Since time immemorial, there have been continuous attempts to understand human nature, human beings, their relationships, and indeed what keeps life going. A literature survey of any of these topics, singly or in togetherness, is still to be comprehensively undertaken. This makes the task of successive levels of the evolution of thought more complicated.
An example may be taken of Homo sapiens. Many definitions of what defines Homo sapiens can be found. One of the common definitions is, “man is a thinking animal.” It might be asked if man is the only animal capable of thinking or if there are indeed other animals
which also think? Indeed, the definition of thinking is itself vague.
There is evidence of the ability to think on the part of other beings, such as dogs, deer, and other animals. Many people believe, with some conviction, that even plants are living beings and that they respond to the environment in a manner similar to human beings and other ‘animals.’ One distinction, however, which marks out Homo sapiens is that they can speak to each other in a language that has meaningful words. Indeed, the study of languages has evolved quite significantly. There are different languages that have words and intonation as the core of the transparency of thought from one entity to another.
Learning institutions have language departments which have studied the growth of communication between two entities. That may be another story. Closer to the purpose, it may be useful to reflect upon how living together has as one of its major planks: Communication by language. The choice of words is an essential part of interpersonal communication, but this is not the only way two people communicate with each other. They can also communicate through touch, through their eyes, through their facial expressions, and indeed their postures. The act of living together itself assumes communication and interaction. Significant work has been done on communication through the eyes and facial expressions.
In fact, a good deal of poetry in many languages has tried to underscore that communication through the eyes is one of the central acts of communication. There is research available on how animals or people themselves convey meaning through the use of language. Be that as it may, it is important to realise that living together requires, first and foremost, peace between the entities. It also needs the ability to transmit thoughts and receive. This many a time involves communication in a structured way. Even if the communication is not structured, it must be able to convey itself clearly. Somehow, the act of living together involves a commonality of communication, irrespective of the medium and the mode.
Behind this communication is the frame of mind and judgement appropriate to convey the feelings and the gist of the content in a communicable manner to the other person. This assumes a certain commonality of background, which may not always be assured, let alone ensured.
Herein begins one of the tricky aspects of living together. For the message to be encoded, it is important that the recipient be at the same level as the person transmitting the communication. It would need a common vocabulary and sensitivity to understand the encoder’s nuances of gestures, intonation, facial expressions, and more to convey a sentiment.
To date, relatively few elaborate scientific exercises on facial expression are universally accessible. This makes the task of communication not only risky but also confusing. The transmitter may have certain emotions in mind and may even be well-versed in converting them into words and gestures. This symbolism of the encoder’s thoughts conveying a meaning may not always be shared by the listeners. Thus, the decoder may not get the full message. Indeed, there is a possibility that the decoder could understand something quite different from what would be in the encoder’s mind. What gets communicated could be quite different, and the encoder may not even be aware of what has happened. This will worsen the communicability of thought, and inaccurate communication may follow. The fallout effect of this on the recipients’ and the transmitters’ relationship could be deep. It would be understandable if confusion escalated from one message to the next. The capacity of miscommunication to multiply is any day greater than the effective communication of accurate ideas between the transmitter and the listeners.
Untrained people with limited self-control can and do follow up confusing words with a higher degree of breakdown in communication. This can affect relationships, friendships, intimacies, and institutions like marriages and more. Its effect in official and formal communication can have institutional implications with corrosive possibilities.
As a result, there is evidently a case for greater care and caution in studying the act of living together as a subject matter. The obvious choice would be to foresee the study of Homo sapiens as entities. Clearly, there is a case for deeper research and more scholarly insights into the entire phenomenon of living together. The sooner serious-minded people wake up to this, the better. A template for this may be a welcome beginning.
Basic grooming in verbal and non-verbal communication could serve as a foundation of learning. This could be at the preschool stage. In its own right, it would serve as a specialisation. A modest beginning may be marked by making ‘basic communication’ practice a grooming at the nursery stage itself.
The orientation, training, and development would need to be matched at every level of learning, going up to research level. Its effect on building cohesive societies and
more robust institutions would be well worth the effort.
The writer is a well-known management consultant of international repute
