Pick and choose

Pick and Choose: Applying Five Axioms to Understanding Communication

Elizabeth Burnett

University of Colorado at Boulder

Spring 2007

In the article, "Some Tentative Axioms of Communication". Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson set forth five tentative axioms of communication in an effort to help explain the simple properties of communication and their fundamental interpersonal implications. These axioms, as the name would suggest, appear to be self evident, which causes them to sometimes be over looked. With the acknowledgment and application of these five axioms, interaction patterns can be better understood. These five axioms describe in detail why communication messages develop into patterns the way that they do and how these patterns make it difficult to illicit change in an interpersonal relationship.

In this paper I will first describe the five axioms. Then I will apply the theory as a whole, all five axioms, to a real communication problem. This will help explain more about each individual axiom, as well as explain the benefits of understanding the axiom to help solve the communication problem. Finally, I will critique the theory of communication; pointing out what it leaves out of the reality of problematic communication and what aspects it fails to fully develop. Through this research paper I will prove why the five axioms of communication as presented by Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson serve as an important and tangible theory by which to view communication.

The first axiom present by Watzlawick et al., explains the impossibility of not communicating (1967). This axiom stems from the biological nature of behavior. Behavior has no opposite. In other words, there is no such thing as non-behavior…one cannot not behave (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Given that all behavior in an interactional situation has message value it is assumed that all behavior is a type of communication. So, just as one cannot not behave, one is also unable to not communicate. The lack of verbal communication is in essence a nonverbal way of information exchange. "To summarize, the first metacommunicational axiom of pragmatic communication can be postulated as: one cannot not communicate, (Watzlawick et al., 1967)."

Although these interchanges can exist singularly, Watzlawick et al., describe the value of understanding them as interactions, or patterns of interactions, rather than singular messages (1967). As holds true with the other axioms, which will be described later, understanding the patterns of interactions in a relationship, help enable both positive and negative changes in the communicative relationship.

The second axiom of communication describes the two levels of communicative meaning: contextual meaning and relational meaning. The contextual meaning develops from the information that is conveyed by the communication. The relational meaning is developed by behavior that the communication imposes or elicits (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Watzlawick et al., describe that there are many ways to say something (content), and those different ways of saying it contribute to the relational aspect of communication. This relational aspect of communication runs parallel with the concept of metacommunication: communication about communication (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Watzlawick et al., summarize the axiom by concluding, "Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication," (1967). As we will see in the application section of the paper, this can lead to problems in the paradoxical nature of communication, when the content and the relational meanings do not align.

The third axiom of communication states that the nature of a relationship is contingent upon the punctuation of the communicational sequences between the communicants (Watzlawick et al., 1967). To elaborate, an outsider may look upon a conversation and see it as a series of interchanges with a specific beginning and end, but in reality there is a more specific and complex interaction occurring between the participants. The biological system of stimuli-response-reinforcement can be applied to the communicative idea of punctuation. Watzlawick et al., explain that if this triadic interchange is looked at as an interaction pattern it can be hard to clearly define the roles of the participants, i.e. who is giving and who is receiving the stimuli (1967).

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the punctuation because it is hard to tell when the interaction began. The patterns that develop are hard to change because both the punctuation and meaning attribution can lead to reality distortion. Reality distortion is a term used to describe the divergent views that two individuals may have about many elements of a joint experience. Reality distortion, along with punctuation of communicative events can be prevalently seen in what is referred to as the nag-withdrawal scenario, which will be fully described later in the paper.

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson introduce the concepts of digital and analogic communication to detail the fourth axiom.

"If we remember that every communication has a content and a relationship aspect, we can expect to find that the two modes of communication not only exists side by side but complement each other in every message. We can further expect to find that the content aspect is likely to be conveyed digitally whereas the relationship aspect will be predominantly analogic in nature." (1967)

Digital language has evolved into a highly effective way of transferring information about objects. It is a non-arbitrary way of transferring information from one person to another. Digital communication allows words to be established that are manipulated by the syntax of the language. When these words are used they are understood based off the definition they stand for. For example there is nothing inherently table-like in the word table, or five-like in the word five (Watzlawick et al., 1967), but meaning is understood.

