Theorist Gregory Bateson revealed in his study of ecologies, there are three interconnected networks that exist at the mind, society and environment.[1]
Each ecology is engaged in an “interactive sequence of unit actions or signals that are similar but not the same” (Bateson 2000, p. 179). This “interactive sequence” or “signal” is language, which follows “all the complexities of empathy, identification and projection” (Bateson 2000, p. 179). It is difficult to comprehend how language developed overtime, or allocate when specific languages were established.
From a religious perspective, before the creation of the earth, Genesis 2:19 alludes to Adam having the capacity to “call every living creature” God formed by allocating a name. What Adam had spoken was “Adamic language”, which he invented, or “divine language”, language used by God. Further, in hunter-gatherer societies (dating back to prehistoric times), rock walls and ceilings in caves were utilised to paint stories regarding wild animals or battle.[2] An example is the Chauvet Cave located in southern France. The walls were decorated with Paleolithic artwork and fossilised remains of extinct animals derived from the Aurignacian and the Gravettian period. These ‘paintings’ are not just images, they represent stories preserved for future generations to access and pass down. These ‘drawings’ are symbols that contain meaning, which the intended audience would understand. Language and the facilities to assist in our ability to speak and write have always been there since our conception. Milberry believed since the invention of the alphabet, symbols and media have evolved, as well as our “thinking processes, social and political structures, and conceptions of reality”.[3] There are a variety of books, games and apps available for toddlers to increase their vocabulary and their reading skills. We can educate ourselves through technology and produce devices that can assist the distribution of information. People when considering programs to record written text often disregard Open Office, Evernote and Pages as possible options. Majority of computer users would prefer using Microsoft Word because it has been inbuilt into the computer system since the explosion of Microsoft. These programs all have a few things in common.
- Each program has the capacity to successfully record and thus “save information” in a document that gets stored in the computer’s hard drive. When the document is saved, the user is guaranteed the fact that it will not be deleted. During the process of typing information, the user can control what information gets stored. They power to constantly edit whenever they please.
- Besides the ability to control the editing process, the user is notified when there are grammatical errors present in the document. A red squiggle appears under the word as a warning.
- Users can highlight and right click a word to “translate” or “define” it in the language that it is written or into a different language. Similarly, the user can use the in-built thesaurus under the “translate” tab.
These programs produce “information flows that are routed within its organization” (Fuller 2005, p. 3). These flows share an inter-relationship with “knowledge and time management processes, intellectual property regimes, database and software design, content control, access structuring, meta data, archiving, and the use and generation of new document and information types” (Fuller 2005, p. 3). Previously, computer users were unable to utilise their creativity to make PowerPoints or increase their productivity in the workplace with Outlook and Microsoft Excel. Through these platforms, communication is made possible, and information can be transmitted to its recipient or wider audience. Fuller would describe the process of transmitting information as dynamic. The generated document would represent an explosive element in its composition. Its rhythms and codes can produce patterns as it passes forward from a stable state to a dynamic one (Fuller 2005, p. 2). When the document reaches its recipient, it is up to him/her to interpret the information. They react by sending another document and this process is often reciprocal. This process is demonstrated when a person engages in conversation with another via text on MSN, Skype and text messaging. Communication can be dominated by “pure mood-signs” (Bateson 2000, p. 183), actions and written text. These “mood-signs” can be recognized in text. In the context of mobile phones, users can install “Emojiis” (emoticons) to be used in conjunction with their messages. These emoticons intentionally impose a “mood” in the message for the recipient to detect. Internet slang can also accompany the emoticon, such as “LOL”, “ROFL” and “HAHAHA”. Such words can alter a message significantly. If the sender was to type “you’re such a loser”. The recipient may take offence and react irritated in response. However, if the sender was to incorporate “just joking. LOL :)”, the recipient would not take the comment to heart. Often, we add emoticons and Internet lingo to reconfirm how we feel and to ensure such messages are not misconstrued. Although one like Bateson would argue such actions do not always denote what those actions for which they would say would denote” (Bateson 2000, p. 180). One cannot help but wonder whether the sender actually meant what they typed.
Moreover, according to Spirkin,[4] communication was developed in the process of man’s labour during the formation of society. It is an essential condition of human existence that enables us to develop social experience and expand relationships by evoking a reaction in the ‘Other’. Humans engage in personal dialogue to transform their relationship with the ‘Other’ from an ‘I-It’ relationship, where the Self is separate and detached. For e.g. if I am at university in the library. I am on one of the study tables minding my own business and focusing on my own work. I can choose to ignore the surrounding by listening to music through my earphones, engage with the content (video or text) on my laptop screen or move to another location to alienate myself. Either way, the people near me become ‘objects’ that make up the setting. They are of little or no value to me. I do not know who they are and by choosing to negate their presence, I am distinguishing between perceiving them as ‘subjects’ or ‘objects’. What unifies the ‘Self’ with the ‘Other’ is the mind, society and environment. These ecologies govern their behaviour and actions, and can impact on how, what and why we communicate. Consider ‘speed dating’. During ‘speed dating’, some people may find it daunting conversing with others, especially if that person is completely unknown to them. Participants are encouraged to partake in discussions with the purpose of transforming the relationship from ‘I-It’ to an ‘I-Thou’ relationship, where both mutually display effort to involve themselves in each other’s whole being.[5] The two no longer reside in separate worlds, their reality becomes one. When this occurs, it is a result of recognising each other’s presence and reaffirming their existence. We disregard our ‘Self’, in order to invite the ‘Other’ into our space. To invite the ‘Other’ we must change our attitude and be willing to accept them. Our minds must be open to their thoughts. Thus communication is of vital moral and psychological importance to the individual.
