While biking his morning I listened to the professor talk about Clyde Habermas and problems with communication. As applied to the “self” in the late 20th Century, communication has increasingly become a formalized thing where we passively listen to the radio, watch television, go to the “movies” and rarely, unless we are a rabid “ditto-head”, call in answer to the mouthings of such icons as “Ol’ Rushbo” or “Dr. Laura”. In our area, the foul mouthing of a celebrity called, Schnitt, depicts the “self” as the know-it-all talk show host. There is no such thing as real communication in these instances where automatic agreement with the host is required. Communication means something quite different.
Habermas set it up in this way. Communication is composed of two elements - free expression of your message and listening. It requires really listening to the replies you receive. I have been accused of not listening although I think I do this well. I HEAR poorly because people do not speak clearly, distinctly, and certainly not loudly enough. (Ahem!). When you listen, it should imply you understand the message that is conveyed to you. You do not have to agree and if you do not, that is as it should be and THAT is an important component in argument, debate and communication. It is a two way street. If you listen carefully, you might really hear what the other person says, feels and thinks. Most of us, with myself sometimes included, only think personal thoughts and are not interested in replies.
That is one of the problems with THINKING ALLOWED. It is unidirectional with me tapping away on this computer each day and sending out my thoughts without getting a reply – except in a few precious instances. Some of the replies can be paraphrased as “Right ON!” and this is not communication. I really am interested in what you have to say about what I have said and what YOU think. Actually, I think of myself (the self, again) as a provocateur. I hope to stimulate counter-arguments and learn what others are thinking – that is communication.
I have been attending classes and meetings and find that these are other forms of being talked to without regard for the “buts”, “I think” or “I disagree” with the class or meeting leader. That last is not the purpose of the meeting where the designers of the meeting set up an agenda and the communication is unidirectional.
We no longer have the communication of old where there were real debates and the opponents were not afraid to disagree and tell an audience that his/her opposition was violently wrong or, put delicately, full of crap.
I would be really, really interested in what you think.