It seems to have accelerated over the past ten years but there have always been many obstacles to communication. Emotions often stop us from communicating clearly. Some people are shy and have difficulty speaking up and drawing attention to themself. Some stutter, have trouble hearing, or have other physical impediments. But all of these are problems with initiating communication. Once we have started talking, or signing, or using drum signals, or whatever we still have the situation where we want to exchange information with other people, or another person.
In order to exchange information, we present the information. This can take various forms. It can be via sound — words with individual phonemes. It can be via signals — morse code via electrical wire, light beacons from mountaintop to mountaintop. drum rhythms and codes, finger movements either via touch or sight, and so forth.
The information must then move from the generating location to the receiving location. A light signal cannot succeed if something is in between the generator and the receiver. An electrical signal cannot work if there is no power. A vocal shout may not be heard clearly if the background noise includes a large crowd or a nearby thunderstorm.
The next step is reception. Someone who is deaf cannot hear an audible signal, or voice, no matter how loud it is shouted (but they may be able to read lips in a possible scenario). An electrical signal only works if the other end has something to decode it.
We now get to the center of this newsletter. There is a very large difference between hearing something, listening to something, and understanding something. The first is associated with the transmission, as talked about above. But the second is a matter of attention. My ears may hear the noises of speech but if I am thinking about next week’s menu and grocery list, I may not note anything of what has been said. If my eyes are turned a different direction from a light beacon then, not seeing it, I cannot possibly extract meaning from the signal.
We have seen how many steps are needed to get a message from one person to another such that they are now ready to understand, and use, the information. The final hurdle may be hard to believe because — surely — if they have received, and listened to, the message they must know.
Even if both are speaking the same language, the receiver is placed into a position of needing to decode the information — even if it appears that you are both speaking the same language. The more aspects that are the same between you, the better chance you will be understood but words are understood based upon familiarity with the language, the histories of the speaker and the receiver, and the general environment and background of how they use the word. If it is not the same for the speaker as it is for the receiver, it can appear that they are communicating when, in fact, no information is being passed along.
Words have definitions. Almost no one uses the same precise meaning as in the dictionary. Someone who is as detail-oriented as I am may have a better chance of using words in the same manner as officially detailed but that does not give me a much better chance of being understood by another who uses a completely different definition. Some words that are currently being used in speech that no longer have universally agreed upon meanings appear to be:
conservative
liberal
progressive
radical
socialism
pro-life
pro-choice
fascism
totalitarianism/authoritarianism
woke
democracy
liberty
freedom
If I talk with someone who declares themselves to be liberal, I do not know what that means to them. Thus, I cannot have a discussion about liberalism. The same thing holds for conservative. Certainly, the working definition of conservative is completely different from that of someone calling themselves conservative in 1970. People can, and do, use the word socialism as an insult without having the slightest idea as to what socialism is or how it relates to modern society.
Society within the U.S. is quite divisive right now — and some segments of the political community want it to remain divisive (or to be even more divisive). They succeed as they eliminate common definitions of words — eliminating the possibility of discussion of various topics. The only method of progress, in my opinion, is to back away from the words which are supposed to indicate types of actions or thoughts and use those words that have, as of yet, escaped the scrambling of definitions. Instead of liberal, one can use those components of being liberal such as support of unions, support of people pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, support of equality of access to resources and the opportunity to improve their situation, and so forth. Instead of democracy, one can talk about the ability for all legally qualified voters to submit their input, the need for creating common solutions that all can live with, and the willingness to abide by the laws as determined within those democratic procedures.
Of course, as a writer and a person who loves words, I would prefer that we reclaim the definitions of words and use them as defined. But, even when one earnestly attempts to keep in mind the definitions within accepted dictionaries, words will always have different nuances based upon personal history and environment.
Communication only takes place when the ideas, and thoughts, are mutually understood. Not easy in the best of times — and these do not appear to be the best of times.
This really gets at something I’ve been sensing for a while—how often we think we’re communicating, but we’re really just speaking past each other. Loved the clarity of this breakdown.