In a message dated 7/8/97 9:36:33 AM, John Constantine wrote:
>Fact is, I don't disagree that communication is a complex set of
>interactions. The only thing I will say again, is that the complex set of
>interactions IS DEPENDENT UPON the receiver. otherwise one might as well
>be talking to a tree. If the receiver doesn't speak the same language,
>doesn't feel inclined to listen, doesn't grasp the concept, doesn't choose
>to participate, then there is no communicating at all, just emissions from
>the sender.
>Being RESPONSIBLE FOR, and BEING
>DEPENDENT UPON are two different concepts entirely, are they not? Did I
>not communicate my message appropriately, so that you chose to see and
>"hear" what you wanted to, rather than what I actually "said"?
In a message dated 7/9/97 3:39:10 AM, Jon Jenkins wrote:
>Communications, imho, requires both and the parties engaged in direct
>interpersonal communications (as different from letters or email or the
>telephone) are sender and receiver at the same time.
>
>And while, we create meaning while we communicate we also share meaning,
>at least enough to create new meaning.
Perhaps the word "responsible" here is confusing. If we think of it as
the listener is accountable for the meaning, then I can see why there is
some controversy, but if we think of it as the listener is the one who
determines the meaning then we might be able to agree. Our interpretation
happens to us based on our structure, but we can reinterpret our automatic
interpretations and we can ask if the meaning we took is the same as the
speaker intended. To that extent, the listener is responsible for the
communication.
Regardless of the stimuli - be it a tree or another person - the LISTENER
is the one who makes the interpretation about what was said. We listen to
our pets all the time and make interpretations as to what they are saying,
why can't we listen to trees effectively? <grin> I went to a seminar
where we "listened" to mother earth by putting our face in a hole in the
dirt and becoming quiet. As an example of listening, at the beginning of
a drought about 10 years ago in Georgia (before we knew it was a drought),
many people listened that we needed to take care of mother earth, people
heard her crying. At the end of the drought (again, before we knew it was
the end) we did the same thing and listened that mother earth would take
care of us. Interesting. I realize that story might trigger some
different listenings in the readers. -big grin!-
Anyway, those interested in this issue might want to read some of Humberto
Maturana's thinking as he has done a lot of research on the biological
aspects of communication. As he says, we say what we say and people
listen what they listen. This is because each person has his/her unique
structure that they listen from; we can't help it as human beings.
Stimuli act differently on different human structures, but we have enough
in common as human beings that we can coordinate action with each other
(some of the time) with our communication.
Yes, communication takes both parties being committed to it for it to be
effective and we do develop shared meaning as we communicate, but it is
out of the existing meaning and it happens in the listening.
The speaker is responsible for listening to the listening and assessing if
his/her meaning is the same as the listener's interpretation, but the
listener is responsible for checking his/her interpretation with the
speaker if they are to coordinate effectively.
These ideas have been very powerful for me to increase my effectiveness
both as a speaker and a listener. This way of thinking about
communication gets away from the Cartesian sender/receiver model and puts
us squarely into the post modern world.
Regards,
Margaret McIntyre
MargMcI@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>