COMMUNICAnON: ITS BLOCKING

AND ITS FACILITATION'

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42581028?read- CARL R. ROGHRS
now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
T curious that a person whose whole profe»ional efo
f rt
I to psychotherapy should be- interested in problems of communication.
WAY SEEM

What
rclationmip is there: between providing therapeutic help to individuals with
emotional maladjustments and the concern of this conference with obstacles to
communication? Actually thc: relationship is vc:ry close indeed. The whole task
of psy<:hotherapy is the tuk of dealing with a failure in communication. The
emotiona.lly mab.djlUlt'd person, the "neurotic," is in difficulty first bc'Uusc com·
munication within himself hu broken down, and second bccalUC as a result of
this his communiution with others hu bc-en dun.lgN. If this sounds somewhat
Itnnge, then l� me put it in other terms. In the neurotic
" " individual, pam of
himself which hive been termed unconsciow, or repressed, or denied to aware­
[leu, become blocked off so that they no longer communicate themselves to the
COJUCious or manasins part of himself. Al long as this is true, there ar c distor­
tions in the way he communicates himself to others, and so he suffers both within
bimself, and in his interpersonal relations. The task: of psychotherapy is to help
tbe persoo Ichio-e, through a special relationship with a thcnpist, good com·
munication within himself. On ce this is achieved he can communicate more freely
and more effectively with others. We may say then that psychotherapy is good
communication, within and between men. We may also turn that statement
U'ounJ and it will stll be true. Good communication, frce communication,
i

within or between men,is always ther3 pcutic.

It ii, then, from a background of experience with communication in counsel·
ing and psychotherapy that I want to prescnt here two ideas. I wish to state
whit I believe is one or the major factors in blocking or impeding communica·
tion, and then I wish to present what in our experience has proven to be a very
important way of improving or facilitati ng communication.

� This �per "'1$ oriAinal!r pr��t«l on Oc:robff 11. 1911, �r North...est�rn Un;.
�rsity·s Cm�nnill Conftrmcc on Communications. It also Ippe-an in Ih� Nonhwestern
Uninnir, publication. C",.. ",...ir.-JiuJ j" T"J"':tJ W",lJ. which teSuhM from the Con.
fetencc. Dr. Jl.ogC1'1 il Prnfcuof of Psychology 111M University of o.;n8O and IUlhOf of
C..,...r'/i",nJ Pl1CIHUb"." (1942) .nd Clhll,.CuJ.mJ Tb,,4', (19H).

"
ETC.: A REVIEW OF GENERAL SEMANTICS VOL. IX, NO. 1

to propose, an hypothesi$ for coruideration, IMt the major

I barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency
WOULD UK!! u

to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the $tatement of the other person,

or tbe other group. Let me illustrate my meaning with some very simple ex­

amples. /\.$ you lene the meeting tonight, one of the statements }'OU are likely
to hear is, " I didn't like that man's talk." Now what do you respond? Almost
invariably your reply will be either approval or disapprova.l of the attitude
expressed, Either you respond, "I didn't either. 1 thought it wu tt'crible," or else
you tend to reply, "Oh, I thought it was realJy good." In other words, your
primary reaction is to enlu.tte what has just � said to you, to evaltute it from
JDII' point of view, your own frame of reference.
Or take another example. Suppose 1 say with some feeling, "I think tht'
Republicaru are behaving in waY' that show a lot of good sound sense thC$C
days," what is tht' responSt' that arises in your mind as you listen? The ovt'r·
whelming likelihood is that it will be evaluative. You will find yourself agreeing,
or disagreeing, or making some judgmt'nt about me such u "He must be a
conservative," or "He seems solid in his thinking." Or let us tlke an illustration
from the internationll scene. Russ il says vt'hementiy, "The treaty with Japan
is a W;U' plot o n the part of the United States." We rise as one person to say
'"11u.t's a lie!"

HIS illustration briogs in another element connected with mr hypothesis.

