Communication

There is a lot of emphasis, especially in our times, to be explicit in our expression. By explicitness, people usually expect others and themselves to be very direct, descriptive, factual, legal, time specific and define one’s and other’s boundaries of roles and responsibilities. This may be required for legal/ contractual work – but not always and especially not in intimate/ casual conversations with people or neighbours or friends or relations. Since working environments have become more competitive, digital infiltration has added to the requirement of micro analysis and refining one’s performance, what we end up doing is to be extremely contractual in our responses – therefore influencing our thoughts. Everything needs to be said clearly, precisely, without any ambiguity, at the right time, and should be clear enough (quantifiable) so that it could be evaluated almost immediately. This kind of conversation may be improving efficiency of output or performance – but I am doubtful regarding the quality of relationships this conversation develops among people. 

Conversation (or the sequencing and use of appropriate words, sequencing of thoughts) generate an “experience”. If one is concerned about an experience (and not just conveying dry facts), then we are required to deal with how we are arranging things, how are we saying things and whether we are concerned about feelings of others. We also need to be aware, that things may go out of hand, not everything is perfect, and environment and aspects of fears, desires, and feelings affect our thoughts, the use of words and how they get conveyed. Most people may underestimate the power of words (or the need to use appropriate language) and I would say, those people are most wanted/ liked who are able to say things in an appropriate manner  - so as to get things done but by being compassionate to human tendencies as well. 

We need to understand that there is a ‘limit’ in being explicit in our communication. By being over-explicit, are we hurting others, although it wasn’t anticipated? One should realize that whatever we say, we have already entered the terrain of human consciousness (shared by all) and therefore, what is required is a little bit of empathy, considerateness while talking. By defining our boundaries rigidly, we do not seem to entertain other kinds of feedback given by people. By defining explicit boundaries, we do not seem to entertain the fuzziness of thoughts that imply cultural implications, artistic implications, social implications, intuitive or perceptional implications. By being over explicit, we seem to convey “shortage of time” and a certain level of desperation to race ahead. 

This opens up (and probably should make us relook) at the aspect of silence, intermittent talk, brevity and other forms of even non verbal communication. What do these things give us that explicit conversation doesn’t? 

Art – definitely gives us feelings, and makes us experience them.

Silence and brevity – Gives us an idea of introspection and decoding and decluttering our mind from billion fragmented thoughts.

Senses (touch, eye sight, body language) – give us clues as to what the person intends to communicate but can’t verbally express it. 

All such things form a part of our complete experience as human beings. Silence, role of art, body language needs to be acknowledged – it cannot be shrugged off. By being ‘natural’ and acting the way one feels intuitively, one may be communicating in a far more human way than the very contractual based conversation.