Paul Watzlawick's Second Axiom of Communication

Human Beings Communicate Both Digitally and Analogically

Oct 26, 2009

Paul Watzlawick developed five axioms concerning interactional communication. Here's a brief explanation of his second principle on digital and analogical communication.

Paul Watzlawick was born in Villach, Austria in 1922 and died in Palo Alto, California in 2007. Throughout his long and esteemed career as a psychologist, communications theorist and philosopher, Watzlawick worked to elucidate the methodologies behind human communication. Specifically, he classified interpersonal communication into sets of criteria which would allow for further study and investigation. These came to be known as his axioms.

Similar to Watzlawick’s first axiom, human beings have no choice but to communicate at all times, even when they are seemingly trying not to. Taking this axiom one step further to its natural conclusion leads to the next. The second axiom, which offers a more in-depth examination into the two primary ways human beings communicate, is elaborated upon here.

Axiom 2: Human Beings Communicate Both Digitally and Analogically

In order to fully comprehend Watzlawick’s second axiom, a little clarification of terms is in order.

When one references analogical communication loosely refers to that which is represented by likeness. In other words, if someone understands that an action, a symbol, or a movement implies and/or infers a particular thing exactly as intended, it is a successful communication.

More precisely, non-verbal communication, in which meaning and intent is represented either without words (pictures, drawings, physical gestures), or by indicating something external, can be categorized as being analogical. That is, some ‘thing’ stands for, and is likened to, something else to which the meaning, or idea, is being referred.

On the other hand, digital communication is more exact and identifiable in that this form of communication makes direct reference to the thing by its articulated name. Speaking a language and using easily identifiable and concrete terms and words, as when people are conversing, or reading text, is a digital communication.

An Example of the Second Axiom

After a disagreement, two friends attempt to make up. One friend calls the other and expresses regret for the blow up, even going so far as to verbally apologize. The other friend sends a gift and hopes his friend understands the meaning behind the gesture and what the gift is meant to represent.

In the first instance, the communication is digital and the message should be clearly interpreted as it was intended. Words are usually quite effective this way. However, the reciprocal communication is less so, in that it involves analogic, representative communication. The gift is meant as a dual communication: It represents a symbol of the friendship, and it is also a representation of conciliation.

Since gift-giving is usually perceived as an act of kindness, this non-verbal communication may be universally understood. But, if the recipient believes that something more is expected of him in return, or that the gift is an analogy for something other than a desire to maintain the friendship at its present level, then the communication has failed.

The same can be said of a person who raises a fist: Is the gesture made in anger, or as a display of celebration and triumph? The meaning may be misconstrued and misinterpreted, its exact intent dependent on the context. This exemplifies one of the central problems with the analogical form of communication.

Open Communication Achieves Self-Awareness

With his fives axioms, Watzlawick endeavored to expand scholarship into what he viewed as inherent problems with interactional communication. He provided guidance and tools for understanding how to make communication between people more productive, progressive, and successful.

For example, through Watzlawick’s efforts, the rigidity of the therapeutic communication process was stimulated to become a two-way interchange focused on obtainable results. His assertions that the true path to personal well-being rested in open communication and interpersonal connections granted individuals the power to achieve greater self-understanding and deeper self-awareness.