TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION

8/10/2019 TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION

1/4

Philosophy of ommiwication 9

TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY O F COM MUNICATION

Herold Lillywhite

When one begins to talk about a philosophy of any kind he immediatelyfinds himself in the midst of the countless intellectual, psychological, andverbal pitfalls that are inevitable in any discussion undertaken at such ahigh level of abstraction. Yet it is probably true that we all operateaccording to a set of guiding beliefs and principles, sometimes quite wellformulated and understood, but more often just vaguely felt. Whateverthe state of awareness, it seems evident that a philosophy is primarily apersonal and highly individual way of thinking and behaving. And if aphilosophy is to stay alive it must be subject to change and growth.

When I talk of a philosophy of Communication I am considering thematter from a personal standpoint. I have found it necessary to ask myselfcontinually what kind of a philosophy is guiding me, and to attempt tofind the answer by verbalizing what I think and the reasons for my thinking.I have found also that it is much easier for me to work with others ahd forothers to work with me if they can understand my particular orientationand I theirs. Frequently, in my experience a broader but quite consistentlyunified group philosophy has evolved and efforts have become more con-structive and meaningful when the group came to know the orientationof each other member.

At the beginning I must ask myself if m y philosophy of communicationis any different from the philosophy of speech that has guided my teachingthese many years. Th e answer is that there is a difference, but it is notthe result of a sudden shift. Rather it is the current stage in the evolutionof my philosophy. There was a time, very long ago I hope, when I wasquite satisfied, in my teaching in English and speech, if I could helpstudents achieve a reasonable competence in the mechanics of reading,writing, and speaking, by way of the freshman theme, the three-minutespeech, and isolated selections from literature, always badly mutilated bythe time we had finished with them. Later I felt that a reader ought tocomprehend something of what he read, a speaker ought to have somethingto say and a writer something to write. Still later I began to suspect thatthe student ought to know something about the nature of the languagehe was attempting to use, its many pitfalls and its tremendous potentialities.It was not too long ago that I began to feel that the student also ought to

know something about himself as a user of language, as a human beingdepending upon language to get along. It was very late that I stumbledupon the fact that communication depends upon more than one person-that there are listeners and interpreters of language symbols who must beconsidered in every communicating situation

It is at this point that my current thinking about communication_ _ _ _ _ _

HEROLD LILLYWHITE-Associate Professor of Speech Iowa State Teachers College Cedar Falls.This speech was delivered at the NSSC National Convkntion held in Chicago last D ember.


2/4

30 The Journal o Communication

differs from my previous thinking about speech. Perhaps the thinkinghas not changed radically within recent years, but the concept has certainlybroadened and the emphasis has shifted. As I read what is being writtenand as I talk with my colleagues I gather that many are going throughmuch the same kind of evolutionary process. The existence of the NationalSociety for the Study of Communication and its rapid growth would sug-gest that this is true. Is t possible, then, to outline my current thinkingabout communication? Perhaps not, bu t it is worth my trying.

In our t alking civilization the individual must depend almost entirelyupon language to get his needs fulfilled and to make his adjustments to hisenvironment. This is as true of the garrulous chatterbox as of the ten-yearold clinic case who wont talk at all, or the five-year old who cant talk,or the poet who prefers to write it, or the singer to sing it. The needsare being more or less adequately fulfilled, or there is failure in theirfulfillment through communication. The individuals adjustment to hisenvironment is successful or unsuccessful in proportion to the fulfillmentof his needs. The same is true of the group, whether a small community,a state, a nation, or the United Nations.

A breakdown in communication, then, inevitably means a breakdownin human relations, whether on an individual or group basis. In turn, this

breakdown reflects in the quality and effectiveness of communication. Notethe stutterer for an individual example, or the United Nations for a groupexample. In the latter case we see the tremendously disastrous conse-quences of communication breakdown on both an individual and groupbasis. Harold L. Ickes, in the December 3, 1951 New Republic, wastalking of this breakdown when he wrote, Who knows but that thelexicographers of the future, thanks to the collaboration of Acheson andVishinsky, will not decide upon the word Achinsky as a more modernand meaningful expression than diplomacy? This new word would be

defined as discordance in managing negotiations between nations: hence,shouting down opposition in any negotiations; lack of artfulness in diplo-macy. He is talking about a breakdown in communications that mayeventually bring world-wide disaster.

