Sometime during my freshman year in high school my mother disappeared for several days. My queries about her absence were met with abruptness and silence from my dad. When the police brought her home, nothing was discussed. There were no explanations. She went to the bedroom. He followed her and shut the door and there was silence. Several days later all was back to “normal.” We all knew, but we did not pursue discussion or ask questions. Concealment and power plays like this were integral to our unchallenged family culture. It was life-as-usual in my formative years and it worked to instill in me a deep longing for clarity in communication and non-manipulative influence in others’ lives. This same pattern emerged in succeeding relationships. As a teenager, I began discovering communication between the sexes to be stimulating and mysterious, but, simultaneously, rife with deception, possessiveness, and manipulation. After three knotty marriages, I concluded the promises promoted in ritual ceremony wholly impotent. The one relationship that most of humanity deems the height of intimacy and the most promising to assure freedom from skewed and harmful messages is broken--at least half the time (Prevention, 2010). Martin Buber offers some insight in his work with genuine dialogue:
Beneath the chaos of warring monologues, though, two dimensions of human interaction have continued to receive widespread attention across a spectrum of fields and social situations. The first is the feeling almost everybody has that meaningful communication is absolutely necessary to the survival of individuals and nations. This dimension is mitigated by a second, the daunting understanding that such communication is difficult, and usually seems impossible, to attain. (Kramer, K., Gawlick, M., 2003, p. 1)
Buber’s use of the phrase “usually seems” offers hope that meaningful communication is indeed within reach. I am animated by that hope.
I am compelled to offer my philosophy of communication as embryonic. It is based largely on personal experience with a dose of theory, some good reading, and pondering in the shower and on long walks. I think of my friend, Carl Rogers, when he states, “I have some knowledge about communication and could assemble more” (Rogers). Sincerity begs that I not be excessively assertive or fixed in my offerings. I feel comfortable prefacing the whole of what follows with a thoughtful but tentative, “It seems to me…”
An enduring philosophy of communication is constructed upon an ethical framework. It is imperative that genuinely effective message-making seeks to unmask all manner of falsehood. Good communication has roots in the soil of truthfulness that is able to nourish its manifold levels: from the center of Altman and Taylor’s’ “Multilayered Onion” (Griffin, 2009, p. 115), to the “inbetween” of Buber’s dialogic (Friedman, n/a), to the mass media environment of Marshall McLuhan (Griffin, 2009, p. 313). Communication is humane and promotes the good of many when it is enlivened by truth. Communicating truthfully is distinct from (though not exclusive of) simply not speaking deliberate falsehoods. It is attentive and congruent to inward motivations and nuances of meaning and seeks an inward frankness.
My passion for clarity in communication emerged not because of excellent role models, but was instead born of frustration with the apparent absence or abuses of them. The demise of intimate relationships, the aha moment that finds no receiver, the vision that falls flat for lack of buy-in, the charades in social engagements, and a general relational ambiguity all affirm this deficit. My work in the church and academic settings served to further convince me of this void that is able to effectively cripple or prohibit the realization of organizational vision
The focus of my emerging philosophy of communication lies in three areas. The first is borne of a personal predisposition for internal observation and honesty. This attraction to intrapersonal dialogue often proves to be a problem and source of frustration. It is certainly not a welcome topic for light conversation at a dinner party. This propensity was not my birthright, but seems to have emerged in me after a three-year stint in my twenties of (nearly clinical) high-volume experimentation with the “mind-expanding drug”, LSD (Metzner, 2000). I observe that my internal awareness changed significantly after these years. Though I do not prescribe its use to my children, I gleaned benefit from those experiences. I am learning that there is great advantage in the observation of this living undercurrent in promoting increased personal awareness and disabling of crippling emotions. I believe that intrapersonal dialogue and attentiveness to it is the foundation for a deepening compassion for and interaction with others.
There are intentional practices that nurture intrapersonal communication. I value Wayne Oates’ suggestion to find pockets of silence through the day to lend objectivity to the inner world (1997, p. 97). Increased sensitivity to the inner world is also found in meditative practices. One in particular is the ancient practice of centering prayer. Cynthia Bourgeault, in her book, Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening, asserts the need to “still the waters” and that “Once the mind is calm and concentrated, it becomes better able to access those deep states of peacefulness and unitive seeing that lies beneath our ordinary awareness” (Bourgeault, 2004). Any practices that aid in understanding the inside talk and deepening perception will advance the clarity and positive function of intrapersonal communication.
