaches and in the understanding of human relationships in general.
In 1967, at the Palo Alto Institute for Psychological Research, American scientists led by Paul Vaclavik derived the axioms of interpersonal communication as a property of relationships between people. These axioms describe the basics of small group communication and explain the “pathological communication” effect, i.e., complications that can distort communication and lead to to dead ends in interpersonal communication.
Let’s look at the most important axioms.
Axiom 1. Impossibility to avoid communication
Any human behavior in an interaction situation has an informational value, i.e. it is communication. Thus, it becomes obvious that no matter how hard a person tries, he or she cannot help but engage in communication. Activity or passivity, words or silence – all of this conveys information: it influences other people, who, in turn, cannot help but respond to this communication and, therefore, engage in it themselves. If people simply do not talk to each other or do not pay attention to each other, this does not refute the statements made above. A person at the bar looking straight ahead, a passenger sitting in an airplane with his eyes closed – both of them clearly communicate that they don’t want to talk to anyone, and others usually understand these messages perfectly well and leave them alone. Obviously, this is the same kind of communication as a lively discussion. A person who answers a call or a message on the phone during an important meeting can be perceived as the one that says “I (the call/message) am more important than you”. Intentionality of actions is a complex issue in the field of communication and there is currently no unambiguous assessment of its role. A group of Palo Alto scholars believe that communication is not necessarily intentional.
There are a number of strategies for avoiding communication (or communicating unwillingness to engage in communication):
A direct demonstration of
(in a more or less rude form) of unwillingness to communicate; however, since this behavior does not comply with the rules of politeness, it requires a certain amount of courage and contributes to a rather tense and awkward silence, which actually means that communication is taking place.For example, demonstrative silence after a quarrel says to the person to whom it is directed “I am not happy with you.
The strategy of least resistance
is when one partner is reluctant to play along with the other or agrees to everything.- Disqualification of communicationWhen one of the partners acts in a way that negates both their own messages and those of the other person. This technique includes a wide range of communication phenomena: contradictory statements, inconsistencies, topic changes, incomplete sentences, misunderstandings, unclear or mannered language, literal interpretation of metaphors or metaphorical understanding of literal remarks, etc.
- Indication of the reasons why communication is undesirable at the moment in a way that is acceptable to the interlocutor and does not offend him or herA person can pretend to be asleep, deaf, drunk, pretend not to understand the interlocutor’s language, or pretend to have any other defect that indicates that communication is justifiably impossible. In all these cases, the message remains the same, namely: “I wouldn’t mind talking to you, but there is something that prevents me, that is stronger than me, something that is not my fault.”
Thus, the impossibility of not engaging in communication makes all situations involving two or more people interpersonal, communicative.
Axiom 2. Any communication has a level of content and a level of attitude
In the process of communication, not only information is transmitted, but the nature of the relationship between communicators is also determined. The content level is the information conveyed in the message. It does not matter whether the information is true, false, reliable, incorrect, or insoluble.
oy. At the attitudinal level, the message is conveyed in terms of how it is to be perceived. This is a kind of metacommunication in relation to communication itself, i.e., what determines the attitude to what is being communicated at the content level. Attitudes can be expressed both through language and non-verbally through tone of voice, smile, or other means. The nature of the relationship can be clearly understood from the context in which the communication takes place. For example, the meaning of the phrase “Close the door” is an expectation of a very specific action. But this phrase can be said in different ways: as a command, as a request, as a suggestion, etc. The chosen way of expression contains a message about how the partners see their relationship: friendly or hostile; equal in social relations or one of them is directly dependent on the other; feel calm and comfortable or experience a state ofand excitement, etc.
In interpersonal communication, the expressive color of a message is often more important than its content. At the same time, according to researchers, the more spontaneous and “healthy” the relationship is, the more the relationship aspect fades into the background. Conversely, “unhealthy” relationships are characterized by a constant struggle over the nature of the relationship, and the content aspect of communication becomes less and less important.
Confusing the level of content and the level of relationships often leads to a breakdown in communication.
Axiom 3.Punctuating a sequence of events
People organize their interactions based on their own idea of what is important and unimportant, the causes and consequences of actions, and their interpretation of the meaning of what is happening. These semantic dominants organize behavioral events, significantly influencing the interaction that takes place (just as punctuation marks define the meaning of a sentence). Consider the following dialog as an example:
- Igor, please finalize the guide.
