The following is a collection of thoughts on communication. I was trying to sort out some interactions that I’d seen between other people. I’m curious to see if my collected thoughts make sense to anyone else or if I have some faulty premises. All statements and opinions are subject to change upon reciept of further information.
Every communication that we make with another person has a text and a subtext. The text is comprised of the words that are spoken and is in the control of the speaker. The subtext is created by the listener who is affected by body language, tone of voice, and past interactions. Text is where information is passed. Subtext is where relationships are formed and broken.
An example text with possible subtexts:
“Why would you want to do that?”
(Because you always make stupid decisions) created by a son who’s mother has been critical in the past.
(I think what you are doing is stupid.) created by a wife who secretly wonders if she is making the right choice.
(Because I’m curious about you and I want to understand) created by a friend who trusts the speaker.
A relationship will thrive when the subtexts are positive. A relationship is doomed when all of the subtexts are negative. If there is a mix, then the relationship will fluxuate depending upon the balance of negative subtexts to positive.
One solution to a problem with negative subtexting is to get those subtexts out into the open, turn them into texts where they can actually be discussed. That takes a lot of bravery and trust.
Unfortunately I cannot always take the time to turn subtexts into texts. Sometimes the relationship isn’t worth the effort. I don’t care if a grocery store clerk snips because she created a subtext I didn’t intend. Other times I would very much like to turn subtexts into texts, but the other person will not cooperate and merely creates new negative subtexts based on the attempts. In those cases all I can do is try to control my behaviors and the subtexts I create in response to the other person’s texts. Eventually, hopefully, the positive reactions from me will encourage the other person to create more positive subtexts for the things I say.
I can choose what kind of subtexting I want to attach to the statements of other people. Benefit of the doubt is a good thing to give.
In my opinion, I think you’re underrating the complexity of people talking. There are typically (still my opinion) MANY subtexts in face-to-face communication, each affecting the messages being passed.
Examples: Body language. Intonation. Appearance/cleanliness/wardrobe. Location. External event(s) ongoing in near proximity.
Note that I consider these SEPERATE subtexts because the nicest appearance can be affected by horrible body language, and positive intonation can have negative effects depending on other ongoing events as the words are spoken. Thus, subtexts can conflict or aid each other or the ‘text’ of the message.
Note also that in some situations, what you’ve got labelled as ‘subtexts’ are the primary information carriers. “Hi!” can mean many things in conjunction with different subtexts from friendly interest to menacing to disinterested to … well, as far as you wish to push the example, and that one’s a pretty flexible example IMO. *smile*
Furthermore, you allude to another complication to interpersonal communication in your second to last paragraph. “I don’t care if a grocery store clerk snips because she created a subtext I didn’t intend.”
I would bring this out in big neon letters, not to say you’re a mean person (you’re not!) but to indicate that at least half the effect of the message is dependant on how the person listening takes what the person speaking says, does & is.
If you (generic you) get up on the wrong side of the bed, find out that your favorite petunia got squished by the neighbor’s ferret and you’ve got 2 flat tires on your car, you’re going to be more inclined to negative interpretation than if you rolled out of bed well-rested, got a surprise hug from someone you care about, and found breakfast waiting for you in a spotless kitchen. (Given Howard, that may be a common event for YOU, Mrs Tayler, but may or may not be for the rest of the world! *grin*)
While you can affect SOME subtexting, I do not think any one person is capable of fully handling ALL the subtexting in any given interaction. Over time, a body of mutually-expected subtexts does tend to build up, however, especially given stable behaviors on both sides of the interactions, which can lead to improved subtext comprehension. (Stable as in reliable signals passing back and forth, be they positive or negative.)
In short – Yep, subtexts matter. I just think the way they matter’s a bit more wild-and-wooly than I interpreted your post to indicate. *grin* Did I get the subtexts right?
-John
In my opinion, I think you’re underrating the complexity of people talking. There are typically (still my opinion) MANY subtexts in face-to-face communication, each affecting the messages being passed.
Examples: Body language. Intonation. Appearance/cleanliness/wardrobe. Location. External event(s) ongoing in near proximity.
Note that I consider these SEPERATE subtexts because the nicest appearance can be affected by horrible body language, and positive intonation can have negative effects depending on other ongoing events as the words are spoken. Thus, subtexts can conflict or aid each other or the ‘text’ of the message.
Note also that in some situations, what you’ve got labelled as ‘subtexts’ are the primary information carriers. “Hi!” can mean many things in conjunction with different subtexts from friendly interest to menacing to disinterested to … well, as far as you wish to push the example, and that one’s a pretty flexible example IMO. *smile*
Furthermore, you allude to another complication to interpersonal communication in your second to last paragraph. “I don’t care if a grocery store clerk snips because she created a subtext I didn’t intend.”
I would bring this out in big neon letters, not to say you’re a mean person (you’re not!) but to indicate that at least half the effect of the message is dependant on how the person listening takes what the person speaking says, does & is.
If you (generic you) get up on the wrong side of the bed, find out that your favorite petunia got squished by the neighbor’s ferret and you’ve got 2 flat tires on your car, you’re going to be more inclined to negative interpretation than if you rolled out of bed well-rested, got a surprise hug from someone you care about, and found breakfast waiting for you in a spotless kitchen. (Given Howard, that may be a common event for YOU, Mrs Tayler, but may or may not be for the rest of the world! *grin*)
While you can affect SOME subtexting, I do not think any one person is capable of fully handling ALL the subtexting in any given interaction. Over time, a body of mutually-expected subtexts does tend to build up, however, especially given stable behaviors on both sides of the interactions, which can lead to improved subtext comprehension. (Stable as in reliable signals passing back and forth, be they positive or negative.)
In short – Yep, subtexts matter. I just think the way they matter’s a bit more wild-and-wooly than I interpreted your post to indicate. *grin* Did I get the subtexts right?
-John
If the subtext is the creation of the listener, what collective name do you call the body language, tone of voice and other cues that the speaker puts out?
If the subtext is the creation of the listener, what collective name do you call the body language, tone of voice and other cues that the speaker puts out?
I think communication is so tough because BOTH the speaker and the listener provide their own contexts — the backdrop to their lives.
In theatre, I was trained that every line I speak in character is a cover for what I’m really trying to say. My job as an actor was to figure out what my context was, and produce the subtext (which I was always told came from the speaker).
That’s why different actors put different spins on the exact same line in the same play… why the simple line “I coulda been a contender!” from one actor is whiny, from another is accusatory, and from another is a desperate attempt to recapture that moment of hope.
The fun part, to me, was trying to figure out NOT what the other person’s context and subtext were, but how MY character’s filter would HEAR those words (the way that you’re using “subtext”), so that I could apply that to my context and my next text to see what the reading of the line should be.
The other person may have meant to say “I coulda been a contender!” as an accusation — “It’s YOUR fault that I’m not a hero…” — but my character might hear it as a plea for reassurance, based on my assumption that I am, perhaps, a nurturing type. My response, then, would completely miss his subtext… which should bother him, leading to a great conflict (theatrically speaking).
I think communication is so tough because BOTH the speaker and the listener provide their own contexts — the backdrop to their lives.
In theatre, I was trained that every line I speak in character is a cover for what I’m really trying to say. My job as an actor was to figure out what my context was, and produce the subtext (which I was always told came from the speaker).
That’s why different actors put different spins on the exact same line in the same play… why the simple line “I coulda been a contender!” from one actor is whiny, from another is accusatory, and from another is a desperate attempt to recapture that moment of hope.
The fun part, to me, was trying to figure out NOT what the other person’s context and subtext were, but how MY character’s filter would HEAR those words (the way that you’re using “subtext”), so that I could apply that to my context and my next text to see what the reading of the line should be.
The other person may have meant to say “I coulda been a contender!” as an accusation — “It’s YOUR fault that I’m not a hero…” — but my character might hear it as a plea for reassurance, based on my assumption that I am, perhaps, a nurturing type. My response, then, would completely miss his subtext… which should bother him, leading to a great conflict (theatrically speaking).
Your last line is the best — as listener, you have complete control of your interpretation of both text and subtext. So why not make it an empowering interpretation? Verbalizing your interpretation can help the speaker realize how his communication has been received and correct it if need be. It IS a lot of work sometimes to engage in the exchanges needed for this, even though we recognize its value in creating new possibilites of relationship. Alas, we are human, and even the best of us suffer from “possibility fatigue.”
