the effect of receivers on communication

Those who receive them affect our thoughts and speech. Although we would like to think that what we say is a separate entity and independent of whom we are communicating with, but I realize more and more that my thoughts are affected by how I perceive the thoughts and reactions of those around me. To think of language in this way gives a new perspective on communication.

Now that we are all technically adults, in the cultural sense of the word, we come to think that our emotions and drivers have moved above those that affect school children. That is, that with our every word and action we do no think as much about “will we be liked” or “will they think I’m cool”. In the past when I have thought about the motive for speech by my elders, I have thought that what they say is their thoughts. I felt that they spoke “true” to what they believe or what they are trying to express. As I begin to dissect the communication and speech patterns of those who are educated, more and more I see that they are looking for the same validation as the kids in the schoolyard.

If we look at politicians we can see the effect that receivers have on communication in a very straightforward manner. It is hard to argue that politicians don’t stretch the truth, or impossible to argue. So what point does it serve to consciously say something to a group and not deliver on that statement, obviously it is to gain the support of the constituents and be elected. In the political realm the constituents have some general opinion and that affects what the politician has to say in the strictest sense. An example of this was presented in today’s New York Times regarding President Obama’s new plan to double U.S. exports.

In promising Wednesday night to double the United States’ export growth over the next fiver years, President Obama set an ambitious goal for American trade policy that, he said, could create two million jobs.

The touble, trade experts say, is that meeting that goal would require the president to engage in a fight to the death with the liberal wing of his own party, persuade China to allow its currency to appreciate 40 percent, get global economic growth to outperform the salad says from 2003 to 2007, and lower taxes for American companies that do business abroad.

And while he is at it forget about strengthening the dollar in the foreseeable future.

Since the Obama administration has not yet clearly articulated a trade policy or even sent several completed trade agreements to Congress, his pledge to double exports in five years was greeted with incredulity, even among Democratic trade policy experts.

In an effort to please the public it seems that Obama has made a statement that many think cannot be fulfilled. It has been one year since we elected our current president, and there has been much talk about what he has done during his first year in office and what he hasn’t done. Many have come to the conclusion that it hasn’t been much and what he has done hasn’t helped, and these types of conclusions seem to be a given in today’s partisan politics. It seems that this mounting pressure and criticism has led Obama to make a statement that is not necessarily feasible. Looking for validation it seems the language was formed on what the receivers want to hear. This may seem obvious in this example, but why does this point not carry over to a work of fiction or casual talk.

I recently experienced a conversation where those I was speaking to were not able to comment on my thoughts. There was no “yes”, “I see”, “Gotcha”, or even head or facial expressions. Although I didn’t see much difference in that conversation as in previous encounters in my life. Since that experience I have noticed how much influence a confirming head nod has on my thought process. It is as if I feed off of that little validation and instantly change what I’m going to say in an effort to get more, in an effort to feel cooler or smarter to those who I’m speaking with.

With the experiences in my everyday life and examples I read about in politics supporting the thought that the receivers have a very strong impact on communication it is hard for me to think that the work of an author writing in his study is not equally impacted by the perceived reaction of those he is writing for. So who is actually writing what we read?

In what context?

Why is the thought of something living off of our bodies so unnerving? When the majority of people hear the word parasite they quiver and images of grotesque worms come to mind, but what draws the line between the parasitism of a hookworm and that of me and why is one worse than the other?

Comparable to the parasites in shivers, humans leech off of their surroundings in many ways. In means of food we cannot sustain ourselves, we crave validation on actions and thoughts, and long for some form of social interaction. It can be argued that these actions don’t benefit our surroundings in any matter. Our effect on those around us may not cause such a drastic change as a parasite that makes one thirst for lust and bring on rape, homosexuality, or incest. However there are those who live their lives in this way, and who is to say what causes them to be different from the “norm”. Are lifestyles where one enjoys/loathes rape, incest, and homosexuality a product of natural endorphins, or are they the product of information, experience, and ideas that someone has fed off since birth. It is difficult to prove one idea is correct over another, because societal relations play a large part in what is what is right and wrong. For that reason, the thought of humans as parasites is foreign. If someone compares many of their daily actions to the actions of a parasite the differences are small, especially if taken out of their respective context.

When is incest okay, when is polygamy accepted, and why is bride-burning tolerable? All of these actions are received by people in different religions, locations, or communities, and at the same time draw intense emotions of disgust and hatred in other groups of people. In comparing these actions to parasitism, we communicate our ideas about them in a way that is socially accepted. This context, makes them good or bad. The idea of context is ambiguous and always changing, as Derrida tries to explain to us.

In some prophetic way, it seems Darrida is trying to convince us that context only limits ideas and communication. If this is true than it is possible that by taking something out of context we will be able to understand it more clearly. Similar to the way experiencing a different culture can give insight or clarity to seemingly mundane tasks or experiences of everyday life.

So to take the concept of a parasite out of the context of a gross bug that lives inside an animal or plant and sucks it’s blood or what have you, and look at it in a literal definitive way as something, anything, that lives on or in a location… lets say Bellingham, or our Mother Earth… and it is nourished by this host with out killing it, maybe by eating the plants around the area, (the second part of that last statement is a little less comparable, with all the ideas of global warming, land degradation, deforestation, and so on floating around out there.) is it a stretch to call us humans parasites?

Perhaps we are the greatest of parasites, one whose actions seem so normal and accepted that how could they be compared to those of a lowly hookworm. How are we to say that the hookworm thinks any less of his actions, or maybe justifies how he lives by comparing it to how we live… Ehh well in comparison I’m not that bad, says the hookworm…

Never thinking in this manner before, it is now funny why the thought of a parasite living inside me is so repulsive and why a movie such as shivers evokes such strong emotions of a foreign being. One that is drastically different from me.

Although, it’s not that foreign to Marriam and Webster, whose number one definition of a parasite is:

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery