(10 minute read)

Listening vs. Hearing

There is a ton of information on how to be responsible communicators. At he same time, there seems to be a serious lack of information about the responsibility of the audience. The audience needs to listen, hear, and understand.

In my view, the argument about the right to control communication as production, as dissemination, and as consumption seemed to be seriously one sided, focusing on the right to utter, to publish, to broadcast, to consume. There was no reciprocal concern with an obligation to listen. So, …I proposed that …we should recognize our obligation to understand. I offered the notion of the right to be understood as an integral aspect of communication reform efforts.

HUSBAND, emphasis mine

Anyone who has taken a level 101 high-school or college course in communication knows this. Those of us creating and sending messages to the general public carry an enormous amount of responsibility. The responsibility stressed is usually placed on the practice of being truthful. It involves being factual and precise to those targeted for the messages. 

It’s understandable.

As communicators, an audience losing trust in a speaker is a fate worse than death. Found guilty and any try at communications can be over. So can a career and there are plenty of examples of those who have lost just that. A quick Internet search shows an interesting mix of people.

Social scientist Charles Husband notes something important. Of course communicators must be more than just clear and factual with their messaging. But what is the responsibility of the audience when presented with these messages? Husband charges that the audience must be actively willing to listen, hear, and understand the messages.

In the days of “alternative facts” I would add that we not only actively engage in the communication process. but that we do so diligently by testing whether those messages ARE indeed truthful, factual, and correct.

Listening, it seems to me, is an act of attention, a willingness to focus on the other, to heed both their presence and their communication… Understanding, on the other hand, is an act of empathetic comprehension, a willing searching after the other’s intention and message.

HUSBAND

Of course it is easy to understand and agree with messages that we already agree with. Confirmation Bias is a personal communication principle. It involves only willing to consider information from people and organizations we already believe will confirm or validate our worldview. This activity creates what theorists call the “silo effect.”

Like silos on a farm containing feed for livestock we only consume a “news and information feed” validates our worldview. It leads to an unhealthy information diet and causes us to be suspicious of others not “like us.”

I have spent my life as a professional communicator. I see various clans on the political spectrum using confirmation bias. The more extreme clans take on the deepest of suspicions and divisions of others. We should avoid defaulting to the unprofitable position of “knocking out” communicators based on our own biases. Suspending those biases for a moment is crucial. It allows consideration of the information. This is essential to the critical thinking process and understanding of others.

The “right to be understood” requires that we diligently be open to that interaction. That we decide to try and understand the perspective of the other. We can vehemently disagree with their conclusion, but they have a right to be understood. Why and how they reached their conclusions is sometimes just as important as the conclusions themselves.

Without a commitment to try to understand one another, we are left with ineffective communication. This leads to parties talking at or beyond each other.

“I got my point across and that’s all that matters.”

“They are never going to change their minds and see it my way.”

“I said what needed to be said whether they heard it or not.”

In fact, various social media platforms have devolved into these forms of broken communication. Parties only talk past each other with statements full of vitriol. The statements are Pavlovian in nature and pablum in content.

How Did It All Begin?

The above assessment of social media communications may seem harsh to some. This is especially true coming from someone advocating efforts to understand one another. The truth of the matter is this: my conclusion is not based on emotion. It is based on fact, and not of the alternative variety.

You see, there is one thing I know about everyone. It applies no matter what race, creed, or color. We who were born into the human race arrived here without any formal invitation. We also did not have an innate wish to be here. That is to say that there is/was no grand design or plan for our existence.

Yes, of course, there are the various myths created throughout time to try and reason an explanation for our existence. To “prove” why we are here. To provide purpose and meaning. But that only serves to prove my point.

We created these myths, and there are so many of them. This means we have yet to figure out that one definitive existential answer to the existence of mortals. The scientist has determined how we got here, the why remains an existential mystery (if there is such a thing). Nevertheless, that leads us to the central point.

In order to begin to understand one another it is my argument that we have to start at the beginning.

Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, she needed to follow the Yellow Brick Road to get home. And she does so with great dramatic flair by beginning at the beginning …by placing that red ruby slipper on that very first yellow brick. Our cornerstone, the first yellow brick that we begin our journey with, is just the same. Its existential existence is just as important to our story as it was to Dorthy’s.

This cornerstone is stamped with the following:

We Are All Trying To Figure Out The World In Which We Are Living In

Now, that statement may not seem so profound right now. I assure you of this. When fully considered, it certainly helps us begin to understand one another. When considered, it completely explains many aspects of human behavior. It explains why we believe the things we do. It also explains why we do the things we do and why we prefer one clan over another.

Most of us are given our belief system and worldview from our environment. This includes family, community, friends, religious organizations, and so on. And it’s equally important to note that most of us don’t question those beliefs or worldviews.

We rely on them because we are committed. Some are more strongly committed than others. We are trying to figure out the world in which we are living in …AND:

Our Place In The World

In other words, where do I fit in?

If we are committed to understanding one another it’s important to start by realizing that humans have the same needs. Those curious enough to wonder how and why we are here are experiencing the same existential crises of existence. We are trying to make sense of the world and how and where we fit into it. No matter how different and diverse our worldviews are, in the end, we are all seekers.

Some more than others.

If we start with this it provides a commonality that is sorely missing from our society. One that helps us to accept and understand one another. The next time you hop onto your favorite social media platform, keep that first idea in mind. We are all here trying to figure out the world and how we fit into it. Then start to read the messages posted to your feed and “read” what is behind the posted comments.

“A Texan asked his neighbor to stop shooting his AR-15 at 11 pm as his infant was trying to sleep. This neighbor then shot to death 5 in this Texan’s family including an 8-yr-old. Ted Cruz has said NOTHING. Greg Abbott has said NOTHING. Domestic terrorism is now a plank of the GOP”

Lindy Li on Twitter

“Thanks for reminding me how important it is to purchase guns for my families safety. Do you think that guy is going to comply with laws? Do you think guns are just going to go away?”

Toni Bones on Twitter

“Mm yes just have a shootout with the guy, that’s a great way to make the country safer, instead of, idk, making sure the guy couldn’t have gotten a gun in the first place.”

BlasianKing On Twiiter

This is just one recent random exchange. The intention behind the posts might only reflect the hot political issue of the day, gun ownership. Yet, if words have meaning, taking the statements at face value provides the legitimate fear and concern behind their statements. Again, their comments focus on a legitimate question. They ask, “What kind of a world do I (we) want to live in?”

It might be hard for some of us to justify defending any of the statements above. Very few of us think alike. I am a professional communicator and teacher in that order. I would coach each of the participants differently. But that’s what communicators do. Like English teachers it is hard for us to not think about helping others communicate more clearly.

It may seem odd to you to read that statement. You might wonder if I lack a political backbone.

“Why in the world would you help someone with opposing political viewpoints get their ideas across more clearly?”

The answer for me is simple and my default modus operandi for dealing with just about everything.

…I think that we are all together in the same boat

…That we are all trying to figure out the world in which we are living in

…That we are all trying to figure out what our role in that world is.

With my sincerest apologies to biographer Evelyn Hall as she paraphrased Voltaire: “I may not agree with all your worldviews, but I will defend to the death your right in trying to find one.”

And, for me, that is how at least one of us exercises empathy in understanding one another.

Thanks for reading this series.