| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This site is dedicated to the creative power within each of us to speak a positive and joy-filled life and world into existence by our impeccable words. |
|
| Copyright Info: All Materials on this or any page Joyfulltimes is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without permission of the author and full disclosure of author and Joyfulltimes.com as source. |
| Journal For Communication Theory: Eastern And Western Perspectives The book, Communication Theories: Eastern and Western Perspective, by D. Lawrence Kincaid, first takes a look at four Asian perspectives, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Indian. Kincaid then discusses American perspectives, and wraps up with a synthesis of the two views. The first section deals with Chinese philosophy tied in with communication theory. These are a series of essays, by the way, which Kincaid has edited. The first one by Chung-Ying Cheng posits that "Philosophy is communication founded on the most general, and yet most basic, understanding of a person and a society." (24) This is really the foundation or perhaps justification for the entire section on Eastern Communication theory. We will see that the theories expounded will rely a great deal on the philosophies of the various cultures. And those philosophies are very intertwined with the religions of each area. This too is the basis, I believe for Martin Buber's theories; and I suspect we will find some great parallels between Kincaid's synthesis and Buber. Yeng presents six basic principles of Chinese philosophy: "The Principle of the Embodiment of Reason in Experience. The Principle of Epistemological--Pragmatic Unity The Principle of Part-Whole Interdetermination The Principle of the Dialectical Completion of Relative Polarities The Principle of Infinite Interpretation The Principle of Symbolic Reference The first principle is the opposite of the Platonic concept that would separate the form from the substance, and the Chinese take this to the next logical step as well, that reason and experience are one. So true knowledge involves more than factual information, but as well embodies all that would bring us in harmony with ourselves and all around us. The second principle is related to the first in that we again have a unity of what some see as separate -- knowledge and actions. Yeng points out that Confucius speaks of "knowing speech," "knowing man," and "knowing destiny." Each case represents this "knowing" in a very intimate personal way. "The point of knowing speech is to be able to communicate with other men so that one can better adjust and relate to them." (30) In the same way Torah says, "and Adam knew Eve and she conceived…." Just as we saw in Campbell, this is in essence the unity of opposites that is required for humans to reach their true potential in speech or in life. The next principle is another holistic principle. It involves understanding that we are all parts of the same whole. We must recognize that within the microcosm we can see the macrocosm. Everything no matter how insignificant is important to the whole. There are several Pauline doctrines as I recall that talk about the same thing, although he limits his analogy to the Church. What both Confucianism and Taoism teach is that this is true for all of creation. The idea that within each atom there is an entire universe. One interpretation of this meaning to speech is also a Buber understanding that every word we speak, no matter how innocent or insignificant can have far ranging impacts. In the Dialectic Completion of Relative Polarities, we can really see the work of opposites. The Yin and Yang principles. To understand a thing we must see that all things are composed of opposites. This is also the principle of t'ai-chi which says that all things are one, and all come from the same source. "To understand a thing is to understand it in terms of its t'ai -chi as the immediate totality and its t'ai-chi as involving all possible relations." (36) This is a tough one for Western minds. In order to accept this we must see God as both good and evil, and all actions, whether those of Mother Theresa or Hitler as having both elements of good and evil. In the principle of Infinite Interpretation we see that there is no absolute truth or falsehood. Therefore, language should not be constructed so as to lead one to believe that there is. All communication should allow for a variety of interpretations. At first I thought this to be a very chaotic concept, but I begin to realize that it fits precisely with Buber's I-Thou. We cannot communicate as if we are the one with the answers. This can only lead to an I-It relationship, you are dependent on me. In I- Thou we are dependent on each other, therefore, we must each supply interpretation to mutually achieve a truth. I think this is the essence of this principle. Symbolic Reference is for Cheng the greatest contrast between East and West.. I must confess that I was not able to fully grasp what Cheng was trying to say here. Apparently there are symbols in the I Ching that represent universal truths in a way that language cannot. The closest I can come to the understanding here is the belief in Cabalism that the design of each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet carry far more power than the letter itself. The entirety of creation's mysteries are contained within them. I believe this is basically the same thing in that truths cannot be communicated by words alone. We are controlled and created not just by words but by symbols as well. The next essay deals with communication in Chinese narrative. This