Tannen Communication Therapy - Essay Example

Meta-messages: I Only Say This Because I Love You Deborah Tannen, of a great book en d “I Only Say This Because I Love You,” explores the problems that arise in communications among people in close relationships --- between husbands and wives, between parents and kids, between siblings, and between sexes. The book’s subtitle gives the readers a more in-depth idea of what the book is about: “How the Way We Talk Can Make or Break Family Relationships throughout Our Lives.” As a conversational analyst, Tannen observes the different ways people communicate in relationships. It serves as a communication therapy discussing three major themes in communication issues: indicators, findings, and therapy (Reich 153). As with everyone who experienced family talk, it is easy to see how it can go in circles. Family members argue about little trivial matters that sometimes merely started as normal conversations. We hear every single type of complaint like “she doesn’t like to apologize,” or “I didn’t do anything wrong so I shouldn’t say sorry,” or “mom always criticizes everything I do,” or “he doesn’t appreciate what I do.” (Tannen 5-6) Every single individual experienced times when they tried to say something good yet ended up being misunderstood. This is a commonplace happening, but usually harder when family members or people who are close to each other are involved (Noller and Fitzpatrick 17). It is like giving a person a gift of a nice scented-lotion and, instead of a “thank you,” receive a response that they were offended because it means they smell bad or need more grooming. The real meaning of the message wrapped in the niceness of the gift is taken as a negative hint for the correction of their errors. Even if that was never the message the sender wants to give, the distorted interpretation creates a negative impact upon the relationship of the sender and receiver (Tannen 11-3). No further proof is needed for this pathology of communication problems shown in this scenario and other scenarios similar to this. There is evidence in almost every daily interaction people have with others, and usually, although unfortunately, the closer people are with each other, the greater chances there are for miscommunication (Tannen 21). The author’s intention is to explain the process of conversation, to which interpretation plays a great role. People should not read a single message in one specific context. Most communication process, particularly between those who are closely related to each other, involves a lot more than mere words (Noller and Fitzpatrick 19). In interpreting the sender’s meaning, one should be familiar with all the other aspects of communication. This is the only solution for the issue of misinterpretation. The underlying message --- the meta-message --- has greater effect in communication, whether negative or positive (Tannen 7-8). In the third chapter of the book (67-93), Tannen explores meta-messages in several spoken lines people use, and the differences of these meta-messages in conversations between people in close relationships. Tannen states that the meta-messages in intimate relationships is different because of control continuum and connection continuum (Tannen 11). In the overall message of the third chapter, the solution for miscommunication is simply acknowledging that everything heard and said are potentially vague. The appropriate process in deciphering the message, therefore, is to disambiguate by looking at the core of the message. However, the issues in this process are that a speaker at times intentionally creates the meta-message, or unintentionally create the meta-message, or the receiver imagines a meta-message. This makes the interpretation of meaning a not so simple task, and unless one is able to read minds, the possibility of misunderstanding is big. Therefore, paying attention is important (Reich 153). Even to one who has not studied the art of communication, ideas regarding the surface meaning and the underlying context are well-known. Communication experts have often explained the concept of figures of speech and compared it to the differences between surface meaning and underlying context. For instance, the difference between the speaker’s meaning and the statement’s meaning is called irony. In interpreting irony, the receiver cannot merely focus on the spoken words, because the true meaning is hidden in the contrast of the words to the real message intention of the speaker (Branco and Valsiner 37). Very young kids cannot understand sarcasm or irony. They need maturity to understand and interpret the words accurately. The message here is clear. People need to develop the appropriate process of interpretation to understand the meaning of people’s words (Reich 154). Two things that drive conversations among people in close relationships are the desire for control and connection (Tannen 11). In close relationships, scenarios where a mother tells her daughter to watch her eating habits could make the daughter feel insulted due to being fat. Now, no matter how good the intentions of the mother are, the daughter might not be able to recognize them. The mother’s reason may be “I only say this because I love you,” yet without proper interpretation and understanding of the meta-message, the point is not sent across (Tannen 76-8). People need to realize that in certain conversations, meta-messages carry a heavier weight than the spoken words. However, in intimate relationships, they may appear critical, therefore, met with negative responses (Tannen 21). This explains the confusion a speaker feels when they think they are expressing caring or concerned thoughts but are misunderstood. It is vital for everyone to understand this concept for a more effective communication flow. Once the speaker and listener recognize these, they can restructure words to minimize the possibility of negative interpretation. Meta-communicating is one good example of restructuring words (Tannen 23). To meta-communicate means to discuss the methods of conversing and the meta-messages communicated. There will always be hierarchy in any family, and even the position that a family member holds causes some innocent lines to be taken a argumentative words (Noller and Fitzpatrick 38). Here, control continuum is very much evident. Family members use their positions to have their demands met. And since equality among every member of the family is impossible, this concept should be given importance (Reich 153-4). For example, a younger sibling attempts to cook a dish her elder sister is an expert at. The elder sister asks the younger one: “You put pepper?” The line, taken at face-value, is innocent. However, it causes the younger sister to feel hurt or criticized on her cooking abilities. Because the elder sister is, well, older, and is deemed an expert at that dish, her words are given extra weight. The younger members of the family usually seek for approval from the older ones, particularly children from parents. One good cure for this is to have older family members, or parents, acknowledge the power of their words on the younger members of the family to evoke consideration (Noller and Fitzpatrick 40-1). Connection continuum is the act of figuring out the appropriate balance between distance and closeness. It is essential in making every family member feel secured and protected, without the dangers of making them feel smothered and overpowered. The danger here is the possibility of the two, control and connection, to overlap. When this happens, it makes meta-messages hard to decipher. For example, a mother may tell her daughter “I’ll go with you but I need an hour to finish something.” The daughter may take this as “I want to come with you but you need to wait.” The message may be a form of connection for the mother, but may be taken as a form of control by the daughter. Here, meta-communication is essential (Reich 154). One observation on Tannen’s standpoints is the cure of putting her theories into practice. Knowing the different concepts involved in communication --- message, meta-message, meta-communication, and restructuring --- are skills that are not easy to put into practice. Additionally, to achieve the aim of her theories, both the speaker and the listener must be aware of these concepts. It is a skill that requires constant and devoted practice. Unlike non-verbal communication, spoken communication does not merely involve following simple directions to interpret every single message correctly. No hints can give the speaker or the receiver an idea regarding the meta-message, and the interpretation is still largely dependent on the person involved (Reich 154). It is a skill that involves mental processes dictated largely by the life experiences of the person, and not just a matter of following instructions and reminders. It is possible to lessen the strain in interpreting by trying to be as explicit as possible in communicating. To take the example stated above, the mother, acknowledging the power her position has in the family, can say instead “Please wait for me. I’m excited to go with you.” This places the other person’s concern before her own. It is also worded nicely to express the more positive connotation carried by the words. This way, it is almost impossible for the daughter to see this as a form of control. This eases the art of interpretation on the receiver’s part. In another chapter (95-123), Tannen explores the difference between men and women on apologizing. Tannen mentions that men avoid the act, while women feel deeply about apologies (97-9). It is a common concept that the act of apologizing is a form of weakness, a submission to higher authority or will. Apologies are also widely denoted as a form of admitting one’s mistake. The feeling associated with apology is that of humiliation, which men are known to avoid more than women. On the contrary, just like the overall message in Tannen’s book chapter, apology can work even if the person apologizing is not in the wrong. One effective way to rid of the humiliation it entails is to focus on the effect rather than the cause. For example, one can say “I’m sorry I didn’t mean for it to turn out this way” or “I’m sorry this conversation hurts you.” By shifting focus on the effect an event caused a person, it expresses the concern over the negative feelings that erupted, rather than on admitting a mistake that may or may not be there. Another effective way to rid of the humiliation part is to explain rather that make excuses. An explanation evokes the logical nature of trying to understand the underlying reason behind the deed without avoiding responsibility for the act. An excuse, on the other hand, finds something or someone else to blame, thereby giving an idea of non-admission of mistake (if there is) and lack of genuine concern for the effect of the action (Noller and Fitzpatrick 27). On a personal note, this chapter is very informative and helpful. It is easy to agree to Tannen’s standpoint on the matter of apologizing. Several arguments could have been cut short had apologies been said, but due to the usual humiliation associated with it, several people avoid doing it. One good example on this topic is when a mother scolds her son due to a mistake the son did. Both are hurt in the process, and a simple “I’m sorry my words hurt you” destroys any possible defensive feelings that may arise. Here, one can see that the focus is on the act and the feelings associated with the act. The lines do not put blame on anything or anyone else. It does not negate the feelings one may have felt due to the argument or mistake. It places a bridge where a gap had been. On a critical note, one must not take the book as a guide in creating a good relationship. Relationships can never come down to mere words. However, Sapir Whorf linguistic theory claims that reality is established on language to a large extent, contrary to the more widely-believed language is established on reality. The book gave ample evidence on the effects of bad conversations to relationships; therefore better relationships are possible with better communication. Relationships may not boil down to words, but relationships may be improved through words (Reich 155). Works Cited Branco, Angela U, and Jaan Valsiner. Communication and Metacommunication in Human Development. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age, 2005. Print. Noller, Patricia, and Mary A. Fitzpatrick. Communication in Family Relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993. Print. Reich, Nina M. "Review: I Only Say This Because I Love You." Journal of Family Communication. 2.3 (2002): 153-155. Print. Tannen, Deborah. I Only Say This Because I Love You: How the Way We Talk Can Make or Break Family Relationships Throughout Our Lives. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002. Print. Read More