The Problem With Text: How to Use Communication and Mindfulness Theory to Better Our Online Relationships
graphic by Lauryn Alejo
Developing speech and communication skills are an integral part of the human experience. Without them, people would never be able to express their thoughts, ideas, and emotions in an effective way nor would they be able to build healthy relationships. However, as technology continues to create new modes of networking via call, text, email, and social media, people are becoming more and more mindless about the way they speak to others. Direct in-person confrontation is oftentimes challenging to coordinate and almost always triggers debilitating forms of social anxiety. Fortunately and unfortunately, the internet relieves that pressure with the simple click of a button.
Now, people are able to navigate one-on-one conversations with friends, family, and even strangers to discuss hot-button issues like race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, politics, national security, terrorism, healthcare, and a whole host of other topics. But online debates are rarely ever civil. People are more likely to bash others with hate speech and other forms of racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, or transphobic rhetoric because the internet grants users the privilege of anonymity. Separation by the screen gives users the confidence to say problematic baseless arguments without consequence, which makes communication danger signs almost impossible to avoid. There is even a name for people who post inflammatory and digressive comments online to intentionally provoke others: internet trolls.
While it would be nice to eliminate these so-called trolls and other online instigators completely, the good and the bad of online communication is here to stay. However, it is worthwhile to note how communication theory could apply to current speech patterns and improve relationships between people. The properties of mindfulness and mindlessness can also be taken into account and introduce scientifically-proven strategies to help facilitate healthy discussion between people with different values. All in all, the way that people use language online matters. When words are chosen carefully and deliberately, communication theory can complement mindfulness theory to bridge the ideological divide between traditionally opposed social circles.
Mindfulness can be defined as being situated in the present, sensitive to context and perspective, being rule and routine guided (rather than governed), having the experience of engagement, and allowing novelty to reveal uncertainty. When two or more parties use escalation to discuss controversial issues online, all five characteristics are absent.
Since Donald Trump’s presidency, in particular, Twitter has become the hotspot for toxic communication patterns. When Trump vocalizes hate speech on a public platform, people feel justified to join in because he makes it ok to abandon one’s moral compass just to attack an ideologically-opposed individual. With widgets such as likes, retweets, and shares, people can essentially root for other problematic like-minded individuals and give content creators the confidence and validation to post more offensive comments. Escalation happens when two or more parties respond back and forth negatively with each other without end. In these situations, people feel inclined to reach for more allies (or in this case followers) and/or more evidence until they successfully prove their point to the other person(s). As one could predict, escalation never solves the issue because the feud just continues to progress until corporal action is taken (which rarely happens).
Eventually, the posts gain enough traction and attention that the content creator starts to profit off of his/her social media empire. One thing leads to another and mindful posting is no longer a priority—likes, retweets, and cold hard cash is. What happens thereafter: people continue to pursue hostile behavior for the virtual praise, clout, and money, and tribalism becomes commonplace on the internet. The scientifically-proven methods of positive communication skills are nowhere to be seen.
According to a recent poll, people believe that incivility and disrespectful engagement dominate online spaces as much as the physical workplace: “90 percent of respondents in one poll believed that incivility is a serious problem and that it contributes to violence and erodes moral values. In another poll, three out of four respondents believed that incivility is getting worse” (Dutton 23). Clearly, people understand the harmful potential of the internet, but very few take action towards making online spaces safer and more harmonious for people to use.
Fortunately, mindful speech strategies exist to alleviate this very issue. Using Jane E. Dutton’s tools for respectful engagement, people can navigate difficult discussions in a civil way. In particular, affirmative statements can be useful. As Dutton states, “communicating affirmation is critical for tilling the soil for connection [or at least tolerating different opinions]. Communicating affirmation means going beyond being present. It means actively looking for the positive core or the ‘divine spark in another.’ Communicating affirmatively is accomplished in multiple ways. One way to communicate affirmation is by recognizing and understanding another person’s situation… An affirmative stance means engaging the process by giving someone the benefit of the doubt” (Dutton 30). Essentially, a think-do-think approach is best and primes the conversation for healthy boundaries. Although this is harder to achieve via online communication, people can preface their comment with a positive buffer that shows their understanding of the other user’s comment.
