Intentional Communication

In Harmonizing Ethics, I suggested that a holistic approach to ethics considers effectiveness, mutual respect and emotional resonance. One interesting direction for applying this framework is to consider what it might look like to communicate with a sensitivity for such ethical considerations. In this post, we will look at how effectiveness translates into an emphasis on clarity, how mutual respect places boundaries on appropriate messages as well as how emotional resonance or empathy translates into emotional validation and vulnerability leading to a sense of understanding that is satisfying for both parties.

Effectiveness as Clarity

To understand how effectiveness translates to clarity, an important foundation we might set is to show why we communicate in the first place. Speech acts or gestures like any other action can be understood as an attempt to get certain needs met ranging from basic needs like nourishment up to more abstract needs like empathy. Indeed, even newborn babies have ways to elicit certain attentiveness and responses from their caregivers.

This opens the question of which communicative strategies might be more or less effective at getting those needs met. Is the way we are speaking bound to get us closer to mutual understanding or do we inadvertently place barriers to this understanding through the way we express ourselves?

Since learning to speak is a social process, much of what we learn about how to express ourselves happens in the context of our early relationships. We learn how to ask for what we need and what is and isn’t socially appropriate to say or ask about. Perhaps in some cases it’s natural for children to express their needs is a straightforward way and if that expression is met with shame or dismissiveness in any way, we can imagine it would be difficult for the person to feel comfortable expressing that particular need over time. On the other hand, a child might have difficulty expressing certain needs especially if it’s more complex because they themselves don’t have the vocabulary or fully understand what it is. It takes an attentive caregiver who is able to figure it out through trial-and-error while also teaching them the specific words to use.

In order to talk about the content of a message and how certain categories of words might apply, we first have to consider the sorts of things a person can be aware of in their private episodic experiences. The external type mainly includes observations such as what you see or hear. Then there are internal types like bodily feelings as well as thoughts. Typically, other people are not privy to the internal experiences unless they are highly emotionally attuned and can guess it really well based on familiarity, body language and other cues.

So ultimately, when we are communicating with someone else, we’re conveying information about these experiences. Clarity then, can be thought of as a close relationship between the message and the reality of the experience as we have it. The concept of a “whole message” captures the idea that we can structure messages according to the observation, thought and feelings with appropriate separations. In this way, we say what we mean and mean what we say.

Some examples of this pattern include assertiveness training (AT), non-violent communication (NVC) and radical honesty (RH). In assertiveness training, the script can follow the DESC format which stands for describe, explain, state (what you want) and consequence (of how it helps). In the non-violent communication process introduced by Marshall Rosenberg, he encourages practitioners to share the observation, feeling, need and then request. In radical honesty, a lot of emphasis is placed on the awareness element with feelings being expressed in real time from moment to moment.

These existing examples each have their strengths and limitations. In traditional assertiveness training, less emphasis maybe placed on sensitivity training which has to do with the emotional process of communication. Notice that in the DESC formula, you don’t necessarily include how you feel. This can be effective for the workplace environment where there are professional boundaries but less effective for intimate partner relationships. One very effective tool in AT is called probing which is used to clarify messages (e.g., if someone says “the presentation was distracting” you might say “what did you find distracting about it?” which they will inevitably reduce to specific observations beyond the label “distracting”)

In non-violent communication, a slightly inverted problem can arise, where feelings and needs are so central that this style of communication can seem “too intimate” for certain types of exchanges or environments. Advanced practitioners learn how to stay at what they might call the “thought level” until they have enough cues to go deeper to the “level of feelings and needs.”

Lastly, radical honesty is the communication strategy that aims to maximize on the effectiveness scale. By honestly and clearly expressing your wants from moment to moment, it quickly helps you to reach closer only with what’s aligned with your values and goals. However, it tends to suffer from both limitations mentioned for assertiveness training and NVC since it can overstep emotional boundaries and discourages preprocessing messages for empathy which it might label as “passive-aggressive.”

This leads us to the next two values: mutual respect and empathy. As we will see, AT tends to emphasize effectiveness and mutual respect, NVC emphasizes effectiveness, self-respect and empathy, and radical honesty emphasizes effectiveness and self-empathy.

Mutual Respect and Emotional Boundaries

Mututal respect is an additional ethical consideration that factors into how we approach communication. This value recognizes the separateness of persons and their individual autonomy and dignity. It’s based on the premise that each individual has a legitimate right to their needs while at the same time being self-responsible for them. However, by claiming the right for oneself, it must also be extended to others as a matter of logical consistency since this legitimacy is grounded in dignity which is universal. In Varieties of Self-Worth, I outlined an account of human dignity grounded in the capacity to flourish. Simply put, having one’s needs met empowers one to contribute meaningfully to the world.

The implication of mutual respect for communication is that while effective rhetorical strategies might help us achieve personal goals, we can’t do so at the cost of others. One way a certain goal may come at the cost of others is if it would impact their own capacity to secure their own important goals. Since a key component of personhood is the balance of individual strengths and limitations, we have to ensure that what we are asking of another person doesn’t tax their personal limitations in this way.

By acknowledging the limitations of others, it becomes helpful to set certain boundaries on the types of communication that is appropriate. It’s not enough for a message to simply be clearly articulated and structured even as a whole message. Some examples of these boundaries might be conciseness of the message and expressing thoughts as owned interpretations without evaluative labels that undermine the dignity of the other person (e.g. “you are (negative label)”, “you are not ___ enough”, “you are too ___”, “it’s all your fault”, etc.). Further, when we’re making requests, it’s most respectful if the request is reasonable (again given our knowledge of their limitations), appropriate to the relationship and creates room for negotiation (e.g. “how willing are you to (request)?”, “how would it be for you to do (request) this way?”).

NVC practitioners have been particularly effective at incorporating respect when it comes to soliciting feedback about the willingness of the other person to help meet a certain need given the strategy in the request, but in some cases there were less instructions for beginners to navigate boundaries around emotional expression and intimacy. It in some cases can lead to discomfort when emotional support is offered to someone by default leading to “over-empathizing.” However, NVC also emphasized respect in another way which is the idea that individuals are responsible for their own emotional needs. This helped to prevent arguments where individuals blame other people for how they feel by owning the way that their own personal evaluations cause their emotional responses with the other person’s actions being more a stimulus or contributor not necessarily a cause.

Empathy, Validation and Vulnerability

Perhaps one of the deepest yearnings we all have in relationships is to be seen by another. Emotional validation and vulnerability are two sides of the empathetic coin. They are the willingness to indicate that you understand another person’s emotional experience and conversely the willingness to share your emotional experience. When clear, respectful communication is combined with empathy, it creates an enriching exchange centered on understanding, dignity and emotional connection.

The framework of NVC is perhaps the most adept of the three mentioned at fostering empathy and this is done through the cultivation of needs literacy and their clear expression. By developing a nuanced vocabulary for various feelings and needs, people are better equipped to express their inner world in a way that is more connecting. It also helps people to solicit empathy through “connection requests” which are not requests for an act of service or behavioral change but rather a request to give an indication that you understand what was expressed (e.g. “can you tell me what you hear me saying?”). Together, these strategies help people to take complete responsibility of their empathy needs without having to judge the other person for not doing active listening while also prevent them from responding with unhelpful messages for the context that might include advising, educating, or problem-solving.

In empathetic communication, it’s often helpful to solicit feedback from someone before requesting them to do something differently. For example, if they did something that hurts you or compromises a goal of yours in some way, you might mention what they did and ask first what their motivations were. In NVC, people are encouraged to guess the motivation since it can sound a bit more considerate and less judgmental (“are you drawing on desk because you’re bored?” vs. “why are you drawing on the desk?”). This helps to get buy in from the other person because you are showing that you care about their point of view and not just trying to control them (e.g. “I get that middle period can feel boring sometimes but drawing on the desk might create distractions for other students who sit there next. How about you draw on these scraps of paper instead?”).

Humor As Strategy

Some of the most effective, respectful and empathetic forms of communication rely on humor to get the point across. It’s perhaps also not surprisingly the most advanced because it relies on context and subtlety. But nevertheless jokes can be helpful for meeting the emotional needs of the moment particularly when there is tension.

The forms of messages we discussed so far have a quality of being formal, serious and potentially emotionally heavy. It might not always be necessary to craft a structured message to get the point across such as when someone shows up late to an appointment if a light joke will do especially if it’s just the first offense (e.g. “When you show up late, I feel upset because I need respect and would like it if you would be on time.” versus “Hey, you made it! We were just about to start a search party.”). Note that the humor still shows respect and care while hinting that the lateness made a difference.

A Case Study in Intentional Communication

To tie all these elements together, holistic and ethical communication would be based on whole messages that respect the rights of others while being empathetic to their emotional experiences. For some of us, one of the most difficult things to say is no. We are concerned that we might hurt, disappoint or anger the other person. However, intentional communication is about pursuing one’s own goals while showing others respect and empathy and collaborating where it will be helpful. Often an authentic and timely “no” is the best gift you can give someone if we wrap the gift properly.

Here are some examples of how the principles might show up in the scenario of declining an invitation. Without any intentionality, the person might not respond to the invite at all or they may give an ambiguous answer like “maybe. I’ll let you know.” If you are being clear without any other consideration you might simply say “No I can’t go” but on its own this can sound quite blunt even if it’s honest leading the person to question how much you care about them. If we add respect, it might sound like “Thank you for the invite but I can’t make it” but politeness can often be a way to signal disengagement. If you add empathy, it might sound like “I appreciate the invite! I sadly won’t make this one but I hope you have a good time.” Note that if the relationship is close enough, it can be better to also give an excuse.

It can also be hard to make an invitation because it’s also vulnerable. If you aren’t clear about it that might mean, you might let the idea just go by without ever trying to make it a reality. If you’re clear about it you might say “come do this activity with me.” If you’re clear and respectful, you might say “would you like to come do this activity with me?” and if you’re empathetic too, you might even say “I would love it if we could do this activity together. I think it would be fun. What do you think?” If you add humor to it, “I would love it if we could do this activity together. I think it would be fun! And if it’s terrible, which I doubt, but hey, anything’s possible… at least we’ll have a good laugh about how bad my idea was. What do you think?”

Towards Intentional Communication

Through the examples above, we saw how incorporating clarity, respect and empathy helps to turn ambiguous messaging or lack of communication at all into opportunities for mutual alignment in relationships even in scenarios where it’s most aligned to say no. This helps fosters a climate where individuals have the safety and autonomy to pursue their own meaning while allowing others the same freedom as well as collaborating toward shared goals and meaning. We also saw how adding in a touch of humor could add lightness to more vulnerable exchanges and thus create more ease and emotional safety. Having this kind of mutual understanding could result in people feeling more satisfied with life and more joyful in their relationships.

Further Reading

• Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton
• The Assertiveness Workbook: How to Express Your Ideas and Stand Up for Yourself at Work and in Relationships by Randy J. Paterson
• Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg