Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/communicationsocOOinrues

COMMUNICATION

The Social Matrix of Psychiatry

COMMUNICATION

THE SOCIAL MATRIX OF PSYCHIATRY

Jurgen Ruesch, M.D.

AND

Gregory Bateson

W • W • NORTON if COMPANY • INC • New York

Copyright, 1951, by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

First Edition

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE PUBLISHERS BY THE VAIL-BALLOU PRESS

CONTENTS

1. VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE:

An Introduction 3

by Jurgen Ruesch

2. COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN

RELATIONS:

An Interdisciplinary Approach 21

by Jurgen Ruesch

3. COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS:

A Psychiatric Approach 50

by Jurgen Ruesch

4. COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES:

A Psychological Approach g4

by Jurgen Ruesch

5. AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES:

An Integrative Approach 135

by Jurgen Ruesch

vi CONTENTS

6. COMMUNICATION AND THE SYSTEM OF

CHECKS AND BALANCES:

An Anthropological Approach 150

by Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson

7. INFORMATION AND CODIFICATION:

A Philosophical Approach 168

by Gregory Bateson

8. CONVENTIONS OF COMMUNICATION:

Where Validity Depends upon Belief 212

by Gregory Bateson

9. PSYCHIATRIC THINKING:

An Epistemological Approach 228

by Gregory Bateson

10. THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENCE AND

PSYCHIATRY 257

by Gregory Bateson

11. INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, AND CULTURE:

A Review of the Theory of Human Communica- tion 273

by Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson

REFERENCES 290

INDEX 303

COMMUNICATION

The Social Matrix of Psychiatry

1- VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE: An Introduction

By Jurgen Ruesch

Today, in the middle of the twentieth century, scientists and clinicians alike strive for mutual understanding. To renounce dogmatic views and to abandon scientific isolation is the fashion of our time. Psychiatrists have moved out of the enclosing walls of mental institutions and have found a new field of activity in the general hospitals of the community and in private practice. The transformation of the former alienist into a modern therapist and the change from static to dynamic principles necessitated a revision of psychiatric theories. While, in the past, theories of personality were concerned with one single individual, modern psychiatrists have come to the realization that such theories are of little use, because it is necessary to see the individual in the context of a social situation. Our technical civilization has re- duced the intellectual isolation of people to a minimum, and modern means of communication and transportation accelerate the dissemination of information to such an extent that in the not too distant future we can expect that no individual or group will be able to escape such influences for long.

The authors have attempted in this book, which is dedicated to a presentation of the broader aspects of communication, to conceptualize interpersonal and psychotherapeutic events by con- sidering the individual within the framework of a social situa- tion. Focusing upon the larger societal systems, of which both

psychiatrist and patient are an integral part, necessitated the de-

3

4 COMMUNICATION

velopment of concepts which would encompass large-scale events as well as happenings of an individual nature. We have sketched this relationship in a unified theory of communication, which would encompass events which link individual to individual, events which link the individual to the group, and ultimately, events of world-wide concern.

In the course of our investigation we had to examine the posi- tion of psychiatry within the framework of social science. Special attention was paid to the management of scientific information about the behavior of people and the interrelation of data ob- tained at the individual, group, and societal levels. We refer par- ticularly to the dialectical difficulties which develop when the scientist operates at different levels of abstraction. To facilitate the consideration of an event, first within the narrower context of an individual organism, and then within the framework of a larger societal system, the concept of the social matrix was used. The term "social matrix," then, refers to a larger scientific system, of which both the psychiatrist and the patient are integral parts. This larger system, however, is of no immediate concern to the psychiatrist or to the patient at the time of interaction. Devoting attention to a particular subject matter, and delineating a cir- cumscribed set of events, the limited concerns of the doctor- patient teams may not immediately affect the larger universe. Nonetheless, the smaller system is a part of the larger system; and conclusions drawn within this smaller system may become inaccurate or even invalid when seen in the framework of the wider over-all system.

This phenomenon we have related to the more general prob- lem of "part and whole" (151). The physician and the psychiatrist, in their work, repeatedly deal with relationships between one cell and the surrounding tissue; one organ within an organism; an individual within the family group; a family within the com- munity; and ultimately, perhaps, the community within the framework of the nation, and the nation within the United Na- tions, These varied foci of interest are usually watched and studied by different disciplines, all using their own concepts and their separate technical languages. Such divisions, though useful at one stage, can become merely obstructions at a later stage.

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 5

Therefore, in order to facilitate progress, we propose to use one single system for the understanding of the multiple aspects of human behavior. As of today, we believe that communication is the only scientific model which enables us to explain physical, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cultural aspects of events within one system. By the use of one single system we eliminate the multiplicity of single universes, the multifarious vocabularies, and the controversies which arise because we, the scientists and clinicians, cannot understand each other. To introduce the reader to such a system of explanation in its application to the field of psychiatry the present volume has been written.

At this time the reader may ask what, if any, relationship exists between communication and the variety of topics which are pre- sented in this volume. In reply we ask him to bear with us for a little while until such time as we have been able to demonstrate how value theory, psychiatric thinking, and observations about the American culture are intimately connected. We hope to show that these multifarious features which are included under the heading of social matrix are the silent determinants of our means of communication, and that communication is the link which connects psychiatry with all other sciences. It is well to remember that almost all phenomena included under the traditional head- ing of psychopathology are disturbances of communication and that such disturbances are in part defined by the culture in which they occur. Contemporary psychiatric theories were imported from Europe by Europeans, and inasmuch as psychiatric theories are implicitly theories of communication, they must undergo modification and progressive change when transplanted from one country to another. Therefore, considerable time and space have here been devoted to an understanding of the American system of communication and its implicit influence upon psychiatric practices and thinking.

At first sight, problems of communication seem to be of only secondary interest to the student of individual behavior. People act on their own, they do things alone, and at times they manage, exploit, coerce, or kill others without announcing their intention of doing so. But communication does not refer to verbal, explicit, and intentional transmission of messages alone; as used in our

6 COMMUNICATION

sense, the concept of communication would include all those processes by which people influence one another. The reader will recognize that this definition is based upon the premise that all actions and events have communicative aspects, as soon as they are perceived by a human being; it implies, furthermore, that such perception changes the information which an individual possesses and therefore influences him. In a social situation, where several people interact, things are even more complicated.

When persons convene, things happen. People have their feel- ings and thoughts, and both while they are together and after- wards, they act and react to one another. They themselves per- ceive their own actions, and other people who are present can likewise observe what takes place. Sensory impressions received and actions undertaken are registered; they leave some traces within the organism, and as a result of such experiences people's views of themselves and of each other may be confirmed, altered, or radically modified. The sum total of such traces, accumulated through the years by thousands of experiences, forms a person's character and determines in part the manner in which future events will be managed. The impressions received from the sur- roundings, from others, and from the self, as well as the retention of these impressions for future reference, can all be considered as being integral parts of a person's communication system. Inas- much as a person's way of responding to perceived events neces- sitates the forwarding of messages to the peripheral effector organs, the intra-organismic network is conveniently considered as a part of the larger interpersonal, or even superpersonal (cul- tural) network.

What, then, the reader may ask, is not communication? In order to answer this problem, we must investigate the questions which a scientist wishes to answer. Where the relatedness of entities is considered, we deal with problems of communication; when entities are considered in isolation from one another, problems of communication are not relevant. To be interested in communication therefore becomes synonymous with assuming a definite scientific position with a viewpoint and interests focusing upon human relations. However, the scientific investigation of communication is made difficult by the fact that we have to com-

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 7

municate in order to investigate communication. Inasmuch as it is impossible to fix at any one moment our position as observers, we are never quite sure of that which we purport to observe. We can never abstain from communicating, and as human beings and members of a society, we are biologically compelled to com- municate. Our sense organs are constantly on the alert and are registering the signals received, and inasmuch as our effector or- gans are never at rest, we are, at the same time, continually transmitting messages to the outside world. Therefore, our bio- logical need to receive and transmit messages is in some ways a handicap to the investigation of the scientific processes of com- munication. In order to overcome this difficulty, it is necessary for us to make a structural assumption regarding the state of signs and signals within our own organism. This end result of percep- tion and transmission we refer to as information.

The acquisition and retention of information is paramount in any system of communication. In order to retain some traces of messages received and sent, and in order to evaluate these, the human organism is equipped to detect common features in apparently diverse events. The elements or patterns which are common to a variety of happenings are of necessity abstract, and it is these abstract relationships which are retained by the or- ganism. However, in order to proceed with abstraction, the organism must be exposed to a sufficient number of events which contain the same factors. Only then is a person equipped to cope with the most frequent happenings that he may encounter. If a person is able to predict events, and if he possesses the ability to cope with certain happenings, he is said to have relevant information. As far as we know, that which is referred to as in- formation consists of an arrangement of nervous impulses and connections. This arrangement must consist of relationships which are systematically derived from those among the original events outside the organism.

In the social sphere, the acquisition of information about relatedness to people occurs through continuity and consistency of exposure to similar social events; it begins with the child's experiences with his mother, then with members of his family, and later with contemporaries at school and on the playground.

8 COMMUNICATION

The youngster learns from adults and from his age mates to follow rules and to master the obstacles which he encounters. The repetitive character of social events teaches people to react in stereotyped ways; and stereotyped behavior creates, of course, stereotyped surroundings. Therefore, when we speak of a so- cial matrix, in which interpersonal events take place, we refer to the repetitive and consistent bombardments with stimuli to which human beings are exposed. These originate, on the one hand, in the social behavior of other people and, on the other hand, in the objects, plants, and animals with which people surround themselves. Gradually the stimuli perceived and the responses chosen become stylized; the stimulus shapes the re- sponse, and once the response has been learned, the individual is conditioned to seek those stimuli which will elicit his learned responses. This whole process can be compared to the bed which a river cuts into the surface of the earth. The channel is formed by the water, but the river banks also control the direction of flow, so that a system of interaction is established in which cause and effect can no longer be isolated. Stimulus and response are thus welded into a unit; this unit we shall refer to as "value."

Values are therefore, so to speak, simply preferred channels of communication or relatedness. Information about the values which people hold enables us to interpret their messages and to influence their behavior. Values are not only characteristic of an individual but are also held by groups of people and by whole cultures. The reader will recognize that as soon as in- terpretation of messages is considered, no clear distinction can be made between communication theory, value theory, and anthropological statements about culture. This combination of features is the medium in which we all operate; therefore we refer to it as the social matrix.

As individuals we are usually not fully aware of the existence of this social matrix. Unable fully to encompass the effects of our own actions upon others, and because of our limited human perspective, we are unlikely to grasp the magnitude and nature of what happens. When we quarrel with a family member, or when we attempt to explain the reasons for a rise in the price of butter, we tend to treat such incidents as unique; thus,

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 9

unaware that thousands of other people might have similar ex- periences, we blame our relatives or we curse the grocer. As a matter of fact our behavior in such situations is already both a response to other people's reactions and a stimulus for their behavior. Our personal and interpersonal concerns, the im- mediate foci of our daily life, make it difficult for us to appre- ciate fully the wider aspects of social events. Therefore, in this book, we have made it our task to illustrate some of the relations which exist between individual, group, and culture. While for the average person it is quite sufficient to possess some practical working knowledge of these matters, the psychiatrist, in addition, must possess explicit and systematic knowledge of these relation- ships if he wishes to help his patients. The relationship between superpersonal systems on the one hand, and interpersonal and individual systems on the other, is not merely a dialectic fancy of the scientist, but is embedded in the daily needs of the in- dividual, whose life and sanity require that he be able to com- municate successfully with other human beings. To the achieve- ment of this end the psychiatrist has dedicated his life.

After introducing our subject matter to the reader it might be worth while to say a word about the methods we used to study the social matrix. It is well to remember that regardless of whether the scientist studies psychiatric, social, or cultural phe- nomena, sooner or later he has to consider the individual. The only thing that differs is the data obtained from individuals. Therefore in carrying out this study we have found it convenient and necessary to keep clear in our thinking the differences be- tween the various sorts of data with which we have had to deal. Especially is this true of the differences between participant ex- perience and experimental operation, and between observation of behavioral acts and introspective reports. The fact must be faced that when a culture or subculture is studied as an integrated communication system, it is necessary to consider in the scheme of scientific operations the following circumstances:

(a) That the members of the population studied make gen- eralizations about their own culture.

(b) That the investigator observes interaction and communi-

10 COMMUNICATION

cation between the members of the population as a neutral spectator.

(c) That each member of the population has his own view of his own roles and can in some measure report these to the ob- server.

(d) Lastly, that the investigator obtains important insight from his own personal interaction with members of the population.

Each of these circumstances determines a particular way of collecting data, and it is necessary to insist that the data collected in any one of these ways are not the same, either in their order of abstraction or in the distortions which they introduce, as the data collected in one of the other ways. In general, it may be said that these four types of data are mutually corrective and that an undue specialization in any one of the four leads to a distorted picture. The sorts of distortion which result from over-special- ization in each type of data collecting may here be mentioned:

If the investigator overspecializes in his attention to what people say about their own culture, he will arrive at an idealized or stereotyped picture of that culture; he will collect a system of social generalizations which ignore the actual behavior of actual people. His picture will be a function of the culture which he is studying, because he will collect stereotypes which are themselves culturally determined; but it will be a distorted function. Further, if the investigator is sociologically minded, he may be guilty of the sort of oversimplification which occurs in organizational charts, forgetting the human individuals and see- ing only their defined functions.

Similarly, if the investigator specializes in being a neutral ob- server of interaction between members of a population, he may build up a picture of customs and character types from which human individuality and the idiosyncrasies of motivation will be lacking. He might, for example, arrive at the position com- mon in anthropology of paying attention to individual behavior, only to use his observations of people's reactions to point up their culturally stylized attitudes.

If, on the other hand, the investigator specializes in collecting personal introspective reports, he will arrive at the distortions

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 11

characteristic of the overspecialized therapist; he may see the individuals as isolated entities, not related to each other or to himself. He will be limited to a discussion of their internal structure and dynamics, not seeing the structure and dynamisms of the larger social whole.

Finally, the scientist who overspecializes in participant ex- perience will perceive individual trends and interaction but will tend to ignore the more static phenomena of convention, social organization, and other social determinants. His picture will resemble one which might be drawn by an overspecialized psychiatrist who sees the unique dynamics and flux of an in- dividual's responses to himself without seeing that individual's life as socially determined.

Also, it is of interest to note that the systematic differences and distortions which follow when the investigator takes a particular view of the system which he is studying, or when he specializes in a particular method of collecting data, are them- selves clues to his value system. The nature or slant of his knowl- edge is determined by his methods of obtaining that knowledge and by his notions of what knowledge is. If we describe his selective awareness — his structuring of perception — we shall, in fact, be describing his system of values.

As authors, we are fully aware that whatever we may say about value systems of psychiatrists, patients, or the American culture will be colored by our own personal values. On the other hand, we are also fully aware that no scientific observer can escape being bound to his subjective way of perceiving, inasmuch as any investigator is an integral part of the com- munication system in which he and the observed — be it human, animal, or object — participate. In the present study this danger of distortion has been acknowledged by including various types of data and by having more than one author, each with a dif- ferent background and viewpoint, participate in the evaluation of the data. This combination of contrasting types of data and differently trained observers tends to minimize the distortions mentioned above.

The facts, combinations, and concepts presented in this volume are based upon the following experiences of the authors:

12 COMMUNICATION

(a) We have studied psychiatrists 1 in non-controlled inter- views in their homes, their offices, our offices, or wherever the opportunity presented itself. In this type of interview the focus of the investigation centered in the interaction with the psychia- trists, in order to gain a better picture of the informant's inter- personal approaches.

(b) In addition to these innumerable interviews in informal settings, about thirty sessions of one or two hours' duration with more than thirty different psychiatrists were recorded on wire with the knowledge of all participants. These interviews were not shaped according to questionnaires, nor were the psychia- trists subjected to detailed questioning such as must be resorted to in linguistic or genealogical studies. The approach was some- times that in which an anthropologist gives freedom to his in- formant to follow the lines of his own thought guided only by occasional questions and suggestions of topic, and sometimes that in which die interviewer expresses his own honest opinions, leading to argument and discussion. The open-ended suggestion of a topic tended to focus the conversation upon the psychia- trist's therapeutic interest, and eventually led to his individual- istic formulations, which tended to reveal more clearly the value system which governed his therapeutic operations.

(c) We have attended psychiatric meetings in which either theoretical issues were discussed or cases were presented, and we have studied the way psychiatrists relate themselves to each other and the way they talk about theory and about pa- tients.

(d) We have as patients participated in individual therapy and experienced the psychiatrist in his function as therapist.

(e) We have examined the literature of American psychiatry and the assumptions contained therein. The printed sources which we studied were confined to the contemporary publica- tions of leading psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and psychothera- pists of every school of thought. European sources were not par-

i This work was part of a research study on nonverbal communication in psycho- therapy, which is in part supported by a research grant from the Division of Mental Hygiene, U. S. Public Health Service. In particular, this grant enabled us to do the work mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (g) above.

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 13

ticularly emphasized because they do not reflect American think- ing on the subject.

(£) We have studied the popular stereotypes of the psychiatrist as they appear in cartoons and anecdotes as well as the formal and informal reactions of the public to psychiatry.

(g) We have recorded many hundreds of hours of therapeutic sessions. Several therapist-patient teams were followed longitu- dinally and many more teams were studied cross-sectionally. These recorded interviews were then analyzed by the authors for material pertinent to the value systems of both therapist and patient, and especially for the study of the modification of values in and during therapy (135), (136), (142), (146), (148), (150).

(h) We have made a study of the American cultural milieu in which the psychiatrist operates (139), (140), (143). The value premises of the American culture were derived from sources listed in the bibliography, from years of interaction of the au- thors with Americans, and from the study of the systems and methods of communication in press, movies, radio, advertising, courts, hospitals, and other institutions. In brief, our impres- sions, derived from living in America, have been drawn on and checked by discussions between the authors and by current ob- servations during the progress of the study.

Psychiatry and anthropology are still at the stage of being descriptive sciences; and because, in such sciences, the theoretical premises are left implicit, these sciences have difficulty in ac- cumulating a coherent body of clearly formulated hypotheses. The present book has been dedicated to the task of stating and illustrating at length the premises which underlie the various approaches to social science. We have chosen psychiatry as the focus of our attention because the psychiatrist in his daily prac- tice is concerned with disturbances of communication; he and the communication engineer, of all scientists, seem to be most aware of the laws of communication. The essence of our message to the reader is that communication is the matrix in which all human activities are embedded. In practice, communication links object to person and person to person; and scientifically speaking, this interrelatedness is understood best in terms of systems of communication.

14 COMMUNICATION

In gathering information relevant to communication we had to combine the most diversified approaches. In this book the reader will encounter a number of chapters which have been labeled in succession as interdisciplinary, psychiatric, psycho- logical, integrative, anthropological, philosophical, and episte- mological approaches. In so naming the chapters we have at- tempted on the one hand to define the position and viewpoints of the observer, and on the other hand, to show that in spite of different viewpoints, such observers use a system of communi- cation common to all. Furthermore, the chapters have been arranged in such a way as to present a progression from the more common observations of a concrete nature to the more abstract and theoretical formulations. The use of a variety of topics, of differences in approach, and of multiple levels of ab- straction was thought to encompass the field of human com- munication more thoroughly than would have been possible by any single approach. Hence psychiatric, psychological, and an- thropological concepts have been synthesized with theories de- rived from cybernetics and communication engineering.

The present volume is concerned with theoretical matters. The notions of information, communication, preference, and value are notoriously obscure, and the phenomena associated with these notions are exceedingly difficult to dissect. This book is concerned with such dissection. It is a descriptive, not an experimental, study, and this fact has curious implications:

In an ideal experimental presentation, a hypothesis is stated, the outcome of a crucial experiment is described, and at the end, it is clear what contribution has been made to theoretical knowl- edge; the hypothesis is fortified, modified, or discarded. In a descriptive study things are not so simple because the theoretical premises of the scientist determine his techniques of description and have themselves been determined in part by his experience of the phenomena which he is describing. At the end of such a presentation, it may be clear that certain new facts have been added to knowledge, but it is usually very unclear what con- tribution has been made at a more theoretical level.