one is written by James S. Fu and is an examination of the short story by Lu Hsun The True Story Of Ah Q. The theme of the story is loneliness and it shows that "the communion between man and nature often comes from our intense awareness of human loneliness." (53) The point of the story in representing the Chinese view of communication is to show that the reason we fail to communicate or overcome our loneliness has to do with our personal indifference. Put another way, loneliness comes about because the only type of communication we have is I-It. So here again we see a parallel to Buber. The next section begins a look at Korean philosophy in regards to communication and the first two essays are written by June- Ock Yum. The two main influences on Korean philosophy are Confucianism and Buddhism. We've already seen a description of Confucianism, so we'll look primarily at how Buddhism differs. There is one section worth noting though in regards to Confucianism and that is nonverbal communication. Apparently there is a goal of suppressing emotions inherent in the philosophy which requires the use of a smile as a neutral expression to mask any emotion. Smiles are apparently used when a Korean is happy or sad, embarrassed or excited. Buddhism apparently offers an even stronger sense of disattachment to worldly things since it is all an illusion. Even speaking and hearing are not that highly prized believing that the highest form of communication is telepathy and discerning the hidden meaning of all things. But Yum points out that "Buddhism and Confucianism converge in terms of this humanities orientation, even though the final goal is different." (85) The second essay by Yum deals with the concept of uye-ri. This concept has three meanings, righteousness, faithfulness, and proper relationships. It places value on human conscience as opposed to self-interest or material profit. This concept apparently has a great impact in Korea and affect how the Korean views reciprocity and interdependence. Reciprocity has to do with interpersonal relations and takes the phrase "one good turn deserves another" literally. It is mostly positive as it binds people together, but it can also mean that the beast person for a job may be overlooked due to this. Interdependence is a related idea in that it promotes a mutual dependency, but it requires small and/or closely knit groups to thrive. This begs the question can this philosophy work or be adapted to Western societies where small is not the norm and a community of people are hard to find. This is also the challenge of Buber's philosophy, and so far no one has really proven that it can work, but if we are to survive, I believe it has to work. The answer is not trying to adapt the philosophy to the people, but the people to the philosophy. Aye there's the rub. The final chapter in the Korean segment was written by Sang-Hee Lee. It is a look at the teachings of Yi Yulgok who is considered one of Korea's greatest thinkers and statesmen. He lived in the 16th Century and seems in many ways to be like our own Thomas Jefferson. Of course that analogy is based on a very brief reading about the man, but there was much to be impressed about. Some 200 years before Jefferson, Yulgok was speaking of the peoples inalienable rights. I think the quote that opens the essay does much to give insight to his beliefs, "A proverb says that one who likes to listen to others can become a king, and that one who neglects the ideas of others will fail. If one likes to ask, he will become great, and if not, he will become insignificant." (101) Yulgok believed that the ultimate goal of a government should be to improve the life of its people, and that the king's rule should be paternal rather than authoritarian. During his time there was a system set up that was very much like our press system that provided a way to promote public opinion based on free speech. Of course the system was not exactly like what ours would become it was government "for the people," not by or of "the people." Those in positions in these journalistic roles were members of the elite and intelligentsia, which if you look at what Jefferson really wanted you would not find that much difference there. But still Yulgok was an early voice promoting freedom of expression, and for that deserves much more attention. As Lee says, "His profound insights into the role of communication in politics in such early times are indeed impressive even today." ( 114) I may try and find out more about this man. The next section begins dealing with Japan. In the first essay, Akira Tsujimura discusses four characteristics of Japanese communication: Ishin-denshin, Taciturnity, Indirect communication, and Kuuki. The first is really the basis for all the rest, and can easily be understood in relation to what we have seen so far in regards to Eastern views on communicating. It represents communicating without words through the power of a glance, a movement, or even telepathy. The Japanese believe in the power of what is often not said, but somehow understood. This provides an increased value on silence which in turn increases the power of the words that are spoken. One relationship I can see to this is the Jewish idea that the name of God was never to be spoken except once a year and then only by the High Priest in a very solemn ceremony attended by the entire nation of Israel. To this day it is unclear exactly how to pronounce the four consonants that represent the name. How much more power does that silence lend when the word is spoken. On a broader scale should we perhaps learn to value spoken words so much that we use them only in times of great need. There is perhaps an interesting avenue of investigation here. I think also of the power words in Frank Herbert's Dune. The Bene Gesseret were also a highly telepathic group which may have allowed them to control others with words. I realize I am analyzing a fictional group of people, so I'll stop now before I lose all credibility. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The second characteristic of being taciturn is easily related to the first. Not speaking often would certainly give one the appearance of being taciturn and Tsujimura gives some possible explanations. The most intriguing is the idea that few words are needed in a monolingual and monoracial society and that the opposite would be true in a melting pot society like the U.S. I wonder often, and Tsujimura brings it home to me again, just how valuable a service our country has been to the world. Granted, we have allowed many peoples to flee tyrannical and oppressive leaders and set up shop in a land of golden dreams, but on the other hand, if those people were forced to stay in their lands and fight to change things there, what kind of world might we have. I have often thought that the second worst thing ever to happen to the Christian Church after being made a world religion by Constantine, was the work of Martin Luther. Yes, I know that the Catholic Church was riddled with corruption, but if Luther hadn't led the way for Protestantism, mightn't the power of all those leaders like Luther enabled the Church to change, but to stay whole. Judaism is not a perfect example here, but essentially there is only one "church." A Jew, regardless of his personal beliefs, could go into almost any synagogue and feel at home, that is not necessarily true for Christianity. I seem to really want to wander all over the map today, but the bottom line is that w should really examine a too casual approach to our use of words. (Obviously, I do not heed this advice.) The third characteristic is again the ability to use symbols to communicate. The fourth characteristic was difficult for Tsujimura to define, and I doubt I'll do any better, but essentially it represents the ability to adjust your communication based on a perceived sense of the mood or atmosphere of any given situation. Again, the importance of paying attention to what is not said. In the next essay, Keizo Okabe looks at what is termed the indirect speech acts of the Japanese. In essence these are statements that contain within them a call to action or higher or hidden meaning. An example would be someone saying to you in your home where the door is open, "I am cold." There is obviously an unstated request there to close the door. I think our next author will go into more detail on this while not using the same words. I did not care much for this essay in that it seemed to use a lot of words to say very little which goes against what we just learned about Japanese communication. Which reminds me of a plaque I saw once that said, "Even a fish wouldn't get in trouble if he kept his mouth shut." I think I've quoted that before and I'm rambling again. Randy Hirokawa writes on communication in Japanese business organizations. I liked this essay, but at times I felt he was stating the obvious and not going deep enough. For instance, this statement: "Japanese employees will typically communicate whatever they feel needs to be communicated in order to ensure the success of their company." (140) I think the reason goes much deeper than this. I think the company is not as important as the group of people -- the family -- it represents. The essence of what Hirokawa discovered was that the Japanese have an open communication system where workers and bosses feel free to communicate whatever is felt to be necessary without fear. It is no wonder they are the giants they are. There is essentially a permanent employment system where one is hired and employed for all their working life regardless of what they do with the exception only being gross miscarriages of justice or the company's demise. Another reason that can happen is the use of ambiguous language which allows individual freedom and trust and promotes initiative because the employee can try something new without fear that if it fails it will bring personal embarrassment to him. One of the major reasons for ambiguity is to allow saving face. So that if a manager has a bad sales month, he can go to his boss and say "Sir, it seems that the sales campaign has not worked out quite to our expectations." And that will be the end of it. There is also often not given a direct answer to a question, again to save face. So for example, if I invited you over for dinner, rather then your saying no and embarrassing me, you might say, "Let me check with my husband and get back to you." I would understand that as a no. Here in America, I would probably be dumb enough to call you up the next day and ask what you decided forcing you then to state the obvious. Another explanation that that Hirokawa gives is "when the Japanese employ evasive tactics, they are essentiallly saying, 'I am sending you all the necessary messages and signals because it would be an embarrassment for me to have to say no and for you to be rejected….'" (147) What a world if we could put that into practice both on the sending and receiving end. This is what Ishin-denshin is all about. We'll look at India next, but I forgot to mention that the three major religious influences in Japan are Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, and Shintoism, and the communication process reflect their influence. The first essay by Wimal Dissanayake looks at the religious and