The Tension in Every Message
Communication Creates Context
A occurs in a social context. , remember, is not just embedded in social life, it constitutes social life. That is a basic starting observation/assumption.
So intrinsically draws on and contributes to establishing (or dis-establishing) the social context within which it occurs.
can function as they do only because of the expectations and assumptions that people have about their elemental components (listed at right).
Using this perspective, there is an obvious duality as follows:
► the is chosen so as to harmonize, confirm, blend and fit into the social context. More:
or
► the is chosen in some idiosyncratic and unconventional way, that deliberately breaks with the social context and its conventions. More:
Why break with convention?
- As an attempt to force people to change (e.g. common in consultants)
- As an attempt to differentiate a group (e.g. emerging academic sub-disciplines)
- As an attempt to get noticed (e.g. creating a brand, personal affectation)
Naming the Tension
Naming the two poles of the dynamic duality is normally somewhat adjustable, because they appear slightly differently according to the level, and sometimes the situation.
In , the contextual and cultural effects are so broad and varied, that the usual short list is unsuitable. So I propose a formula, C v U, as the general name for the dynamic duality. This avoids any misleading associations. However, because the duality is so easy to recognize, I can and will use ordinary language to make the text friendly. Here are common descriptors of the two poles:
■ C-pole: conventional, correct, current, customary, common.
Other pole descriptors suited to particular contexts include: mainstream, established, familiar, standard, orthodox, popular, predictable, regular, proper, routine, usual, expected, normal, traditional, well-known, usual, general, prevailing, prevalent.
■ U-pole: unconventional, unusual, unexpected, unfamiliar, unpopular, unorthodox, ultra-modern, unpredictable.
Other pole descriptors suited to particular contexts include: new, idiosyncratic, different, quirky, imaginative, individualistic, atypical, rare, original, advanced, anomalous, innovative, novel, irregular, surprising, modish, distinctive, contemporary, incorrect, invented.
Note: Some pole qualifiers can be on either side depending on the context: so an in one situation may be C i.e. conventional, current &c., while in another situation it might be U i.e. unfamiliar, unexpected &c.
As you would expect, this C v U duality is manifested both verbally and non-verbally: in dress, manners, gestures, tone of voice and bearing. Why?
Psychotic Individuals
Even the most quirky, unorthodox or unfamiliar communication element must still be known to a small circle at least, or it would be entirely useless for communication and appear ‘eccentric’ or ‘bizarre’. Schizophrenia is now thought to have evolved with language: the price we paid for having that brain development and the associated ability.
Psychotic individuals often communicate in ‘bizarre’ ways. Nevertheless some psychoanalysts have shown themselves capable of perceiving the nature of the communication and engaging in a dialogue. The dialogue is strange by conventional standards, but it shows a flow of meaning, and statements lead to interactional (pragmatic) effects for both protagonists.
Next Step
In Step-3, we apply the duality to each Level in the diagram so as to generate energized «Centres» that can and do exert direct influence on other Centres via Channels.
The initial task is to clarify whether the level functions in two opposite forms, either C or U , or whether the duality is intrinsically synthesized or fused as a single Centre (called 'balanced').
- Now proceed to Step 3: distinguishing communicative elements in use.
Originally posted: 8-Nov-2013. Last updated: 14-Mar-2016.