Metacommunicative axiom

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The five metacommunicative axioms of the psychologists Paul Watzlawick , Janet H. Beavin and Don D. Jackson summarize some fundamental findings on interpersonal communication . The axioms deal in particular with the relational aspect of communication and can be assigned to the term metacommunication . The authors note that their communications are 'tentative'.

The five axioms

Not communicating is impossible

  • "You can't not communicate!"

As soon as two people share a situation, are in the same place, they communicate with each other. The means for this are words, accompanying phenomena such as tone of voice, speed of speech, pauses, laughter, sighs and gestures, facial expressions, posture, etc. Watzlawick describes all of this as behavior . This also includes silence and disregard. So behavior cannot be avoided. Hence it is also impossible not to communicate.

People who still try to avoid communication do something like this: They change their communication or behavior by practicing unusual behavior. For example, they are stubbornly silent, but withdraw or remain motionless. If you communicate something, it is in such a way that the other is irritated or does not understand the meaning of your message. This relationship with avoidance of communication is key to some schizophrenic communication.

Content and relationship

  • "Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect, with the latter determining the former."

In addition to the pure factual information (content aspect), every communication contains an indication of how the sender wants his message to be understood and how he sees his relationship with the recipient (relationship aspect).

The following messages can illustrate the difference: "It is important to operate the clutch slowly and softly" conveys a different relationship between the sender and the person speaking to him than the phrase "Just leave the clutch off, it is very good for the transmission". In terms of content, both communications are roughly the same, but the relationship between the people in the first communication is markedly different from that in the second communication. The relationship aspect is usually not addressed in a functioning communication. The situation is different in less functioning communications.

The content aspect represents the 'what' of a message. The relationship aspect says something about how the sender wants the message to be understood by the recipient and what the emotional relationship between the communication partners is like from the sender's point of view. From this it is concluded that the relationship aspect determines how the content is to be interpreted. Communication succeeds when content and relationship aspects result in a functioning whole and are congruent , i.e. match. It fails if a communication partner sends different or contradicting messages on both levels, or if the other person interprets the messages differently.

Research into the relationship aspect is of central interest to communication scientists. The authors of Human Communication compare the role of the relational aspect with a higher logical function or use the term metacommunication. It is a communicable, but abstract construction or function, because neither content nor relationship can be observed separately from the entire communication process. In addition, they note that the ability to metacommunicate is not only necessary for them as scientists. Everyone needs clear ideas about themselves and their relationships with others if they want to communicate successfully.

punctuation

  • "The nature of a relationship is determined by the punctuation of the communication processes on the part of the partner."

In addition to the fact that communication is inevitable and the personal relationship controls the interpretation of content, the 'punctuation' of a communication must also be included. With 'punctuation' the communication science describes the starting point of a circular, repetitive communication.

The interlocutors structure the communication process differently. B. set the beginning of a conflict at different times. They then interpret their own behavior as a reaction to the beginning they have made. This makes it possible to pass the cause of one's own reaction on to the other. The authors consider this to be problematic behavior and see here “the root of many relationship conflicts”.

As an example, they describe a marital problem that is often observed. The husband is essentially passive and withdrawn, the wife is prone to excessive nagging. The husband says his passivity and reluctance is a reaction to his wife's nagging. The wife thinks that her behavior is a reaction to his attitude. This creates a back and forth of accusations and justifications.

According to the authors, both assume that the behavior of the other and one's own reaction are causally linked. The authors consider this to be a mistake. In contrast, they claim that communication cannot be described as a series of causes and effects. Rather, communication is circular, i.e. that is, it has neither a beginning nor an end. Nobody can say exactly who, for example, really "started" an argument. Beginnings are only set subjectively as so-called "punctuation".

"It is no different with the hopeless controversy of whether the form of communication of a particular family is pathological because a family member is psychotic or whether this individual is psychotic because the communications are pathological."

The application of the causal principle as in the example mentioned leads to the establishment of a mutual dependency relationship (interdependence). There is a stalemate. It is not noticed what is really going on. Successful communication takes place when both partners can perform it 'in a circle' as an 'infinite game'. It fails if the partners make an incision at different points in the communication process and each say for themselves: "This is where it started, that is the cause."

Digital and analog

  • "Human communication is digital and analog."

"We can ... assume that the content aspect is transmitted digitally, while the relationship aspect is predominantly analog in nature."

In other words: Not only the spoken word, but also the non-verbal utterances (e.g. smile, looking away, ...) convey something.

The following story comes from the psychologist Robert Rosenthal , which illustrates ' digital ' and 'analog' messages: It's about the clever Hans , a horse famous for being able to solve arithmetic problems. If he was given one, he knocked the result on the ground with his hoof. Rosenthal, who assumed that this could not work without signals, took a closer look. He observed that the horse only began to knock when its owner looked at its hoof. It stopped again when he imperceptibly lifted his head and looked up. "The never-ending astonishment and the pride of his master must have been the most effective reinforcement of behavior for the clever Hans." The honesty of the owner was beyond question.