As a visual artist, I appreciate the voice of images and I find a clear description of effective interpersonal communication in “Bond of Union,” a 1950 lithograph by Dutch artist M.C. Escher (Bool, 1992). This image is a portrayal of the agreement of two people. Their foreheads are connected in a way that appears to be an indissoluble bond. Deep, truthful, unfettered connection with another or others must be the definitive purpose of human communication. Martin Buber asserts with greater emphasis that, “It is a question of the authenticity of what is between men, without which there can be no authentic human existence” (Friedman, n/a). I have little personal experience with this kind of dialogue except what I imagine and read it could be. I find myself seeking it like a madwoman. I discover my conversations, sermons, and teaching opportunities tend toward settling into core matters with an aversion to affectation, although, I certainly do that well also. In the pursuit of clarity, we may find, as Pogo says, “We have met the enemy and he is us” (Kelly, 1950). If I were to submit myself to hauling about a large bag of rocks on my shoulders each day, the burden of the unnatural load will soon distort my body and hinder my movement. I suspect most of us unconsciously tolerate heavy relational baggage that equally distorts and hinders freely loving and connecting. It seems we readily acclimate to a comfortable place of safety with minimal risk and in so doing we forfeit the adventures and possibilities of genuine creative transformational engagement.
Some of the practices that refine interpersonal engagement include focus on deep non-judgmental listening, careful use of words, and the creation of safe space. I concur with Carl Rogers’ emphasis on three conditions that are non-negotiable for the success of the “person-to-person” encounter. These are: congruence (the ideal self and the actual self are in harmony), unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding (Rogers, 1980). All these contribute to the development of cognitive complexity and the successful “crafting of person-centered messages (2009, p. 101).
The third aspect of my emerging philosophy of what communication means is from my experience with organizations, most especially in ecclesiastical settings. I would like to believe I am not so much a cynic as a realist who hopes for change. I have been embedded in the workings of the American church for over thirty years. I have pastored a church of non-denominational charismatic flavor which is distinctly different from countless other distinctly different Christian flavors. One of the commonalities of all these different churches is the annoying and anti-Christian undertone of insisting on being “right.” If I am “right” then many others must be “wrong” and any communication is effectively aborted. This limiting refrain is subtle but insidious and works its magic to produce a fractured and judgmental lot of basically unhappy people who voice a gospel of joy and acceptance. Person-centered messages that embrace habits which nourish agreement are rare (2009, pp. 100-101). This predisposition has contributed to the commonly negative image of the Church in the surrounding culture. It is evident not only between the individual doctrinal bodies, but is also problematic within the bodies themselves. An extraordinary degree of superficiality and deception abound in this institution that holds claims of the highest integrity. I firmly believe that the organizational tier of religious communication is distorted because the heart is sick; the foundations are poor. Strengthening foundations of an already constructed building is difficult at best and likened to the old wineskins that break with fresh wine or the distant possibility of dry bones becoming fleshed.
There are intentional practices that engender possibilities for the religious organization. The primacy of organizational vision is indispensible. This overarching vision is developed with a core group who are in healthy dialogue, share a common vision, and are willing to adopt a communication model for the group and disseminate it among the members of the body (2009, p. 263). Honesty, radical approaches, and reconstructed thinking are vital to a core vision. Clarity on this level presumes an ongoing healthy intrapersonal experience as well as openness to interpersonal dynamics. There are intentional practices that support communication within the religious organization. Transparent and truthful pulpit ministry that transcends simply rational doctrine, avoids dogmatism, and seeks creative means to deliver messages is essential. Another significant strategy is the emphasis on well-facilitated small groups that are in praxis and perception the defining hub of the culture of the organization.
“Communication is the simultaneous experience of self and other--transcending one’s current self, overcoming one’s current self, to become more than what one was through connection with another” (Shepherd, 2006). I support this definition cautiously and humbly as one that resonates with my developing philosophy of communication that builds upon a healthy intimate engagement with the inner dialogue. From this place we are better equipped to creatively and boldly embrace the other(s). Both of these working together form a place for a dynamic expression in the larger world of organizational vision.
I assume that I will be making revisions and additions to this “final” philosophy of communication in the months to come as I invest and learn through the COML program. I find it interesting that the core ideas of my first draft remained stable over the semester though I feel my thinking has broadened and deepened with the aid of many good texts, scholarly articles, good discussion, and life application.
References
Bool, F. (1992). M.C. Escher: his life and complete graphic works. New York, NY: H.N.Abrams.
Bourgeault, C. (2004). Centering prayer and inner awakening. Chicago, Ill: Cowley Publications.
Friedman, M. (n/a). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue . Retrieved from Religion online: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=459&C=384
Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Kelly, W. (1950). Positively pogo. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kramer, K., Gawlick, M. (2003). Martin Buber's i and thou. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Metzner, R. A. (2000). The Psychedelic experiences: A manual from the tibetan book of the dead. New York, NY: Citadel.
Oates, W. (1997). Nurturing silence in a noisy heart. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press.
Prevention, C. f. (2010, August 24). National Vital Statistics Report. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from Center for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_25.htm
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. New York, NY: Citadel.
Rogers, C. (n.d.). Experiences in Communication. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from Listening Way. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.listeningway.com/rogers2-eng.html
Shepherd, G. (n.d.). Communication as Transcendence. In G. S. Shepherd (Ed.). California: Sage Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment