 |
 |
|
Framework It should be apparent that both verbal and nonverbal [including gestures, emotional sequences, etc.] modes of communication are salient methods of shaping other peoples thoughts and behaviors. Unfortunately good communication has not been an imperative discipline for parents and professionals who work with children. As a result, miscommunication, mislabeling, and misunderstanding are major contributors to the social deficits that children develop. From the perspective of creating a coherent set of truisms from which to determine concepts of self, situation and future on the one hand, to the perspective of ‘seeding’ of the environment with pejorative and malignant personalized and moralized metaphors on the other; communication has supported the very deficits which we hope to overcome. As these [diagnostic] terminologies are disseminated to the public - through classrooms, popular magazines, television and film dramas, and the like - they become available for understanding ourselves and others. They are, after all, the ‘terms of the experts’, and if one wishes to do the right thing, they become languages of choice for understanding or labeling people (including the self) in daily life. Terms such as depression, paranoia, attention deficit disorder, sociopathic, and schizophrenia have become essential entries in the vocabulary of the educated person. And, when the terms are applied in daily life they have substantial effects - in narrowing the explanation to the level of the individual, stigmatizing, and obscuring the contribution of other factors (including the demands of economic life, media images, and traditions of individual evaluation) to the actions in question. Further, when these terms are used to construct the self, they suggest that one should seek professional treatment. In this sense, the development and dissemination of the terminology by the profession acts to create a population of people who will seek professional help. And, as more professionals are required - as they have been in increasing numbers over the century - so is there pressure to increase the vocabulary. Elsewhere (Gergen, 1994) I have called this a ‘cycle of progressive infirmity’. Is Diagnosis a Disaster?: A Constructionist Trialogue by Kenneth J. Gergen, Lynn Hoffman and Harlene Anderson If we expect to change this inadvertent imposition, we will need to address the development of a more positive discipline of communication as well as a conscious awareness of it’s use. While there does not appear to be sufficient literature regarding verbal and nonverbal communication to build a competent communication repertoire for parents and professional, some beginning focus can be made. Transactional communication Based on the general principles of transactional analysis, we can develop a principle of respectful communication. Three fundamental constructs are indicated: • child [egocentric] attitude: I want what I want when I want
it! While the description of each of these attitudes is brief, they convey fairly accurately the focus of and attitude which leads to behavior. It is important to note that each of the attitudes is held by all people. Each of us has an ability to act as a child, a parent or an adult. Children can often be seen a ‘acting like a parent’ when they boss or scold other children and tell them how they should be behaving. The Parent/Child relationship in this model is not the good child/parent relationship and from that standpoint alone, perhaps the labels are misleading - which is why we have supplied other terms. In addition, it might be more appropriate to label the adult attitude the responsible, rational or mature attitude to avoid the incongruence of the adult to the child. Nonetheless, the labeling is of a type that is reasonably easy to understand and becomes useful for that, if for no other reason. It should be apparent, that the expectation for parents and professionals is to talk transactionally - adult to adult - all of the time. This is of course, difficult. When the child threatens a tantrum, the adult attempts to ‘control’ the behavior and thus becomes the parent. Significant energy is expended by teacher/parents trying to get the child to do what the teacher/parent wants them to do through ‘commanding attitude’ communication. Once the teacher/parent falls into that trap, a will struggle takes place to see who is going to win the tug of war - will the child or the teacher/parent get what s/he wants? Such struggles require a great deal of energy which might be better expended in a different will struggle; that of continuing to focus the child on the mature self. If the child continues to ‘want what I want when I want it’, and the teacher/parent continues to suggest rationale ways of behaving, the same energy may be expended, but the potential outcome is well rewarded. Obviously, the outcome is also quite measurable. If the child is able to break down the teacher/parent into a ‘commanding’ role, the teacher/parent will become threatening, pejorative and personal. If the teacher/parent can maintain the ‘rational’ [mature] position, the child will learn greater and greater control in using their own adult becoming in the process, less ‘egocentric’. The will struggle is also likely to become less intense over time as the child begins to cope with the new behaviors that are being modeled. One of the environmentally sound prosocial aspects is simply to give teacher/parents preferred ‘rational’ responses to use when children make ‘bad’ choices. Directive