Although each of the two authors is individually responsible for the chapters he has written, in thought and context the book

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 15

is the result of interdisciplinary teamwork between a psychia- trist and an anthropologist. Data related to the uniqueness of the individual are therefore combined with data related to the more abstract similarities which men have in common. We invite the reader to participate in judging whether or not com- munication is the common denominator which bridges the gap between the various fields of social science. If the answer is in the affirmative, the first step has been made towards the estab- lishment of a more unified theory of human behavior.

BASIC PREMISES

To help the reader to understand our viewpoint and to fixate the point of departure of our sometimes rather theoretical con- siderations, we have verbalized our basic premises in a few sentences. These may serve as milestones for that which we shall illustrate, amplify, and pursue further in the later chapters of our book.

Delineation of Universe: The unit of consideration is the social situation.

Social Situation: A social situation is established when people enter into interpersonal communication.

Interpersonal Communication: An interpersonal event is characterized by:

(a) The presence of expressive acts on the part of one or more persons.

(b) The conscious or unconscious perception of such ex- pressive actions by other persons.

(c) The return observation that such expressive actions were perceived by others. The perception of having been perceived is a fact which deeply influences and changes human behavior.

Intrapersonal Communication: The consideration of intra- personal events becomes a special case of interpersonal communi- cation. An imaginary entity made up of condensed traces of past experiences represents within an individual the missing outside person. However, a crucial difference exists between interpersonal and intrapersonal communication with regard to

16 COMMUNICATION

the registration of mistakes. In the interpersonal situation the effects of purposive or expressive actions can be evaluated and if necessary corrected. In intrapersonal or fantasy communica- tion, to perceive that one misinterprets one's own messages is ex- tremely difficult, if not impossible, and correction rarely, if ever, occurs.

Mass Communication: A social event may be characterized by mass communication — e.g., through the media of radio, televi- sion, movies, and the press. When exposed to such mass com- munications, an individual is likely to feel on the one hand, that he is a participant in a larger superpersonal system, and on the other hand, that he is unable to delineate the system. This contradiction is brought about by the fact that in mass com- munications the originators and recipients of messages are so numerous that they usually remain anonymous. Therefore, un- der such conditions, the individual is not able to observe the effect of his own messages upon others, nor can he communicate his personal reactions to a message originating from committees, organizations, or institutions. Cause and effect become blurred, correction and self-correction of messages become delayed in time and removed in space; if correction finally occurs, it often is no longer appropriate.

Communication Apparatus: The communication apparatus of man has to be viewed as a functional entity without anatomical localization. The reader should be reminded that several parallel sets of expressions exist to denote the phenomena of communica- tion. While the engineer's "communication center" corresponds to the mentalist's "psyche," the organicist refers to it as "central nervous system." We believe that one of the most important changes which must follow from interchange of theories between engineers and psychiatrists is an increasing precision in the use of mentalist phrasings. Engineers and physiologists are still very far from giving us an organic base on which mentalist theories can be built, but they have already given us certain general notions about the characteristics of networks of relays, and these general notions must guide and restrict our loose use of men- talist abstractions. In our view, the communication apparatus of man is composed of:

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 17

(a) his sense organs, the receivers

(b) his effector organs, the senders

(c) his communication center, the place of origin and desti- nation of all messages

(d) the remaining parts of the body, the shelter of the communication machinery.

Limitations of Communication: The limitations of man's com- munications are determined by the capacity of his intrapersonal network, the selectivity of his receivers, and the skill of his effector organs. The number of incoming and outgoing signals, as well as the signals that can be transmitted within the organ- ism, is limited. Beyond a certain maximum any increase in number of messages in transit leads to a jamming of the net- work, and so to a decrease in the number of messages which reach their appropriate destinations. This type of disruption of the communication system the psychiatrist calls anxiety. It is subject to conjecture whether reduction of the number of in- coming messages, and messages in transit below a certain mini- mum, may lead to a "starvation phenomenon." From information gathered in the study of infants it seems that mental retardation is the result of insufficient interaction with others. There is also a more obscure limitation of communication which results from the difficulty of discussing the basic premises and codification of a system of signals in those same signals. This difficulty is shown to be of special relevance in the psychiatric situation, where the patient and therapist have to achieve communication about their own understanding of their own utterances. The same difficulty is also present in all attempts to communicate between persons of different cultural backgrounds.

Function of Communication: Man uses his communication system:

(a) to receive and transmit messages and to retain informa- tion;

(b) to perform operations with the existing information for the purpose of deriving new conclusions which were not directly perceived and for reconstructing past and anticipating future events;

18 COMMUNICATION

(c) to initiate and modify physiological processes within his body;

(d) to influence and direct other people and external events.

Effect of Communication: Communication facilitates speciali- zation, differentiation, and maturation of the individual. In the process of maturation reliance upon protective and corrective actions of others is gradually replaced by interdependence upon contemporaries in terms of communication. Instead of looking to elders for guidance, the adult person seeks information from contemporaries on how best to solve a problem. Exchange is substituted for receiving, and action of self replaces actions of others.

Interference and Communication: Interference with goal- directed behavior of an individual gives rise to the alarm reac- tion. If the interference can be successfully disposed of or avoided altogether, the alarm reaction will recede. However, frequently the source of interference cannot be avoided or eliminated. Under such circumstances, the sharing of anxiety with non- anxious or non-threatening individuals by means of communi- cation becomes an efficient device for tolerating the impact of interference.

Adjustment: Successful communication with self and with others implies correction by others as well as self-correction. In such a continuing process, up-to-date information about the self, the world, and the relationship of the self to the world leads to the acquisition of appropriate techniques, and eventually in- creases the individual's chances of mastery of life. Successful communication therefore becomes synonymous with adaptation and life.

Disturbances of Communication: Abnormalities of behavior are described in terms of disturbances of communication. In the past, these disturbances have been summarized under the heading of psychopathology. It is well to remember that the term "organic" refers to disruption of the internal communica- tion machinery, that "intrapersonal" refers to a network limited to one individual, and that "interpersonal" refers to a network composed of several individuals. Complete descriptions of dis- turbances of communication therefore include:

VALUES, COMMUNICATION, AND CULTURE 19

(a) on a technical level, statements about the communica- tion apparatus, the dimensions of the network, and the functional implications as well as physical aspects of transmission and reception.

(b) on a semantic level, statements about the accuracy with which a series of symbols transmit the desired meaning of a message, including semantic distortions.

(c) on an interaction level, statements about the effective- ness of the transmission of information upon the be- havior of people in an attempt to achieve a desired effect.

Psychiatric Therapy: Psychiatric therapy aims at improving the communication system of the patient. The neurophysiologist, neurologist, and neurosurgeon endeavor to improve the internal communication apparatus of the patient on a technical level, while the psychotherapist aims at restoring a broken-down system of interpersonal communication on a semantic or interaction level. This is achieved either by reducing the number of incom- ing messages and preventing jamming, or by increasing the number of messages in transit and preventing isolation and star- vation. Once communication of the patient with the self and with others has improved, correction and self-correction of in- formation provide the foundations for a change in the conduct of the patient.

Nature of Psychotherapy: Regardless of the school of thought adhered to, or the technical terms used, the therapist's opera- tions always occur in a social context. Implicitly, therefore, all therapists use communication as a method of influencing the patient. The differences that exist between the therapist and the patient are differences in their systems of value, which can be traced to differences in the codification or evaluation of per- ceived events.

The Psychiatrist's Value System: In order to understand the differences which exist between the communication system of the patient and that of his fellow-man, the psychiatrist must possess information about both. If the psychiatrist's communica- tion system were similar to that of the patient, he would be unable to help him; if the psychiatrist's communication system

20 COMMUNICATION

is identical with that of the people surrounding the patient, he will notice that the patient is different, but still will be unable to help him. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the psychiatrist to possess values which are somewhat different from those of the patient and somewhat different from those of the core group.

The Psychiatrist and Culture Change: The differences in the psychiatrist's value system from those of the core group arise from specific life experiences. Essentially they are related to ex- periences of culture contact and repeated exposure to differing systems of value during the formative years. Such conditions sharpen the social perception of the future psychiatrist and make him aware of the fact that values differ from group to group. Being forced to reinterpret his own position whenever he meets a new group, he develops the necessary means which enable him to perceive and evaluate the various communication systems of other people. Such basic life experiences are necessary if a man wishes to become a successful therapist. Training merely supplies a system for an orderly arrangement of these basic life experi- ences.

Distorted Communication and Marginal Status of Patients: The values which distinguish patients from other people and from the therapist are a result of the particular social situations in which the patients were reared. Unable to assimilate divergent trends within the home, or between home and surroundings, these patients have never developed satisfactory means of com- munication. This results in marginal status as compared to the people who make up the core of the group in which the patient lives.

Mental Hygiene: The psychiatrist's work is aimed at helping the patient to acquire a communication system which is similar to that of the core group; and as an interpreter, he familiarizes the core group with the peculiarities of marginal man. The nature of the mental hygiene movement and other endeavors is to prevent the development of disturbances of communication which, in turn, are directly or indirectly responsible for disturb- ances of behavior.

2 • COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN

RELATIONS : An Interdisciplinary Approach

By Jurgen Ruesch

The field of communication is concerned with human related- ness. Every person, plant, animal, and object emits signals which, when perceived, convey a message to the receiver. This message changes the information of the receiver and hence may alter his behavior. Change in behavior of the receiver, in turn, may or may not perceptibly influence the sender. Sometimes the effect of a message is immediate; at other times the message and its effect are so far apart in time and space that the observer fails to connect the two events. For purposes of our presentation however, we shall be concerned more with the immediate effects of messages and their influence upon the behavior of people.

CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION IN EVERYDAY LIFE

In order to familiarize the reader with the varieties of human communication, let us view the experiences of Mr. A as he pro- ceeds with his daily activities. In the morning when Mr. A enters his office he reads his incoming mail (written communica- tion). In sorting his mail he encounters a number of pamphlets which are designed to describe the merits of various business machines (pictorial communication). Through the open window the faint noise of a radio is heard, as the voice of an announcer clearly praises the quality of a brand of toothpaste (spoken com-

21

22 COMMUNICATION

munication). When his secretary enters the room she gives him a cheerful "good morning," which he acknowledges with a friendly nod of his head (gestural communication) while he continues with his conversation on the telephone (spoken com- munication) with a business associate. Later in the morning he dictates a number of letters to his secretary, then he holds a committee meeting (group communication), where he gathers the advice of his associates. In this meeting a number of new governmental regulations (mass communication) and their effect upon the policies of the firm are discussed. Later in the meeting a resolution to the employees of the firm concerning the annual bonus (mass and group communication) is considered. After the committee has adjourned, Mr. A, engaged in thoughts concern- ing unfinished business (communication with self), slowly crosses the street to his restaurant for lunch. On the way he sees his friend Mr. B, who in a great hurry enters the same luncheon place (communication through action), and Mr. A decides to sit by himself rather than to join his friend, who will probably gulp down his coffee and hurry on (communication with self). While waiting, Mr. A studies the menu (communication through printed word) but the odor of a juicy steak deflects his gaze (chemical communication); it is so appetizing that he orders one himself. After lunch he decides to buy a pair of gloves. He enters a men's store and with the tips of his fingers carefully examines the various qualities of leather (communication through touch). After leisurely concluding the purchase, he decides to take the afternoon off and to escort his son on a promised trip to the zoo. On the way there, John, watching his father drive through the streets, asks him why he always stops at a red light and why he does not stop at a green light (communication by visual sym- bol). As they approach the zoo, an ambulance screams down the street, and Mr. A pulls over to the side of the road and stops (communication by sound). As they sit there he explains to his son that the church across the street is the oldest in the state, built many years ago, and still standing as a landmark in the community (communication through material culture). After paying admission to the zoo (communication through action), they leisurely stroll over to visit the elephants. Here John laughs

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 23

at the antics of an elephant who sprays water through his trunk at one of the spectators (communication through action), sending him into near flight. Later on in the afternoon Mr. A yields to the pressure of his son, and they enter a movie house to see a cartoon (communication through pictures). Arriving home, Mr. A dresses in order to attend a formal dinner and theater per- formance (communication through the arts).

These examples may suffice to illustrate the varieties of social situations in which communication occurs. Let us next consider how a scientist can conceptualize these various events in a more systematized fashion.

THE CONTEXT IN WHICH COMMUNICATION OCCURS

The scientific approach to communication has to occur on several levels of complexity. In a first step we shall be concerned with the definition of the context in which communication oc- curs. This context is summarized by the label which people give to specific social situations. Identification of a social situa- tion is important both for the participant who wishes to com- municate and for the scientist who aims at conceptualizing the processes of communication.

The Perception of the Perception

A social situation is established as soon as an exchange of communication takes place; and such exchange begins with the moment in which the actions of the other individual are per- ceived as responses — that is, as evoked by the sender's message and therefore as comments upon that message, giving the sender an opportunity of judging what the message meant to the re- ceiver. Such communication about communication is no doubt difficult, because it is usually implicit rather than explicit, but it must be present if an exchange of messages is to take place. The perception of the perception, as we might call this phe- nomenon, is the sign that a silent agreement has been reached by the participants, to the effect that mutual influence is to be expected.

The mutual recognition of having entered into each other's field of perception equals the establishment of a system of com-

24 COMMUNICATION

munication. The criteria of mutual awareness of perception are in all cases instances of communications about communication. If a person "A" raises his voice to attract person "B's" attention, he is thereby making a statement about communication. He may, for example, be saying, "I am communicating with you," or he may be saying, "I am not listening to you; I am doing the talking" — and so on. Similarly, all punctuations of the stream of emitted signals are statements about how that stream is to be broken down into sections, and significantly all modifications of the stream of signals, which implicitly or explicitly assign roles either to the self or to the other, are statements about com- munication. If "A" adds the word "please" to a verbal request, he is making a statement about that request; he is giving in- structions about the mood or role which he desires the listener to adopt when he interprets the verbal stream. He is adding a signal to cause a modification in the receiver's interpretation. In this sense the added signal is a communication about com- munication as well as a statement about the relationship be- tween two persons.

The Position of the Observer within the System of Communication

Dependent upon whether an observer is a participant in a group discussion, or remains a scientific observer who, rather aloof and with a minimum of participation, proceeds to make scientific notes, the information about what happens is going to vary. The position of the observer, his viewpoints and foci of interest> his degree of participation, and his lucidity in inter- preting rules, roles, and situations will determine that which he is going to report.

When a scientist endeavors to study such complicated matters as human relations, he conveniently divides the universe into segments small enough so that the events which occur within such a subdivision can be observed and recorded in a satisfactory manner. In proceeding from the larger to the smaller units of consideration, the scientist has to guard against pitfalls which may arise from his personal focus of endeavor, his personal views,

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 25

and his particular perspectives. His position may be likened to that of a visitor to a museum of art, who never succeeds in seeing the front and back views of a statue at the same moment. From a position in back of the statue, for example, he will be unable to predict the facial expression until he has seen it from the front. To obtain a complete impression, he has to walk around the statue; and as he moves, a new perspective will open at every step until the combination of all impressions will enable the visitor to construct within himself a small-scale model of the marble figure. Matters get even more complicated if one con- siders that not all visitors go to the museum with the same purpose in mind. Some wish to obtain a quick impression of the treasures on hand; others want to undertake detailed studies in preparation for an artist's career; some want to meet people who have the same interests. Thus, varying with their purpose, any of several persons gathered around the statue might retain within himself a different view of the marble figure.

The scientist is very much in the same position as the spectator of the statue, with the exception that, to achieve a more com- plete understanding of what he is doing and of what happens in nature, he does not limit himself to perception and observation only. In order to satisfy his curiosity, he compensates for his human limitations of perception by creating a theory. In brief, he proceeds about as follows: First, he postulates that there are events. An event is defined as an occurrence which occupies a small part of the general four-dimensional, space-time contin- uum. If the scientist happens to observe such an event and if it can be verified by others, he refers to his statement of it as a fact. Sometimes he adds to his observations certain physical measurements: he makes observations on the relations between the event and his own measuring rod. In order to be able to measure or to experiment, however, the scientist needs a hy- pothesis; it is nothing but a provisional, tentative theory, a sup- position that he adopts temporarily in order to add to the already well-established knowledge a series of new facts. Hypotheses thus guide all future research work. When a hypothesis — that is, an assumption without proof — can be substantiated by fact, it be-

26 COMMUNICATION

comes a theory. The latter can be described as being the result of reasoning with the intent to derive from a body of known facts some general or abstract principles. Such principles can then be applied to other bodies of knowledge in order to finally interconnect the information about events in a larger time-space continuum. The scientist has to rely upon theory, because only few events are accessible to direct observation or measurement. The majority of processes in nature or within the human being himself are either so slow or so fast that they escape perception. Theory is then used to combine the known facts into a network, allowing for interpolation and extrapolation, reconstruction of past and prediction of future events.

At this point the reader will recognize that as soon as we talk or think about a social situation we have to define our own posi- tion as observers. Therefore, every individual becomes a scientifir observer as soon as he engages in communication.

To evaluate daily events and to guide future actions, every single human being possesses a private scientific system. To students of human behavior, the private systems of others are accessible only in a rather restricted manner. That which is assimilated by the human being in terms of stimuli — be it food, oxygen, sound, or light — and that which the individual produces in heat, waste materials, or purposive action is accessible to in- vestigation. Whatever happens between intake and output is known on a restricted scale only; through introspection and, in recent years, by means of X-rays and radioactive tracer sub- stances, scientists have been able to follow some of the processes which take place within the organism. For practical purposes, however, events occurring in other persons are accessible to an observer in terms of inference alone; all he observes is the stimuli which reach the other person and the latter's reactions; the rest is subject to conjecture. Furthermore, the observer, being a social stimulus for others, possesses knowledge about the origin and the nature of some of the stimuli which he feeds to other individuals. In such a system, which includes the observer as an integral part, the actions of the first person are stimuli for the second person and the responses of the second person are stimuli for the first person.

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 27

Identification of Roles and Rules

Once the position of the observing reporter is clearly defined and a social situation has been established because people have entered into communication, it is left to the participants to identify the social situation. The label which a person is going to give to a social situation is intimately connected with the rules which govern the situation, as well as the roles which the various participants are to assume. It is obvious that each person has his own views regarding the label of the situation and that much confusion results when people disagree as to what a situa- tion is about. Through communication with others, roles are mutually assigned, and by means of mutual exploration agree- ment is frequently reached as to the nature of the situation. Used in connection with communication, the term "role" refers to nothing but the code which is used to interpret the flow of messages. For example, the statements of a person who wishes to sell an automobile are going to be interpreted in a sense quite different from that which they would have if the person were to make the same statements in the role of an automobile buyer. Awareness of a person's role in a social situation enables others to gauge correctly the meaning of his statements and actions.

Once the roles of the self and of all other participants have been established, the code for interpreting the conversation is given. The number of roles which people can assume is limited, and elsewhere we have calculated that their number is probably about twenty-five (see p. 405 in ref. 149). A mature individual is capable of mastering this number of roles in the course of a lifetime.

Any social situation is governed by explicit or implicit rules; these rules may be created on the spur of the moment for a par- ticular situation, or they may be the result of centuries of tradi- tion. In the context of communication, rules can be viewed as directives which govern the flow of messages from one person to another. Inasmuch as rules are usually restrictive, they limit the possibilities of communication between people, and above all, they restrict the actions of the participating persons. Rules can be viewed as devices which either stabilize or disrupt a

28 COMMUNICATION

given communication system, and they provide directives for all eventualities. The meaning of rules, regulations, and laws can be understood best if one thinks of a card game in which several persons participate: The channels of communication are pre- scribed, the sequence of messages is regulated, and the effects of messages are verifiable. The rules also explain that certain messages, at certain times, addressed to certain people, are not admissible, and that known penalties are imposed upon those who break the rules. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to the beginning of the game, the division of functions in terms of roles, and the termination of the game are always included (see p. 401 in ref. 149; see also ref. 168.)

