Communication, Interpretation and Trust

In communication of any kind, there are many who give out two books: one that says what they mean to say, and one that tells their listener how to interpret it. These people think of language as being fundamentally personal language, such that you have to provide a translation matrix along with every message that you send out. This seems, as it were, to be the default behavior of human beings today; wishing not to be misinterpreted, we preemptively interpret ourselves. In a manner of speaking, we become both speaker and audience, and thereby leave nothing for our audience to do but uncritically absorb our message.

Everywhere today, this is the predominate mode of communication. However, this is not the mode proper to communication itself. It is rather a reactionary move, a preemptively defensive posture taken on by speakers once they realize that interpretation is a basic function of communication itself. That is to say, I can say what I will, but there is no telling how you will take my meaning. Knowing this naturally fills us with a sense of dread and anxiety, since we do indeed mean something when we choose to speak, and it seems to be wantonly careless to leave the critical matter of interpretive understanding up to someone as unreliable as a listener.

Nevertheless, there can be no communication without trust. To speak is to take a blind leap into the dark unknown of another's mind, hopeful that the other will listen to you with discretion and the benefit of the doubt - that is to say, hopeful that the other will truly listen, and take steps to acquire a genuine understanding. After all, communication is a co-operative endeavor. It is the pursuit for a common truth - and such a journey cannot be taken alone.