Humans “relatively need to share, to pour out one’s soul, either in grief or joy, for now particular reason, a need that recurred day after day”.[6] The expression of the ‘Self’ enables a person to invite others into their situation, to witness the fragility and vulnerability of the human condition. However, the concept of language does not pertain only to spoken word, it also concerns body language and facial expression as representations of their psyche.[7] Helen Keller is a prime example of a person, though being blind, deaf and mute; she was not necessarily disabled from connecting or interacting with others. With the help of her teacher Anne Sullivan, she created her own system of communication. Keller would place her hand on the person she is interacting with her thumb resting on the throat, first finger on the lips and the second on the nose. Her hands are positioned this way in order to feel the vibration of spoken word. For instance, she can feel the speaker say ‘D’ and then ‘O’ on the lips. When Keller adds the two letters together, it forms a word, and then eventually a sentence. Keller attempts to verbally answer by elongating the words. Though lengthy and time consuming, this mode of communication empowers Keller to respond to others despite her disability. She is given a chance at fostering friendships and expressing her mind. Additionally, Keller knows who her friends are by touch. Her friends talk to Keller by using an exclusive finger system where each action is a sign. When Keller’s friend greets her, they conduct a “special” hand gesture. Firstly, her friend places their hand into her palm. Secondly, her friend moves her thumbs and fingers in the palm, making sure Keller’s other hand feels the movement when she places her other hand on top of her friend’s moving hand. Keller feels the movement from the thumb and fingers and when a question is asked, Keller would proceed to answer by muttering words. Keller also uses her hands to touch objects, so she can visualise what she is touching. She said, “I feel the parts and my mind puts them together. I move around my house, touching object after object in order, before I can form an idea of the entire house…It is not a complete conception, but a collection of object-impressions which, as they come to me, are disconnected and isolated”.[8] Keller’s mind associates sensations with theories to construct a general idea of what she cannot see. It is incredible that a person who was deaf, blind and mute since her childhood would grow to function normally under such dire circumstances. Keller trained her mind with such determination because she valued communication and language. If Keller had not learnt a system of communication, she would be unable to express her emotions in a manner others would understand. Conclusively, when humans are faced with opposition, communication empowers them to release their emotions (their psyche), whether it is through technology or verbal speech. It is through such communication, humans can preserve information, and engage with others that facilitate understanding and recognition.
Therefore, interactional patterns are complex, as are human relationships. How humans communicate depends on the type of system they employ, which shapes not only how we express our inner emotions and thoughts verbally, physically or through words, but also the relationships that exist. Gregory Bateson used the analogy of a cybernetic system where the “receptor” accepts stimuli, thus information, from outside as input; and from this information a message is led to a “center” which reacts to the message. This is similar to e-mails, text messages and comments on social media as communicative patterns of relations are regulated and directed by an agent (the individual who utilises technology) who manipulates information/content to attain a response from the other side (the receiver). Then in exchange, the agent receives information that is transformed, translated and encoded into a new form. Personally, I think this applies to my communicative patterns of relation. My pattern is dynamic and subjective. It is easily swayed by how the receiver reacts to me and the forms of communication that are available. Even if I mould it to suit my interests as an extension of myself, these interests can alter without my permission if someone interferes and impacts on it. Whenever I transmit messages to my friend on Facebook in the form of a status, comment or direct message based on how I feel about the subject matter I wish to discuss, she could choose to accept and then transform the information by further expanding on it, or fully reject it by asserting her own perspective against mine. It is cyclical in its nature as both myself and my friend are exchanging information. As a result, the type of relationship we would share is a symmetrical one. My friend and I are capable of initiating and responding on an equal level.
However, how and why we respond may change according to time, space and the amount of resources. For example if I was using voice chat at home on Skype with my friend to ask her a question. She has three options to select from in order to respond to me. Firstly, she can simply type the words yes or no into the text box, or use emoticons, or she could also use her microphone to speak her answer, or she could use her webcam to display her answer with a gesture of a thumbs up or a nod, or a thumbs down or shake her head. Though her mode of communication can change because of her location, mood and availability. Such change are barriers to effective communication and can conflict with my patterns. It causes conflict especially in circumstances where if she was in a lecture theatre, she would most likely use text as oppose to voice and camera that can release sound. Her response may be slower if she chooses to engage with her lecture rather than with me and the quality of her response will be affected. Thus, our patterns can cooperate and interconnect, or disconnect. These communication patterns are not static. There are, in Bateson’s terms, “weak currents” and “strong currents” which contribute to how humans communicate beyond the tangible and shape their interactional patterns with the assistance of media.
[1]Anon 2008, ‘The Three Ecologies – Felix Guattari’, Media Ecologies and Digital Activism, accessed 25 March 2014, <http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/the-three-ecologies-felix-guattari/>.
[2]Sabanci University, ‘Rocks and Caves’, The History of Visual Communication, accessed 25 March 2014, <http://www.citrinitas.com/history_of_viscom/rockandcaves.html>.
[4]Spirkin A, 1983, Consciousness and Language, Dialetical Materialism, accessed 25 March 2014, <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch03-s03.html>.
[5]Scott A, 2002, Martin Buber’s I and Thou, Queequeg’s Crossing, accessed 25 March 2014, <http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/buber.html>.
[8]Rouillard M 2011, Hellen Keller: Mind Over Instrumentation, Executive Intelligence Review, accessed 25 March 2014, <http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2011/3805keller_mind_over_instrument.html>.
Feel free to check out my other websites and social media accounts.