The Label of the Social Situation

A social situation is established when people have entered into communication; the state of communication is determined by the fact that a person perceives that his perception has been noted by others. As soon as this fact has been established, a system of communication can be said to exist. At that point selective reception, purposive transmission, and corrective processes take place and the circular characteristics and self-corrective mech- anisms of the system of communication become effective. This implies that roles have been assigned and rules established. The participants in a social situation experience these events more or less consciously, and the experience induces them to label a social situation. Such a label specifies not only the status assign- ment (roles) of the participants and the rules pertaining to the gathering, but also the task or the purpose to which a social situation is devoted. A funeral, for example, serves another pur- pose than a wedding, and communications vary accordingly. Elsewhere (see p. 398 in ref. 149) we have advanced the idea that the social situations encountered by the average person number less than forty, a figure which the normally gifted per- son can master easily.

In identifying social labels it is obvious that external criteria are extremely helpful. If people are dressed in mourning, and others know the significance of the special clothing, they will all agree as to the label of the situation, and communications are

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 29

therefore limited and interpreted under the seal of the situa- tion. Different and difficult is the situation, however, when two strangers meet — for example, in a western frontier setting, around 1850. External cues of behavior might not have helped them recognize each other's roles. One man, for example, might have been intent on murder, or persecution, or trade. In such cases the label has to be worked out as time goes on, and new rules created. The interval which elapses between the establish- ment of a social situation and its definite label may vary. Some persons are very skillful in bringing about a clarification of the situation; others, especially neurotics, may experience great anxiety until roles, rules, and purpose have been defined.

THE SIMPLER SYSTEMS OF COMMUNICATION

When a person is alone, the system of communication is con- fined to that one organism. If there are two people, then the communication network embraces both organisms. If there are many people, the network embraces the whole group, and if we consider many groups, we may talk about a cultural network. In a one-person communication system the signals travel along the established pathways of the body. In a two-or-more-person system the signals travel both along the pathways of the body and through the media which separate the bodies.

Let us now consider first the human instruments of communi- cation and the bodily pathways used for communication. A man's organism as a whole can be conceived of as an instrument of communication, equipped with sense organs, the receivers; with effector organs, the senders; with internal transmitters, the hu- moral and nervous pathways; and with a center, the brain. However, the reader is warned not to think in anatomical terms when considering the internal network of communication; more appropriate is the comparison of the individual with a social organization. Within the organized confines of a state, for ex- ample, messages from the borders and from all parts of the nation are transmitted to the capital and to all other points by means of an intricate network. The messages can be conveyed by radio, telephone, telegraph, or word of mouth; printed mes- sages may be carried by air, ship, rail, on wheels, on foot, or

30 COMMUNICATION

on horseback. The person that first reports an event usually does not engage in any extensive traveling to spread the news. Instead, through a system of relays the message is transmitted to other places and people. Each relay station may alter, amplify, condense, or abstract the original message for local use; and frequently after long transit any resemblances between the first and the last report are purely coincidental. This analogy applies well to the consideration of the human organism.

The sense organs, for example, are found scattered from head to toe on the external surface of the body and in or around internal organs as well. Sensitive to stimuli which originate in the surroundings as well as in the body itself, trie end organs act as stations of impulse transformation. Regardless of whether the original stimulus consists of a series of light or sound waves or of a chemical reagent, the sense organs transform that which is perceived into impulses which are suitable for internal trans- mission within the organism. Likewise, it does not matter whether these impulses are conducted along afferent pathways from peripheral and cranial nerves to the brain or along humoral pathways, or perhaps contiguously from cell to cell within a given organ. The essence of the matter is that all living tissue is equipped with the ability to respond to the impact of specific stimuli; such responsiveness may be called irritability. The nature of this responsiveness is determined in part by the type of stimulus which is perceived and in part by the nature of the reacting tissues, organs, and systems of organs. For greater econ- omy and efficiency the stimulus perceived on the surface of the body or within the organism itself is transformed in such a way that it can be transmitted properly; and likewise, the im- pulses originating in the brain and other regulatory centers are transformed in several stations before they reach the effector organs or, even more remotely, the sense organs of another per- son.

Our effector organs, the striped and smooth muscles of the body, react to stimuli originating in the organism itself. The irritability of the muscles, when stimulated, results in contrac- tions which in turn may give rise to movements of the limbs, to motions of the body in space, to passage of air through the

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 31

windpipe, and subsequently to sound or to internal movements of the intestinal tract or the circulatory system. Whenever activi- ties of an organ or of the whole organism are perceived by the self or by others, they constitute communicative acts which war- rant interpretation. The higher centers of the nervous systems and perhaps certain glands evaluate messages originating in single organs, and a person may respond automatically, some- times not being consciously aware of this transmission. Such automatic responses are termed reflexes if the circuit, with the exception of the stimulus, is located entirely within one organ- ism. In transmission of messages from person to person informa- tion pertaining to the state of the organism of the speakers is frequently transmitted without the awareness of the participants. In social situations, for example, people automatically evaluate the other person's attitude — that is, whether it is friendly or hostile. Without being conscious of their own responses they will be more cautious and alert when facing a hostile individual than when they encounter an apparently harmless person. More complex interpersonal messages, especially when coded in ver- bal form, require a more conscious evaluation and interpre- tation. But regardless of the complexity of the message or the extent of the network, the basic principles remain the same.

A neutral observer, for example, when perceiving that a per- son tumbles downstairs and remains motionless at the end of the fall, might be impressed by several different communicative aspects of this incident. Referring to the physical sphere, the conclusion may be warranted that the person was injured. With reference to the intrapersonal system of the victim, the inference is made that certain processes within the mind of the accident- bearer may have been altered or arrested, and that the person has lost consciousness. Pertinent to the interpersonal relation, the conclusion is warranted that the person needs help; and in social terms, though not immediately, certain repercussions can be expected which might deal with lawsuits, establishment of rules for accident prevention, and the like. Thus any change in the state of an organism can be viewed from varied stand- points and can be registered consciously or unconsciously.

If actions of human beings and animals have communicative

32 COMMUNICATION

aspects, so also do plants and objects convey a message to the person who perceives them. It takes but the fraction of a second for our organism to perceive a multitude of stimuli, and most scientific descriptions of perceptive phenomena run into insur- mountable difficulties when an attempt is made to describe the processes involved. A brief illustration may serve as an example. When our attention is attracted by the sight of a red rose, we conceive its splendor under the influence of messages transmitted to us through several channels. First we see, then we smell, and eventually after approaching the rose, we can touch the flower. The scientific description of these three steps would run into many hundreds of pages. Starting with the assessment of the color, the wave length of the reflected light, for example, could be specified as being around 7,000 Angstrom units. Thereafter the tint or shade of the color, the angle of reflection, the position and nature of the original source of light, its brightness, the surface texture and the color of the contrasting background, and many other features would have to be studied to complete the scientific description of the processes related to light alone. Botanical specifications of the family and species of the rose bush, identification of the time and duration of the process of blooming, would embrace some of the plant biological aspects of the investigation. Specifications of the odor emitted by the blossom, the number and type of insects attracted, and their ef- fectiveness in seed dispersion might follow next. Chemical analy- sis of the constituent parts of the rose tissues or an assessment of the soil or weather conditions might head other chapters of the scientific study. Finally, after exhausting consideration of the rose, and of the conditions under which it bloomed, the investiga- tion would finally reach the human being who perceives the rose. Name, age, sex, and other specifications would be needed to identify us, the individual observer. Study of our physical health and assessment of our visual apparatus would probably precede the psychological investigation of our past experiences, in partic- ular those with flowers and roses. Psychological probing might reveal traces of previous events which enabled us to focus upon the rose rather than upon the structure of the wall in the back- ground or upon a dog playing near by. Further elaboration might

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 33

reveal the purposes that we might have had in focusing upon roses, either as decoration of the buttonhole in the lapel, as an arrangement on our desk, or maybe as a present for a beloved one. And after all this long and tedious scientific preparation and accumulation of information regarding the rose and the human being who perceived it, we would have to be concerned with that split second which it took to see the rose, and those few seconds more which were necessary to walk towards it.

The reader will readily understand that no scientist is able to describe all the things that might have acted as stimuli or all the possible reactions that a person might have had in that situation. Nevertheless, a neutral observer, sitting on a bench near by, and observing the act of approach and of picking the rose, might infer a number of things from his own experiences in similar situa- tions. He might conclude that we possess a readiness — or shall we say a preference — for that particular rose at that particular time in that particular situation. Let us say that the act of picking the rose had for us the significance of satisfying a desire and of pro- viding us with a present, while for the observer it constituted an expressive act which transmitted to him information about our- self and the rose as well as about the total situation which was conducive to this act. To him, the observer, the only thing that was obvious was the combination of a particular stimulus, the rose, with a particular kind of response, the picking. This com- bination of a particular stimulus with a particular response we have called a value. For the observer, the choice of this act in- dicated to him that at that particular moment no other act could take place, though, for example, we might have walked by, head- ing for the dog without even noticing the rose. For ourselves who proceeded to pick the rose, the act created a precedent which might influence future actions and which in itself was a sequel to previous experiences of ours. Regardless of whether we were aware of our choice, and regardless of whether we knew the motivating reasons for our actions, we, as well as any ob- server, would agree that at the instant we picked the rose we conveyed a message to others. And this message certainly car- ried the meaning that within the context of this situation we valued — above all — a rose.

34 COMMUNICATION

For purposes of communication, then, any action constitutes a message to ourselves as well as to others. Within the framework of communication, the expression and transmission of values — that is, actions denoting a choice — occupy a central place. A value conveys not only information about the choice made, but also relavs information about the things that could have been chosen but were not selected. The ability to select, to maximize or mini- mize certain aspects of perception, are features which characterize our communication center. Furthermore, this center possesses the faculty of retaining traces of past experiences. Obviously not the action itself, but a symbolic representation, is retained, which has the function of representing within the human organism a small-scale model of all the events which have been experienced in the past.

Creation of new things and adaptation through molding of the surroundings distinguishes man from all other creatures. This gift, which the organicist calls "brain" and which the mentalist refers to as "psyche," is localized nowhere. With no anatomical structure of its own, none the less it needs for its functioning the sum total of all the cells and properties of the organism. To integrate parts into a whole, to magnify, minimize, or discard events, to evaluate the past and to anticipate the future, to create that which never before existed, such are the functions of the center. The infant, when born, is vested with all these potentiali- ties; their exploitation, however, depends upon experiences and circumstances. Equipped with an insatiable desire for a search for the new, the exploration of things and people grinds per- manent and indelible grooves into the center of the child. Im- prints become experiences when events are registered, and traces remain available for future reference. Little by little, informa- tion is acquired through representation of outside events in the mind of the child. Happenings in and around a person are re- corded in codified form, and complementation of immediate impressions with traces of the past facilitates a selective response. The individual is said to have learned when discriminating: re- actions as well as anticipation of events indicate mastery of self and surroundinsrs.

The expansion of the maturing individual is controlled by

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 35

biological limitations which in turn delineate the extension in space of the system of communication. Man's genetic endowment forces him to seek social relations, while his early development and his first social contacts will in part determine the way he is going to use (145) and eventually refine his means of communica- tion. Man is born of a mother. After his birth, certain death would embrace the infant unless it were fed, clothed, and shel- tered. The severance of the umbilical cord is but the first step towards achieving independence. The infant's struggle to acquire an identity of his own requires some fifteen or twenty years. During this time, the growing child, at first helpless and im- mobilized, little by little learns to explore the world and to undertake ventures on his own. Tedious codification of events leading to the accumulation of a vast mass of information and acquisition of the "know-how" pertaining to the use of this in- formation enables the child to relinquish gradually the help received from parents and protectors. When biological matura- tion and social learning have progressed sufficiently, the child is equipped to set out on his own and to continue the battle for life with a reasonable chance of survival. Now even more than before, communication with fellow men becomes a necessity, since information about the self, others, and the surroundings has to be kept up to date. The state of maturity has been reached when finally communication and cooperation with contempo- raries has replaced the former reliance upon physical and emo- tional assistance from elders.

Man's concept of the world is acquired through social inter- action (114) and communication, and these acquired views are the foundations upon which will rest the future organization of his surroundings. The shaping of things in the environment distinguishes man from all other living creatures. Man has mas- tered his physical limitations by extension in space and time. His voice, audible within a few hundred yards at best, now can encompass the globe and perhaps beyond. His movements in space, under primitive conditions, perhaps extended a few hun- dred miles; now they embrace the whole world and possibly more. The creation of script, the construction of man-made shelters, and the use of design enables messages from times past

36 COMMUNICATION

to reach future generations. The invention of time-binding mass communication led to the formation of a cumulative body of knowledge. Information accumulated in the course of centuries became the ground upon which were erected new object systems and events which eventually developed an existence of their own. In contrast to the animal, the human being has to face not only other people but messages and productions of the past as well. The inventions of man, frequently designed in the name of progress and survival, may undermine his biological founda- tions. Whether in the end the creations of man will improve his lot or result in his own modification or in his total annihilation remains to be seen. Be that as it may, at the root of all man-made events stands his ability to communicate, which is the founda- tion upon which cooperation is built.

Cooperation is closely linked to those characteristics which make man a gregarious creature. Thus man does not live alone. Usually he is surrounded by parents, mate, and offspring, and he seeks the company of contemporaries. In the fold of the family, the clan, the group, or, in the widest sense of the word, the herd, he feels secure. Here, the threatening experiences can be shared, and through pooling of information and cooperation of forces he can master adverse events. Reliance upon other members of the group increases his chances for survival in a troubled world. The first experience of being helped and raised by the mother or other members of the group induces man to trust or fear people. If trust and confidence prevail, he will seek the help of others; if fear predominates he will dominate or avoid others. But regardless of the motive, be it for the sake of sharing, avoiding, conquering, or destroying, he always needs other people.

Man has to move. As the infant acquires mastery of space, locomotion is soon supplemented by other means of transpor- tation. In boats, on the backs of animals, on wheels, or on wings, the exploration of the world is carried on. Movement in space facilitates the acquisition and dissemination of information and the satisfaction of needs. Transportation and communication are thus so intimately linked that distinction is hardly possible.

In his exploration of space, in his quest for mastery, and in

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 37

his need for food, shelter, and a mate, man will meet dangers and perhaps interference from others. Man and animal alike are alarmed at the sight of danger, and anything is threatening which, by their experience, is not known to be harmless. In animals, alarm — that is, impending readiness for events to come — is told in many ways: the lion tosses his mane and roars, the fiddler crab brandishes a bright red claw, while the moor hen utters a harsh "krek." A cat when chased by a dog seeks refuge in a tree, its fur erect, claws thrust into the bark, hissing at the growl- ing canine below. The cat's body spells readiness for any future action if a change in the situation should occur; when prowling and stalking a mouse, it will patiently wait for hours for the opportune jump which will spell doom to the outwitted rodent. While the alarmed animal has the choice of fight, flight, or playing possum, the human being has one additional opportu- nity. Constructive action, designed to eliminate the source of danger, long-term planning with the intent of preventing a recur- rence of the danger, and pooling of information with subsequent cooperation with other humans are the unique privileges of man. Communication for the purpose of sharing and transmis- sion of information to obtain the views of others provides help for the alarmed person. When fight, flight, playing possum, and communication are barred, the readiness of the body for action cannot be consummated. The continuous alarm becomes a per- manent state, which is referred to as anxiety. Eventually the overtaxation of mind and body will gradually lead to a break- down of integrated functioning. The individual is then psycho- logically and physically sick; the focusing of protracted attention upon the impending danger monopolizes the mental resources, and perpetual readiness of the body results in anxiety and fatigue. Unawareness of other circumstances which might require immediate attention and the inability to mobilize the worn-out body for maximal effort eventually defeat the individual in situations which otherwise he could easily have mastered. Even then, communication is a helpful procedure. The process of talking, though not an act of great physical expenditure for the individual, will absorb the overflow of readiness, and eventu- ally a person is again enabled to find his bearings. This inter-

38 COMMUNICATION

personal process constitutes the core of any type of psychotherapy. The human being's need for social action is the moving force which compels him to master the tools of communication. With- out these his ability to gather information is imperiled and gratification of vital needs is threatened. The superiority of a person within his group is determined in the first instance by skillful use of his means of communication; to receive informa- tion and to give that which others need, to possess a workable concept of events, and to act accordingly, marks the successful man.

THE MORE COMPLEX SYSTEMS OF COMMUNICATION

The simpler systems of communication are characterized by the fact that participants can trace a message from its origin to its destination; therefore it is possible, though not necessary, for the participants to recognize and correct distortions. In such a system the circular characteristics become obvious, transmission of messages and effect achieved are closely connected in space and time, and the participants get the feeling that they are able to master the situation. The simpler systems are, by and large, symmetrical systems; all participating persons are equipped with receivers, transmitters, and communication centers which enable them to retain and to evaluate information. At birth, the infant enters an asymmetrical system of communication, because his own communication machinery is as yet not fully developed; however, a healthy human environment will bring about a grad- ual rectification of this asymmetry, and as soon as the biological maturity of the child will permit, symmetrical communication will be initiated. We shall later elaborate upon the fact that if children are raised in a human environment in which sym- metrical systems of communication prevail, they are likely to be mentally healthy, and that if unfortunate circumstances force a person to remain in asymmetrical systems, disturbances of com- munication will occur.

The larger and more complex systems of communication which include a group of people or several groups are usually asym- metrical. The flow of messages either emerges from a center or converges to a center; in such systems either many persons com-

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 39

municate with one person, or one person communicates with many. If, for example, a politician addresses the nation, he pro- ceeds with one-way communication in which his listeners have no opportunity for an immediate reply. Likewise when a govern- mental agency submits its field reports to the head of the de- partment, the executive is unable to give individual replies to the queries of his informants or constituents. The physical limita- tions of a human being's receiving system are such that only a limited number of messages can be taken care of within one day. If the number of incoming messages exceeds the capacity of the receiver, each message must be abstracted, and the abstractions grouped until the receiver can master the number of entities to be considered. From the abstract conclusions the executive is frequently unable to evaluate the original messages correctly; and since he is rarely in a position to talk personally to the senders of the original messages, he is acting primarily as a receiver in a one-way communication system. These asymmetrical systems, which we have termed "group networks," are characterized by the fact that either the source or the destination of the messages is anonymous, and that correction of the messages is therefore delayed. In order to compensate for the asymmetries of such systems, efficient executives have developed short-circuit methods to avoid the progressive steps of abstraction, and therefore distor- tion of meaning, on the one hand, and the echelon of command which adds to or subtracts from the original message, on the other hand. Thus a commanding general will appear at the front to get first-hand information, personally, and the emissaries of foreign governments frequently report in person in order to avoid the distortions which occur when information passes through various hands.

The most complex communication network is encountered when we consider a cultural network in which many persons communicate with many others. Here both the origin and the destination of the messages remain anonymous, and therefore correction of messages becomes impossible. As a result of this situation, the individual feels helpless to cope with the messages with which he is swamped. He searches in vain for the source of origin or destination of the messages. Knowledge of these

40 COMMUNICATION

fixed points in a communication network would, through feed- back, enable participants to modify their own messages and cor- rectly interpret the messages of others. In recent times, for ex- ample, most citizens have been eagerly ready to do something in order to avoid war, but from time to time they have been unable to escape the feeling that war was inevitable. The help- lessness experienced by people when they are swamped with rumors and anonymous messages is probably due to the fact that every person has a need for personal acknowledgment of his or her message. Therefore one might state that insecurity is the direct result of anonymity of origin or destination of mes- sages, with the implication that the individual feels paralyzed if correction of erroneous interpretations is impossible.

THE CULTURAL NETWORK

An individual who is unaware of the existence of larger cul- tural systems will accept events as natural. If, however, a person is aware of historical and cultural events, he is frustrated by the fact that he is unable to fully understand the processes that take place. Let us therefore attempt to shed some light upon this matter. It is the anthropologist's task to study such superpersonal systems; the statements which he tends to make about a "culture" consist primarily of generalizations about people and groups of people. What people do and say and what they have done and said comprise the bulk of his data. "Culture" as such cannot be observed directly; it only exists in the form of generalized state- ments made by social scientists about people, which include not only the specific organizational patterns of people in groups, but also their judicial and economic problems, their language and systems of symbolization, their conventions and traditions, and all objects, buildings, and monuments which convey some message from the past (147).

