Barriers and Gateways To Communication
Barriers and Gateways To Communication
Communication
By Carl R. Rogers and F. J. Roethlisberger
OMMUNICATION among human beings has always been a problem. But
it is only fairly recently that management and management advisers have become
so concemed about it and the way it works or
does not work in industry. Now, as the result
of endless discussion, speculation, and plans of
action, a whole cloud of catchwords and catchthoughts has sprung up and surrounded it.
The Editors of the REVIEW therefore wel-
Part I
It may seem curious that a person like myself, whose whole professional effort is devoted
to psychotherapy, should be interested in problems of communication. What relationship is
there between obstacles to communication and
providing therapeutic help to individuals with
emotional maladjustments?
Actually the relationship is very close indeed. The whole task of psychotherapy is the
task of dealing with a failure in communication. The emotionally maladjusted person,
the "neurotic," is in difficulty, first, because
communication within himself has broken
down and, secondly, because as a result of this
his communication with others has been damaged. To put it another way, in the "neurotic"
individual parts of himself which have been
termed unconscious, or repressed, or denied
to awareness, become blocked off so that they
no longer communicate themselves to the conscious or managing part of himself; as long as
servations are based on their contributions to a panel discussion at the Centennial Conference on Communications,
46
47
49
possible. We can understand the feelings of a
person who hates us much more readily when
his attitudes are accurately described to us by
a neutral third party than we can when he is
shaking his fist at us.
Faith in Social Sciences. But even to describe such a first step is to suggest another
obstacle to this approach of understanding.
Our civilization does not yet have enough
faith in the social sciences to utilize their findings. The opposite is true of the physical
sciences. During the war when a test-tube
solution was found to the problem of synthetic rubber, millions of dollars and an army
of talent were turned loose on the problem of
using that finding. If synthetic rubber could
be made in milligrams, it could and would be
made in the thousands of tons. And it was.
But in the social science realm, if a way is
found of facilitating communication and mutual understanding in small groups, there is
no guarantee that the finding will be utilized.
It may be a generation or more before the
money and the brains will be turned loose to
exploit that finding.
Summary
In closing, I should like to summarize this
small-scale solution to the problem of barriers
in communication, and to point out certain of
its characteristics.
I have said that our research and experience
to date would make it appear that breakdowns
in communication, and the evaluative tendency
which is the major barrier to communication,
can be avoided. The solution is provided by
creating a situation in which each of the different parties comes to understand the other from
the other's point of view. This has been
achieved, in practice, even when feelings run
high, by the influence of a person who is willing to understand each point of view empathically, and who thus acts as a catalyst to
precipitate further understanding.
This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party, without
waiting for the other to be ready. It can even
be initiated by a neutral third person, provided he can gain a minimum of cooperation
from one of the parties.
This procedure can deal with the insincerities, the defensive exaggerations, the lies, the
"false fronts" which characterize almost every
failure in communication. These defensive
Part II
In thinking about the many barriers to
personal communication, particularly those
that are due to differences of background, experience, and motivation, it seems to me extraordinary that any two persons can ever understand each other. Such reflections provoke the
question of how communication is possible
when people do not see and assume the same
things and share the same values.
On this question there are two schools of
thought. One school assumes that communication between A and B, for example, has
failed when B does not accept what A has to
say as being fact, true, or valid; and that the
goal of communication is to get B to agree
with A's opinions, ideas, facts, or information.
The position of the other school of thought
is quite different. It assumes that communication has failed when B does not feel free to express his feelings to A because B fears they
will not be accepted by A. Communication is
facilitated when on the part of A or B or both
there is a willingness to express and accept
differences.
As these are quite divergent conceptions, let
us explore them further with an example.
Bill, an employee, is talking with his boss in
the boss's office. The boss says, "I think. Bill,
that this is the best way to do your job." Bill
says, "Oh yeah!" According to the first school
of thought, this reply would be a sign of poor
communication. Bill does not understand the
best way of doing his work. To improve comAuTHOR's NOTE: For the concepts I use to present my material I am greatly indebted to some very interesting conversations I have had with my friend, Irving Lee. F. J. R.