TAlthough the tendency
LAST

to make evaluations is common in almost all inter·

mange of language, it is very much heightened in those situations where feelin85
:lJld emotions are deeply involved. So the stronger OUr feclings, the more likely
it is that there will be no mutual element in the communiC11tion. nlere will be
just two ideas, t1VO feelings, two judgments, missing each other i n psychological
space. I'm sure you recogni!.e this from your own experience. When )'OU have
not hem emotionally involved yourself, and have listened to a heated discussion,
you often go away thinking. "Well, they KtU3.lly weren't talking about the S.tJTle
thing." And they were not. £Uh was making a judgment, In evaluation, from
his own frame of reference. There wa:s rnlly nothing which could be called
communication in lny genuine sense. This tendency to ract to any emotionally
meaningful sbtement by fonning an �uation of it from our own point of
vit'W, is, I repeat, the major barrier to interpersonal communication.
But is there any way of solving this problem, of avoiding this barrier� 1 feci
that we are making exciting progress toward this goal and I would like to
present it as simply as 1 can. Real communication occurs, Ind this evaluative
tendency is avoided, wht'n we listen with understanding. What does that mean?
It means Ihe txpftlud idea and allilude from the olher ptrSDn's point of
/0 Itt

view, tD unle how ;1 fuls 10 him, to tUhieve hiJ frllme of referenre ;n regard
10 Ihe thing hi is talkin flholil.
 .� .. �..
.-.
..-
..�..
� � ..
.. �.

It means 10 Jet th� uprtued id�a and all;lude f10m Ih� �/h�r perron'J point of
/li�w, to unu how il fulr 10 him, l� IUhine hiJ fram� of "flrmCt in regard
10 Ih� thing he is talking abolll.
WIHTU 19�2 COMMUNICATION: ITS ULOCKING AND ITS F....OLlT....TlON

T"TEO briefly, this may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. It is an at>­
S
$0

pr�ch which we have found e:xtremely potent in the field of psychotherapy.

It is the most effective agent we know for altering the basic personality structure
of an individual, and improving his relationships and his communications with
others. If I can listen to what he can tell me, if I can underst:lnd how it semiS

to him, if I can 5ee its personal meaning for him, if I can sense: the emotional
Ravor which i t hu for him, then I will be releasing potent forces of change: in
him. If I can really understand how he h�te5 his father. or hates the university,
or hates communists-if I can catch the flavor of his fear of inunity, or his
fear of atom bombs, or of Runia-it wjJI be of the greatest help to him i n
altering those very hatreds and fears. and i n establishing realistic and harmoni­
ous relationships with the \' ery people and situations toward which he hu felt
hatred and fear. We know from our rescarch that such empathic understanding­
understanding with a person, nOl about him-is such an effective approach that
it cln bring lbout major changes in personality.
Some of you may be feeling that you listen well to people, and that you
ha\'e never seen such results. The chances arc: very grelt indeed tlut your listen­
ing has not been of the type I have described. Fortunately I can suggest a Hille
laboratory experiment which )'0\1 can try to test the quality of your under­
standing. The next time }'ou get into an argument with your wife, or your
frirnd, or with a sma!! group of friends, just stop the discussion for a moment
and for an experiment, institute this rule. "Each pcrson can speak u p for him­
self only a/I" he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previow spaker
accurately, and to that speaker's satisfaction:' You see what this would mean.
It would simply mean that before presenting your own point of view, it would
be: necessary for you to really Ichieve the other speaker's frame of reference­
to understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarize them
for him. Sounds simple doesn't it? Out if )'00 try it you will discover it one
of the most difficult things you have ever tried to do. HO""ever, once you hive
been able to see the other's point of vicw, )'OI.Ir own comments will have to be
drastically reviJed. You will also find the emotion going out of the discussion,
the differenc� being reduced, and those: differences which remain being of l

rational and understandable sort.

