WORDS AND COMMUNICATION

Communication is a thorny topic. The most eloquent, intelligent, rational and verbose amongst us may have trouble with it even when trying to converse with someone who is sitting across the table from us. How much more difficult does it become when we are limited by time constraints, distance, the medium of the electronic message and of course any underlying language limitations! It may become even more complicated if one is trying to be tactful, diplomatic or discreet. Frequently, we must rely on the written message alone, and this may become less clear and more convoluted through loss of intonation, facial expression, gesture, other body language… The opportunity for misunderstandings increases a thousand-fold.
 
St Exupéry said: “Words are the source of misunderstandings”, and yet words are also our only weapon against misunderstandings. How do we resolve situations where our words have been misconstrued? By using more words! Resolution of communication breakdown needs simple words, honesty and a genuine sense of wanting to clear up confusion or perceived ill-will. However, the situation becomes more complex when words simply fail us. One may talk plainly, communicating lucidly what is in one’s mind, but the recipient of that information may pass the words through a personal filter that is tinged with any colour of the perceptional or emotional rainbow, and thus construe a meaning completely different to that of the originator of the message.
 
A frame of reference is important when we are communicating and the social and psychological environment of the communicating persons need be kept in mind as well. The simple word “love” can be uttered in such a bewildering variety of contexts that it can become bogged in a quagmire of communication breakdown. We love our spouse, love our parents, love our children. We love pizza, love our country, love our friends, love going on holidays. We love playing games, we can score love in tennis, we can meet the love of our life, we make love, fall in love, fall out of love. We can call our partner “Love”, but the woman at the corner shop can ironically call us “Love” also. Context matters!
 
Communication can be purposefully made difficult. We may choose to be deceptive in what we say or write. “No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous.” Said Henry B. Adams. Words can be a fortress we hide in, words can be the fog that obscures our actions, words can be our defence or our offence. Words can be daggers that are thrust to wound and hurt maliciously. Words can be uttered in a facile way so that they flatter and fawn. Compliments and cajolery, blarney or sweet-talk, propaganda, can all get in the way of true communication. Rumi advises us: “Know that a word suddenly shot from the tongue is like an arrow shot from the bow. Son, that arrow won't turn back on its way; you must dam the torrent at its source.”
 
In work environments the failures of communication are manifold. We write our emails, publish our communiqués, draw our labelled diagrams and we are the originators of much published material that the world can see. Just like any other form of communication, our work-related written material can create misunderstandings and can have consequences that range from the amusing to the dire. What we write about and how we choose to do it, can have an immense effect on other people that may be quite dramatic. What we choose to write about can heal or hurt, amuse or anger, attract or repel, inflame or influence, excite empathy or indifference. Our words can be balsam or poison. Or at the very least soporific!
 
I speak plainly, and communicate what I think and feel. If I choose to write about something, I do it because I want to and because I need to. My tact is genuine, for I do not wish to hurt anyone’s feelings. If I am misconstrued, it is has not been my intention to be so. If what I say seems obscure, words are there to be used, so please ask for an explanation. If I can resolve misunderstandings, I will almost certainly do so.

EDUCATION

Education is widely regarded as something that all people should have, something all should experience and consequently derive benefit from. While hardly none would disagree with this, the model that is used to educate people at various levels of schooling gives rise to great debate. Different models of education, widely varying in their approach coexist side by side and are more or less effective. Public and privately funded educational systems have their supporters and opponents and each has its merits and pitfalls.

Preschool and primary school education is regarded as the foundation-building stage, in which basic skills in literacy and numeracy are acquired. The child at this level develops not only the intellectual skills needed to deal with the influx of new fundamental information, but also the motor skills required in the process of writing legibly, social skills that underpin a harmonious co-existence with other people and the beginnings of higher mentative processes, such as those that are needed for ethical/moral discrimination, artistic and musical appreciation, etc.

Secondary schooling allows for the development of acquisition of broader knowledge in the humanities and sciences. Language and art, history and literature, physical and biological sciences are introduced at suitable levels throughout the school career and training in independent critical thinking processes begins, with logical and analytical skills being honed, especially so in the later years of this educative process. The character development that was begun in primary school is fine-tuned here. Secondary students have to deal with a large variety of issues, including the obvious biological one of puberty that will impinge on their learning.

Tertiary level education involves the student in a journey of self-discovery where thoughts and mentative processes can be examined in detail, where more complex information is not only passively acquired, but where it is analysed, critically evaluated and reprocessed. The world versus the self are contrasted and the student will need to deal with the conflicts that arise therefrom. The tertiary study experience should act as the springboard for original thinking and problem-solving in unfamiliar situations, and should result in creative intellectual activity, and in organised and logical thought.

Having worked as an academic at many Universities has given me an immense sense of responsibility towards students, colleagues and the community. I have always upheld a certain standard of educational experience in a system that has come under a great deal of pressure and stress in the last few years. We have survived various forms of reorganisation, rationalisation and changes of management. We have redesigned the curricula, updated programs and courses, and have had to cope with several changes in the way the students are selected for admission. To be an academic in such an environment is extremely labour-intensive and often frustrating, but at the same time it is infinitely rewarding. One certainly does not persist in being an academic for the pay involved!

One of my concerns in recent years is the declining academic standard of the average university student. The question arises of why this should be so, even if one is aware of the increasing pressures of government, society and family to push more secondary students into the tertiary sector, rather than directly into the workforce. I suspect that the basic problem arises in secondary and primary school level. There are students in secondary schools that have basic literacy and numeracy skill deficiencies. The wife of one of my colleagues teaches in a secondary school (admittedly, it is in a lower socioeconomic class suburb), but she maintains that even children born here, from families of native speakers of English, have immense trouble with basic reading and writing skills. She complains that when these children come to high school from primary school, some of them can barely read and write.

We live in a society that is increasingly reliant on technology. A society that will depend more and more on an educated population in order to cope with the information revolution that has changed our lives dramatically in the last couple of decades. We require specialised, analytical, quick-thinking, problem-solving educated people in our society and yet we find that we have rather poor raw material in our universities to work with. How can such a problem be resolved? I would like to explore several paths to its solution and I welcome your input!