When we communicate we also tell to to the counterpart how we portray our relationship: as superior, inferior or as equal. And the other does the same. We feel comfortable  if the counterpart con organization our interpretation (he/she acts as inferior while we proposed us as superior, etc.); we feel uncomfortable if the counterpart refuses our interpretation and proposes one that we think it is unacceptable ( (e-g- both the counterparts wants to be considered as reciprocally superior).

Another factor of uneasiness can be the modality of interpreting and otherwise established hierarchy:  the hierarchical order is established as functional to the achievement of specific objectives or is it expression of a natural superiority/inferiority amongst the persons?

In any case the reciprocal definition of roles is never static: the constant redefinition or reiteration of the relationship represent the axis upon which interpersonal communication moves.  Along with the processes of communication therefore, are constantly redefined the spheres of competence, the sectors where one is superiors to the other are better defined, it is better understood how much there are common stakes and common interests and how much interests are diverging or become effective.

So we can say that communication is the process through which social ties are established   and that there is no community (or society) without group identity: this identity is formed when communication achieves its objective

The objective of communication is achieved when a group of "I"s accept to identify themselves as a "we" (with a common purpose and common stakes).

For most of the time the communication about the relationship is not explicit.  Most of the time in communication is spent referring to to the "objective" world (beyond their relationship). So  reciprocal interpersonal intentions are clarified implicitly, by the way people communicates and relates to each other.

Only rarely messages refers explicitly to the human relationship. In fact to communicate about "things" is easier then communicating about "relationships". In order to be explicit about the relationship one need a higher level of intimacy.

Technically to communicate about the relationship is considered a way of "communicating about communication" :   that is why it is defined as "meta-communication ".

It is important to realize that in each human relationship we can find elements of solidarity and elements of  competition.  

In fact each indivisual is at the same time in a communion of interests with the other in the organization of the economical and cultural structure of the social system where she lives and work; and in competition with the others in the effort of getting for herself as many good things produced by this system. Along this dynamics various smaller social units are generated, that are also at the same time in solidarity and in competition amongst themsellves, and produce various forms of unions and alliances. Along this dynamic of simultaneus solidarity¾competition are formed varius levels of social aggregation.  

Technically we call competition the   the zero-sum and solidarity the the positive sum in social gaming.

Communication is what allows us to manage the reciprocal conflic of interests maintaining the bound of solidarioty for the achievement of the shared objectives.  

See also:

• Nonverbal Communication
• The impossibility of not communicating
• The difference between the analogous and the digital symbols
• The punctualisation of the process of communication
• The concept of meta-communication
• Meta-communication is based on reciprocity and on a hierarchy of levels
• The concept of meta-communication

• The varieties of social games: the zero-sum and the positive sum games
• The punctualisation of the process of communication
• Meta-communication is based on reciprocity and on a hierarchy of levels
• The relationship between "power" and "authority"
• Solidarity and competition