Can you imagine what this kind of an approach would mean i f it were pro­
jectc:d into larger areas? What would happen to a labor.management dispute if it
wu conducted in such a way that labor, without nc:ceuarily agreeing, could accu­
ntely state management' s point of vicw in a way that mlnagement could Iccept;
and management, without approving labor's stand, could state labor's case: in a
way that Jabor .greed w:u acrnrate? It would mean that real communica.tion was
e:st.bli1hed, and one could practically guarantee that some re:uonble solution
would be reached.
If then this way of approach is an effective .venue to good communication
ETC.: A REVIEW OF GENERAL SEMANTICS VOl.. IX, NO. l

and good relationships. a s I am quite sure you will agree if you try the experi.
ment I have mentioned, why is it not more widely tried and wed? I will try to
list the difficulties which k«p it from being utilized.

N it lUes courage, a quality which is not too widespread.

I
THE FIRST PLACE

I am indebted to Dr. S. I. Harakawa, the semanticist, for pointing out that

to carry 00 psychotherapy in this fashion is t o take a veq- real risk, and that
courage is required. If you really understand another person in this way, if you
are willing to enter his private world and sec the way life appears to him, with·
out any attempt 10 make evaluative judgments, you run the risk of being: changed
yourself. You might sec it his way, you might nnd youudf influenced in your
attitudes or your pel"$Onality. This risk of being changed il one of the most

frightening prospects most of us can face. If I enter, as fully as I am able, into

the private world of a neurotic or psychotic individtu..!, isn'l there a risk that
1 might become lost in that world? MOM of us are afraid to take that risk. Or
if we had a R\l$5ian communist speaker here tonight. or Senator joe McCarthy,
how many o f u s would dare to try to see the world from each of these points
of view? The great majority of u.s could not lis/tn; we would find ourselves
compelled to 1f/4/114/1, because listening would seem too dangerous. So the fiN':
requirement is courage, lnd we do not always have it.
But there is a 5«ond obstacle. It is just: when emotions are strongest: th1t
il is most difficult to achieve the frame of reference of the other person or
group. Yet it is the time the attitude i$ most needed, if communiCltion is to
be established. We have not found thu to be an insuperable obsIule in our
experiefl('e in psychotherapy. A third party, who is able to lay uide his own
{CC'lings and n-a.luatioru, can assist greatly by listening with undC'rstanding to
each person or group and darif)'ing the viCOW$ and attitudC's C'ach holds. WC'
�ve found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or
rotagonistic attitudes exist. When the parties to a dispute reali�e that they arC'
being understood, that somC'One stC1 how the s;tu�tion seems to rhC'm, the stat�
ments grow less exaggerated and lesJ defC'nsive, �nd it is no longC'r neceuary
to maintain the attitude, "I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong." The
influence of such a n understanding (Ita.lyst in the group permits the members
to come closer and closer to the objective truth invoked in the relationship.
In this way mutual communication is established and some type of agreement
becomes much more possible. So we may say tlut though heightened emotions
make it much more difficult to understand wirh an opponent, our C'xp<'riencC'
makes it clear that a neutral, underst:a.nding, catalyst type of leader or thC'rapist
(an overcomC' this obstacle in a small gmup.
Thil last phrase, however, suggests another obstacle 10 utili�ing the approach
J have described. Thus far .111 our ex-peric:nce has bc:c:n with sma.ll face·to.
face groups-gTOupS eJ:hibiting industrial tensions. religiOUS tensions. racial ten·
 COMWl./NICATION: ITS BLOCKING AND JTS FAOUTATlON

sions, and therapy groups in which many personal tensions are prnent. In thae
smaIl groups our experience. confinned by a limited amount o( rl'SC1rch, sho,"
that Ihis basic approach leads to improved commu nication, to greatt'r acceptam:e
of others and by others. and to attitudes which are more positive and more
problem·solving in nature. There is a decreue in defensiveness, in enggerated
statements, in evaluative and critical behavior. But these findings are from
small groups. What about trying to achieve understanding between larger groups
that are geographically remote? Or between face-to-race groups who are not
speaking (or themselves, but simply as representatives of otbers, like the dele­
gates at Kaesang? Frankly we do not know the: answers to these questions.
I bt'lieve the situation might be put this way. As social scientists we have a
tentative test·tube solution of the: problem of breakdown in communication. But
to continn the validity of this te$l:-tuhl:' solution, and to adlpt it to the enormous
problems of rommunication·brealcdown between classes, groups, and nations,
would involve additional Cunds. much more rexarch, Ind creative thinking
a high order.