In analogic communication, there is something thing-like in the thing being described (Watzlawick et al., 1967). However, because this is an approximation of meaning, the value of analogic communication is not always concrete. You could perceive that someone is upset by them wearing a frown, but without the digital communication of their verbal cues, it is impossible to know exactly what kind of sadness they are feeling or trying to express. The digital and analogic aspects of communication coexist in all interactions. The digital language has highly complex and logical syntax, but lacks the semantics of the language, while the digital language posses the semantics, but have no adequate syntax for the definition of the nature of the relationships (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

The fifth and final axiom asserts that, "All communication interchanges are either symmetrical or complementary, depending on whether they are based on equality or difference," (Watzlawick et al., 1967). These two patterns are rather easy to identify based on basic criteria. Complementary behavior is characterized by one partner's behavior complementing that of the other, forming a different sort of behavior (Watzlawick et al., 1967). This complementary nature of the relationship is enhanced by the interlocked nature by which, "dissimilar but fitted behaviors evoke each other (Watzlawick et al., 1967). An example of this would be a leader and a follower. The leader gives commands, which the follower follows. This action gives the leader the idea that he is in control and thus he gives more commands, which the follower continues to follow. It does not have to be perceived as a strong vs. weak relationship, but rather a dyad that evokes intertwined behavior.

The second pattern that can result from communication is a pattern of symmetry. Unlike the complementary pattern, the symmetrical pattern emphasizes the minimization of differences. The partners in a communicative situation tend to mirror one another's behaviors. This type of behaviors may escalate competitively because both partners are doing their best to mirror one another. In both the complementary and the symmetrical communication patterns the individuals positions are merely variables whose meaning is not concrete, but emerges only in relation to the other person (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

The five axioms of communication as presented by Watzlawick et al., can be applied to various communication problems. With the application of these axioms problems and misunderstandings can be exposed and explained. For the purpose of this research paper, I will apply these axioms to the relationship between a concerned mother and her rebellious teenage son. From now on we will refer to the mother as Nancy and the teenage son as Bobby. Bobby is in his junior year of high school and has just begun experimenting with drugs and alcohol. He no longer interacts after school with his little sister and does not enjoy participating in family outings and activities. His behaviors are different, however not yet threatening, as they are still limited to experimentation. Nancy has noticed her son's change and is beginning to get mildly concerned. This is a common turning point in many parent-child relationships, however there are a multitude of outcomes that can occur. Using the five axioms of communication to understand the communication that takes place between Nancy and Bobby will help us to point out their relational strengths and weaknesses.

The axiom that one cannot not communicate links communication almost synonymously with behavior (Motley, 1990). Therefore, Nancy can understand his behavior as a form of communication, when he comes home from school he walks past his little sister and straight to his room. There is no verbal interaction, but there exists a message exchange. The meaning of the message however is subject to the interpretation of the recipients. The sister noticed her brother's lack of interest in playing with her and Nancy assumes that by Bobby not playing with his sister he is communicating that he has no interest in developing further their relationship. Although Bobby thinks he is "saying nothing" and therefore not held accountable for lack of communication, his behavior or behavioral state is something that can elicit meaning. In this example of the first axiom it is clear that the validity of the axiom relies on the agreement that all behavior, intentional or not, is potentially communicative. Bobby walking past his sister without acknowledging her reveals a message that she is not worthy of his time.

In all communication there are two aspect, content and relationship. When Nancy talks to her son about the changes in his behavior she gives to him information or content. "Please, try to spend more time with your sister. She misses hanging out with you." (Sweet, quaint, voice) This informs Bobby of certain facts: His sister would like to spend more time with him and his mom would like him to accommodate. There is also an inherent relational aspect to Nancy's message.

This can be shown by representing the information in another way, for example, Nancy could say in the same voice, "Your sister misses you and so from now on you will spend more time with her." This is in essence the same content as prior, however the relational aspect changes greatly. The relational aspect is related to the idea of metacommunication. Communication about the communication is represented in the first scenario by Nancy when she uses the words "please" and "try". This allows Bobby to interpret the content for its relational value. It is a request, rather than a demand. In the second example, a paradox is introduced because although the voice is still sweet, the words used are more authoritative. This type of paradox can become a problem because at some points the content of a message and the relationship aspect do not align; leaving the receiver to make assumptions about what exactly was meant.

When Nancy communicates to Bobby that he needs to spend more time with his sister, Bobby responds with resentment towards them both. This resentment leads Bobby to further ignore his little sister. With the two of them growing further and further apart, Nancy feels the need to take a more proactive step in encouraging Bobby to interact. She again talks to him about how much his little sister misses him. Bobby just sits there and does not respond to his mom. This pattern of interaction helps to describe the third theorem that states, "The nature of a relationship is contingent upon the punctuation of the communicational sequences between the communicants. (Watzlawick et al., 1967)." The difficult thing about this axiom is the reinforcement of the punctuation is hard to identify and therefore difficult to change. Nancy thinks her son is withdrawing more and more, while Bobby views his mom's behavior as more and more harassing. The more Nancy tries to talk to her son, the more distant he becomes. This sets up perfectly the nag-withdrawal scenario as described by Watzlawick et al. (1967). Nancy and Bobby engage in an intense interaction of reality distortion where both participants see their actions as mere responses to the others stimuli. This disables either of them from changing their action, which could change, in effect, the stimuli and thus the interaction.

The digital aspect of a relationship can in some ways run parallel to the content of the relationship. When Nancy talks to her son there is specific information that she presents to him. The facts that the sister misses him, and that spending more time with her is a viable solution are both presented digitally. Although, as previously mentioned the digital and analogic aspects of communication coexists in an interaction. The mother is using the words in a digital, syntax, manner. The meaning, however, that is developed from the words and nonverbal manner that the mother is choosing are the analogic aspect. It is impossible to have one without the other because both digital and analogic contribute to communication. It is also equally hard to translate from one to another. Explaining what exactly it means for the sister to be "sad" (analogic) is much harder than just using the word "sad" digital.

Parent-child relationships often have a complementary style of interchange. For Bobby and his mom Nancy it is obvious they engage in this style of communication. This is obvious because both Nancy and Bobby's behavior are interlocked in nature and are dissimilar, yet they evoke the other behavior (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Since the complementary style can be associated with a power relation it is often hard to change the roles that each participant hold. It should not be assumed that one role is "good" and the other "bad", but rather understood that complementary styles can elicit roles based on social and cultural norms (Watzlawick et al., 1967).

The complementary style focuses on differences in the relationship, like that of a mother and son. Socially the roles that a mother and son hold are very different from say those of co-workers. The complimentary style has some similarities to the nag-withdrawal scenario present in axiom three. The interaction pattern is based on stimuli and response, one behavior (stimulus) that evokes another (response). This interlocked nature of the stimuli and response correlates to the interlocked nature of a complimentary relationship. Just like one stimulus elicits a response, one behavior elicits another.

Through the application of the five axioms of communication, Nancy and Bobby's relationship can be better understood. Each separate communication interaction has the possibility of having all five axioms applied and thoroughly analyzed. The specific interaction that was analyzed above resembles that of a pattern of interactions that result in a relationship. Thorough understanding of each single interaction would also help to explain the patterns that have resulted. Just as Watzlawick et al., state at the beginning of their article, these axioms are set forth tentatively and certainly more preliminary than exhaustive (1967). No matter how complexly stated, communication is a system and cannot simply be understood on a simple model of action and reaction (Birdwhistell, 1959).

The five axioms of communication as presented by Watzlawick et al. provide a specific lens by which to observe communication problems. There are two critiques that should be noted, however, in relation to this article. As Motley describes in his article "One Whether One Can (not) Not Communicate: An Examination via Communication Postulates," the idea of making communication and behavior synonymous is highly debated and controversial (1990). There is a large group of scholars that say communication is an intentional, although not necessarily conscious, exchange of information. Those same scholars would propose that not all behavior is intentional. There are some behaviors that are not other-directed and therefore not intentional. "If we assume that communication is a symbolic behavior, or that it involves encoding, or that is interactive or that it has a range of quality, than we should conclude that one can indeed not communicate" (Motley, 1990).

Although the critique of the first axiom could be seen as a big problem, it is still helpful to use the axiom to understand other aspects of interaction. For example, how non-verbal cues can affect a relationship and how the effort to not communicate can actually relay message content. Critiques of a theory do not necessarily discredit its validity, but rather point to problems that might exist outside of the frame of reference of that particular theory. For example, Rogers and Jones (1975) point out that while axiom five helps to describe cultural or social patterns that result in certain styles of interaction, there are also personality differences that can illicit the use of different styles. In their article, "Effects of Dominance Tendencies on Floor Holding and Interruption Behavior in Dyadic Interaction", they further develop axiom five by researching how certain dominant personality traits can lead to the use of complimentary or symmetrical styles of interaction. The thesis helps show that theories are not concrete, but rather objective. They introduce a way to frame a problem, which inherently focuses on certain aspects while steering clear of other aspects all together.

The five axioms of communication is a frame of reference that helps develop an understanding of the complexities of communication interactions. Although other valid theories exist outside of this frame, they are not any more or less prevalent. The five axioms of communication help give insight into why certain interaction patterns develop and why it is so difficult to change those patterns. Through the application of the five axioms situations like that of Nancy and her son Bobby can be broken apart and analyzed individually.

Works Cited

Motley, Michael T. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western journal of speech communication, 54, 1-20.

Rogers, W. T., & Jones, S. S. (1975) Effects of dominance tendencies on floor holding and interruption behavior in dyadic interaction. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 113–122.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Some tentative axioms of communication. In Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes (pp. 48-71). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.