Paradoxical communication and affective relationships: he said "yes", he meant "no" and everything ended
One of the mysteries of human communication is how we got to ignore . At first sight, the structure of language allows us to understand each other clearly and precisely. However, what is meant is not always said, and there are times when the call is given paradoxical communication .
Paradoxical communication and the incongruous message
The Watzlawick team and their study with schizophrenic patients came up with the logic of disengagement. They differentiated two communicative levels: the digital level and the analog level . The digital level refers to "what is said" and the content of the message itself, while the analog level refers to "what is meant" or the intention of the background. Therefore, not only the content of the message matters, but the intention behind it.
In general, this fact would not be a problem, since people like consistency, so if a child says "I want an ice cream", we easily understand what to buy. This fact is explained in that words do not have a double meaning in themselves, but we are the ones who produce it . Therefore, in the same way that both levels can coincide, they can also contradict each other. Sometimes, there are situations in which we ask for a change in the relationship with the interlocutor and we try with our communication an approach-avoidance.
Some examples
Let's take the case of a girl who insists on going out at night, to which her mother replies "you yourself, you'll see". In this message the will of the mother is completely hidden; he does not inform of his intention and his daughter must infer that he does not want her to go . This is how his authority in the relationship is put to the test and the indecision between giving in to the intention or sticking to the content arises; between staying or leaving. What your daughter does implies a change in the relationship with her mother, a modification towards approach or avoidance.
To this effect it is called paradoxical communication and regardless of the chosen option, it has no happy ending. In the previous case, if the daughter decides not to go, she will feel uneasy because they told her to do whatever she wanted and she did not want to stay. But it would not feel good if he had left, since it was not clear that his mother seemed right to him. Neither option is a confirmation of what should be done, so do what you do, There will always be a feeling of not doing the right thing . These are the two characteristic repercussions of the paradox: confusion and malaise.
Example of congruent communication
- Do you want something, son?
-I want ice cream.
-All right, I'll buy you an ice cream on the way home.
- Digital level (content): he wants an ice cream.
- Analog level (intention): he wants an ice cream.
Example of incongruous communication: paradox
-Let me go out for a while tonight, go ...
-Your self, Andrea, you will see ...
- Digital level (content): Let Andrea do what she wants.
- Analog level (intention): Andrea must do what her mother wants.
Snowball effect in communication
Carmen (message): Juan, I am fatal and the child has put the lost room.
Juan: What do you want now? Have I been working all day and it comes to me that the room is dirty? You do not want me to order it, do you? That comes with cleaning the room at 10 o'clock at night has noses ...
Juan (when you arrive): Carmen, then you clean the room!
An obstacle in couple relationships
Precisely the paradox is one of the reasons why When there are problems in the couple, the lack of communication is alluded to . It is a symptom that reflects that the two members are not reporting their intentions clearly enough when talking with the other.
Likewise, it is also the starting point that opens the way to ruptures, since paradoxical communication is not a punctual event, but is dragged into conversations.
Example 1 of paradoxical communication in courtship
-Hey, are you doing something on Friday?
-Yes, I'm going with Carlos and Fran to go for a walk.
-Ah okay…
- Did you want something?
-Do not.
-What will you do?
-I'll go to the movies with Juan.
-OK, very good.
-Well, very good. Do not get angry, huh?
-No, no, if I do not get angry.
-Well, that, goodbye.
-But hey…
-Tell me.
-Are you angry?
-By? All good.
-What if you want I tell them to leave it for another day.
-No, leave it.
-Safe?
-I had.
-Well, then do not say.
-Ah ... Okay, huh. Come, bye.
Example 2 of paradoxical communication in courtship
- Tomorrow at the end I can not stay.
-Oh, uh ... Well, I'm angry! And a lot! jajajaj
-Don't get angry ... That we do not stay anymore, eh pretty?
- Careful that maybe the one that does not want to stay anymore is me ...
-Well then we do not stay, there's no problem.
-There is none, none.
- There you go.
Beyond what is pronounced is what is said
The paradox It is characterized by ambiguity, the doubt in the intentions of the other person. Leave a gap in the dialogue between the people who will grow and move forward in parallel with the communication in a snowball process. As long as we do not understand something, we look for an explanation, and maybe that explanation is incorrect and we build on it part of our relationship with the person . Before a message like "I am fatal and the room is dirty" it may well be understood an intention of consolation or a request for cleanliness, before which our response would be very different.
But if paradoxical communication can explain why couples end, it also explains why they do not form. Normally, being in pairs you know the other person and you can resort to mutually shared knowledge to fill the emptiness of the paradox. That is how Knowing how the other usually relates, you can understand what the intention is . However that does not happen in the first approaches. When you start to know someone, the person is in the middle of a learning process; learning how the other relates and how it fits with their own way of relating.
The role of expectations
To this fact are added other characteristics typical of the first approaches that favor the paradoxes. One of them are The expectations , if that special person will be with the sharing of one's own path. The anticipation of results implies changes in the current way of communicating with the other, as well as causing both people to have different intentions. Now, if it seems that communicating the intentions would not have to be problems, fear and frustration appear to put a stone in the way.
Saying what is expected of the other person implies facing that it may not coincide with the expectations of others. Fear and frustration at the possibility that the other person does not want the same thing that we do, helps us keep our intentions secret . In addition, one last factor is vulnerability, since to make explicit the intentions is to reveal this secret and thereby, feel vulnerable.
In this way, expectations, fear, frustration and feeling of vulnerability lead to the appearance of paradoxes. These factors are combined in courtship, where it remains in tension in a duality of approach-avoidance. That is to say, in the "foolishness" the intentions of the other person are constantly felt to check if they agree with their own. As we communicate, we let glimpse our desires and test the other, thus giving the known game of approaching and avoiding.
Learning to deal with the paradoxes of communication
Therefore, in the first steps in the formation of a couple, one's own intentions are hidden to a greater degree, favoring the appearance of paradoxes. Considering that you still do not have a knowledge of the other, the presence of paradoxes can be part of the learning of the interactional pattern .
This is how one can come to understand the paradox as belonging to the way of relating to the other, becoming a common feature when communicating with him. If we still do not know anything about the other person, we can reach the conclusion that this way of communicating is characteristic of our type of relationship. Functioning from paradoxes implies a consecutive sequence of requests that are both approximation and avoidance to the other and for which, regardless of what is done, we will not feel well, since we do not know if the other option was better.
This is how a small game creates a paradox that hinders communication and makes both of us start walking without knowing where we are going or which way to go.
Bibliographic references:
- Cenoz, J. and Valencia J. F. (1996). Pragmatic competence: linguistic and psychosocial elements. Bilbao: Editorial Service University of the Basque Country.
- Holtgraves, M. (2008). Language as Social Action. Social Psychology and Language. USA: Psychology Press.
- Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, B. and Jackson, D. (2008). Human communication Theory. New York: Herder.