In the example, 'digital' denotes the communication of the arithmetic task. The look at the hoof and the head and eye movement are 'analog' messages. The imperceptible interplay of digital and analog messages has been proven by Rosenthal in experiments - called the  Rosenthal effect - between humans and animals. His experimental research has also confirmed that subtle and highly effective analog communications also play a role between people .

The designations 'digital' and 'analog' are also clarified by the authors with the characteristics of artificial communication systems. A digital computer is an arithmetic and logical machine with which all conceivable truth functions can be represented by combining all-or-nothing impulses . This is u. a. of importance for the processing and evaluation of data-based information. An analog calculating machine, e.g. B. the out-of-fashion slide rule can not do this. This z. B. do not represent negative values.

“There is no doubt that most, if not all, of human achievements would be unthinkable without the development of digital communications. This is especially true for the transfer of knowledge from one person to another and from one generation to the next. "

Digital communication encompasses more complex, versatile and abstract material than analog. Logical syntax as a means of uniqueness only exists in digital communications. The analogy language or anything that is communicated non-verbally, including drawing, does not have such properties. It is ambiguous, it has to be reinterpreted in every situation. There are tears of pain and tears of joy, a clenched fist can mean threat or self-control, a smile can express sympathy or contempt. The analogy language gives no indication of what meaning is meant. The relationship level is often conveyed with analog elements, the content level with digital elements.

The authors summarize:

“Human communication uses digital and analog modalities. Digital communications have complex and varied logical syntax, but inadequate semantics in the field of relationships . Analog communications, on the other hand, have this semantic potential, but lack the logical systems required for unambiguous communications. "

Symmetrical or complementary

Relationships between partners are based either on the fact that they make them equal or not. The different relationship patterns also control their communication. Relationships of equal rank are described by the authors as 'symmetrical', relationships not of equal rank as 'complementary'. In relationships between peers (friends, spouses, colleagues, neighbors ...), communication is predominantly symmetrical. Complementary forms of communication predominate in relationships between non-peer discussion partners (parent-child, superior-subordinate, doctor-patient, teacher-student ...). Which form of communication is effective in each case cannot always be clearly identified in practice - especially with married couples. Even experts come to different assessments about the appropriate form of communication.

Each form of communication has its own characteristics. In symmetrical communications, the partners, while relating to each other, strive for equivalent activity in the course of the conversation and for content-related messages. This can be observed in professional as well as in private communications, e.g. B. is about solving a task or a problem together.

Within complementary communications, the partners differ in the degree of their respective activity in the conversation and the nature of their communications. They complement each other through their active or passive communication and through the pronounced or pale messages that they contribute to the topic. The authors claim that complementary communication prevails in families between adults.

Regarding the many facets of symmetrical or complementary communications, the authors also note:

"A very different situation arises in the area of ​​symmetrical and complementary interactions, when a message defines the relationship as symmetrical and complementary at the same time."

This is the most common and most important way in which incompatibilities then arise in communication.

It should also be borne in mind that both symmetrical and complementary communication have their own characteristic conflict potential. In symmetrical communications, the partners strive to recognize their equivalence. There is a tendency towards more than equal equality and the danger of more or less open conflicts. Symmetrical relationships or communications can then lose their stability. Essentially, however, the following applies:

"In a stable symmetrical relationship, the partners are able to accept the other in his being, which leads to mutual respect and trust in the respect of the other ..."

Complementary communication between parents and children is vital for children in the early morning meal. If it is still practiced among adults, it limits the possibilities for development. In highly pronounced complementary communications, the weaker partner repeatedly experiences himself as inferior. The more active partner reacts dominantly to his pale messages and his passivity. The partners do not acknowledge each other - as is the case in symmetrical communications. The relationship is not optimized, but stagnates. The result is a pathological atmosphere with disadvantages for everyone involved.

The authors understand symmetrical or complementary - like the other axioms - as heuristic principles . Heuristic principles are assumptions or problem-solving hypotheses for scientific projects. In the present case, human communication is to be explored with these axioms.

See also

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ See Watzlawick et al. a .: Human communication. 12th edition. Bern 2011, pp. 58–60.
  2. ↑ Human communication. 12th edition. Bern 2011, p. 62.
  3. ↑ See human communication. 12th edition. Bern 2011, pp. 61–64.
  4. ↑ Human communication. P. 54.
  5. ↑ See for this section Human Communication. 12th edition. Bern 2011, pp. 65–70.
  6. ↑ Human communication , p. 74.
  7. ↑ Human communication , p. 74.
  8. ↑ Human communication , p. 72.
  9. ↑ See Human Communication for the above descriptions . Bern 2011, 12th edition. Pp. 70-78.
  10. ↑ Human communication , p. 78.
  11. ↑ Human communication , p. 131.
  12. ↑ Human communication , p. 122.
  13. ↑ Cf. on this section Human Communication , pp. 78–81 and 121-134.