Content Versus Relationship

Communication scholars distinguish between two dimensions of a message:

1) the message content, or what is said;

2) the relationship, or how it is said.

This distinction was originally formulated by Gregory Bateson while observing monkeys playing in the San Francisco zoo. He noticed that one monkey would nip another in a way that looked like real combat, but both monkeys understood that the nip was just in play. Bateson concluded that the bite message must have been preceded by another signal that established a playful relationship between the two monkeys. He called the relationship message metacommunication, that is communication about communication. Humans as well as monkeys, frequently engage in metacommunication. For example, one person is laughing while he makes a very offensive statement to a close friend, who thus understands from the smile that the remark is in jest.

The content versus relationship dimensions of communication are different in different cultures. Collectivistic cultures put greater emphasis upon the relationship aspect of a message. For example, individuals in a collectivistic culture form messages in a way so as not to offend or make another person lose face. Less important is the clarity of the message content because relationships are considered more important. In comparison, individualistic cultures stress message content over the relationship dimension of a message. If someone’s feelings get hurt by a communication message, too bad. Individuals generally feel that effective communication depends on being clear and avoiding ambiguity, although in an individualistic culture there are situations when ambiguous messages are appropriate. For example, a certain degree of ambiguity would be appropriate when an individual refuses an invitation for a date. Explanations such as “I’m too busy” or “I have to study for an exam” are more acceptable than “No, I don’t like you”.

One of the important functions of interpersonal communication is to form and maintain interpersonal relationships (intimate or distant, etc). culture defines the nature of these relationships between people and their intercultural interpersonal communication. Thus one of the most important dimension of interpersonal relationships, especially in most Asian cultures, is face, defined as the public self-image that an individual wants to present in a particular social context. Face is particularly important for the Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians and Asian Americans who share a collectivistic culture. These individuals are extremely concerned with how they will appear to others around them. They wish to avoid looking foolish or making a social error that could lead to guilt or shame. Much attention is given to maintaining positive interpersonal relationships with peers. In order to help another person maintain face, one should pay compliments, and offer frequent apologies for oneself. One should not criticize Asian persons in public situations, as this act might harm the individual’s face. For example, a North American teaching English as a foreign language in Japan playfully said in class to a favorite student: “You are a lazy student”. The student did not talk to the teacher for the next several weeks and was very hurt by the teacher’s joking comment. The student had lost face.

A distinction can be made between maintaining someone else’s face versus your own. In collectivistic cultures like Asia, the maintenance of other-face predominates. In individualistic cultures, attention to self-face is more important. Yet, face is not unimportant in an individualistic culture like the United States. Bosses are advised to praise their employees publicly but to offer criticism in private.

 

Listening

Communication is a two-way process, for every person speaking there is usually someone who is listening. The receiving role in the communication process is just as important as the sending role, although it has received much less attention from communication scholars.

Most of us are not very effective listeners, because we are passive instead of active listeners. One reason for our inattentiveness while listening is because humans typically speak at about 125 to 150 words per minute, while individuals can listen at a rate of 400 words per minute. During our spare time as a listener, we often let our mind wander to other topics. Such inattentive listening often occurs during lecture classes. Twenty minutes after a lecture, listeners can remember only about half of the message content. One hour after the lecture, remembering drops to 40 percent; one day later this figure is 35 percent, and after two days it is 30 percent. One week after the lecture, listeners can remember 27 percent, and after two weeks, 25 percent. These data reflect the abilities of average individuals.

One principle of listening is to listen through the words in order to detect central themes. A good listener demonstrates attentiveness, does not interrupt, and is cautious in asking questions of the speaker. A listener should control his/her emotions and avoid being distracted. Listening demonstrates caring for the speaker and the topic.

Active listening consists of two steps:

1) hearing, or exposure to the message;

2) understanding, when we connect the message to what we already know;

3) remembering, so that we do not lose the message content;

4) evaluating, thinking about the message and deciding whether or not it is valid;

5) responding, when we encode a return message based on what we have heard and what we think of it.

Cultural factors affect each of these five components of active listening. In many cultures that consider it impolite to ask a speaker a question responding may not be valued, and to disagree would be unthinkable. Many of the difficulties in communication between culturally unalike individuals may be due to cultural factors in listening behavior. It is often problematic as to whether one’s conversation partner is tuned in or not.

 

Language and Power

All languages are social and powerful. The language that is used, the words and the meanings that are communicated, depends not only on the context but also on the social relations that are part of that interaction. For example, bosses and workers may use the same words, but the meanings that are communicated may differ. A boss and a worker may both refer to the company personnel as a “family”. To the boss, this may mean “one big happy family”, while to an employee, it may mean a “dysfunctional family”. To some extent, the difference is due to the power differential between the boss and the worker.

Language is powerful and can have tremendous implications for people’s lives. For example, saying the words “I do” can influence lives dramatically; being called names can be hurtful, etc.

Just as organizations have particular structures and specific job positions within them, societies are structured so that individuals occupy social positions. Differences in social positions are central to understanding communication. Not all the positions within society are equivalent; everyone is not the same. Thus, for example, when men whistle at a women walking by, it has a different force and meaning than if women were to whistle at a man walking by.

Power is a central element, by extension, of this focus on differences in social position. When a judge in court says what he or she thinks freedom of speech means, it has much greater force than when your friend who is not a judge gives an opinion about what this phrase means. When we communicate, we tend to note, however unconsciously, the group memberships and positions of others.

Groups also hold different positions of power in society. Groups with the most power (Whites, heterosexuals) – consciously or unconsciously – use a communication system that supports their perception of the world. This means that cocultural groups (ethnic minorities, gays) have to function within communication systems that may not represent their lived experience.

Cocultural groups can communicate nonassertively, assertively, or aggressively. Within each of these communication postures, cocultural individuals may focus on assimilation, trying to become like members of the dominant group. Or they can try to accommodate or adapt to the dominant group. Or they can remain separate from the dominant group as much as possible.