- Yes, yes, boss, of course, boss, whatever you say, boss.
Forsome reason, I took the first phrase as an order. But I decided it would be more appropriate to respond with sarcasm. In this case, the first speaker may not hear sarcasm in the answer and decide that an order is the right form of communication.
Disagreement over the punctuation of a sequence of events is the basis for endless problems in relationships. We cannot be sure that the other person has the same amount of information, nor that they will draw the same conclusions from that information. The way people decide what is important and what is not is completely different. In all cases of inconsistent communication organization, one can usually observe a conflict as to what is the cause and what is the effect of the observed event. An example of pathological communication caused by a violation of the sequence of causes and effects is the “self-fulfilling prophecy” effect. This is behavior that causes others to react in a way that would be a natural response to that behavior. For example, a person who bases his or her behavior on the premise that “no one loves me” will behave distrustfully, showing a lot of defensive reactions, or aggressively. Such behavior is unlikely to arouse the sympathy of others, which will confirm the initial premise of this person. At the same time, the person himself mistakenly believes,that she is just reacting to the attitude of others, not provoking it. In this case, this is the problem of punctuation, which often leads to conflicts between system participants.
Axiom 4. Digital and analog level of communication
Humans are the only organisms that use both types of communication: digital and analog. The digital level of communication means the transmission of specific sounds that form words and imply certain objects, phenomena, etc. So there is nothing in the word “dog” that resembles it, the symbol H2Ois not like water in any way, and the word “calm” is not peace. The analog level is actually non-verbal information, which implies not only body movements, postures, gestures, facial expressions, voice intonation, sequence, rhythm, and modulation of words, but also the context in which communication takes place. For example, two fingers raised up, which define the number 2, crying, tears – as a physical manifestation of emotions. But be careful; the muzzle or the “OK” sign with your fingers are not analog!
The digital and analog aspects complement each other. The digital level carries the actual informationformation, but it lacks semantics (meaning) in the field of relations, while an analog language has semantics but no adequate syntax (specific content) for unambiguous characterization of relations. It is impossible to express adequately the fullness of disappointment in words alone, and it is impossible to distinguish tears of joy from tears of sadness using only analog communication.
Axiom 5. Symmetrical and complimentary interaction
For people, relationships are based on either equality or difference. In the first case, partners try to copy each other’s behavior, so their relationship can be called symmetrical. In this case, communication has a single vector of focus. For example, two braggarts communicating with each other and exaggerating their achievements more and more potentiate each other in the same direction. In the second case, the behavior of one partner complements the behavior of the other, this type of interaction is called complimentary. For example, the more one of the interlocutors dominates the communication, the more the other takes a subordinate position and, thus, potentiates even more dominance.and so on. Symmetrical relations are thus characterized by equality and minimization of differences, while the peculiarity of complimentary interaction is to maximize differences.
There are two different positions in a complimentary relationship. One partner occupies a superior, important, primary position, and the other a subordinate, secondary, inferior one. These concepts are quite useful if they are not equated with the words “good” or “bad”, “strong” or “weak”. Complimentary relationships can be established by the social or cultural environment (as in the case of mother and baby, doctor and patient, teacher and student) or be a characteristic style of relationship of a given dyad. In anyt is important to emphasize that the nature of these relationships is interdependent, and that different types of behavior are mutually reinforcing. This is not to say that one partner has established a complimentary relationship with the other, but rather that each behaves in a way that implies and is at the same time the cause of the other’s behavior.
Symmetry and complimentarityare not in themselves “good” or “bad”, “normal” or “abnormal”. Both types of relationships perform important functions. But they are fraught with pathology. In symmetrical relationships, there is a constant danger of competition, when there is a loss of stability and a so-called failure, which leads to quarrels and conflicts between individuals. Thus, pathology in symmetrical relationships is characterized by more or less open hostility.
In a healthy symmetrical relationship, partners are able to treat each other with respect, which leads to trust and respect fromthe other. When symmetrical relationships are broken, one can observe a rejection rather than an ignoring of the other’s personality. In turn, pathological changes in complimentary relationships are manifested in ignoring rather than rejecting the other’s personality (for example, a mother who continues to treat her adult son as a child).
The material is based on: Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin Bavelas, Don D. Jackson. Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. W. W. Norton & Company, April 25. 2011 г.
