What is language? Is it the sounds our mouth makes or the letters we write? I would like to take a step back and argue that both the sounds we make with our mouths and the letters we write are actually rather methods instead of substance, because both, the sounds as well as the letters are simply a representation of something else, namely our thoughts.
Hence, if we can accommodate this viewpoint that language in itself is merely a third person messenger, rather than an original underlying source, this could potentially explain on why the matter is so complex. This third person middle-man we refer to as language has the potential to manipulate, become corrupted, do sloppy work or at worst, not show up at all. It seems to be a necessary evil that requires rather precise regulation, since for as long as the one original source cannot directly engage with the other, but needs to go through this middle man, the risk zone cannot be avoided.
Thinking about it this way makes one realize that the scary thing is in fact that we know so little about this middle man and secondly, that we entrust the middle man blindly without question.
Let us evaluate a simple scenario:
One person wants to communicate something to the other person. Essentially, a thought is to be transferred from the one to the other. This can be done via various ways, perhaps it is verbal, perhaps written or maybe it is just a signal. Each of these methods are essentially the same but we use different members of our body to perform them. Our mouth for verbal, our hands for writing and signaling could be done by something as simple as raising an eyebrow.
Off course the process does not end there, since until now, we have only discussed the sender party. Communication can however only take place where there is also a receiving party. This receiving party now receives the message via the specific method and then engages in a process of de-coding that message in order to gain access to the thought originally sent.
Is it not amazing that such a complex process is executed on every single instance something is communicated? How is it that we take this process for granted and how is it that we are not aware of the complex nature of communication in general?
How do we deal with this every day and what is the effect thereon in our daily lives? Is it not true that we are quick to charge each other with some sort of malicious intent of “not communicating” appropriately and are such conflicts not extremely detrimental to our relationships in general?
What would happen if we were to pay more attention to the fact that communication embodies all these complex processes which are actually extremely fragile and could easily go wrong? Would we be more lenient towards each other in our judgements? Would we, knowing that both parties recognize these risks, be more accommodating, slower to execute judgement, more confident to approach each other with the aim of clarifying uncertainties instead of simply jumping to conclusions that the counterparty has intentionally made themselves guilty of “mis-communication” or has at least been grossly negligent and thus guilty of “not communicating appropriately”?
I mean, when a family member goes on a long journey, don’t we ask of them to let us know when they have arrived safely? Why do we do that? Is it not because we are aware that the journey comprises certain risks whereof the outcome is not guaranteed? Perhaps we should apply the same consideration when we communicate. Just like the majority of all travels go smoothly, so does the majority of all communication. The difference is that a problem during a journey is dealt with as exactly that, a problem that needs to be fixed. With our communication however, we don’t make room for problems at all. In our ignorance, we don’t even understand their existence. Instead, we simply proceed to throw the first stone at the counterparty which we also promptly charge guilty of malicious intention.