To the native of a primitive tribe who has spent his whole life in the same place, it seems quite natural that things are as they are. However, the anthropologist recognizes, from his knowledge of other places and people, that some of the observed features are unique. Because he is a stranger he is able to see what the native takes for granted. However, accustomed to seeing and

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 41

doing things in a manner different from that of the native, the anthropologist meets at each step a new problem. His lack of familiarity with this particular culture is revealed when he wishes to communicate with the natives, when he involuntarily violates some basic rule, or when he just wishes to order a meal. Likewise in the process of discovering a new "culture," all travelers are forced to deduce some principles by which they can understand the natives. This is the exact position which confronts the American cultural anthropologist when he wishes to learn something about Bali, or the English anthropologist when he studies America. And the same position confronts the social scientist when he explores a group of people other than his own. Evidently the process of making generalizations about the behavior of people is necessary when a stranger finds himself surrounded by people who differ from him in many respects. It does not matter whether he is a traveler in a foreign country or a lawyer among physicians; the principle remains the same.

In general, the members of a given culture or subculture are remarkably unaware of the premises which they observe in their system of communication. Nobody is really able to evaluate his own utterances in terms of the greater system of which he is a part. Though some people may act in perfect accordance with their respective cultural principles, and some of the natives may even state premises with great explicitness, the formulation of the premises which are the basis of a cultural network can only be undertaken by a stranger or by a native who has lived in cultural systems other than his own. Only by the experience of contrast can the observer acquire the necessary awareness and perspective to make relevant generalizations; these generaliza- tions constitute a dictionary which enables the person to trans- late the signals received into the system of codification with which he is familiar.

We mentioned above the helplessness which people experience when they cannot trace the origin and destination of a message. This implies, however, that people are aware of the fact that messages can be traced to human sources. In each culture there exist beliefs and traditions which cannot be traced to human sources. These messages are accepted by the population as if they

42 COMMUNICATION

were messages from God, or messages from a mythological figure, or as if they were an expression of the nature of things. But regardless of the supposed source to which these messages are at- tributed, the outstanding feature is that there is no recourse, no reply, and no possibility of correction on the part of the native. The anthropologist, in contrast, is aware that in another culture, perhaps, this particular area of belief is modifiable, while other areas may be inaccessible to correction. The areas which are inaccessible to correction we shall call cultural mass communication.

Thus one can say that cultural mass communication influences every citizen living within its reach. Examples of such mass communication are found in the messages which governments and leaders direct toward the people. Here, one or more persons send messages to the people at large which may be in the form of proclamations, broadcasts, plays, films, newspapers, articles, and the like. A characteristic feature of these communications is the multiple and often indefinite character of the emitting agency. The communications usually originate in an institution or administrative department, and by the time a speech or a play has been made public it has been worked upon by many persons. It is no longer a message from one individual to another, but is a message from many to many, and in the end so many people have participated that the process must be labeled a true "mass communication." Children are continually exposed to such mass communications in terms of the radio, television, the comics, and, last but not least, the climate of opinion of the family itself.

A second kind of event to be considered under the heading of cultural communication is the transmission of statements about tradition and statements about the conventional pro- cedures pertaining to ceremonies, trade customs, health, child- raising practices, and the like. In contrast to the ad hoc character of the messages discussed above, information pertaining to cus- tom constitutes in most societies a more constant, though slowly changing reiteration of the mass communications of the past. The spectator can observe how information whose origin is frequently anonymous is handed down from generation to gen-

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 43

eration and can note its effects on the behavior of people living in the present era.

A third type of event to be included under the title of cultural communication is found in the material, man-made objects and arrangements of objects with which people surround themselves. Because of the dimensions and duration of construction, cathe- drals, dams, roads, and dwellings are beyond the scope of any one individual. Once again, these object systems become mass communications in which both originators and recipients of the messages frequently remain anonymous.

A fourth type of event of societal dimensions is found in the system of symbolization and language which a person must learn if he wishes to participate within a given group. Not only the systems of symbolization but also the subtle shadings in the meanings of symbols have to be mastered. Every citizen learns through the impact of mass communication how to interpret the meaning of messages not only by assessing the content, but above all by watching certain cues related to the manner of presenta- tion. Punctuation, emphasis, attention-getting, assignment of roles, and the expression of emotion can all be seen as messages about communication, which guide the recipient in his under- standing— his decodification and evaluation of the messages. The meaning of the word "please," for example, or the sig- nificance of the voice raised in a certain context, are part of the shared culture, learned from the outer social matrix, either from mass communication or from personal experience in deal- ing with other persons of the same culture. The rules for com- munication about communication — which are also the rules de- fining human relationship — are presumed to be common to many people, whereas the simpler primary content of the mes- sage is presumed to be a matter of the immediate moment and special to the speaker.

Now, it goes without saying that what is presumed to be personal and ephemeral is more subject to change than the more basic patterns, which are presumed to be either absolute or at least shared by large numbers of persons. The individual's freedom of action and self-correction is presumed to be relatively great at a personal level. He sees the effects of his actions, he

44 COMMUNICATION

can correct them, and he can relate cause and effect. But difficul- ties arise in regard to those ideas which the individual assumes to be shared by large numbers of people. The person in question may be exceedingly deviant from other people in his communica- tive habits, and may have his own special rules for interpreting communicative overtones. Yet he unconsciously assumes that these rules are shared, and that they are a part of the inevitable and unchanging nature of life. Such an individual is the psy- chiatric patient. The difficult task of therapy at this level is to lead the patient to the discovery that his inarticulate and usually unconscious assumptions about human relationships, about com- munication, and about the culture in which he lives are incor- rect, and to help him learn that mass communications are man-made and that they can be changed.

These unconscious assumptions about the universality of rules of communication are made not only by individuals, but by groups of people and nations as a whole. In this context, the out- break of a war can be viewed as that moment in which people realize their isolation in terms of communication. In resorting to armed intervention they force the opponent to do the same, namely to resort to war. This procedure eliminates their isola- tion inasmuch as both nations then follow a common system, that of violence and war. This has in itself an equalizing effect upon the systems of communication of both nations, inasmuch as they now share a system of communication common to both. After a varying period of time and with the leveling effect of war, they then are able to live again without war, assuming that the opponent, having gone through all the same hardships, now shares with them the same rules of communication.

A considerable amount of literature has been compiled by anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists about the impact of such mass communications upon the individual. Essentially these mass communications can be considered to form a social matrix in which human relations take place. The manner in which this matrix influences individual and interpersonal be- havior can be understood best by introducing the concept of value premise.

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 45

VALUE PREMISE AND COMMUNICATION

The term "value" is rather commonly used in popular speech and is closely linked with two notions: that value can be ascribed to any object or action, and that value is a quantity which makes possible comparative evaluation. Any object or action can sup- posedly be compared with any other object or action, when values are substituted for the idea of either. In terms of these notions, value is a device which renders incomparable things commensurable; for example, people link price with almost every sort of action and commodity; thus, five dollars' worth of baby shoes can be rated against five dollars' worth of whiskey. Value is also a device by which closely similar things can be differen- tiated; one brand of whiskey can be preferred to another be- cause its price is a few cents more or a few cents less. For the purposes of our study, however, the word "value" will be used with a more general and less quantitative meaning (124).

This wider meaning of the concept of value can be derived from the somewhat simpler notion of preference. "Preference" always refers to an organism's reaction to two or more possibili- ties which have been perceived. These possibilities refer on the one hand to a series of perceived stimuli and on the other hand to a series of anticipated reactions of the organism. In order to facilitate a decision in the face of these multiple choices, the organism subdivides the perceived stimuli and the anticipated reactions into groups. Through a series of complicated processes, the individual finally comes out with a statement of preference. Such a statement of preference we shall term a value.

Through statements of preference, the inner workings of the mind of a person are revealed. Frequently only two choices are present as alternatives. Thus "death" and "dishonor" may be linked as alternatives, or "whiskey" and "baby shoes," or "base- ball" and "softball." In these instances the choice situation is clear; but most of the time the choices are so numerous that they cannot be arranged as simple alternatives. It seems that in the life of an individual, his own actions, the external objects with which he is surrounded, the events in which he participates,

46 COMMUNICATION

and even those in which he is a spectator — all these are arranged in a network of preferences.

These ramifying systems or networks of preference that con- cern us in the present study are the core of all processes of communication. For example, if we as person B hear person A make a verbal statement or see a gesture of his or simply watch this person proceeding in his activities, the following implica- tions occur to us, aided by our assumptions regarding the speaker and our knowledge of his culture:

First that within the social field in which A operates a large number of possible stimuli have arisen; second, that A, operat- ing in this field, has perceived a segment of these stimuli but that it is impossible to specify the perceived stimuli; third, that A possesses a number of ways in which to respond; fourth, that the response which A finally makes is the end product of a complicated process. Neither A nor we as B are sure which stimuli have been perceived nor what range of responses has been considered. Finally, all we see is a preferential action on the part of A. This action implies the notion that a stimulus, out of a large field of stimuli, was linked with a response out of a field of responses. Thus it is well to remember that in daily communication any preferential or value statement is not only a message of that which was chosen, but implicitly evokes in the listener certain associations referring to what might have been perceived, the courses which might have been chosen, and judgments about what ought to have been done. As a matter of fact, this implied background is the feature which gives mean- ing to any statement, and both speaker and listener make liberal use of it; "you know what I mean" is an expression which illustrates this phenomenon, invoking either the common cul- tural background or the listener's previous experience of the speaker's system of values.

Several assumptions regarding the other person's psychological processes are made when people converse with each other. We, as B, for example, assume that when A has perceived the various alternatives, he will compare one alternative with another; in other words, we assume that A will arrive at some action or statement in which preference is present — either overt or im-

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 47

plicit. Furthermore, we attribute to A the ability to rate hetero- geneous elements — at least in pairs — on a homogeneous scale. "Comparison" implies that however different the items, some common denominator can be found. This inferred psychological process includes not only our considerations pertaining to the nature of the stimuli and A's possible responses but also includes the idea that A has had certain past experiences. In daily lan- guage, the term "justification" denotes certain personal deliber- ations which serve the purpose of matching present events with past experiences. In this manner contemplated action is matched with ideas which refer to commonly accepted practices. The as- sumptions we make about A therefore refer to intrapersonal processes, among which we include perception, comparison, justification, and evaluation, which are assumed to lead either to an overt statement of preference or to an action from which we, as observer, can deduce preference.

At this point it seems necessary to recapitulate what we have said about the function of the culture in interpersonal relations. We state simply that a value premise is a generalization made by an observer about another person's perceptions and actions. The observer imputes or "projects" these generalizations upon the other person. Conversely, the person who engages in some action — be it speech, gesture, or other movement — does so in order to become accessible to the observer. In doing so, a person expresses his preference system. A actually causes B to draw in- ferences about his, A's, intrapersonal process which would other- wise be inaccessible. The observer is encouraged to fill in the other's meaning from his own reservoir of information. It is only by means of this filling-in that the observer is able to un- derstand the message. These "fill-ins" are, of course, derived from cultural mass communications to which an individual has been exposed. Persons who have been raised within the same cultural system speak more or less the same language and possess more or less the same values. They may differ or even argue about preferences, but they do understand each other and by and large they will agree as to which items can appropriately be compared, and they are alike in their concepts regarding the "common denominator" mentioned above.

48 COMMUNICATION

Understanding (169) consists largely of perceiving a person's action and deducing from it the series of intrapersonal processes of which it is the end result. It is quite evident that the more correct the inferences, the more the two people will come to possess common information. Knowledge about the other person can be acquired in several ways; the first way consists of living with an individual over a long period of time. Through con- tinued accumulation of information on the one hand and through repeated exposure to similar events on the other, the two people learn to draw correct inferences about each other's behavior. However, this method is time-consuming and often not prac- tical, because in daily life we have to confer with a great many people whom we have never seen before. In spite of not know- ing intimately the majority of the people whom we encounter, we possess some a priori information about their system of values if we have information about the culture in which they have lived. If these other persons are members of our own culture, this information will be rather detailed.

In Chapters 4, 5, and 6 we shall dwell in greater detail upon this a priori information which people share who dwell in the American sector of the orbit of Western civilization. The value premises which govern communication in America — the social matrix — will be presented by assuming that an English-speaking traveler explores America for the first time in his life, and is amazed by the many things he does not understand (32), (47), (65), (86), (95), (102), (157), (167). Some of these observations are common knowledge among foreigners, but the native is frequently unable to verbalize these very same aspects. The American native implicitly understands and acts upon all these cues and never has to give them a second thought (7), (9), (49), (69), (82), (112), (175). But as soon as the American-born psy- chiatrist deals with therapy and rehabilitation — that is, when he tries to improve the means of communication of die patient — he must become more consciously aware of the nature of the communication which prevails between him and the patient. While in daily life people continually communicate on the basis of very incomplete information, this procedure is rather unsatis- factory when a psychiatrist is attempting to carry out therapy.

COMMUNICATION AND HUMAN RELATIONS 49

Incomplete information may suffice in daily life because im- mediately following action will fill in some of the missing infor- mation. However, in therapy, where attempts are made to change the system of communication itself, more complete information has to be available for a successful conclusion of the task. There- fore, before we proceed to discuss the nature of the information inherent in the social matrix, we shall review in the next chapter how psychiatrists have to rely upon information bearing upon values and communication in order to help their patients.

3 • COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS : A Psychiatric Approach

By Jurgen Ruesch

People live, but successful living is an art which is not mastered by all. Those who feel this failure — the patients — seek improve- ment, and those who believe that they know about failure — the therapists — attempt to induce improvement. A give-and- take develops when patients and therapists meet, and the events which occur under such circumstances are referred to as psy- chotherapy. But therapeutic happenings are met in all walks of life. In social relations it does not matter who is in need of help and who provides the assistance. It is not necessary, and some- times not even wise, that people know they are being helped. What counts is the feeling of diminishing failure in the one who suffers and the knowledge of this change in the one who helps. The feeling of relief experienced after successful com- munication molds people in such a way that they begin to seek the companionship of others. At one time the participants may be mother and child, at another, doctor and patient; in one in- stance it may be teacher and pupil, and in another, worshiper and spiritual adviser. Each of these teams is likely to have a different set of words and symbols and their own scientific or philosophical systems to describe what has happened; however, the nature of the events remains similar, being always an ex- perience which occurs in relation with other people. It is the task of psychiatry to help those who have failed to experience successful communication, and it is the aim of psychiatry as a

50

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 51

scientific discipline to gain information about the nature of these failures and to formulate remedial measures.

A psychotherapist approaches human behavior with the clear understanding that he is not only interested in studying and observing people's actions but also that he is specifically con- centrating upon those aspects of behavior which in the course of therapy are likely to change. The therapist uses his knowledge of human behavior for the purposes of improving the health of the patient. Whatever his training and his specific beliefs may be, as a therapist he seeks to influence the behavior of those who come to him for assistance. In contrast to the natural scientist, who investigates nature and concentrates upon that which is, the therapist is interested essentially in that which is going to be; potentialities of development rather than fixation of the status quo are visualized as the aim of therapeutic endeavors. How- ever, this point of view is not universally shared by all; there are still many psychiatrists who view deviant behavior and mental disease as a curiosum which has to be catalogued and housed, displaying an attitude which is very similar to that of the naturalist. In addition to these two types of specialists, we have to mention also those psychiatrists whose primary interest lies in the fields of administration, social or physiological re- search or court work, and who occupy positions which can be likened neither to that of the therapist nor to that of the natural- ist. A brief sketch of the psychiatric scene will illustrate these divergent points of view.

THE CONTEMPORARY PSYCHIATRIC SCENE

Perhaps the most important influence upon psychotherapeutic thinking was exerted by Freud. This fact is documented by the number of followers who, in their adherence to the orthodox psychoanalytic system, constitute a living monument to his genius (54). In addition, other influences have shaped considerably the thinking of American therapists. We have to mention Adler, Jung, Rank, Reich and Stekel (122), who at one time or another were associated with the Freudian movement and who all have their followers in this country. Besides these Austrian, Swiss, and German influences, there have also been repercussions from

52 COMMUNICATION

the writings of Charcot, Janet, and Bernheim of France (83), (84). We may group together the various European psycho- therapeutic schools as constituting one root in the present com- plex picture of American psychiatry and note that a second root is found in a school which originated in this country. It antedated some of the therapeutic movements in Europe and is associated with the name of Adolph Meyer (101). Meyer, though himself a European of Swiss origin, attempted to integrate the more structural thinking of the Europeans with American notions of process and change. He was the first to state the importance of behavioral reactions and to stress the concept of adjustment to life situations, thus introducing fluidity into the rather static notions of psychiatry of his time. A third root of modern Ameri- can psychiatry derives from academic psychology, reflecting the various trends of psychological thinking (44). Names such as Watson, Prince, James, McDougall, are familiar to all (121), while in more recent times those schools which emphasize gestalt psychology (89), and more recent experimental work on condi- tioning (100), (128) and learning (75), (119), have had a con- siderable influence. A fourth root (125) of American psychiatry can be found in the state hospital system as it developed in the course of the nineteenth century (186), while a fifth root is to be found in clinical medicine, physiology, and neuropathology (39),

(4o), (58).

Today, then, the value premises which govern American psy- chotherapy can be traced to their five historical roots: psycho- analysis, psychobiology, experimental as well as social psychology, state hospital psychiatry, and medicine. A synthesis of the various components resulted in premises which indicate that European concepts are being adapted to the American scene and social science concepts are being mixed with purely physiological ap- proaches. Among the modern American trends of thought one would have to mention psychosomatic medicine (137), (141), (150). The efforts of Dunbar (50), (51), Alexander and French (4), Weiss and English (174), and others constitute an attempt at integrating psychoanalytic concepts with physiological findings met with in the practice of clinical medicine (2). Another attempt to adapt psychoanalysis to the present needs of psychiatry was

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 53

made by Alexander and French (3) in their Psychoanalytic Therapy, in which they advocated fewer interviews, avoidance of intense transference reactions, and other short cuts. Similarly Rogers (133) proposed a method entitled "non-directive counsel- ing," which is directed toward a discussion of current adjust- ment problems as selected by the "client." An attempt at cor- recting the traditional isolation of psychiatry from the other social sciences was made by Sullivan (160), Horney (76), Fromm (56), Kardiner (85), Ruesch (140), (143), and others, calling attention to the social matrix in which both patient and psychia- trist operate. The Washington school of psychiatry (120), for example, is built upon Sullivan's premise that interpersonal relations rather than the intrapsychic structure of the patient ought to be the principle concern of the modern psychiatrist. Among other important trends, child psychology, child develop- ment, and child guidance must be mentioned (6), (71). They developed as the result of a synthesis of two principal trends — Freud's emphasis upon childhood events on the one hand, and the American emphasis upon family life on the other. Theories and observations pertaining to childhood events fell in America upon fertile ground because the life of the American family is especially organized around the child and anything that benefits children will be readily absorbed by the public.

Considering the operational aspects of American therapy, one must state that the expressive type of therapy is preferred to the suppressive (57). The latter would obviously conflict with the American ideology of equality, in which freeing the in- dividual from any identifiable oppressive authority is a fore- most goal. Therapies (5) related to expression other than verbal are found in such procedures as occupational therapy (70), play therapy (46), psychodrama (115), (116), music therapy (99), and finger painting (156). The premises related to social manipula- tion in the American culture are expressed in psychiatric social work (55) and other attempts at environmental manipulation. The cultural premises of engineering and emphasis upon bodily health can be recognized in those methods which directly manip- ulate and influence the body, such as progressive relaxation (81), dieting (154), and the like. Group therapy (68) is obviously

54 COMMUNICATION

an expression of the American premise of sociability and the value set upon getting along in a group. Narcosynthesis (77) emerged from an attempt to combine hypnotism (30), (183) with drug action; this method was thought to save time and effort and was widely applied in emergency situations during World War II (66), (67).

The combined efforts of the various therapeutic schools, teaching institutions, and other bodies interested in therapy and the prevention of mental disease have brought about some change in public opinion about psychiatry. Today these diversified in- fluences have united their forces and are organized and subsumed under the heading of mental health. Due to this widespread mental health movement we witness in America an integrative process in which psychoanalysis, psychobiology, state hospital procedures, and medicine are welded more and more into a unit (118), (129). Growing cooperation (104) between psychia- trists, psychologists, anthropologists, social workers, public health officers, welfare workers, judges, and police officers, as well as medical practitioners, demonstrates the diffusion of the concepts underlying mental health. Community, state, and federal legis- lative and executive bodies become increasingly aware of the growing need for steps which will take care of problems of maladjustment; then bodies of responsible men progressively appropriate more money for mental hospitals, teaching, and re- search. More and more scientific study and therapeutic effort are directed at the rehabilitation of criminals, juvenile delin- quents, the blind and the deaf, the accident-prone, spastic chil- dren, and those suffering from infantile paralysis (12). Industry is tackling its own problems, and in no other country in the world is industrial psychiatry so advanced as in America (132). Last but not least, racial prejudice, slum clearance, and even intolerance between religious groups have become the concern of those interested in mental health. The cooperative effect of various groups has resulted in a progressive breakdown of the rigid separation of scientific and therapeutic disciplines. Through a general process of elbow rubbing, responsible persons expose themselves to different views, and such diffusion of information has a direct impact upon the fate of the deviant person. Whether

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 55

it is in terms of cultural, physical, or psychological care, more and more chronic invalids and underprivileged people are today rehabilitated by the newly founded health divisions of com- munity, government, and scientific institutions.

The effect of the American culture, with its premise of equal- ity and its emphasis on health, is to diffuse knowledge and ob- literate individual differences. At the same time it promotes the formation of pressure groups which compete for supremacy and power. Psychiatry is not exempt from these tendencies. While in Europe this competition is expressed in terms of di- vergent ideological views which either are not organized at all or become the supreme credo of some totalitarian regime, in America ideologies are advanced as a moral screen for the attain- ment of power. The latter procedure warrants, of course, efficient political organization in terms of societies, associations, or groups which exert pressure and share among the members the spoils which have been gained.

Any association or organization will more or less conform to the models of organization which are provided by the political system of a given country. This statement is not meant to be taken literally, inasmuch as these similarities become pro- nounced only on a rather abstract level. However, if the reader will keep in mind the description of the system of checks and balances (see p. 153) he will understand the similarity to which we refer. No idea, whether it derives from religious, social, or individual thinking, can escape political exploitation if it be- comes known at all. There will always be somebody who will utilize such an idea in the furtherance of his quest for power. Napoleon attempted to conquer the world in the name of the French Revolution, and the Crusades were conducted in the name of Christianity. And all too frequently, those eager fol- lowers of a productive idea have to resort to methods which destroy the very notion which they attempt to introduce.

At first an idea is usually the property of a single individual; later it may spread but is still distinctly segregated from the rest of the popular body of knowledge, until finally it becomes the center of political organization. As the years go by it becomes

56 COMMUNICATION

institutionalized, and only when the official organization which surrounds the ideas has been corrupted and disintegrates, does the idea, perhaps in a modified form, become public property. The time lag between the introduction of an idea and its ac- ceptance by the public at large has been calculated to amount to more than two hundred years (186).

In psychiatry, the collection of a cumulative body of knowl- edge to which a large number of anonymous scientists contribute is just beginning. At present we are really still in the second stage of development, with its emphasis upon individual schools and segregation. Each prominent member of the psychiatric profes- sion who has either invented a theory or introduced a special kind of therapeutic practice tends to found a new school of thought. Today we still find psychiatric schools tied up with the names of individuals, bitterly fighting rival schools, tied up with the names of other individuals. The differences mentioned are usually related to divergent views and theories rather than to divergent operations; as a matter of fact, one might even go so far as to say that there exists considerably more agreement as far as therapeutic operations are concerned than is apparent from the theoretical discussions. It appears as if psychiatrists progressively tend to agree on operational definitions, becom- ing more tolerant of each other's viewpoints and behaving more like engineers than like artists.

The importance attributed to change by the American people, the existing emphasis upon engineering and applied science, the optimism of the American people with regard to social improve- ment, are the foundations upon which psychotherapy could de- velop. At present, the diversified schools have incorporated some of these values in their respective schemes and are in the process of changing their theoretical formulations. These formulations originated in various places in Europe and had their roots in a variety of historical and social events. America is not only the melting pot of nations but is also the place where compromises are made with regard to theoretical formulations; theories for theory's sake are abandoned, idiosyncrasies are renounced, spe- cial positions and viewpoints are modified, and formulations are offered for the purpose of practical application.

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 57

THE PRESENT STATE OF PSYCHIATRIC THEORY

This brief sketch of the contemporary psychiatric scene might suffice to illustrate the present state of organization of the field jof psychiatry. Now we shall turn our attention to psychiatric theory. To discuss the various theoretical systems which are used to explain deviant behavior is beyond the scope of this volume; and furthermore, it would only repeat that which is well known. Instead we shall call attention to the fact that a grave schism exists between psychiatric theory and psychiatric practice, to the extent that frequently theory and practice seem to be rather loosely connected, if not contradictory. In order to illustrate this peculiar paradox an attempt will be made to reduce the multifarious psychiatric theories to a few basic premises. We shall argue that these premises cannot be combined into a satis- factory psychiatric system because they derive from various his- torical periods, each with a different focus and purpose; there- fore existing psychiatric theories are unsatisfactory when used to explain modern therapeutic techniques. We shall argue fur- ther that, inasmuch as modern therapies are concerned with expression and the improvement of the means of communica- tion of the patient, the theory of communication is best fitted to explain therapeutic procedures.

Lineal and circular systems. In the extreme mechanistic em- phasis of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (147) the causal chains for which scientists searched were, almost without exception, lineal, branching, or converging. The question "why," the belief in single causation (29), and the stress upon the problems of etiology and assessment of disease overdeter- mined the answers which were obtained. A chain of events spaced in time or a set of conditions patterned in space were linked together to build a theory of causality, and what preceded was thought to determine completely that which followed. In such systems it appeared illegitimate to invoke final causes* as a part of explanation. In recent years a profound change (134) has come from the study of systems which have characteristics of self- correction and are capable of predictive and adaptive responses. The reader will recognize that such systems closely simulate

58 COMMUNICATION

the characteristics of organisms, and in fact he will discover that they were anticipated by physiologists such as Claude Ber- nard, who as early as i860 introduced the term "milieu interne" (26). The concept of internal environment and its consistency exerted a profound influence on physiologists, but not until Cannon's formulation (36), (37) of the concept of homeostatic mechanisms did the circular, self-corrective mechanism find ex- plicit and official recognition in medicine. Today the majority of physicians and biologists utilize the concept of homeostasis as a scientific model to explain bodily processes (58).

A similar and concomitant development took place in the field of psychology and psychiatry. At the end of the nineteenth cen- tury and in the first decade of the twentieth, a radically new approach to psychiatry appeared on the horizon. Physiological psychology (165), (185) and classificatory psychiatry (91) were gradually being replaced by behaviorism (171), psychobiology (101), Gestalt psychology (89), and psychoanalysis (54). From concern with conscious statements the interest shifted to the study of unconscious features, the omission of statements, con- figuration, and background. Gradually the class-theoretical, Aristotelian approach (psychological types) was being replaced by the field theoretical approach (97) (psychological processes), and from static considerations of structure the focus shifted to considerations of process, until today reticulate chains of causa- tion, circular systems, and social interaction are the main con- cern of most investigators.

Purpose of psychiatric systems. A combination of ideas derived from medicine, psychoanalysis, social work, psychology, and pre- ventive medicine forms the background of the psychiatrist's theories of today. While the psychologist or sociologist searches for theories which would attempt to explain the multifarious aspects of human behavior, the psychiatrist is an engineer who searches for theories which would explain his therapeutic opera- tions. At times, however, the psychiatrist has to proceed without a knowledge of complicated schemes. Then he acts intuitively, very much like a skilled administrator who, without being able to verbalize his plans beforehand, simply engages in certain operations which may or may not turn out to be successful. The

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 59

knowledge which he possesses, therefore, remains unverbalized and implicit in his actions. Only after action has taken place is the administrator able to give a historical account of what has happened, and the psychiatrist is very much in the same position.

Now, in the twentieth century, the psychiatrist attempts to make up for this difficulty. On the one hand he tries to accumu- late a body of information, and on the other he aspires to con- struct comprehensive theories (61), (93), (123) for the purpose of placing his intuitive and empirical approach on a more ra- tional basis. While the scientific systems used in natural sciences and in philosophy were designed to give a satisfactory explana- tion about the information available at a given time, the con- temporary psychiatric systems have a more restrictive character; they are designed to explain deviant behavior, change in be- havior, and therapeutic operations rather than to encompass all the facts known about human behavior.

Position of the psychiatrist as observer. The building of sys- tems to explain psychopathological events was undertaken by combining introspective knowledge with information obtained by observers looking at people from the outside. In psychiatric systems, therefore, we find that the position of the observer is not always clearly defined. At one time the system is designed to explain the observer's views from without, at another time it is used to explain the same system from within. Though con- cepts such as the "participant-observer" have been introduced to outline the unique and changing position of the psychiatrist, we shall point out in a later chapter that the theory of com- munication does show promise of solving this problem in a more satisfactory manner.

Structure and process. The problem of developing satisfac- tory scientific systems for psychiatric purposes has been further complicated by the circumstance that the description of be- havioral processes in the past has unfailingly led to the develop- ment of psychological types. This particular feature of psychi- atric theory can be blamed upon the fact that language refers to short-lasting processes as if these constituted an everlasting state. If a person, for example, makes such a statement as "Johnny

60 COMMUNICATION

is a liar," the data upon which the statement is based consist only of the fact that Johnny uttered some sentences which were not true. Because of this short burst of speech, he is given the title of liar, as if he were a liar twenty-four hours a day. He is placed in a category or type, and a single observation may pro- vide the basis for such generalizations about his character fea- tures. On the one hand, the sentence "Johnny is a liar" conveys a description of a single event which actually took place; on the other hand this same sentence is a description of other potential behavior of Johnny, implying that he might lie again or that he is lying most of the time (73), (90), (117), (124).

Essentially these difficulties of description and typology are due to thinking in terms of structure rather than process. Both structure and process indicate methods by which the scientist handles information. In assessing the structure of things, an observer reduces numerous observations to a few statements which would indicate the relationship of those multiple factors at any one moment The purpose of a structural statement, therefore, is to combine as many features as possible into one unit whereby changes in time are neglected. Conversely, in statements of process, the scientist tries to observe evolution in time. In order to accomplish this end he must make two, if not more, observations of a system of events over a period of time. The statement of process then combines into one unit these multiple factors which were observed at different dates. In order to describe human behavior, we use in our daily lan- guage expressions which refer to both structure and process; structural statements then denote the integration of features at a single instant, and can be expressed by purely spatial dia- grams, while processal statements denote the continuing tem- poral integration. Varying his interest in structural or processal assessment of events, the scientist will choose the dimensions of his universe. Structural description permits the inclusion of many factors because changes in time are neglected; on the other hand, the consideration of processes demands a smaller delimitation because so many repeat observations have to be carried out (147).

Dimensions of psychiatric systems. However, the very same

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 61

interest in process which forces the scientist to limit the dimen- sions of his universe also makes him aware of the artificiality of his delineation. A brief review of the dimensions of scientific universes encountered by the psychiatrist might serve to illus- trate this point.

The psychiatrist concerns himself with essentially five dimen- sions:

Dimension I. The unit of consideration is a part function of one individual: systemic systems, organ systems.

Dimension II. One human being as a whole is the unit: intrapersonal system of psychiatrist (54), (163).

Dimension III. The interaction of several individuals is the focus of interest: interpersonal systems (120), (160).

Dimension IV. The group is the center of the organization: anthropologist's systems of community, kin- ship, family, professional groups, and the like (14), (so), (92), (152).

Dimension V. The interaction of groups as focus of in- terest: societal systems as studied in eco- nomics, ecology, or political science (no), (111).

Nineteenth-century psychiatry was essentially interested in Dimension I, dealing with the part functions of one individual. As part functions in a psychological sense one may mention topics such as emotion, intellect, memory, mood, traits, habits, as well as all those headings referring to symptoms and syn- dromes. At the turn of the century the interest of psychiatrists shifted from Dimension I to Dimension II, and the intrapersonal structure became the center of attention. As time went on, towards the middle of the twentieth century, psychiatry became less concerned with structural models of the mind or the soul, and devoted more attention to the notions of process. In the last two decades, especially under the influence of the Washington School of Psychiatry (120), Dimension III, concerned with the

62 COMMUNICATION

interaction of individuals, has gained attention. At the moment the engineer's interest in problems of communication, the ana- lyst's concern with transference and counter-transference, the sociologist's concern with group membership, document clearly the growing tendency of all disciplines to enlarge their previously restricted systems. For example, Dimension IV has already pene- trated psychiatric thinking inasmuch as the structure of the family and other group relations have become foremost mental hygiene topics. And some aspects of socialized medicine definitely belong in Dimension V.

The system of Freud. At this point one ought to mention that Freud's greatest service to psychiatry was probably his intro- duction of the notion of process and the consideration of the individual as a whole. He met opposition and rattled the struc- turally minded psychiatrists of his time, but today psychiatry has finally adopted those notions of process which physicists and chemists had accepted a long time before. The system that Freud proposed for the explanation of intrapersonal events can be considered to be rather complete, inasmuch as it explains in a satisfactory manner most events within the universe of the psy- chiatrist. Freud's tripartite system (id, ego, and superego), how- ever, still has some lineal characteristics, and events pertaining to the interaction of one individual with other persons and his participation in wider social events are not satisfactorily repre- sented. As Ptolemy once postulated that our earth was the center of the astero-physical world, so Freud placed the intrapersonal processes at the center of all events. Today we must recognize that such a position is untenable. We will grant that for the understanding of intrapersonal processes Freud's model of the soul is still the most comprehensive system available. However, because of its lineal character and because of its relative isolation from other systems, it does not suffice to encompass all that happens between people. What we need today is systems which would embrace both events confined to the individual and events encompassing several people and larger groups (163).

Part and whole. The chan^ingr focus of the scientist's in- terest (33), (34), one minute concentrating on some small event

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 63

occurring in a single cell, the next moment turning to the consideration of the organism in which this cell is located, raises a dialectical problem. The psychiatrist's operations make it nec- essary for him to focus his attention upon the individual as a whole, and information pertaining to part functions of the human being is left to fields such as physiological psychology, physiology, and pathology, while knowledge pertaining to the whole of society is willingly relegated to sociology, anthropology, and social psychology. Within the psychiatric systems proper, information pertaining to part functions of an individual is represented by such terms as "organic" or "somatic" and in- formation referring to the larger societal systems by such terms as "environment." These expressions are global wastebaskets for events which are thought to fall beyond the limits of psychi- atric concern. The existence of such events is noted, but atten- tion is not devoted to any details. However, the psychiatrist cannot avoid shifting his focus of attention. At one instant he isolates a single event — let us say he observes a tic of the patient — and at the next instant he evaluates the tic in the perspective of all the information he possesses about the patient. Further- more, he may at one instant consider the patient as an individual, and the next moment he may be concerned with the patient as a member of his family. Therefore he constantly switches the dimensions of his universe; this particular aspect we have termed the problem of "part and whole" (151).

During the last decade or so, awareness of the problem of part and whole has brought about a change of attitude. In recent years the psychiatrist, as well as all other social scientists, has realized that in order to understand the individual, information expressed in terms of various behavioral and societal systems has to be combined. This viewpoint is already gaining mo- mentum but again, dialectical difficulties develop when scientists attempt to transfer information which is expressed in terms of a larger — e.g., societal — system to another system of a smaller dimension — e.g., the individual. Each system has its own lan- guage, and therefore it was necessary to carry along in scientific and interdisciplinary discussions the languages of these varied sys-

64 COMMUNICATION

terns. Frequently the same events were labeled with a multi- plicity of names, and these polyglot labels increased the existing confusion.

The need for a unified field theory, which would enable scien- tists to use one continuous set of terms and therefore eliminate the dialectical difficulties which develop with the shifting di- mensions of the scientific universe, thus becomes quite apparent. And it is the hope of the authors to contribute towards a better understanding of the relationship of various scientific universes by proposing to consider within one system the communicative aspects of events (see Chapter 1 1) and thereby resolve the peren- nial discussion regarding the delineation of such entities as society, group, individual, organ, and cells.

Variables in psychiatric systems. If in the last few pages we have been concerned with the most abstract principles which govern psychiatric thinking, we now shall descend the ladder of complexity and be concerned with the variables which govern psychiatric thinking. Let us first inspect the topics which psychia- trists write and talk about, and derive from these the ingredients or elements which make up the psychiatric systems. Inasmuch as Murphy (121), Nicole (122), and Janet (83), (84) have ex- cellent reviews of the varied approaches, viewpoints, and systems which psychiatrists use, we shall refrain from repeating that which is well known. The reader who is familiar with this source material will understand that the subject matter of psy- chiatry can be conveniently divided into five large groups. These groupings, which for brevity's sake we shall refer to as topics, are an expression not only of observed events, but also of the psychiatrist's ways of managing the information he has acquired. His focus, his attitudes, and his viewpoints are revealed in the slants taken in his publications and lectures. These slants not only differentiate the psychiatrists from each other, but they also establish fashion trends and procedure for future genera- tions. Up to now, when psychiatrists have expressed a scientific opinion, they have tended to maximize one or more of the following aspects:

First, we find that the psychiatrist operates with genetically determined variables which are statements of varied purpose

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 65

and potentiality in human beings. These are subsumed under such topics as heredity, constitution, and homeostasis, and they are thought to be beyond the control of any individual. Such a predeterministic outlook forces the psychiatrist into a position of maximizing structurally organic determinants.

Second, the psychiatrist operates with biologically deter- mined variables which are statements about the hypothetical and immediate causes of overt behavior in human beings. The individual is thought to be incapable of changing the forces which are subsumed under headings such as instincts, drives, needs, and the "id." However, such a view, which maximizes the animalistic forces in the human being, assumes that there are other forces which can counteract, reinforce, or alienate the effect of these primitive urges.

Third, the psychiatrist assumes the existence of forces which are opposed to the animalistic tendencies of the human being. The psychiatrist believes that these learned, complex, and ex- perientially determined features exert a stabilizing influence which opposes the unstable and often asocial animalistic forces inherent in human beings. These humanistic features have been called attitudes, interests, aspirations, will power, reason, "ego ideal," or "superego."

Fourth, the psychiatrist uses variables which are thought to implement the various needs of the individual. These variables are summarized under such headings as emotions, feelings, moods, memory, abilities, talents, instrumental actions, re- sponses, implementations, or the "ego." These forces are thought to implement carnal and spiritual — that is, animalistic and hu- manistic— motivations of the individual. Psychiatrists who maxi- mize these variables are essentially concerned with effector determinants.

Fifth, there are all those realistically and culturally deter- mined variables which are dictated by the surroundings. These environmental determinants^ including all social and economic factors, the psychiatrist uses as a background against which he explains some of the events which cannot be explained in any other terms.

The hodgepodge of variables appearing in psychiatric systems

66 COMMUNICATION

has been introduced by a multiplicity of factors: one source being history and tradition, another the scientific disciplines from which the information derived, and a third the practical operations of the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist's thinking, by and large, circles around psychological and philosophical con- siderations of biological events; he is concerned with life and death, with the purpose of things, with limitations of the human being, with determinism of human behavior, with the mastery of biological functions, and the like. Thus we find that his in- formation has been borrowed from natural sciences, biology, the humanities, and religion; rationally, however, the psychiatric systems really make little sense; they are primarily anthro- pological and historical museums of philosophical, psychologi- cal, and religious considerations of past centuries.