Your last line is the best — as listener, you have complete control of your interpretation of both text and subtext. So why not make it an empowering interpretation? Verbalizing your interpretation can help the speaker realize how his communication has been received and correct it if need be. It IS a lot of work sometimes to engage in the exchanges needed for this, even though we recognize its value in creating new possibilites of relationship. Alas, we are human, and even the best of us suffer from “possibility fatigue.”
I didn’t mean to make it sound simple. It isn’t. And I apparently failed to communicate how frightening/frustrating the concepts in this post were to me. No matter how much I might want to, I cannot control the subtexts that other people attach to my words and actions.
I didn’t mean to make it sound simple. It isn’t. And I apparently failed to communicate how frightening/frustrating the concepts in this post were to me. No matter how much I might want to, I cannot control the subtexts that other people attach to my words and actions.
Good question. Those don’t seem to qualify as text, but they are definitely in the control of the speaker.
Good question. Those don’t seem to qualify as text, but they are definitely in the control of the speaker.
I knew there would be a problem with the terminology I was using. Apparently I’ve just lifted some acting terms and given them new definitions.
Fascinating insight into good acting though. Thanks!
I knew there would be a problem with the terminology I was using. Apparently I’ve just lifted some acting terms and given them new definitions.
Fascinating insight into good acting though. Thanks!
“A relationship will thrive when the subtexts are positive. A relationship is doomed when all of the subtexts are negative.”
I think this is true. I had a friend complain about her husband and she was recreating a conversation they’d had and after she was done I asked her, “Do you always talk back to him in that tone of voice?”
And I think it might’ve given her something to think about.
I mean, if you treat your friends better than your husband, and your interactions with your husband always seem to have a negative undertone (subtext?) then your marriage is on a rocky foundation. (unless something changes.) Don’t you just cringe when you hear married couples talking to each other in such negative ways? Even if they are saying nice things, you can hear or feel their disrespectful and negative subtexts.
I think that my husband and I regularly are bringing our subtexts out into the open. For example: I say something like “Set the table!” really grumpily and then I’ll have to explain that I had a long bad day and I’m sorry I said that so forcefully and grumpily. And he will do the same.
Sometimes, you can’t understand what someone said or why until they actually tell you the “subtext”.
“A relationship will thrive when the subtexts are positive. A relationship is doomed when all of the subtexts are negative.”
I think this is true. I had a friend complain about her husband and she was recreating a conversation they’d had and after she was done I asked her, “Do you always talk back to him in that tone of voice?”
And I think it might’ve given her something to think about.
I mean, if you treat your friends better than your husband, and your interactions with your husband always seem to have a negative undertone (subtext?) then your marriage is on a rocky foundation. (unless something changes.) Don’t you just cringe when you hear married couples talking to each other in such negative ways? Even if they are saying nice things, you can hear or feel their disrespectful and negative subtexts.
I think that my husband and I regularly are bringing our subtexts out into the open. For example: I say something like “Set the table!” really grumpily and then I’ll have to explain that I had a long bad day and I’m sorry I said that so forcefully and grumpily. And he will do the same.
Sometimes, you can’t understand what someone said or why until they actually tell you the “subtext”.
Sorry – I was worried I *had* flubbed catching your subtext, and apparently I was right.
You’re right, it CAN be frustrating. It’s one of the reasons that I respect good teachers as much as I do – they’re skilled at getting new concepts through to people who don’t have ’em. Given the difficulties in communications, that to me is a MASSIVELY impressive accomplishment!
As to other people, about the only way to find out is to ask ’em about it and try hard to avoid letting your comprehension of their subtexts getting in the way of your understanding their meaning. *wry grin* Which is one reason why good relationships can improve communication over time – there’s a lot of agreed-upon subtexts to draw on that have had their misunderstandings ironed out before.
-John
Sorry – I was worried I *had* flubbed catching your subtext, and apparently I was right.
