Paul Watzlawick's Third Axiom of Communication
Every Interaction Has Both a Content and a Relationship Dimension
Nov 7, 2009
People do not communicate in a vacuum of solitary confinement. Human communication is social and interactive, requiring a primary source (the origin, creator, or starting point for the message), a recipient (the destination depository, or end receiver for the communication), and the content which forms the very nature of the communication itself.
In this manner, successful human communication involves both a content and a relationship dimension. Relational communication might then be viewed as a completed pass, such as that which occurs within the sport of football. A quarterback (the source) throws the ball, and a receiver (recipient) catches it. The success of this communication, or completed pass, is closely tied to the relationship aspect. This is one way of understanding how Paul Watzlawick’s third axiom of interactional communication works.
However, Watzlawick saw that there was a bit more to human communication than just a game of catch. He saw the relevance of the relationship between the communicating parties, and the importance of the manner in which the communication (in this instance, the specific pass play) is conveyed and received.
Axiom 3: Every Interaction Has Both a Content and a Relationship Dimension
When two people communicate, they are exchanging information on several, complex levels. Firstly, there is the particular thing that is being said, conveyed or communicated. This is the ‘content’ of the actual communication. Secondly, there is the ‘how’ of the communication. That is, the manner and means by which the message is being delivered (verbally, in writing, angrily or jokingly). And, thirdly, there is the actual reception of the message and the way in which it is understood by the recipient.
Every person who is on the receiving end of a communication is not simply receiving the message in its pure form, but is also responding and understanding through his or her own interpretation of the communication’s meaning. The interpreted meaning is highly dependent on the relationship aspect of the communicators, since it involves meta-communication as well as overt communication cues.
Solid Relationships Forge Successful Communications
Take for example the football analogy once more. The receiver runs a route which has been planned and agreed upon between himself and the quarterback. As the ball is sent flying into the air, the receiver will match his moves on the field to correspond with the pre-established understanding he has with the quarterback. For the receiver to successfully catch the ball, he must be in the right place at the right time, according to where he expects the quarterback to deliver the ball, and where the quarterback has communicated he will throw it.
Likewise, for the quarterback to ensure the proper delivery of the ball, he must also comprehend his receiver's meta-communications (any act or communication that seems to convey extra information). This might include the receiver slowing down early, or turning his body in a different manner. Through these meta-communications, the receiver is letting the quarterback know something more about what is happening on the field and, hopefully, the quarterback will take note and adjust his pass.
Put another way, if either the receiver or quarterback misinterprets the other's communication and misreads his message, neither one will be in a position to successfully complete the pass. But if the receiver and quarterback have a healthy and solid relationship that has been forged through trust, consistency, and clearly communicated intentions, the two will achieve more completed passes than not. They will have more successful communications as a result of properly interpreting the other's meta-communications.
Meta-Communication as Communication Without Communication
Much of Paul Watzlawick’s work dealt primarily with intimate, relational communication as experienced within families and romantic unions. He found that success in these relationships is aided by directly confronting and acknowledging the sometimes subtle meta-communications that show themselves between people over time.
For example, if one partner constantly agrees to go along with the other, but never looks happy doing it, the meta-communication (not appearing happy or participating in a begrudgingly fashion), must be acknowledged. In order for the relationship to remain healthy, these additional communication cues must be subsequently dealt with. Meta-communications are relevant and cannot be ignored in relationships. As stated in Paul Watzlawick's first axiom, people cannot not communicate. Similarly, they also cannot not meta-communicate.
Watzlawick referred to meta-communications, conversely, as communication without communication, yet involving the communication aspects of context, subtext, tone of voice, and body language. Meta-Communication, therefore, can be interpreted as communication ‘that is not overtly apparent,’ or which can sometimes be incongruent with the overt communication, or as a complement to it.
Reviewing Watzlawick's Axioms
In Axiom 1 and Axiom 2, Paul Watzlawick explained how people cannot not communicate, and that communication between people is much more than just the mere exchange of literal meaning. Watzlawick's third axiom expanded on these ideas to demonstrate how successful communication involves accurate interpretation of the content of the message. In order to accomplish this, the source and receiver must have a relationship based on a strong desire to understand each other so that the intent of any given communication will be conveyed as clearly as possible. Interactional communication, to sum up, has both a content and a relationship dimension.
Source:
Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., Jackson, D. 1967. Some Tentative Axioms of Communication. In Pragmatics of Human Communication - A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. W. W. Norton, New York.
 |
 |
 |