Processes described in psychiatric systems. Nor do we find more consistency if we attempt to specify the life processes with which the psychiatrist is concerned. It will not be a surprise to the reader to find that the psychiatrist's views consist of a com- posite mixture of biological, psychological, and social consid- erations; the common denominator of these diverse views is found in the fact that the human being is a biological organism, characterized by a life cycle and by purposive behavior. In pur- suing his study of the life cycle of organisms, the psychiatrist developed a set of variables which run along a scale ranging from progression to regression. Progression would denote the development of inherent potentialities of the organism until optimal functioning has been attained, while regression would include all those processes which lead to ultimate decay. Growth, learning, conditioning, maturation, and integration would be examples of progressive processes, while headings such as de- cline, deterioration, senescence would illustrate regressive proc- esses. It is interesting to note that part of Freud's psychological system is built on this notion of progression-regression, and that in addition to considering an over-all trend, he also introduced the notion of short-lasting regressional periods within a major progressional cycle. Today it is widely accepted that at times of stress the individual tends to regress by resorting again to implementations and means of gratification which were used in

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 67

an earlier developmental period. It seems as if the concepts of progression and regression were the psychiatric version of the nineteenth-century concern with evolution and the twentieth- century interest in problems of periodicity.

Psychiatrists have been deeply influenced by the physiolo- gists' views of homeostasis and by all those concepts referring to steady-state mechanisms. And after accepting these modern bio- logical concepts the psychiatrist had to develop psychological concepts which in some way would be equivalent to the views prevailing in other natural sciences. Therefore we are not sur- prised to find that the psychiatrist developed psychological con- cepts which are direct analogies to the physical processes of metabolism, storage of energy, and elimination of waste products. Freud's concepts of orality and anality and the further refine- ments introduced later (1), (52) were designed to adapt psy- chological processes to conform to concepts of physiology. In some ways violence was done to the nature of psychological events by treating them as if they were chemical or physical events. Thus a psychoanalyst talks about incorporation, reten- tion, and elimination, using physiological analogies of food intake and digestion to explain such highly complicated mech- anisms as conditioning, retention of sensory impressions, or volitional acts. In using such analogies psychoanalysts followed the nineteenth-century fashion of studying body functions by dissecting organs and considering systems separately as if they existed in isolation from other functions. It is well to remember that a brain is not at all the same thing at autopsy as it is when the central nervous system is a part of a living organism. And it is also well to remember that the baby already reacts as a whole organism in which all functions are subordinated to the foremost task at any given moment. Today most scientists look askance at attempts to split the organism into part functions, and the old attempts to dissect the individual psychologically have fortunately been abandoned.

The physical problems of maintenance and steady state and other psychological analogies are probably responsible for the psychiatrist's concern with the problem of interference. Volumes have been written on the nature of aggression and whether ag-

68 COMMUNICATION

gressive acts are the outgrowth of a primary instinct or are responses to outside interference (48). Be that as it may, the existence of interference cannot be denied. We all know that the organism is equipped to respond in various ways to threat- ening events. Upon perception of a strange or threatening stim- ulus, the organism reacts with alarm. Muscular, vascular, psy- chological, and chemical processes are set in motion which enable the organism to proceed with action and to sustain maximum effort for a limited period of time (146), (148). De- pending upon the situation, the reaction of the alarmed in- dividual can be described as anger, fear, or anxiety. If anger develops, the alarm reaction will be used for fighting; if fear develops, for running away and avoidance; if both types of action are prevented, anxiety will develop. Shame, guilt, and depression denote the response of the individual to alarm in response to stimuli which arise within the individual himself.

Reactions to interfering stimuli from without or within can sometimes assume emergency proportions which disrupt not only the functioning of a particular individual, but also of the group of which he is a member. Acute "nervous breakdowns," tension states, and the phenomena of anger, fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, and depression are the principle concerns of the psychia- trist (138). These terms designate essentially symptoms which develop when a breakdown in the system of communication of the patient occurs. However, most psychiatric theories attempt to explain these phenomena in terms of the individual only. They do not include other persons or the social matrix in which an individual lives, and in which these events occur. This is the most outstanding weakness of present-day psychiatric theory.

Likewise, the tendency to dissect the functioning of individ- uals into mechanisms is a great weakness of theoretical psy- chiatry. When the psychiatrist refers to identification, projection, sublimation, reaction formation, and so on, he is making state- ments about his own focus of attention rather than explaining what goes on in another individual. These mechanisms do not constitute separable units of behavior which could legitimately be used as explanations of what is happening; rather, the refer- ence to one of these mechanisms is an explanation indicating

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 69

some features of the momentary focus of the psychiatrist's per- ceptions. If the reader will take the trouble to think through what is meant by one of these "mechanisms," he soon will dis- cover that in order to explain and understand any one of them, all the other mechanisms are also needed. The word "mecha- nism" is, in fact, a misnomer. "Projection," "identification," and so on, are elements in the functioning of a total individual as perceived and dissected by another individual (the scientist). If these elements were represented in a diagram, the diagram would not be comparable to a block diagram of existing parts within the single individual; rather, it would be a flow chart in which the units represent "functions" or "processes." Fur- thermore, this flow chart would represent not one individual but two persons in interaction.

General postulates of psychiatric theories. In order to fur- ther understand the nature of psychiatric theories of our time we shall attempt to trace all psychiatric concepts to five premises. The first is related to the concept of normality and pathology, the second to the concept of polarity, and the third to the con- stant search for causes; the fourth is the psychiatrist's tendency to relate momentary behavior to a spectrum of behavior over a longer period of time, and the fifth is related to the psychia- trist's relativistic attitudes. Though it would be absurd to pre- tend that these are the only premises which psychiatrists use, nonetheless it seems as if all statements of psychiatrists, especially those which qualify human behavior, have some features in common. The data from which these premises were derived can be found in any textbook of psychiatry and can be verified in any lecture given by a psychiatrist.

To arrange scientific data in an orderly manner the psychia- trist uses as one of his principles the concept of pathology. Im- plicitly, therefore,' he classifies the phenomena which he ob- serves in terms of deviation from the norm. In this context the concept of pathology has a statistical meaning denoting preoccupation with infrequent events which because of their rare occurrence are labeled pathological.

In a second context pathology may also be defined as a con- cept which denotes deviation from the ideal, desirable, or op-

70 COMMUNICATION

timal state of functioning regardless of statistical frequency. This latter meaning derives from medical usage. The psychia- trist who by training and vocation is a physician, unconsciously — and sometimes consciously — evaluates a patient in terms of actual functioning, both physical and mental; he then compares his findings to the level which the patient might achieve under optimal circumstances. Medical or psychiatric findings which deviate markedly from this optimum are then labeled patho- logical.

A third meaning of the concept of pathology is found when the psychiatrist compares the symptoms and signs of his patients with those of known and established disease entities; this process of matching individual findings with established pathology is used in diagnostic procedures.

The psychological, personality, and psychopathological sys- tems used by psychiatrists are all based essentially upon the con- cept of disordered function or pathology. But inasmuch as psy- chiatrists themselves do not possess a sufficiently clear notion of normality, the question may be raised whether the concept of the norm is not opposed and in contradiction to the concept of individual adjustment and adaptation. Be that as it may, some of the confusion existing in psychiatry today is clearly related to the improper use of a rather nebulous concept of normality. In order to avoid the difficulties which arise in the traditional classification of psychopathological events, some psychiatrists have introduced the notion that each individual is unique, so that the concept of normality or deviation cannot be applied, and that instead the concept of internal consistency should be used. If this were completely true, however, training in psy- chiatry and psychotherapy would be futile because one would have to assume, each case being so different from the next one, that no generalizations could be made. The fact that psy- chiatrists can be trained, however, speaks to the contrary (11). Therefore we must assume that all therapists operate with some concept of normality which allows them to make generalizations, even if this is vehemently denied. Perhaps we have to think of normality on a higher level of abstraction than is commonly ac- cepted. One can state with certainty that the biological and psy-

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 71

chological similarities of man are greater than his differences, and that the minimum physiological and psychological require- ments compatible with health and the limits of maximal human efforts are well known. Within this range, then, some generali- zations can be made and within this context predictions regard- ing human behavior are safe.

In order to understand the psychiatrist's thinking one must bear in mind that his daily activities revolve around mental abnormalities and that concern with the psychological norm falls into the periphery of his endeavors. Following the diagnostic operations of psychiatrists, for example, a patient is labeled normal only in the absence of "pathological" features. The diagnosis of normality is made by exclusion, and if a psychiatrist can label a feature it is by implication pathological and undesir- able. Therefore anything that is called by a name is implicitly abnormal, and in the existing psychiatric nomenclature of diag- noses, syndromes, symptoms, patterns, mechanisms, habits, and the like, this procedure is clearly revealed. Since the psychia- trist's attention is focused upon deviation, and since he has little or no training in normal psychology, he tends to construct a hypothetical norm by averaging the exact opposite of those features he sees in his patients. In therapy the assumption of a norm so constructed works very satisfactorily. Indirectly and implicitly, the psychiatrist exerts considerable pressure upon patients to focus upon their abnormal features. The result of such isolation of abnormal features against a hypothetical back- ground of normality and health gives psychotherapy aim and direction. It might suffice to mention here such concepts as maturity and regression, the pleasure principle and the reality principle, to illustrate our case.

The nature of pathology implies the existence of a concept of health, and all medical and psychiatric thinking is geared toward helping the patient achieve health. Mental health is obviously defined in terms of the culture in which the patient and the therapist live. The concept of health can be viewed as a struc- tural assumption describing a series of conditions pertinent to processes which prolong the optimal functioning of an in- dividual. The concept of disease, in contrast, denotes deviation

72 COMMUNICATION

from optimal functioning through the introduction of a num- ber of reversible or irreversible processes. Inasmuch as health is defined in each culture in terms of those physical and mental processes which seem to be desirable to the system in power, the American concept of health can be derived from that which will be said about the American culture as a whole. To be able to compete and to successfully grasp the opportunity which equality provides for the individual defines the essential mean- ing of living in America. In order to do these things, an Ameri- can citizen must be strong, self-reliant, independent, free of physical disease, able to get along in a group, ready to adapt to emergencies, capable of caring for children and the family, and not a public liability. The healthy individual is expected to use his power for his own benefit with restraint and wisdom.

The concept of health is very popular in America. There are the United States Public Health Service, the departments of health of states, counties, and communities, and the various leagues for fighting specific diseases and for the rehabilitation of invalids. Every citizen is aware that cleanliness and hygiene are necessary concerns of successful living, and early training at home is fortified by later teaching in school; the child learns the idea that bodily and dental care, nutrition, and fresh air are all necessary conditions for successfully carrying on competi- tive striving. In this atmosphere of hygiene, psychotherapy can of course thrive, and the public expects from a psychotherapeutic movement more or less the same results as it expects from dental care. A program of prevention, a set of formulas to cope with emergencies, general directions for ordinary living and institu- tional facilities for those who cannot fit into the group are expected from psychiatry.

It is not surprising, therefore, to see that in all countries medical and psychiatric theories are influenced by the efforts of therapists to bring about health. Those who are pure scientists and not therapists develop theories of human behavior which are not suitable for understanding deranged functions in thera- peutic operations. In contrast, the person whose motivation is to help the sick develops concepts of pathology which are sub- servient to the methods of treatment. When the psychiatrist

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 73

talks about abnormal behavior, it sometimes appears to a neutral observer that the psychiatrist is a pure scientist: his scope and purpose seem limited to the acquisition of information as a goal in itself. This, however, is only half the truth, because the psy- chiatrist wants to use the information in certain operations. These two facets of the psychiatrist — the scientific and the ma- nipulative— have always puzzled observers who come from the pure sciences, and most of the criticism directed at psychiatry derives from a misunderstanding of the psychiatrist's purpose.

The construction of a hypothetical norm in the mind of the psychiatrist or, on the other hand, the declaration that a feature is abnormal and must be remedied, brings out another scientific concept — namely, that of polarity. Bipolar variables such as in- telligent or stupid, conscious or unconscious, mature or im- mature, real or imagined, gratified or frustrated, and the like, are an expression of linear systems of thinking, in which two poles indicate two extremes with the middle being the norm; sometimes one of the poles denotes deviation and the other the norm. For example, the terms "abstainer" and "alcoholic" de- note two extremes, whereas "temperate" would indicate the norm; on the other hand, the term "balanced" would indicate norm, and "unbalanced" the pathological deviation.

In all systems of psychiatry polar concepts are widely used, and it is well to remember that medicine is based upon the dichotomy of health and disease. Both the principle of pathology and the principle of polarity are subservient to the fact that the occupation of healing is unthinkable without some value judgments about health and disease. Inasmuch as the psychia- trist's activity is primarily devoted to the improvement of mental health rather than to the collection of information, he must, of necessity, divide events into those which are useful and those which are not. Codes of ethics bearing upon human conduct are seldom derived from any scientific accumulation of informa- tion but are rather the result of pressure from religious, political, and other groups which prescribe some standard of human be- havior.

Sickness is culturally defined, and likewise society provides an institutional solution for those who are sick. In all cultures

74 COMMUNICATION

there are explanations of sickness; in our culture the explana- tion is the province of physicians who search for the causes re- sponsible for the pathology. The theories of causality which psychiatrists of the past have developed have usually been domi- nated either by superstition or by physiological and mechanistic thinking. In an attempt to explain the causes of mental illness, various fashion trends, viewing mental disease as the result of witchcraft or as the result of bacterial invasion, have had their day. In the last hundred years, the medical concept of etiology which consisted in searching for the immediate causes of a disease or of a deranged function has dominated psychiatry at large. Physicians tended to ask the question "why," which essentially derived from Aristotelian systems of thinking, rather than to raise the question "how," which derived from modern field-theoretical approaches. In the Aristotelian or class-theo- retical approach, things were classified in categories; the reader is but too familiar with Kraepelin's classificatory system of psychiatry (91) to require further exemplification. The answer to the question "why," then, consisted of searching for a cause which would explain the existence of such a class of diseases. In contrast, the field-theoretical approach is concerned with the functional relations between a system of events and the field in which they occur; applied to human behavior it would mean concern with the relationship of an individual and his environ- ment. While the class-theoretical approach presupposes lineal, branching, or converging systems or chains of causation, the field-theoretical approach is concerned with circular systems and self-regulatory mechanisms (97), (180).

In the modern approach one asks how something operates within a given system, while in the past one was concerned with the question of why such a system came into existence. In psychiatry ancient thinking still is strongly represented. For example, there exists the belief that if one could find that one "Factor X" which is responsible for a given nosological entity such as schizophrenia, one could cure such a condition. The fallacy of such argument is obvious. Raising the question of the cause of schizophrenia presupposes that certain behavioral features can be classified, isolated, and localized and that the

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 75

hypothetical cause can be likewise isolated and related to the disease entity. In such reasoning, the organism is not considered as a whole but is split up in part functions. Likewise, in psy- chotherapy, there exists still the tendency to make single events such as traumatic childhood experiences responsible for later behavior. Causal and lineal thinking are also revealed in fashion trends of psychoanalysis, varying from the "primal scene" over the "castration complex" to "repressed aggression." This strong nineteenth-century orientation of psychiatric theory is likely to be replaced in time by more modern views. These hold that whenever one factor changes, all the other factors likewise must undergo change; therefore in observing steady-state mechanisms of the organism, for example in the form of stabilized behavior patterns, it is usually impossible to isolate single causes which can be made directly responsible for the present picture. The most that can be done is to specify the conditions which existed previously and those which exist now, without knowing too much about the relation of multiple causes and multiple effects. The modern psychiatrist's theoretical views have to take care of a multitude of facts; the psychiatrist has to realize that he him- self, and also the individual he is studying, are but minimal parts of larger superpersonal systems and that the theories of causality which the psychiatrist establishes are usually valid only within the framework of very narrow considerations, special situations, and limited delineations of the scientific universe.

The psychiatrist's answer to questions bearing upon the cause of mental conditions is ultimately connected with his tendency to isolate one behavioral event and to view it against the whole background of information he possesses about an individual. The psychiatrist who sees a patient under interview conditions and for a short period of time does not think of the patient in terms of his momentary observations alone. In order to proceed with therapy, the psychiatrist wishes to gain an understanding of the patient's personality as a whole; this means that he at- tempts to construct within his own mind a small-scale model of the patient's entire life and attempts to place present observa- tions of the patient's actions within this larger framework. For example, if the patient is smoking a cigarette, the psychiatrist

76 COMMUNICATION

would want to inquire when the patient smoked his first ciga- rette, and he will be curious to know whether the patient's mother had given him a lollipop when adults were smoking in the living room; he might even consider the time when the bottle or breast satisfied the oral needs of the patient. Thus the psychiatrist views a single act at the present time with a back- ground of the inferred over-all behavior of the patient. At this point it is well to remember that a single act or series of actions can be observed by anybody who is present, but that the over-all behavior, over the past twenty years, for example, exists only in the form of information which condenses into one moment the serial happenings over a period of time. In psychiatric theories of causality a single outside event is equated with a spectrum of information in the mind of the observer. In theories of physics two outside events are connected with a spectrum of information present in the mind of the observer. In psychiatry we are thus faced with the problem of considering a part with the background of a whole. The part is defined by our bio- logical limitations as human beings — that is, our machinery for the reception and transmission of messages; the whole is defined by our ability to conceptualize. We call the problem dialectical essentially because it is related to the peculiarities of the observer, rather than being structured by the nature of observed events (151).

Another difficulty of the psychiatrist in establishing valid theories of causation involves his particular personality and the role in which he governs a social situation. A verbal statement perceived by an observer can be interpreted in different ways. For example, a compulsive or legalistic mind might confine itself to purely syntactical or semantic interpretations, omitting all pragmatic considerations. In contrast, the psychologically ori- ented person will listen to the same statement in an attempt to detect the implied values of the speaker. A politically minded person with common sense will in turn interpret the statement as an expression of the feeling of the population at large and without particular consideration of the individual who makes the statement. Thus the legalistic mind acts primarily as an observer, the psychologically minded person as a participant,

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 77

and the politically minded person, while he may pretend to participate, is in reality manipulating, campaigning, and ob- serving the effects of his actions. The psychiatrist uses all three attitudes for purposes of understanding and carrying out ther- apy; in his therapeutic role, not only does he change his posi- tion as participant and observer, but he also switches the levels of abstraction in emitting and receiving messages. For example, when the psychiatrist uses a term like "castration," several meanings are conveyed. First, the literal meaning of an actual physical injury to the genital region; second, an injury to all those symbols which stand for genitalia; third, the restriction of freedom and independence which is necessary for the pre- liminary explorations preceding the use of genitalia; and last, on the highest level of abstraction, he may use "castration" to refer to any forced relinquishment of ideas or rights which in some remote way may influence genital functioning. Psychiatric variables are thus characterized by the fact that they pertain simultaneously to different levels of abstraction, and only pro- longed contact with the psychiatric fraternity enables a stranger to learn all the cues which indicate the particular level of ab- straction at which the message is to be interpreted.

The multiple meaning of the psychiatric vocabulary is ex- tremely useful in therapy. It enables the psychiatrist to proceed from more restricted to more inclusive considerations, and it increases the awareness of the patient with regard to his own and other people's actions; therefore it exerts an integrative influence upon the patient. However, it is quite clear that such elastic and multiple meanings of words do not lend themselves to precise definition and therefore to the development of theories of causality.

This brings us to the last basic aspect of psychiatric thinking, the psychiatrist's relativism. The psychiatrist's tolerance and permissiveness in therapy necessitates that he abstain from overt value judgments. However, this position is somehow un- tenable outside of the therapeutic situation if one considers that there are things, methods, and approaches which are more suit- able than others for a given purpose. For example, we all know that there are tires which last longer than others, that there

78 COMMUNICATION

are agricultural procedures which produce better milk, and that there are social techniques and schemes which give more satis- faction to the majority of people than others. And there is hardly anybody who would question the statement that war, utter destruction, and famine are worse than peace, constructive ways of living, and assurance of satisfactory standards of living. Thus there is no doubt that there are methods which are better than others; but in spite of this evidence the psychiatrist gen- erally refrains from making judgments, acting strictly as a historian. He confines himself to that which has happened, and he helps the patient to draw necessary conclusions from events of the past; he holds to the view that any step to be undertaken in the future is as good as any other if it works out well. The fact that one approach is successful for a single individual does not necessarily mean that the scheme as such is superior to any other; all that it means is that within a given set of re- stricted circumstances a particular scheme has turned out to be successful.

This pragmatic relativism of the psychiatrist and his waiving of absolute values seem to be an expression of our time. People seem to have lost the ability to make theoretical decisions which would promote a consistent viewpoint. Instead they make prag- matic choices in terms of specified goals, and we shall show later that the American premise of equality has largely con- tributed to the widespread acceptance of such pragmatism.

The confusion between theoretical and pragmatic equality was perceived by Abraham Lincoln, who said, "I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects."

At the present time psychiatry and the American public at large seem to hold the view that all people are born with similar potentialities, and that the differences observed are primarily due to variations in environment, opportunity, and achievement. Be that as it may, within the framework of relativism and prag- matism, theory is laid aside when immediate application in action is not possible. The American psychiatrist strives more

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 79

for therapeutic success than for an understanding of the thera- peutic processes.

It goes without saying that any scientific theory is man-made; the scientists who formulate it live in a given country at a given time, and are subject to the influence of their contempo- raries. Any scientific theory therefore reflects in some way the culture in which it was created. The system of cues and clues which the given culture provides to enable people to under- stand each other is necessarily used by the theorist in forming and stating his theory; and therefore the theory can only be fully understood after this system of cues has been studied.

Moreover, the culture enters again into the formation of psychiatric theory because the goals of psychiatry are culturally determined; the concepts and evaluation of health and disease which determine the operations (and therefore the viewpoints) of psychiatrists differ from culture to culture.

So far we have pointed out some of the difficulties existing in the theory and practice of psychiatry. We have called atten- tion to the fact that the basic requirements for the construction of a psychiatric system are that it be circular, that it have the characteristics of self-correction, that it satisfactorily solve the problem of part and whole function, and that it clearly define the position of the observer and therefore state the influence of the observer upon that which is observed and vice versa. In subsequent paragraphs we shall explain that these character- istics are fulfilled by conceiving and explaining psychiatric events in terms of a system of communication. We shall discuss how such a system facilitates the understanding of psychiatric events and the formulation of therapeutic procedures, and how it also bridges the gap between psychiatry and other fields of social science.

DISTURBANCES OF COMMUNICATION AND PSYCHOTHERAPY

Psychopathology is defined in terms of disturbances of com- munication. This statement may come as a surprise, but if the reader cares to open a textbook on psychiatry and to read about the manic-depressive or the schizophrenic psychosis, for ex-

80 COMMUNICATION

ample, he is likely to find terms such as "illusions," "delusions," "hallucinations," "flight of ideas," "disassociation," "mental re- tardation," "elation," "withdrawal," and many others, which refer specifically to disturbances of communication; th.ey imply either that perception is distorted or that expression — that is, transmission — is unintelligible.

Psychiatrists who devote their time to psychotherapy believe that the rehabilitation of patients suffering from psychopathol- ogy can only be carried out within the context of a social situa- tion; they think that contact with human beings is a therapeutic necessity. If one attempts to analyze the events which take place in a social situation, the interaction between patient and doctor, and the efforts directed at influencing the patient by means of psychotherapy, one must arrive at the conclusion that these events fall into the realm of communication. Therefore one can state with certainty that the therapeutically effective agents con- tained in psychotherapy are to be found in communication.

In attempting to isolate and narrow down those communi- cative processes which seem to have a therapeutic effect we find that the existing formulations do not do justice to the processes of communication, although concepts such as "transference," "countertransference," "catharsis," and "free association" im- plicitly refer to the communicative aspects of psychoanalytic procedures. These terms were designed to fit into systems which were oriented around the individual as an isolated entity rather than around his functions as a social being. Therefore it is not surprising to discover that while all therapists actually attempt to improve the means of communication of their patients, when they talk about these events, they mention only implicitly the processes of communication.

The scant information pertaining to communication stands in sharp contrast to the numerous publications which attempt to explain what happens in the minds of individuals. Inasmuch as the theoretical schemes were geared to the isolated considera- tion of single human beings, no provision was made for the inclusion of the surroundings or of the social relations of a per- son. Today, therefore, it has become necessary to widen the concepts which deal with personality structure, to include

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 81

hypotheses which would encompass all the people who interact in both therapeutic and social situations. When we enlarge our psychiatric considerations to embrace the wider networks of communication, we cease to limit ourselves to the boundaries of one individual. We are now interested, rather, in tracing in- coming and outgoing messages in time and space to their source and destination.

The network of communication, therefore, is going to define our psychiatric universe. The origin and destination of messages may be found within the same organism; then we are dealing with an intrapersonal network. If the message originates in one person and is perceived by another, we are dealing with an inter- personal network. If an individual has the function of mes- senger, then both the origin and destination lie outside that particular organism. Therefore, in order to understand a com- munication system, and especially the disturbances of communi- cation arising in such a system, the attention of the psychiatrist has to focus on the social situation; the focus of interaction will then be the interaction of people, the influence of mass com- munication upon the individual, and the shaping of the larger and more complex superpersonal systems through the summa- tion of actions of single individuals (147).

Viewing psychotherapy primarily as an attempt at improving the communication of the patient within himself and with others raises a question as to the conditions which are necessary to bring about such improvement (60). We have mentioned be- fore that a stranger is in a specially favorable position to make value statements about people whom he has observed. The tourist, when he tries to engage in a conversation with people of a foreign country, has to explore their system of communica- tion. He may have learned the foreign language at home, but missing the many associations which are necessary for a mean- ingful interpretation of the messages received from others, he is at a loss to understand what is going on and especially to un- derstand the emotional shadings of human relationships. This experience is familiar to the American who may visit England. He hears approximately the same language, but in no way does he understand the subtle shadings of behavior and expression

82 COMMUNICATION

of the Englishman until he has mastered, through a long series of experiences, the necessary cues which enable him to interpret the Englishman's messages correctly.

The general principle which underlies these observations may be stated as follows: When all participants adhere to the same system of communication, a spontaneous give-and-take de- velops, because implicitly these participants know how to com- municate, although explicitly they are frequently unable to formulate their methods of communication. In contrast, when people use different systems of communication they must first acquire explicit information about their own and the other person's ways of communication before a satisfactory exchange can take place.

The psychiatrist who wishes to converse with a hebephrenic patient, therefore, is in very much the same position as a tourist who travels in a foreign country and is unfamiliar with the language. He has to explore the particular communication system which the patient uses in order to understand the con- tent of the message, a task which frequently involves the insur- mountable job of decoding the symbolic system of the patient. Therefore one might assume that in any therapeutic procedure where understanding between persons is a guiding mode of operation, differences between patient and therapist are essential if the patient is to make favorable progress. Specifically, it seems that the important differences are differences in the communi- cation system of the two persons and that the progress of therapy is related to the patient's experience, conscious or unconscious, of communicating with another individual — the therapist — whose values and communication system are different from his own.

The central problem of psychotherapy may now be restated as follows: How does it happen that in the interchange of mes- sages between two persons with differing systems of codification and evaluation, a change occurs in the system of codification and evaluation of either one or both persons? This problem touches on the paradox that, at a given instant, an individual can only emit or receive messages structured appropriately for his com- munication system as it exists at that moment. All other mes-

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 83

sages must be supposed to remain either unperceived, unin- telligible, or misunderstood. In interaction, when an individual is actually participating in person-to-person communication, it is possible for him to perceive that messages have remained mis- understood, and that information is missing. In situations where messages are conveyed by the printed word, such detection of omission is difficult if not impossible.

The difference between communication in person-to-person contact and communication through the printed word is in part responsible for the discrepancy between psychiatric theory and therapeutic practice. It is difficult to evoke through a writ- ten message the same impression as that conveyed through word of mouth in personal contact, and this difficulty is related to the characteristics of lan5uasre. Inasmuch as communication has to be used to write about communication, we find ourselves very much in the same position as the man who attempts to pull himself up by his bootstraps. However, there exist solu- tions to this puzzle. The novelist, for example, who is aware of these snags, writes about communication by re-enacting on paper a situation involving human relations and leaves that which is said about communication implicit. He, as an artist, sets the stage; he introduces us to the performers, he engages them in action, and he makes us, the readers, feel as if we were right there, participating as a spectator, on the scene of action. And after reading the last page we close the book with the feeling that a lot of things have happened to us in the span of time that it took us to devour page after page of the plot. Our gratitude and admiration, or hatred and condemnation, will acknowledge the artist's attempts to bring life into words and sentences.

But as scientists we cannot quite react to the type of presenta- tion used by the artist. One must remember that whenever a novelist presents a series of events, he counts on producing a somewhat kinesthetic impression upon the reader; in these suc- cessive impressions which are received when reading a book from beginning to end, the novelist transmits to us that which, through the unidimensionality of language, is lost in scientific writing. In prose and poetry, sensory impressions and more

84 COMMUNICATION

composite emotional states are elicited in the reader implicitly through the effects of printed messages, spaced in time. Through skillful handling of sequences and contrasts, close-ups and pano- ramic views, focus and fadeout, the artist overcomes the uni- dimensionality of language.

The dilemma that the psychiatrist is faced with is related to the unidimensionality of language. In describing an event which took place between people he can be explicit with regard to what occurred and leave the underlying principles implicit. In this case, and assuming that the man is gifted in accurate de- scription, he will put on paper whatever impresses him most. This arbitrary but unavoidable procedure is necessary because the wealth of simultaneous impressions must be expressed suc- cessively. By the time the observer gets around to writing down whatever he perceived, new and therefore more urgent sensory impressions have displaced the old ones, and most of what was perceived is lost.

An alternate solution of the psychiatrist is to abstract and condense his observations before writing them down; selectivity, therefore, becomes an unavoidable issue. Proceeding in such a manner, the observer will tend to become explicit about prin- ciples involved in a social event. But whenever a psychiatrist becomes explicit about principles, he is traveling on a one-way street. He may save time, but he pays a price, inasmuch as reconstruction of original events from inferred principles is impossible. In order to overcome this limitation, the psychiatrist, when discussing principles, tends to refer back to the original events; in practice this is achieved by citing an illustrative case. Literary productions of psychiatrists are characterized by this mixture of principles and case reports. But even then, a reader who was not present when the original event happened may not understand the written report because the selectivity of the reporter may have omitted the pertinent data to which the principles apply. To this objection the psychiatrist tends to reply that for real understanding a person must become a par- ticipant in a social situation; events experienced in common can then be used as a basis for further discussion of principles. The limitations of this procedure are obvious; only a selected

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 85

few can participate in any one situation, and a cumulative body of knowledge is difficult to compile on such a basis.

Some psychiatrists even maintain that psychiatry and psycho- therapy can only be taught through person-to-person contact; they believe that exposure to mass communication through books and lectures is completely ineffectual. Though there is a great deal of truth in this statement, quite obviously it does not correspond to the reality situation. Let us grant that the "when" and "how much" of the art of therapy can only be learned through personal experience, and that each individual has to develop his own skill. The "what" and the "where," however, are aspects of therapy which fall into the realm of science, and with regard to these aspects a cumulative body of scientific knowledge can be compiled.

The "when" and "how much" of the art of therapy depends upon a person's ability to master a variety of systems of com- munication as they are encountered in disturbed patients. Here it is not so much the knowledge of these systems that matters, but rather the ability to communicate within such systems as they are set up by the patient. To go back to our analogy about the traveler, the psychiatrist is here required to communicate with the spontaneity of the child or of the native. In contrast, the "what" and the "where" of therapy are expressions of ex- plicit knowledge about these systems. When thinking, talking, or writing about patients, the psychiatrist is required to act as if he were a traveler who is reporting his experiences while traveling abroad; these experiences, by and large, are expres- sions of the clash of different systems of communication and therefore of implementation.

Disturbances of communication are understood best by a participant-observer attitude (160), which enables the psychia- trist to decide whether or not a person is suffering from disturb- ances of communication, and if so, to initiate the necessary processes for their correction. In the course of an initial inter- view we would proceed about as follows: First we would ascer- tain whether the patient is aware of rules, roles, and the label of social situations, and whether he is able to evaluate correctly the context of his communication system.

86 COMMUNICATION

In a second step we would observe whether or not the focus of the patient corresponds to the network of communication in which he is actually participating. We would search for disturb- ances in the intrapersonal network, which may appear in the form of disturbances in the perception of external stimuli (ex- teroception), in the perception of internal stimuli (propriocep- tion), in central operations with information at hand (codifica- tion-evaluation), in the transmission of messages from the center to other parts of the body (propriotransmission), or in the transmission of messages to the outside world (exterotransmis- sion). We would ascertain how a person functions within an interpersonal network and as a member of group and cultural networks. The functioning of a patient in an interpersonal situation can only be ascertained if the psychiatrist exposes him- self to the impact of the messages of the patient, and once he has received these, if he watches the impact of his own com- munications upon the patient. In such a circular system the observation of feedback operations enables the psychiatrist to assess the patient's ability or inability to correct messages re- ceived and sent, which correction necessitates the patient's obser- vation of his impact upon others, and of others upon himself.

It goes without saying that the psychiatrist, as a physician, will also pay attention to the quantitative aspects of communi- cation; the intensity of the stimuli with respect to overstimula- tion or understimulation and all the other aspects of metabo- lism of the organism are here of interest.

In a fourth step, we would consider the semantic problems of communication which are concerned with the precision with which a patient's messages transmit the desired meaning. The linguistic aspects, the mastery of symbolic systems, and the whole problem of higher learning are here of relevance.

In a last step we then will gauge the effectiveness with which the patient's messages influence the conduct of other persons in a desirable or undesirable way. Mastery of communication would mean that the desired effect can be achieved and that this effect upon others will be to the patient's benefit; and that if it is to the patient's benefit, it will by and large benefit others with whom he is in contact.

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 87

Such a formulation obviously raises the question of the in- fluence of the psychiatrist within a system of communication and of the validity of his conclusions. As a result of participation in the system — and non-participation is impossible — the pa- tient's behavior is going to be influenced by the psychiatrist, and vice versa. Not only may the patient get better or worse while we explore him for the first time, but our own disturb- ances of communication may obscure our assessment of the patient. We are never quite secure in what we are doing, and only a check by another person, either an outsider or the patient himself, will enable us to gauge the effect of our own actions. The ability to mutually correct the meaning of messages and to mutually influence each other's behavior to each other's satisfaction is the result of successful communication. This is the only criterion we possess, and if we achieve such a state, it indicates mental health.

If the ability to communicate successfully becomes synony- mous with being mentally healthy, we are well aware of the fact that such a definition is a relativistic one; but it is obvious that people are mentally healthy only when their means of com- munication permit them to manage their surroundings success- fully. Either when the means of communication are not avail- able and breakdown occurs, or when people are transplanted to surroundings which use a different system of communication, these people become temporarily or permanently maladjusted. Inasmuch as no surroundings are ever stable, we have to con- tinually correct our information; knowledge obtained under a given set of circumstances or in one type of social situation has to be checked in the context of other circumstances and situa- tions.

Maturity always involves knowledge of the relativistic value of the meaning of things. As this relativistic attitude increases with experience, people express their desire for an absolute core by developing faith in an activity, a movement, or a religion which they hope will compensate for the progressive disillusion- ment which they experience when they face the relativistic nature of things. However, there are many persons who can never master the relativistic meaning of communication, nor

88 COMMUNICATION

can they ever digest the fact that the picture of the world which they possess depends upon their own system of percep- tion. Some of these people one encounters in daily life, others are found in mental hospitals. The condition which the psychia- trist labels "psychosis" is essentially the result of the patient's misinterpretation of messages received; and the condition which we commonly label "neurosis" is the result of unfortunate attempts of a patient to manipulate social situations with the purpose of creating a stage to convey messages to others more effectively. The messages are usually not understood by others, and the result is frustration for the patient. Then the patient is forced to develop ways of handling the frustration, which procedure further distorts the processes of communication.

These general statements about communication of patients labeled psychotic or neurotic may be illustrated in greater detail. The schizophrenic patient, for example, tends to be unaware of the fact that human relations are multi-polar phe- nomena; he assigns himself a role and neglects the fact that roles are determined by a mutual relationship. In the past this phenomenon was called autistic thinking; we prefer to see it as a distortion which makes a schizophrenic unaware of his impact upon others, though he maximizes the coercive aspects of the messages which others may have for him. After all, that which we call a role is simply a code which indicates in what way a message to one's self and to others is to be interpreted. This distortion of communication prevents the schizophrenic, first, from receiving messages correctly and, second, from cor- recting information which he already possesses. Unable to cor- rect his incorrect information, he progressively builds a distorted model of himself and of the world. Such views result in pro- gressive isolation, inasmuch as distorted information renders impossible appropriate interaction with others.

The psychoneurotic patient, in contrast, seems to suffer from a different type of distortion. By and large he tends to flood others with messages, in an attempt to coerce them into accept- ing roles they are not willing to assume. These compulsive at- tempts to shape situations and coerce people obviously result in unsatisfactory interaction. Neurotics, instead of correcting

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 89

the messages which they transmit unsuccessfully, essentially re- peat the same message over and over in the hope that eventually it will be understood. If the term "psychosis" is reserved for people whose communication processes are primarily disrupted in the sphere of perception, the term "neurosis" refers to dif- ficulties in the area of transmission of messages to others. All neurotic patients attempt to influence the behavior of others. The hysterical personality, for example, uses demonstrable bodily signs to communicate with others, and the psychopathic personality favors actions which will please or displease the other person. The compulsive intellectual and the fanatic broad- cast their messages uninterruptedly and attempt to influence others without being concerned with the actual effects of their actions upon people; only the mature person is aware of the reciprocal effects of communicative actions and of the beneficial effects of successful human relations.

The immature person (141) is the principal bearer of psycho- somatic manifestations. Unable to interrelate themselves as ma- ture people do, these patients still use the means of communica- tion which prevailed in their early childhood. This implies that in interpersonal communication, impressions derived from the chemical and sensory end organs prevail over impressions re- ceived from the more complex distance receivers — that is, vi- sion and hearing. Significant messages, therefore, are preferably transmitted by such individuals in an intimate person-to-person contact which involves touch, pain, temperature, or vibratory, olfactory, and gustatory functions. The physical symptoms are frequently used for purposes of communication; these, so to speak, represent areas of contact which dominate human re- lations. Some skin diseases, many allergic manifestations of the respiratory tract, and some conditions afflicting the upper and lower intestinal tract and the peripheral vascular system may be mentioned as examples (135), (136), (142), (150).

Psychosomatic patients are inclined to assume that other people follow the same system of codification-evaluation that they themselves possess; for practical purposes this amounts to the assumption that they and the other person are part of one and the same physical matrix or neural network. This assump-

90 COMMUNICATION

tion of course held true with regard to the patients' relationship to the mother before birth, and they do not seem to have learned that in interpersonal communication, messages have to be transmitted in space and have to be repeatedly recodified. Furthermore, these immature personalities tend to weigh un- duly the information which they receive from their own body by means of proprioception, to the neglect of the information received from the outside world by means of exteroception. Hence they are unable to evaluate correctly the effect of their own actions upon others, and therefore they are unable to cor- rect their information, in regard to a constantly changing en- vironment. Another way of stating this is to say that the delinea- tion of the physical, psychological, and social boundaries of such patients are either incomplete or arbitrary. Because of such distortions, individuals have to place reliance upon the protective actions of others, rather than being intent upon gaining information through interaction with contemporaries. At this moment the critical reader may raise the question of how the "organic" diseases of the body fit into the concept of communication. Without reservation it can be stated that even physiologically oriented psychiatrists, who use shock therapy and lobotomy as modes of therapy, implicitly use the concept of communication. All physicians have as their aim the improve- ment of the instruments of communication, and the neurologist and neurosurgeon concentrate especially on the central nervous system, which is in fact the most important organ of communi- cation. There exists really no fundamental difference between the psychotherapist who deals with the functional aspects of the interpersonal system, the social scientist who is concerned with the larger superpersonal systems, and the physiologist who copes with the interaction of an organism with his surroundings in terms of physical and chemical events. To express this idea in more abstract terms, one can say that physiologist, psychologist, and psychiatrist alike are concerned with problems of order and disorder, entropy and the maintenance of the organism; the dif- ference between these scientists is that the physiologist is con- cerned with the exchange of calories and chemical elements,

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 91

and the psychiatrist and psychologist with the exchange of in- formation (181).

These brief examples may suffice to illustrate the meaning of disturbed communication as it is observed in psychiatric patients. While it is beyond the scope of this volume to build a new psychopathology based upon criteria of communication, the reader may be reminded that in the active practice of psy- chotherapy, criteria of communication are used for the opera- tional assessment of interpersonal events taking place between patient and therapist (149). From meeting to meeting, the psy- chiatrist assesses the state of communication which exists be- tween himself and the patient, and in the course of time prac- tically the whole gamut of disturbances of communication are encountered in any one patient. Granted that each patient has some more or less stereotyped disturbance, we nonetheless cannot neglect the fact that psychiatrists and other observers are struck by the change which occurs in the system of com- munication of these patients over a period of time. The old psychopathological diagnoses become rather meaningless in view of the flux in the means of expression which these patients use. The only thing that the psychiatrist really can rely upon is the state of communication as it is observed at a given mo- ment, within a given context, and involving specific people. At a different date, in a different context, and with different people, the means of communication of the patient may appear in a totally different light. It seems that criteria which denote the range of disturbances of communication as well as the optimum level of functioning which a patient can reach are operationally more useful criteria than statements describing a given condi- tion at a given moment. After all, a diagnosis always implies that a given condition is present most of the time; it introduces a typology rather than a functional appraisal of the patient's system of communication, and typologies, though useful at times, often introduce undesirable distortions. And this the therapist attempts to avoid.

The task of the modern therapist can be compared to the task of the maintenance engineer or of the trouble-shooter who

92 COMMUNICATION

repairs the great overland power lines. The therapist aims first at understanding disturbances of communication, and as a result of this, to correct defective processes of communication. This not only involves the undoing of already established patterns, but frequently necessitates the teaching of the basic elements of human communication. If circumstances and people are kind to the new-born child, the infant will enjoy, as a baby, through childhood and adolescence, the benefits of an environment where people are both aware of, and seek the pleasure of, com- munication. But countless thousands are born in surround- ings that scorn communication and never have an opportunity to acquire the means of communication (141). Such people are potential or actual psychiatric patients. Whyte (179) states that "thought is born of failure"; we should like to add that com- munication is a balsam which heals the wounds acquired in the battle for life. These people who have not mastered communi- cation have difficulty in handling frustration, and frustration itself is a deterrent to the learning of successful communication. This vicious circle the psychiatrist aims at interrupting.

It is beyond the scope of this volume to describe the opera- tional procedures of the therapist. What we are attempting to do is to point out the close relationship between problems of biology, anthropology, and psychiatric practice. The notions which underlie psychotherapeutic practices are all expressions of the communication systems prevailing in a given culture. We have pointed out before the close relationship between value theory and communication, and it is needless to say that the notions of health and sickness, sanity and insanity, and the styling of therapeutic methods are a function of cultural values — that is, of the communication systems prevailing in a given area. Indeed, all therapeutic methods derive their media such as language and gesture, and the way they are handled, from the social matrix as a whole. Whenever the therapist is attempt- ing to help the patient, he and the patient form an interpersonal network of communication which in turn is a part of a larger group and cultural network.

It is the task of the psychiatrist to help the patient to acquire means of communication which will help him to adjust to the

COMMUNICATION AND MENTAL ILLNESS 93

group and cultural network prevailing in his surroundings. Fundamentally all people can be helped to improve their means of communication. Only the level at which patient and doctor start their work varies; some patients are very sick, some are better off, and the speed of improvement fluctuates depending upon a variety of factors. But over a period of years, and with- out exception, improvement can be observed if the patient has the motivation to improve and the desire to survive.

4 ■ COMMUNICATION AND AMERL

CAN VALUES: A Psychological Approach

By Jurgen Ruesch

In developing our thesis, we have shown so far that the verbal and non-verbal procedures of psychiatrists are designed to im- prove the processes of communication of their patients. The systems of communication of both psychiatrists and patients are in turn derived from the wider social matrix in which doctor and patient operate. While the conventional relationships are clearly defined in terms of the culture in which they occur, the more deviant relationships and methods of communication en- countered in psychiatry are likewise embedded in the superper- sonal networks of group and culture. The next three chapters, therefore, are devoted to a discussion and illustration of the more specifically American features of the social matrix and their relationship to present-day therapeutic practices.

A great many schemes (7), (9), (23), (32), (47), (49), (65), (69), (82), (86), (95), (98), (102), (112), (157), (167), (175) have been suggested for understanding the psychology of the American people, and depending upon the purpose for which an ap- proach was designed, they have had their advantages, disad- vantages, and distortions. The method which we are going to present in this chapter is characterized by the fact that we have attempted to understand some basic characteristics of human

communication in America. Though the Anglo-Saxon countries

94

COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES 95

have many similarities in their systems of communication, it would be a mistake to assume that the systems of evaluation are identical or even similar in all the countries where English is spoken. For example, the general rules which pertain to the interpretation of messages in the United States are not only based upon the symbols, words, and gestures used, but include such subtle things as timing and spacing of messages, the evalua- tion of figure-ground phenomena, the interpretation of author- ity, child-raising practices, and many other features.

In the scheme which we have followed, the American psy- chology has been described as being governed by the premises of equality, sociality, success, and change, which are thought to be interconnected by the multiple premises of puritan and pioneer morality. These four values, together with the core of moral principles, can be conceived, on the one hand, as pivotal points around which American life revolves, and on the other, as cornerstones upon which communication is based. Each of these values either may refer to goal-directed behavior or may express an intermediate implementation, instrumental to a more remote goal. Accordingly, messages exchanged regarding these activities or purposes must be interpreted in the same light. Therefore, when we as scientists make statements about value premises which prevail in the American culture, we refer on the one hand to the written or verbal comments about activities, and on the other hand to the experiences which are the result of participant action. It follows that these premises are a code for the interpretation of statements about actions and of actions themselves.

In reading the analysis of American values to be presented here, the reader will feel that the authors are biased in one way or another. Far be it from us, the authors, to deny the cor- rectness of such a feeling. Rather, we would remind the reader that it is the essence of epistemology to view one system in the light of another. Depending upon the choice of the second system, this or that feature will by contrast appear to be exagger- ated or perhaps even distorted. In the present and subsequent chapters we have chosen to look at America from a western Eu- ropean perspective; if we were more familiar with other cultures

96 COMMUNICATION

we might have chosen a South American or Chinese standard of comparison.

Furthermore, in discussing cultural premises and in develop- ing generalizations about the behavior of people, everybody is able to cite, for practical purposes, examples of an antithesis which would contradict the thesis presented by the authors. However, such contradictions are to be expected. In part they are due to the fact that the data used for deriving generaliza- tions belong to the historical past, and that in the meantime the situation has already changed; in part, they may be based on selective experiences of both author and reader; and in part they may be due to the levels of abstraction at which statements are interpreted. As a general rule, it may be stated that contra- dictions can usually be resolved either by interpreting a state- ment at a higher level of abstraction or by breaking a statement down into its more concrete components. Be that as it may, such difficulties are unavoidable, but to us as authors, it seems as if the gain of such an analysis is greater than the loss associated with a lack of understanding of such superpersonal systems. With this in mind, the following paragraphs were written.

PURITAN AND PIONEER MORALITY

The wave of Protestantism which is associated with the names of Luther, Calvin, Huss, Zwingli, and others found its way to England, where it was identified first with the Reformation and later with the Puritanism of Cromwell. The core of Puritan morality was pietism, the deprecation of carnal passion, the high valuation of self-control and will power, and the assump- tion of personal responsibility vis-a-vis God. The Puritan valued plain living, industriousness, thrift, cleanliness, consistency, honesty, and favored simplicity of worship and cooperation with other members of the Puritan community. All these values derived from an oppositional tendency of British Puritans, a protest — both political and religious — against the existing con- ditions in Europe. Broadly, the Puritans strove for simplicity and coherence; and the confusion against which they strove may well have been due to cultural heterogeneity. The ideas of the Renaissance gradually seeped through the mass of the popula-

COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES 97

tion, creating contradictions of value and belief and abuses of action which many may have found intolerable. To escape from the anxieties of multiple choice and lack of direction, the Puri- tans originated certain rigidities of behavior in order to obtain a long-lost security. The systems they set up met opposition, and they left the scene in protest (172).

They arrived in America on a new continent inhabited by hostile Indians and with a rigorous climate of rugged winters and hot summers. They had to cope with hardship, and under these totally different living conditions the Puritans developed what we here call the pioneer morality. Because they were few in number their lives were valued; in order to survive, they needed rugged individuals who were well versed in the tech- niques of fighting nature and Indians, able to grow their own food and to clear and cultivate the earth. Adaptability to chang- ing situations and suddenly arising emergencies was valued. There was little time for pleasure if a man wanted to survive, and hard work was his lot. The initial shortage of women, especially in frontier outposts, reinforced the rigid rules re- garding behavior toward the opposite sex, which the Puritans brought with them. The first settlers were likewise faced with the necessity of setting up social relations which would favor a closely knit group because the odds against them were great and could only be overcome by superior organization. The fusion of the needs of the pioneers with those of the Puritan constituted the root of the American value system. (23), (126).

Subsequently this system was modified by the shift from an agrarian to an industrial-metropolitan economy, by the influx of non-Puritan settlers, and by all those changes which were brought about by the rise of a modern technical civilization.

Pioneer and puritan morality is the core of the American value system. The actual history is, however, not immediately relevant. For the present inquiry it is more important to note that currently, today, there exists a pride in this core of the culture. American youngsters meet a whole literature of truth and fiction romanticizing the frontier and extolling the values which it supposedly fostered. While he is absorbing these notions about the past, the young American is also receiving a barrage

98 COMMUNICATION

of other value-forming impacts from comic magazines and gang- ster serials, and he is being initiated by other publications into the excitements of engineering and mechanics. These other value-forming sources might seem to contradict the messages of the puritan and the pioneer, but actually the contradiction is only superficial. The virtues extolled are still the same: tough- ness, resourcefulness, purpose, and even purity.

Also in accord with the traditional pattern, the arbiter and censor of American morals is no single individual; instead, authority is vested in the group. Where the European child defers to his parents and a European adult defers to identifiable persons with real and sympathetic authority, the adult American defers to the collective opinion of his peers. This social organi- zation and its reinforcement of morality is characteristic of a society of equals. Actions which violate other American value premises become acceptable when the principle of moral pur- pose is not violated. These tendencies are clearly reflected in the procedures which exonerate sharp practices, if they were under- taken in the name of free enterprise and rugged individualism. In the American judicial system, the municipal judges have a freedom to rule unparalleled in other countries; they really interpret the meaning of morality, and as long as the rulings do not conflict with the major premises of the American value system, their decisions will usually be upheld in higher courts.

This peculiar role which morality occupies in American life explains in part the many contradictory trends which puzzle the foreign observer (95). A foreign traveler is made aware of moral principles in situations where impulse gratifications have to be justified. He will recognize that pleasure cannot be indulged in for its own sake; this fact is epitomized by the saying that a puritan can have anything he wants as long as he doesn't enjoy it. Gratifying a personal need is permissible when justified by a socially acceptable motive. For example, recreational pleasures, vacations, sexual intercourse, eating, and all other pleasures become acceptable as long as these activities are undertaken for the purpose of promoting one's own or other people's health.

Another socially acceptable motive is the welfare of the com- munity. In the American system, the stronger person assumes

COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES 99

responsibility for the weaker one as long as the weakness is the result of age or circumstance. Weakness owing to lack of will power or to laziness or carnal passion is not tolerated; and the saying goes: "Never give a sucker an even break." A series of institutions take care of the less fortunate people, and every- one tries to help those who through no fault of their own be- come ill or lose their homes. Such help is rarely outright charity; by and large it is offered in terms of loans or other temporary relief measures. Actions which improve the social welfare or which contribute toward the general raising of standards of living are acceptable for justifying impulse gratifications. Mak- ing money, for example, even if it involves ruthless exploitation of others, can be rationalized as being necessary for supporting the family or sending the kids to school, or for some other moral purpose such as providing for the future or starting a business to create employment for others.

The regulation of impulse gratifications has found its reper- cussion in the American Constitution. The 18th Amendment, for example, introduced prohibition to Americans. Likewise the Mann Act was designed to curb prostitution. A similar purpose is accomplished by the Johnston Ofhce, which, estab- lished by the movie industry, acts as a censoring or self-censoring body controlling the "morals" of the movies. It is of interest to note that American motion-picture producers, the church, and the public consider murder, violence, and brutality a perfectly moral subject for presentation in movie houses, where young- sters of all ages are admitted. In contrast, pictures which refer to sexual intercourse or which unduly expose the body are banned. Brutality and toughness are considered necessary for survival, while sensual pleasure is believed to soften the in- dividual. A similar ideology is found in the rules governing the transportation of immoral material in the United States mails.

Inasmuch as the individual is quite aware of his impulses, Americans develop their own methods for gratifying their in- stinctual needs. Gratification can be indulged in, if the group behaves similarly. For example, a "regular guy" is he who as a member of a group indulges in all the vices without going

100 COMMUNICATION

overboard. Behavior that is considered immoral when com- mitted by a single person individually is acceptable and free of external sanction when committed in the presence of others. Promiscuity, gambling, and fighting belong in this category. A similar situation is encountered in the peculiar mixture of freedom, restraint, and competition practiced by adolescents in their dating and petting activities in which there is a combina- tion of sex play, popularity contests, and group meetings. It is beyond the scope of this volume to cite the adolescent sex prac- tices of American teen-agers; it may, however, suffice to point out that they are characterized by incomplete unions and by perversions, which at that age are accepted as normal (65), (87). These presexual games are commonly engaged in in the presence of other couples, while privacy would really act as a deterrent. The European traveler is struck by the general ex- hibition of familiarity prevailing at parties and in such places as "lover's lanes," where there may be hundreds of automobiles parked with young couples engaged in exploring each other. Similarly the occasion of the annual convention of the American Legion, class reunion, or a shore leave from a ship permits its members to indulge collectively in pranks, drinking, and fight- ing, in a manner which would not be permitted in isolated cases. Situational conformity is considered by Americans to be a form of group service, and submission to group opinion con- stitutes a moral motive. Meetings are organized so that people can obtain moral approval of their actions through active par- ticipation (103). Thousands of organizations ranging from the Parent-Teacher Association, the Y.M.C.A., the Boy Scouts, to the lodge and fraternal organizations meet with the purpose of sharing a goal which in itself becomes a moral act. The church, for example, is in America a meeting house in which people engage in group conformity rather than in an individ- ualized religious experience. Therefore the person who dares to go his own way and does not conform either in celebrating, in everyday behavior, or in intellectual or artistic pursuits is frowned upon; if, however, he finally comes through and makes good, obtaining the public's approval, he is admired by the group and past sins are forgiven. This process is shown in

COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES 101

countless American films of the bad man who is finally converted and joins the good cause.

Within the family and in small groups the woman is the keeper of the morals for man, woman, and child. In the presence of women, men will dress up and behave. As a matter of fact, they strain themselves to live up to the expectations of the female sex. Men among themselves are more likely to misbehave and to let things ride, a fact which vividly contrasts with the customs prevalent in western Europe, where men are considered the carriers of morals and traditions.

In American daily life, honesty is taken for granted when it concerns such small items as paying a nickel for a newspaper, or leaving the milk and the mail at the door of private homes. However, honesty is doubted when issues of power are involved. Stealing a few cents' worth of merchandise would be such a small crime that it is not considered worth while to risk being caught by irate citizens or to expose oneself to the feeling of guilt. Furthermore, some of these daily practices involve par- ticipation as citizens in the community in terms of a common convenience for the greatest number of people. Upsetting this system would mean elimination of milk distribution or news- papers or mail. If, however, a man is aspiring to a position of power, as for example in politics, it is expected that he will use his power for selfish purposes as far and as long as he can get away with it. A man who can misuse his power and get away with it is admired to the extent that for a long time gangsters and racketeers became idols for youngsters, and the law-enforc- ing agents that could not catch them were ridiculed. The use of aggressive and ruthless methods in the pursuit of power is approved, but the group is expected to control any form of corruption if it goes to excess. The control is exerted by the press, which acts as a morality-enforcing agency. The public suspects any man in public office; if a man were entirely honest and interested only in the promotion of the welfare of others he would be considered a sucker; and to be a sucker is the worst reputation a person can acquire. Thus in America no time and effort are spared to set up administrative procedures to prevent fraud and other misuse of power on a large scale.

102 COMMUNICATION

The number of forms ordinary citizens have to fill out in multiple copies, the complicated design of tax forms, and the number of things people have to swear to are unheard of in other countries. In these matters bureaucracy really flourishes. After a man has gotten away with acquiring and using his power to the limit without being tripped, he is expected to return the yields of his success to the community. The group really engages the power-thirsty individual in a game; if people yield power to a man they want him to be selfish; only a selfish man is believed to have moral character. If he doesn't make use of his power he must be suspected of being a weakling or a fool. The group is willing to offer him an opportunity to de- velop his bid for power. But once his term is over the group repossesses power and wealth that were lent to the man so that it may be reinvested in another individual. Therefore, political officials are seldom elected for longer than three terms, rarely are fortunes amassed without a large amount being returned to the state in the form of either taxes or donations, and very seldom is a racketeer allowed to "do business" for more than a few years.

EQUALITY

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." That these words have become famous demonstrates the importance of this principle in the American culture. Based upon the principle of equality, America became a melting pot of differing nationalities. Equality as practiced in daily life derived on the one hand from puritan morality and on the other from frustrating experiences of the early settlers and pioneers. Most immigrants left behind in the old country what they regarded as either an oppressive social system or an oppressive family, and once they had arrived in America they laid the foundations to prevent oppressive author- ity from ever arising again. By vesting functional authority in a tribunal of equals, the principle of equality was born; its specific American management thus became a solution for the immi- grant's authority problem.

COMMUNICATION AND AMERICAN VALUES 10S

Today the value of equality is expressed in all those processes which result in eradication of extreme deviations and therefore promote a "regression toward the mean." Soon, however, the foreign traveler is struck by many strange contradictions: on the one hand he reads and hears about the notion of equality^ while on the other hand he can observe the greatest inequality in terms of wealth, position, and power. An insider will then explain to him that in America the value of equality is in- terpreted as the assumption of equal opportunities rather than the product of final achievement. Once a person has become successful by exploiting the equal opportunities he has in fact become superior and unequal; though he may silently dwell upon his achieved status, he will be challenged by the popular remark, "Who do you think you are?" to remind him of his. background. We thus arrive at the notion that those who achieve status, power, and wealth are presumed to have been skillful in utilizing the circumstances of equal opportunity. Once suc- cess has established a difference in prestige, those in power resent being treated as equals, while at the same time they fear their own inequality. To prevent such painful encounters very elab- orate administrative setups have been organized to prevent a meeting of unequals: secretaries guard the doors of their execu- tive bosses like watchdogs; prestige carriers isolate themselves in exclusive clubs, neighborhoods, and social gatherings; while, last but not least, the awe felt by the less successful man estab- lishes a natural barrier to the unprepared encounters of un- equals. However, if for some reason or other a meeting of unequals should occur, the external characteristics of equality are adopted by both superior and inferior. For example, during the campaign periods preceding the general elections there will appear numerous pictures showing the candidates in shirtsleeves,, "hobnobbing" with farmers and industrial workers. They will call each other by their first names and behave as if they were brothers. It is as if, at the meeting of unequals, a silent con- versation took place during which the superior might say, "Look here, bud, I was successful, and if you make an effort you can join our ranks," while the inferior may counter with, "I admire your success — but between you and me, we are two of a kind."

104 COMMUNICATION

And when the persons feel that some such understanding is present they might both break into laughter to cover their un- easiness.

Americans become anxious