VEN our present limited knowledge steps which mig.

E taken, even in large groups. to increue the amount of listening
WITH we can It'e JOrDe

hi:' and lilith,

to decrease the anloont of evaluation dOIiI. To be imaginative for a moment, let
us suppose that a therapeutically oriented in.ternational group went to the Russiln
leaders Ind said, "We want to achieve a gc:nuillt' understanding of your views
and even more important, of your Ittitudes and feelings, toward the United
States. We will summarize and mommarize these views and fcelings if necessary,
until you agree that our description represents the situation as it seems to you."
Then suppose th� did the same thing with tN- I�den in OUf own country. If
they then gave the widest possible distribution to these two views, with the:
feelings cl�rl, described but not expressed in name-nUing. might not the effect
be vc-ry gI'C1lt? It would not guuanlce the type of understanding I have been
describing, but it would make it much more possible. We can undersnnd the
feelings of a person who hates us much more readily when his attitudes are
accurately described to us by a nc:utrn thi rd party. than w e can when he: is
shaking his list at us.

But even to describe such a first step is t o suggest another obstacle to this
approach of undeutmding. Our civiliution does not yd have enough faith in
the social sciences to utilize their findings. The opposite is true of the pbysic:al
sciences. During the war wht'n a test·tube solution was found to the: problem
of synthctic rubber. millions of dollars and an um, of talent was turned 100JC:
on lhe problem of using that finding. If syntheti rubber could be made in
milligrams, it could and would be made in the thousands of tons. And it w:as.
But in the social science r�lm. if a way is found of facilitating communication
Itld mutual understanding in s.maII group'. there is no guanntcc that the finding
ETC.: A REVieW OF GENERAL SEMANTICS VO�. IK, NO. 2

win be utilized. It may be a generation or more before the money and the brains
will be turned 1()()$C to �][ploit that finding.

N CLOSING, I would lik� to 5Umrnaliz� this small·scale solution to the prob­

I lem of bacriers in communication, and to point out ccrtain of its ch aracteristics.

I hav� said that our research and �xperienc� to dat� would make it .ppear
that br�akdowns in communication, and the evaluath'C tendency which is the
major i»nier to communication, can be avoided. The solution is provided by
creating a situation in which exh of the diJJ�rent parties come to understand
the other from the olh,r'J point of view. This has been achieved, in practice,
even when feelings run high, by the influence of a person who is willing to
und�rstand each point of view empathical1y, and who thus acts as a catalyst
to prcripitat� further understanding.
This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party,
without waiting for the other to be ready. I t can even be i nitiated by a nn/tn.!
third person, providing 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 communi·
cation. Thest defe nsive distortions drop away with astonishing s�d as people
lind that the only intent is to understand, not judge.
This approach leads steadily and rapidly toward th� discovery of thc truth,
toward a realistic appraisal of the objective bacri�rs to communication. The
dropping of some defensivCllCS3 by one party leads to further dropping of dc·
fensiveness by the oth�r pa.rty, and truth is thus apprcnched.
This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communi·
cation tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rath�r than toward attack·
ing a person or group. It leads to a $ituation in which I see how the problem
appears to you, as well as to me, and you see how it appears 10 me, as well as
to you. Thus accurately and realistically d�fined, the problem is almost certain
to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably
accepted as such.

HIS THEN APPEAIt.S to be test·tube solution to the breilkdown of communi·

Tntion as it occurs in small groups. Can v,'e take this small scale answer, in·
a

vcstig.u� it further, refine it, develop it and apply it to the tragic and well.nigh
fatal failures of communication which threaten the very existence of our modem
world� It sc-ems to me that this is a possibility and a challenge which � should
explore.