Communication

Last night I (finally) got to watch Babel. I've been dying to see this movie since I first started seeing advertisements for the theatrical release months ago, and it exceeded even my loftiest of expectations. The movie, simply, is about communication. According to Genesis (not the band), Babel (aka Babylon) is an ancient city (about 80 kilometres south of modern-day Baghdad) where the residents began building the (mythical?) Tower of Babel. The purpose of the tower was to allow us (humanity) to reach the heavens. Apparently this pissed God off, so he destroyed the tower and divided humanity through language (so they could never again attempt such a thing).

Here starts Babel. It is a story about people across the globe (Mexico, Morocco, Japan, and the US) having difficulty communicating with those around them. Brad Pitt is stuck in Morocco tending his injured wife. He cannot seem to communicate because of language, culture, and his own desperation. A young Japanese girl, who is deaf and dumb, cannot communicate with those around her. And two young American children caught in Mexico are unable to communicate through the cultural differences. Those are the main storylines, but the movie goes much deeper. It deals with many other barriers to communication - alcohol, prejudice, desires, even death - that aren't as obvious. Babel shows the viewer that there are a lot more barriers to communication than simply language.

But this is not a movie review, this is a discussion of communication in general. I find I communicate most frequently electronically - emails, text messages, instant messages, (blogs) et cetera - and I think that's probably true of an increasing number of people. I always held the (probably naive, arrogant) view that one could communicate as well through these means as any other, but recently I've been noticing many shortcomings to these impersonal media. Where I used to think using straight-forward, overt language would be as good as a face-to-face conversation, I'm starting to reconsider the importance of non-verbal communication* - a smile, a nod, a shrug, even a quick glance away. These little signs can change conversations as much as the words being used. One can say the exact same thing via email as in a conversation, and the receiver's reaction, their interpretation, can be profoundly different. A simple message can be perverted by the lack of tone, lack of a smile, lack of anything, into something totally different. I'm not talking about something as simple as telling an off-colour joke while laughing so people know you're joking. I'm talking about the lack of much more subtle tells. For example, an honest critique can be received as something much more insidious.

I think that if words were taken at face value, it would be possible to effectively communicate without the non-verbal cues. I don't think this is possible though. Everything that is communicated comes with context. When you communicate in writing, the receiver looks for other clues to help give deeper meaning to the message. The person you've emailed may try to consider what the tone was last time you communicated, and may assume that is the tone you are sending. Or the receiver may assume the sender is feeling the same way they are, and interpret the words in that context. Perhaps the receiver just finished a conversation with someone else, and they may interpret the message in that context. Maybe the receiver is thinking about the kind of person you are, and assuming your message falls in line with their perception of you. The variables are endless and we haven't even considered language and culture.

The misunderstanding can be in the language. In a face-to-face conversation, the speaker can recognize confusion versus understanding and make the appropriate next step. This cannot happen in (most) electronic communications, and this leads to numerous problems. Maybe the receiver and the sender have different ideas of what a word means, or which definition of the word they should use. Maybe the receiver doesn't know at all what a word means - or maybe the sender doesn't, or they used it wrong. If I use the word "fag" in this article you would probably be offended, unless you're British, then you think I'm talking about a cigarette, or you're a sailor and I'm asking you to fray or unlay the end of a rope (apparently). If I start talking about "cleavage", you may think I'm a pervert, or you may know I'm talking about a critical division in opinions, beliefs, et cetera (this in case you didn't bother clicking the word in my last article). If the sender refers to the receiver as magnanimous, the receiver might have no idea what it means and could end up making a wrong assumption (we've all done that, at least I have - stupid university textbooks and their plethora of polysyllabic words). Maybe the sender just made up a word (again, I've done that too), and the receiver can't possibly know what it means and can't look it up. Maybe the sender has misspelled a word (I've also been there).** Or maybe the sender is rambling on without reason (like the author). Considering all of the difficulties inherent in communication it seems we can use all the help we can get. The non-verbal cues give us a lot of help.

Eniwhey Babel wuz a grate moovee end it openned mi i's in this werld its impossible two avoid emales texed messages instent messages and uther like modes of communication so won must werk hard too insher enithing sent veea thees menes iz cleer and open the onis four this is on both the sender and the receever.

Here's to a renewed emphasis on (and appreciation for) verbal, face-to-face communication. At least it's a start in this cursed post-Babel (the Biblical story, not the movie) world.

*****
* If there is some confusion as to what non-verbal communication is, I'm using it to mean wordless communication. Therefore written communicaton does not fall under non-verbal communication.
** Consider the consequence of erroneously exchanging the 'e' for an 'a' in deft.