Category: Communication

Building upon Why seek a single truth?, it occurs to me that people often seem happy to derail discussions to win a point and feel that slight personal satisfaction. However, in doing so, truth and understanding are often lost. This raises the question of what we’re aiming for in communicating: is this a battle of personal ego or one seeking greater truth?

As discussed before, we’re often trained to use argument, rhetoric and debating in how we communicate; the Western tradition becoming this battleground of ideas where we employ words as weapons for personal victory.  Of course, taking a broader perspective, all communication is essentially the use of language for a purpose; so it makes sense that we learn how to persuade, inform, entertain, captivate, and so on. To my mind though, training in the use of language is training in the nature of thought and in how we employ that to relate to others and the world around us (ideas touched on in Writings on Education and “Education’s End”).

The question then becomes: how do we determine our purposes? Is every conversation to be an argument, where we attempt to convince others our views are right? Does our sense of what’s right then lie in the hands of those best able to employ language for their own ends and undermine their opponent? Are we sure that path leads to wisdom, rather than laying us open to the misuse of the power of language for personal satisfaction?

In other words, are we communicating for our sense of self or for a deeper sense of truth and mutual understanding?  The format of “the argument” often seems to lead to this terrain where those skilled at arguing overshadow others who may be seeking something more.  The question of personal motivations and objectives seems an important one.

Looking to the wisdom of language itself, “communication” comes back to the idea of being “shared”; so, the ways we are able to bring our experience and understanding into this space of common knowledge. I see it as this opportunity for diverse people to share their perspectives and for others to suspend their own ideas to live through the eyes of the other, to see another side of our shared reality and obtain a fuller picture. Conversation then becomes a place where a larger understanding of reality can emerge as we gain insight into how others are affected by it. All of this is lost when we focus instead on opportunities for taking out an opponent.

Lately though I’ve noticed some people voicing the desire for dialogue: articulating how conversations are simply descending into conflict and issues being lost in the fray; people seeking ways of relating that overcome these limitations and allow us to meet one another and tackle the issues at stake. Having been so caught up in the mechanics of the argument however, it seems we lack the tradition of dialogue – this may be a new way of being we must now create.

This has been bothering me a while, in various settings, so here’s my shot at articulating it. In many areas of life we look for a “winner” – to win arguments, conversations, so many things. It’s an attitude that seems embedded within many principles of Western society.

Our model of communicating is often this combative one of debating and defeating: that the individual must be able to assert their views and overpower the other. As an example, take the mention of rainbows in my post Natural World – are they beautiful and magical, or simply the refraction of light? Does one truth negate the other? Wonder or appreciation fight a strange battle with rationalism.

As to where this comes from, it’s hard to say conclusively. In education we’re taught to argue, debate, persuade – maybe this is an executive decision regarding communication; or arises out of these being some of the functions of language; or, more pragmatically, because that way ‘success’ becomes measurable.

Culturally it seems a legacy of ancient Greek wisdom; although it’s my understanding they used this more to explore the world of ideas than the material world of humans and things.  Is this where we’re going wrong, in applying reasoning from the idealistic world of concepts onto the everyday realities of life? Because ‘reality’ to my mind is much more complex and interwoven, there may not be a single cause or a definitive right/wrong judgement that can be universally applied to any situation.

Looking for a single truth (and insisting you’re the one holding it) seems to avoid the possibility of finding greater truths that lie in the much greyer spaces. As I said in Communication and the process of change individual views surely arise out of our experiences and understandings, and likely appear correct in that context. We all see things from our personal perspective in most cases, or from the high mountain of ideals, so while there may be principles that can very much apply, we can’t just ignore another’s reality.

What I’m essentially trying to say is that in seeking single truths we seem to be running roughshod over the fact that our experiences, our perspectives and therefore our personal truths are different. Not to say “this is my truth” works either – that’s holding to your own perspective and not acknowledging the other in a different way.

The answer seems to be a third way – between attack and defence, right and wrong, black and white – a dialogue, a listening, an understanding, a transcending, a new reality that emerges out of recognition of differences and can contain them in an ethical framework of ideals that doesn’t undermine the individuals concerned. I see this as “both/and” – often two or more things can be true or valid.

I just think that all the time we keep relating in this way we’re exacerbating differences, undermining the realities of others by judging them from the abstract realm of thought. We might hold to certain ideals we believe to be right, true, beyond question, but I’m not sure I know of many people who live completely in line with ideals. I suspect much of what we do is pretty far from ideal if we were fully aware of the ‘realities’ behind things.