You’re right, it CAN be frustrating. It’s one of the reasons that I respect good teachers as much as I do – they’re skilled at getting new concepts through to people who don’t have ’em. Given the difficulties in communications, that to me is a MASSIVELY impressive accomplishment!
As to other people, about the only way to find out is to ask ’em about it and try hard to avoid letting your comprehension of their subtexts getting in the way of your understanding their meaning. *wry grin* Which is one reason why good relationships can improve communication over time – there’s a lot of agreed-upon subtexts to draw on that have had their misunderstandings ironed out before.
-John
…!!!!
May I, a humble writer who gives credit where it is due, shamelessly steal the phrase “possibility fatigue”? (And it is an original phrase, or did you borrow it from someone else?)
…!!!!
May I, a humble writer who gives credit where it is due, shamelessly steal the phrase “possibility fatigue”? (And it is an original phrase, or did you borrow it from someone else?)
Makes sense. As someone else mentioned, it’s a bit of a simplification, but unless you want to write a dissertation or five, that’s necessary.
–>Other times I would very much like to turn subtexts into texts, but the other person will not cooperate and merely creates new negative subtexts based on the attempts.
Ouch. I have experienced this.
–>In those cases all I can do is try to control my behaviors and the subtexts I create in response to the other person’s texts.
Makes me think of the old saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” Although, if a relationship is in bad repair, actions begin to carry subtexts, as well.
Makes sense. As someone else mentioned, it’s a bit of a simplification, but unless you want to write a dissertation or five, that’s necessary.
–>Other times I would very much like to turn subtexts into texts, but the other person will not cooperate and merely creates new negative subtexts based on the attempts.
Ouch. I have experienced this.
–>In those cases all I can do is try to control my behaviors and the subtexts I create in response to the other person’s texts.
Makes me think of the old saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” Although, if a relationship is in bad repair, actions begin to carry subtexts, as well.
communication
my line of work requires me to use both the actual text and subtext to communicate over phone, email and video conference. My mentor have taught me the following, the rules of thumb I must follow when talking to them:
1. always tell them everything they need to know
2. always tell them every information I have that is related to the topic at hand
– no need to keep information with myself, it does me no good.
3. ask them questions if their response is hesitant and/or confused
– this does not apply everywhere, and also involve “reading” of the audience
4. Explain things in way that the audience have no room of imaginations, imagination means misunderstanding, especially when the words and information will be pass down even further.
5. Establish a status of always telling things straight – that is actually the hardest part, this involves rarely making mistake and always admit upfront of any problem/issues, before they audience found out themselves.
This is more of a business dealing, and not 100% communications on every day life. Just thought I would like to pitch in my 2 cents.
communication
my line of work requires me to use both the actual text and subtext to communicate over phone, email and video conference. My mentor have taught me the following, the rules of thumb I must follow when talking to them:
1. always tell them everything they need to know
2. always tell them every information I have that is related to the topic at hand
– no need to keep information with myself, it does me no good.
3. ask them questions if their response is hesitant and/or confused
– this does not apply everywhere, and also involve “reading” of the audience
4. Explain things in way that the audience have no room of imaginations, imagination means misunderstanding, especially when the words and information will be pass down even further.
5. Establish a status of always telling things straight – that is actually the hardest part, this involves rarely making mistake and always admit upfront of any problem/issues, before they audience found out themselves.
This is more of a business dealing, and not 100% communications on every day life. Just thought I would like to pitch in my 2 cents.
In the training I’ve had, Possibility was a prime distinction, and those of us who in our enthusiasm applied it rather too assiduously to everything in sight discovered we lost effectiveness. Sort of like discovering how much fun bicycling is, and immediately embarking on a transcontinental ride! We eventually recognized and joked about our folly, and one of the wiser among us came up with the term Possibility Fatigue, which I’ve remembered ever since. I’d say the term is in the public domain.
In the training I’ve had, Possibility was a prime distinction, and those of us who in our enthusiasm applied it rather too assiduously to everything in sight discovered we lost effectiveness. Sort of like discovering how much fun bicycling is, and immediately embarking on a transcontinental ride! We eventually recognized and joked about our folly, and one of the wiser among us came up with the term Possibility Fatigue, which I’ve remembered ever since. I’d say the term is in the public domain.