Comunicassione: sos chimbe assiomas de Watzlawick ispiegados dae duttòr Gordon
Coates.
 |
| Sas runas celticas (futark) |
Gordon
Coates est unu duttore chi at tribagliadu meda cun malaidos terminales e duncas
at appidu modu de s''interrogare meda subra su sensu de sa vida, sa
comunicassione, sas emoziones. At istudiadu filosofia occidentale e orientale e
at iscrittu meda pro aggiuare sa zentea cumprendere sas emoziones e sa
comunicazione.
De
seguru m'at fattu cumprendere su sinnificu de sos chimbe assiomas de Paul
Watzlawick e bos assiguro chi no fit fazile a los ispiegare gai 'ene.
Pro
como bo' lu leggides in inglesu, si cherides.
Una die, si m'aggradat, no est improbabile chi los borte in sardu o in italianu, o in ambas limbas.
" Quite a lot of
communication is carried on below the level of consciousness. You don't have to
think about this sort of communication, it just happens automatically. This
certainly saves some effort, but it does not always have the effect you might
have chosen, if you had had the opportunity to consult yourself about the
matter!
Even when you think you
are not sending any messages, that absence of messages is
quite evident to any observer, and can itself constitute quite a significant
message. Not only that, but we usually transmit quite a few non-verbal messages
unconsciously, even when we think we are not sending any messages at all.
This means that, unless you
are a hermit, you cannot really avoid communicating. You can, of course, very
easily get your communication scrambled – often in both directions – but that
is not much consolation. In other words, you cannotnot communicate…
but you can not communicate accurately!
The "cannot not"
part of that last sentence is in fact the first and best known of Paul
Watzlawick's five axioms of communication.[1] Despite
their age, and the changes that have occurred in the usage of some of the terms
employed, each one has something helpful to offer. I will therefore list these
axioms, and comment very briefly on each.
Axiom 1 (cannot
not)
"One cannot
not communicate." Because every behaviour is a kind of
communication, people who are aware of each other are constantly communicating.
Any perceivable behaviour, including the absence of action, has the potential
to be interpreted by other people as having some meaning.
Axiom 2 (content
& relationship)
"Every
communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter
classifies the former and is therefore a meta-communication."Each person
responds to the content of communication in the context of
the relationship between the communicators.[2] The word
meta-communication is used in various ways (and therefore not at all, by
me) but Watzlawick uses it to mean the exchange of information about how to
interpret other information.
Just as the interpretation of
the words "What an idiot you are" could be influenced by the
following words "Just kidding", it could also be influenced by the
relationship between the communicators. In the example given, the word
"idiot" might be accepted quite happily from a close friend, but
convey an entirely different meaning in other circumstances.
Axiom 3
(punctuation)
"The nature
of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners'
communication procedures." In many cases, communication
involves a veritable maelstrom of messages flying in all directions. This
applies especially to the non-verbal messages. The "punctuation"
referred to is the process of organising groups of messages into meanings. This
is analogous to the punctuation of written language. In either case, the
punctuation can sometimes alter the meaning considerably.
For example, consider the
occurrence of an angry response after an interruption, the latter having
followed a suggested course of action. This might be interpreted as anger at
the suggested course of action, if the interruption was "punctuated
out" of the sequence, so that the suggestion and the anger were
effectively grouped together as a tight sequence. However, if the receiver
punctuated the information so that the interruption and the anger formed a
tight sequence, it might be interpreted as anger at the interruption.
Axiom 4 (digital
& analogic)
"Human
communication involves both digital and analogic modalities."This one needs a
bit of translating! The term "digital", which today usually refers
either to numbers, computers or fingers, is used in this axiom to refer to
discrete, defined elements of communication. These are usually words, but very
specific gestures with generally agreed meanings would also qualify.
The term "analogic"
also needs some translation. It is a variant of analogical, the adjective
derived from analogy. It therefore refers to a correspondence, in certain
respects, between things which are otherwise different. In this case, it
describes a type of communication in which the representation to some extent
evokes the thing to which it refers. For example, shaking a fist in front of a
person's face would evoke the idea of violence.
What else needs translating?
Oh yes, "modalities". As mentioned in Appendix 1, the word
"modality" is used in very many different ways. In this case, I think
Watzlawick is using modalities in the sense of types or sorts of information
transfer.
Axiom 5 (symmetric
or complementary)
"Inter-human
communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary, depending on
whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences or
parity." A "symmetric" relationship here means one in
which the parties involved behave as equals from a power perspective. The
chance of airing all the relevant issues should be greater, but it certainly
does not guarantee that the communication will be optimal. The parties could
simply be equally submissive, or equally domineering. However, communication
between equals often does work well.
A "complementary" relationship here means one of unequal
power, such as parent-child, boss-employee or leader-follower. This is much
more efficient in some situations. For example, the unequal (complementary)
relationship between soldiers and their officers means that soldiers are very
likely to obey a surprising order, such as "Get out of the truck and jump
in the river!" without delay – rather than debating it, perhaps with great
interest, but quite possibly at fatal length."
Gordon
Coates (www.wanterfall.com), wanterfall e-books.
pubblicadu in osservansia e sigundu sos
indirizzos de Creative
Commons.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento