Madhu Einsiedler

“Good Communication”: A Possibility or Mere Illusion?

You’d probably agree that too much has already been written and ‘communicated’ about communication. Thus, I will focus only on the gist of things.

Physicist and philosopher Heinz von Förster* states that being able to maintain the illusion of successful communication and understanding in our interaction is quite a miracle. What we intend to communicate is rarely conveyed successfully, and subjective “interpretation” always seems to come in the way.

When it comes to ‘communicating, let’s start exploring these questions: 

1. What do I think “good communication“ is? 
2. What do I have to hear/feel in order to classify a communication as “good“?
3. How effective do I feel? 
4. What do I need to hear/feel/see in order to feel effective?  
5. How well understood do I feel?
6. What do I need to see/hear/feel in order to feel understood?
7. How surprised am I by what other people understand from my communication? 
8. How annoyed do I get that people cannot understand what I communicated so clearly?
9. To what extent do I think I can improve my communication? Or, do I think it’s up to everyone else to understand me since I’m ‘perfectly clear’?

Depending on the bonding patterns we have learned and on the behavioral automatisms we have developed, we have also developed preferred patterns of intent for communication and preferred patterns of interpretation for communication. Thus, communication tends to take an interesting course, where those involved in the action of communicating, might have mirrored reflections. Below we can look at possible assessments made by all parties ‘communicating.’ 

Assessments made by one party:

1. Something is happening with ME
2. I try to get MY head round it 
3. Or I try to interpret it
4. There is an urge for ME to act or to communicate (an intent)
5. I try to put it in words 
6. I express these words

Assessments made by the other party: (notice the similarity)

1. Something is happening with ME
2. I try to get MY head round it 
3. Or I try to interpret it
4. There is an urge for ME to act or to communicate (an intent)
5. I try to put it in words 
6. I express these words

If you notice, this perspective presumes the absence of any “objectively perceptible“ communication. 

All parties involved in the communication process seem to have “their say” in it!

• Whatever is said is under the speaker’s authority.
• Whatever is heard is under the listener’s authority.
• Whatever is read is under the reader’s authority.

It looks like everyone has authority! 

So, who is the person surrendering to the communication process then? The classic “you don’t understand me“, or the common, “the employees/my partner/the other simply don’t get how important that is“ presumes that: 

• One was aware of each and every intention 
• One has come up with appropriate words and images for this intention 
• Everyone has the same pattern of interpretation for these words and images 
• These same patterns of interpretation trigger the same feelings and actions in everyone 

Can you see the irrationality of these assumptions?

I invite you to write down your own answers, reflect, and maybe relieve yourself of the pressure of the idea that ‘great communication’ exists.

Please write me directly with your suggestions or contact me on my social media. 

*Austrian American physicist and philosopher, widely attributed as the originator of Second-order cybernetics.