Communication Some children exhibit behaviors that cause negative attention from peers and the community, but do not pose a threat to the child or others. For these situations, general transactional communication is enough. Some children, however, exhibit behaviors that are far more extreme and demand immediate attention. These behaviors are considered by the teacher/parent as non-negotiable and immediate change is expected. Efforts on the part of adults to ‘control’ such behaviors are often fruitless because the adult has accepted the very premise which has made such behaviors so prevalent. If the teacher believes that the child is ‘out of control’ because of an ‘illness’ which controls the child’s behavior, the teacher’s communication to the child is unlikely to indicate anything else. In essence the teacher is then asking the child to do something that the teacher does not believe the child can do. Through verbal or body language, this negative expectation is likely to be conveyed and therefore the communication is likely to be garbled at best and pejorative at worst. Even if the teacher believes that the child can change the behavior, the message that is communicated is often ill conceived. Suggestions such as “I hope you know what you are doing”, do not convey the real expectation nor does it provide information that may be necessary to meet the unspoken goal. If the teacher is clear about the behavior that must be performed and believes that the child can perform the behavior, s/he should tell the child to perform the behavior in clear, specific and authoritative [not authoritarian] language. The teacher, once making the decision that such a directive is non-negotiable should be prepared to expend whatever energy is necessary to ensure that the child performs the behavior once having directed it. If the teacher is not prepared to expend the energy, s/he should not give the directive. Such directives are not appropriate for every area of the child’s performance. For preferred and ‘who cares?’ behaviors, other motivational techniques might be performed. Continual directive communication becomes negative and overly confrontative. Non-negotiable behaviors are those which the school or the family determine to be harmful or dangerous. Most adults use directive communication only when their personal limit has been reached, and then they often become parental [pejorative, personal and moralizing] in their directive. It is important to decide consciously that certain behaviors are necessary if the child is going to be able to maintain him/herself in full community membership and then place a positive expectation that enables that behavior to happen. To be successful with directive communication, an adult must convey two basic beliefs: 1) that it is reasonable to take over and be in an authoritative position, and 2) that the child is capable of doing what is requested. The second belief is one which builds self-esteem and credibility as opposed to supporting a rationale for failure. Where there is a conflict of wills the adult must be more specific, concrete and assertive in order to get results. The adult must guarantee that the child does what is expected by backing up the directive in non-hostile, non-punishing ways. When supported through ‘good choice/ bad choice’ prosocial environments, such authoritative positions can become culturally appropriate. This is not an authoritarian position; it is a position, which is used only with absolutely non-negotiable behaviors. The goal is to make children successful, skilled, independent people who use good judgement and make appropriate, life-enhancing decisions. All children need direction, guidance and structure so that they know where they fit. If they have a sense of where they fit in, they feel better about themselves, are less anxious, feel more comfortable in the world and can get on in a more positive way with the business of learning, growing and developing. If the child has learned to take appropriate direction, they are more capable of dealing with authority throughout their lives and probably more capable of being authoritative when they need to be. Demanding too much of the child is often believed to have a deleterious effect. The problem with attaining mastery is that no one knows what a child can do until they spend time on task to find out. Many adults no longer expect and demand excellence of children. The problem with lowering standards is that once a child starts to believe that s/he can’t control him/herself, it is unreasonable to expect that s/he will act in appropriate ways. The problem is no longer just the behavior, but the fact that adults label the child who exhibits the behavior, and see him/her as if the label were true, and then act accordingly. The label provides a ways of seeing and understanding the behavior. Directive communication which emanates from the work of Valentine [1994] provides the child with a clear assertive and informative expectation. If done transactionally, without recrimination, moralizing or personalizing, it sets a standard of behavior for the child to attain. It indicates clearly that the child is capable and in control. It supports growth, dignity and respect. Clearly, it is not parental [boss] communication as defined in transactional communication. It is not a threat nor a pejorative remark. It is an informative expectation of behavior that the child needs to learn to respond to affirmatively. Reflective Communication One other form of verbal communication seems to have some relevance. This is to provide ‘mirror’ images of what the child might be thinking or feeling. To say to a child ‘I like what you did’, may have little meaning if the child does not feel good about you. In fact, it may lead the child to change his/her behavior in order to upset you. On the other hand, a statement that says ‘you must feel good about what you did’, both conveys the positive supportive cue, while diminishing the personal context. While it may seem that we are semantically ‘splitting hairs’, it is important to underline that what we say has real and potent meaning to children. Becoming more aware of that fact is an salient step in improving our communication with children. Body language Valentine spends a great deal of time discussing the adult [teacher, parent] belief system regarding the potential of the child in regards to the expected behaviors. If the adult does not believe what s/he is saying, his/her body language is likely to give him/her away. It is important that the teacher be aware of his/her own feelings and attitudes in regard to the childrens’ behavior in order to construct the communication necessary to effectively convey important information and positive expectation. A British research team led by Christopher Brannigan and David Humphries isolated and catalogued 135 distinct gestures and expression of face, head anmd body. Nierenberg & Calero [1993] suggest that the art of throughly understanding nonverbal communication is a learning process almost as difficult as acquiring fluency in a foreign language. Yet its importance as a mechanism for feedback in supplying information towards full communication is vital. The ambiguity of words is further constrained by the context, the tonality and the gesture-clusters which endorse or deny what is conveyed verbally. The alternative verification of body language and the congrugency of verbal and nonverbal messages are important to getting one’s point across. If teachers or other helping adults give double messages by saying one thing and conveying another through body language, the child is likely to be confused. Just as we often ‘tune out’ verbal communication through concentration on our own mental stream, so too, we tune in and out on nonverbal monitoring. The gestures of the speaker are often taken in unconsciously and then become untested ‘facts’ to which we respond. When the child takes in a message which is incongruent, and does not take the time to subject these messages to examination and verification, s/he is often prepared to react in a manner which is different than one would expect. “Every gesture is like a word in a language, one must structure his words into units, or ‘sentences’, that express complete thoughts” [Nierenberg & Calero - 1993], in similar manner, one must be aware of the message of the gesture-clustures which accompany talk. Thus, if we seek awareness we must accept that we can unconsciously convey our ‘real’ thoughts and feelings to the unconcious of the child; to which s/he [consciously or unconsciously] responds. It is difficult to hide negative feeling about children from them. They may not be able to identify where and how they get the feeling that you don’t ‘like’ them, but they intuitively know. Helpers would vastly improve their relationships by understanding this reality and dealing with these feeling directly and honestly, albiet in a manner which the child can handle. Communication, thus takes place on many different levels. The more aware the helper is in understanding and interpreting these levels, the more likely they are to be able to help. In addition, the child needs to be able to sort out these differing messages and to find some way to do so which helps them function competently in difficult circumstance. Helping the child be aware of incongruence on the part of the adults to whom s/he relates and to sort out how to deal with those incongurities help to prepare the child for competent functioning in the real world. NeuroLinguistic Programmers make several presuppositions which merit some consideration. The first and most powerful is that: The Meaning of Your Communication is the Response it Elicits. You cannot assume that the message you intende to send was the message received. The only indication you have is the response. If you compliment someone and they slap you, it is more intelligent to remember that's the way to insult them, and try something else if you want to make them feel good. Resistance is a Comment about the Communicator It's up to the communicator to be flexible enough to get the message across that they want, and be sensitive enough in their observation to notice if their communication is having the desired response. It is not a failure of the child as receiver of the message, even though we recognize that the child ‘filters’ the information through his/her own ‘inner logic’. But if we intend to ensure that the child receives the proper message, we should not respond to an unexpected response, but rather: If what you're doing isn't working, Do Something Else. If you try one key in a lock and it doesn't fit, you wouldn't continue to just try harder. You'd get another key. People often to just try the same thing over and over, harder, louder, meaner. It's easier to just calmly get another key, and another.. until you find the one that fits the lock, smoothly unlocking what you're seeking. Communicating is like unlocking a lock - it requires a conscious
understanding of the problem and the use of conscious strategies.
|
|
|