Fundamental principles of the Pragmatics of Human Communication

The best school, in the world, in this discipline is the School of Paolo Alto- Institute of Mental Health. It has developed this discipline as an interdisciplinary science, a mixture of anthropology, psychiatry and communication science. It has developed in a context where communication is extremely important: in the Silicon Valley, in California.

Now, what are the basic ideas of this school?

From the point of view of the Pragmatics of Human Communication, the classical model of the transmitter-media-receiver is far too limited. In the classical model, there is only one flow of information. Of course, there are "corrected" classical models which allow for some sort of "duplex" mode of communication: the sender alternatively becomes the receiver. But the pragmatic school says that this also is too limited: the act of communication is always happening simultaneously from the transmitter to the receiver and from the receiver to the transmitter. In each moment, there are at least two transmitters and two receivers. Be careful! At each moment! We cannot really distinguish a sender from a receiver, because both ends of the communication process are simultaneously sending and receiving. On a superficial level, we may notice that one speaks, then stops speaking and starts listening. But while listening, one continues to send messages through body language, orientation of the attention, sounds of appreciation, etc. The classical model of communication is an abstract one: in the real process of communication the two ends are not at the "end" at all: they are sharing the same field!

This is the first important assumption of this school. What does this imply?

A teacher is talking to some students in the class. Students are listening, not speaking. But from the way the students look back, they generate emotions that deeply affects what the teacher says and how the teacher says that. So even teaching, which may seem to be just a one-way process, is in fact bi-directional and both sides are equally important in setting the communication ground. But only the ground? What takes place in the class is as much a product of what the teacher says as it is of the way of sitting and watching of the students. In fact, what really matters is the interaction which is taking place.

What I’m telling the students are ideas that are entering into my mind in that moment. I have a certain cultural background. And I may have prepared some notes. But what comes to my mind in the moment of speaking is a result of the actual living interaction. From the way students are sitting, they are communicating their interest to me and also their level of comprehension. As I proceed in the discourse, I change what I am telling them. And not only on the intellectual level, but also on the human level. If I respect the students, they will respect me; and if I feel challenged, I will challenge them. The formal "content" of the communication may not change (I am following a standard curriculum); but in fact the communication and the teaching will be completely different.