Dr. Carl R. Rogers, Professor of Psychology at the University ofChicago, stated recently at the Northwestern Centennial CommunicationsConference that a psychological breakdown in an individual is a breakdownin his ability to communicate with his environment, and that good psycho-therapy is the re-establishment of communication between that individualand his environment. This environment, of course, is made up primarilyof other talking individuals.

Talking on this same subject, at the same Conference, Dr. F. J. Roeth-lisberger, Professor of Human Relations, Harvard Graduate School, agreedwith Dr. Rogers but suggested that the breakdown in communication isin the receptive area, especially listening. He believes that educationis doing a pretty good job of training students to express themselves, butthat the area of listening and intelligent interpretation is badly neglected.


3/4

Philosophy of ommzinication 31

Both men went on to explain that they were talking about human relation-ships, the psychological factors in listening. Rogers suggests that theproblem is in the very human tendency to evaluate what is said from onesown point of view only, the inability to postpone an evaluation for the sakeof communication in the particular situation. This immediate evaluationsets up a chain reaction that colors ones response to a speaker and there-fore runs the risk of making for personality conflict and communicationbreakdown.

I realize that we must continue to be concerned about the develop-ment of the so-called skills of communication, but not as processes apartfrom the ultimate purpose of communication. We might well give moreattention to the ways in which we can teach the skills of communicationin terms of the complicated psychological forces that motivate an individualor a group, not only in expressive attempts at communication, but moresubtly, and often more disastrously, in receptive attempts.

This kind of thinking complicates and makes the task of developinga philosophy of communication infinitely more difficult. It focuses ourattention upon the lack of reliable research data concerning the nature ocommunication in human relationships. We are making a splendid begin-

ning with our research in the skills of reading, writing, speaking, andlistening, and this research certainly should be developed rapidly, but thereare many other more elusive problems that we need to tackle immediately.These center around a study of the individual as a communicator, ratherthan communication as a process more or less divorced from the humanforces in which it operates.

It has long been recognized that the successful speech therapist mustbe more concerned with the kind of person who has the speech differencethan with the difference itself. It does little good to attempt to repair

the broken communication of the speech defective without knowing whatconditions, within and around this particu1,ar individual, caused the break-down and how this particular individual must be re-oriented, with respectto himself and his environment, if adequate communication is to be re-established. Whether the individual is in a speech clinic, on the stage,before a forum audience, or a member o a committee in a group situationit seems to me that the effectiveness of his communication, or the conse-quence of its breakdown, is only a matter of degree. The problem isessentially the same. If we are to help him to communicate more effectivelywe must help him gain the necessary inisight, understanding, and skillswithin the framework of his relationships with others and in terms of hisattitudes, his motives, and his basic needs, as much as in terms o hisplatform manner, his fluency with tongue or pen, his diction or his grammar.

The research I would recommend would continue to explore therelationships between reading, writing, speaking, and listening, but wouldalso include such aspects as the relationships between maturity of theindividual personality and the communication processes, and maturity of


4/4

32 The Journal o ommunication

group behavior and the communication skills and understandings. I wouldlike to know something about how I Q elates to effectiveness of com-munication, but I would also add what might be called S Q. social quotient,and E Q. ethical quotient. How does an individual operate with respectto his social orientation and environment in relation to his communicativeability and understanding? What are the relationships between an individ-uals ethical and moral principles and his communicative abilities and con-cepts? I cannot agree that my concern for the student ends with myefforts to help him to speak or write more fluently. I feel that I must havegreat concern for what he is likely to do with the communicative facilityI might help him gain, lest I help create more quacks and demagogues ina social and political structure already overloaded with both. Somehow Ifeel that if we knew more about, and could teach in terms of, the humanrelations of communication there might be fewer of the above.

The foregoing should make clear the reason for my inability to wrapup my philosophy of communication in a neat one-paragraph package tobe pinned upon the bulletin board for divine guidance when needed. Butthe effort that has gone into my attempts to organize my thoughts oncemore in this very complex area has, as always, been most stimulating andfruitful for me. My hope is not that others will accept my views, but

that this discussion may prompt others to attempt the analysis of theirown philosophies of communication and, thereby, arrive at an understand-ing of the implications and obligations arising from that analysis.

Observations at the Chicago meeting indicate that we sorelyneed a good definition o communication. Probably we needtwo; one of communication as a process and one of the field ofcommunication. Can we all accept the information theorists defi-nition of communication as, the transmission of information frommind to mind? Of what use is it beyond its mathematical impli-cations? Does it oversimplify or does it complicate the issues?Can any of its key words be defined?

Documents

TOWARD A PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION