Watzlawick’s 5 axioms
Posted: June 8th, 2008 | Author: admin | Filed under: Ideas & points of view | 2 Comments »- One Cannot Not Communicate
- Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication.
- The nature of a relationship is dependent on the punctuation of the partners communication procedures: Both the talker and the receiver of information structure the communication flow differently and therefore interpret their own behaviour during communicating as merely a reaction on the other’s behaviour (i.e. every partner thinks the other one is the cause of a specific behaviour). Human communication cannot be desolved into plain causation and reaction strings, communication rather appears to be cyclic.
- Human communication involves both digital and analog modalities: Communication does not involve the merely spoken words (digital communication), but non-verbal and analog-verbal communication as well.
- Inter-human communication procedures are either symmetric or complementary, depending on whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences or parity.
I think Watzlawick’s first axiom is incorrect. First of all if one tries to communicate it is only communication if the receiver responds to it. If the receiver is not able to interpret the sensed phenomena there is no communication. If there is something like communication the inversion is not “One cannot not communicate”, but “One can anti communicate”. Hence, no communication sits between communication and anti communication.
Anti communication is the form of communication that annihilates communication, resulting in non communication.
An example of annihilating communication is for example professionally used by politicians. Repetitive alternating between communicating and anti communicating the net result is non communication. Useful for such communication is the use of Weasel Words.
I see your point. Our different opinions derive from a different concept of ‘communication’. In my idea, Watzlawick’s axiom points out that everything can be intepreted as communication, because the receiver is the final judge of what is and what is not communication for him/herself.