In some ways, PREP, while used for close and intimate relationships, can offer powerful insights. The speaker-listener technique allows both parties time to address their grievances, but it pushes participants to paraphrase, summarize, and clarify the other person’s perspective first so to show them that there is a genuine interest in understanding the other participant’s point of view. Asking non-inflammatory questions also shows the opposing party that there is a concerted effort to have a meaningful conversation. When done successfully, the possibilities are endless: people can reach across generational and cultural gaps in a civil way and lessen the tension between ideologically-opposed groups. All it takes is acknowledging the other person’s opinion first and then providing one’s own commentary in a neutral but assertive tone afterwards. Fighting fire with fire never works, so people must pursue other productive means of conversation before resorting to immediate online bashing.
Invalidation is another dangerous communication sign that appears too often in the online community. This communication style can be categorized by putting down the thoughts, opinions, or character of another. In the context of social media, people refer to this as “clapback culture” or “cancel culture.” This usually manifests when people unfollow, block, or mute other users and encourage their own supporters to do the same. While this option is necessary for bringing attention to real life-threatening dangers online, people exploit this widget to “flag” others that simply have differences in opinion. In extreme situations, people can boycott the user for what they perceive as objectively problematic statements, ostracize them from close social, personal, and professional circles, and permanently disable or remove their account from the platform. Not only does this suppress the voices of vulnerable populations, but it also increases the prevalence of hate speech online. Racism, sexism, and classism are key contributors to this, and we must all do our part to check our privileges and implicit biases to unlearn for the better. But for now, people can move one step at a time and work on their communication skills.
According to Dutton, looking for another person’s value first allows people to see potential enemies in a positive light. She explains, “Actively looking for the value in another means actively approaching another person with the expectation of affirming who they are and what they have to offer. In The Art of Possibility, Zander and Zander call this move one of ‘Giving the other person an A.’ As they describe it, this type of practice and attitude is transformative: ‘It is a shift in attitude that makes it possible for you to speak freely about your own thoughts and feelings, while at the same time, you support others to be all they dream of being. The practice of giving an A transports your relationships from the world of measurement into the universe of possibility” (Dutton 31). Thus when people choose to view another person’s weaknesses as an absolute reflection of their character, they miss out on an opportunity to reach for mutual understanding and neglect the existence of other perspectives. Too often, thought traps like mind-reading or labeling will take over the human headspace and cause people to make one-dimensional evaluations of others. In the end, this pattern only leads to unhealthy and unproductive discussions that deepen the rift between certain groups. But if people practice mindfulness in their speech, the digital world has the potential to be an inclusive and safe space for meaningful conversations: “For example, in speaking with a friend, one can be highly attentive to the communication and sensitively aware of the perhaps subtle emotional tone underlying it” (Brown and Ryan 823). This can be difficult, considering that texts cannot convey “subtle emotional tone[s]” (Brown and Ryan 823). So, when it comes to communication between close friends or family members, the best solution is to handle the situation in person. Like Dutton says, showing up and conveying presence is key to healthy conversation. Through positive body language and the PREP method (which seeks to reach understanding rather than mutual agreement), subjects can speak and feel heard by the other party in a calm setting. But for online friends and followers, however, a simple contemplative pause considering the best ways to communicate one’s opinion and the other person’s reaction is enough.
A discussion of today’s communication crisis is far from complete without an examination of avoidance and withdrawal patterns as well. Nowadays, people are more likely to break up with a significant other or a friend via text or social media because it is quick, emotionally convenient, and easy to accomplish. When things get mildly uncomfortable or messy, people become overwhelmed with how to best express their thoughts, feelings, and emotions that it leads to utter silence. In a way, choice paralysis and avoidance/withdrawal are interrelated because people obsess and stress about linguistics so much to the point of inaction. Terms like “ghosting”, “zombieing”, “benching”, “breadcrumbing”, “haunting”, “orbiting”, “caspering”, “cushioning”, and “paper-clipping” now exist because people resort to avoidance and withdrawal so often. Note that all of these terms either deal with shutting people out completely or going on long hiatuses to avoid contact with them. Fortunately and unfortunately, there are no obligations to continue communication lines with others online, making excluding and ostracizing others easier than ever. But the human tendency to avoid and withdraw from uncomfortable situations is normal. In fact, it is in our biology.
Mismatch theory, also known as the evolutionary hangover, assumes that evolved traits that were once advantageous to human beings have now become maladaptive due to changes in the environment. The fight-or-flight system is a classic example; 10,000 years ago, stress saved humankind from all kinds of dangers: sabre-toothed tigers, poisonous fruit, natural disasters, etc. But now, some people’s flight response can be somewhat defective. In the context of today’s digital era, people “ghost” others so as to flee from potentially embarrassing or awkward social interactions. Like Scott Carney states in What Doesn’t Kill Us, “The human brain has been designed over millions of years of evolution to be sculpted through experience. Posttraumatic growth results from reconfiguration of our mental map to accommodate the new information” (Carney 107). In essence, the rapid evolution of technology has dramatically outpaced the biological evolution of human beings, so in a way, people are unprepared for the conflicts modern society imposes on us. But there are solutions. According to Peter Fraenkel, Howard Markman, and Scott Stanley, healthy confrontation is possible: While “some partners worry that talking about conflict management will actually create problems,” it does the exact opposite (Fraenkel et al. 255). Using PREP methods, there was an “increase in partners’ positive feelings about each other” and gave couples/platonic relationships the concrete tools and ideas to resolve future conflicts (Fraenkel et al. 255). Furthermore, “Partners who complete the [PREP] programme tell us that, far from interfering with idealization, it enhanced their attraction and esteem for each other. Our research finding of greater relationship satisfaction for PREP couples as compared to controls bears this out. Additionally, many couples who took the programme well into their relationship have said they wished they had learned the skills much earlier in their lives” (Fraenkel et al. 255). That said, when people realize that conflict management does not ruin but rather cultivates relationships, people are more likely to engage in conversation and turn to in-person communication than online communication. If anything, avoidance and withdrawal patterns slowly kill relationships and prevent people from nurturing friendships and romances they would have otherwise lost. But with mindful discussion habits like the ones provided by the PREP program, old and new relationships can grow and blossom into even better and healthier ones.
In sum, practical and positive tools for communication are difficult to practice with the presence of technology. With the simple click of a button, we can reach other people from across the world in seconds without thinking about the social repercussions of physical interaction. While this advancement in technology has certainly had positive benefits, society is nonetheless going through a communication crisis. Meaningful conversations are constantly being neglected and people resort to swift and easy virtual options that do the heavy work for them. With Trump in the White House too, people feel justified to bash others online who merely disagree with them. Now more than ever, the use and application of mindful conversation habits are almost always ignored. However, if people choose to implement the lessons from the PREP program and/or consider mindful speech strategies, people can work towards bettering their intimate relationships and at least tolerating those who hold different values and ideologies online. This is an urgent matter, so if people fail to take steps towards reaching common ground with others, polarization in all forms will become the new normal for modern America.
Sources
Brown, K. and Ryan, R. (2003). The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Carney, S. (2017). What Doesn’t Kill Us: How Freezing Water, Extreme Altitude, and Environmental Conditioning Will Renew Our Lost Evolutionary Strength. New York: Rodale.
Dutton, J. (2003). Energize Your Workplace: How to Build and Sustain High-Quality Connections at Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fraenkel, P. and Markman, H. and Stanley, S. (1997). The Prevention Approach to Relationship Problems. New York: Routledge.