philosophical traditions in India that seem to affect communication. He lists three major ones: the Vedas which deal with "the relationship of man to nature," the Upanishads which represent the "value of the knowledge of ultimate truth as a means of liberation," and Buddhism which is seen as a "reaction against the ritualism that characterized the Vedas and the transcendentalism that was associated with the Upanishads." (153) Dissanayake then presents what he sees as the eight guiding principles controlling Indian communication. There is really very little new ground covered here, but in brief, they are idealism which simply shows that spirituality is an important aspect of communication. Renunciation and nonattachment which reflects the idea that we are not defined by what we possess, but by what possesses us. This would include words or language. The third is oneness, which again points out that we must see ourselves as parts of a whole. All communication should reflect that. The fourth is the illusory nature of all things. This is somewhat like Plato ideas about form, so again be careful what you cling to if you are about to fall. Is it real or is it, (I really want to say Memorex here, but I'll refrain), illusory. The fifth principle is liberation which recognizes that life is a bondage from which our ultimate goal must be liberation. This does not suggest suicide, but again to recognize what is really important to you.. The sixth principle ties back to the idea of wholeness and is definitely not a western ideal, and that is non-individuality. The seventh is transtemporality which simply means that time must be transcended. We must liberate ourselves from it. This also ties in with the idea of Karma as a guide to how to do this. And the last principle is inwardness and intuition which means first that we must know ourselves and that the means to do that will not come from words. We have heard this before in the idea of telepathy or Ishin-denshin. All of this adds up to an Indian definition for communication as an "inward search for meaning." (159) Opposite of the way we teach speech here, intrapersonal communication is far more important than interpersonal communication. Dissanayake sums it up as "According to the Indian view, the realization of truth is facilitated neither by language nor by logic and rationality. It is only intuition that will ensure the achievement of this objective." (160) I agree, although somewhere we must balance silence with speech as what I would see as the ideal, and I don't necessarily think these philosophies will disagree. I am anxious to see what the synthesis presentation of East-West will be which comes up next. Of the two final chapter-essays dealing with East-West synthesis, it is only the second one, in my opinion, that presents any kind of real synthesis. In the first one, Joseph Woelfel presents the development of the Western model divides into four eras: pre-Socratic which he sees as bearing "a striking resemblance to the principles of Chinese philosophy" (309), Aristotelian, which begins the separation process from Eastern thought allowing for fixed and unmovable systems, Cartesian which begins to allow some variance but is still a categorical system, and finally the Relativistic coming to, according to Woelfel, the completion of the circle by once again allowing fluidity. It is in the Relativistic model that Woelfel sees the synthesis between East and West, but he never really discusses what that includes on a communication basis. It was an interesting writing exercise in philosophy, but in my opinion it missed the mark for what I had hoped for in this section. The second essay did much better, especially since it fulfilled my prediction at the outset. In the second essay, Muneo Jay Yoshikawa essentially presents Martin Buber as the one who has done the most to synthesize Eastern and Western traditions in communication theory. Muneo begins by outlining four types of communication which are common today. The first two are represented by two circles, but there is really only one, which I'll explain in a moment. The third is the form most often taught in speech classes and it is also representative of two distinct circles, more distinct than the first two model, but the end result is still one circle, for the goal of communication, according to this model is primarily persuasive. So either A & B each persuade the other resulting in a fusion represented by one circle C or A persuades B resulting in one circle A, or B persuades A resulting in one circle B. I think there is at least one either often occurring event that should be included in that model and that is that neither really impacts the other resulting in two unchanged circles A & B. This is called the Dialectic Model. The first model is the Ethnocentric Model or what I call the British Colonial Model. This is where the beliefs of A are all that matters, and A only perceives B as a shadow of those beliefs. I believe Buber would have referred to it as the I-It model The second is similar, it is the Control Model, or what I call the Hitler Model. This is where B is only a thing to be manipulated. This also could be an I-It model, but I think it goes beyond that to I-I since in A's mind B really doesn't exist. Finally there is the Dialogical Model, which of course is Buber's. As we have seen before, Buber allows for the unity of opposites -- the paradoxical. This is also called by Yoshikawa as the Double Swing Model. He talks about, as Buber did in The Knowledge Of Man, the place "between." This is what Buber referred to as the narrow ridge that juts out into the abyss and that everytime we enter into an I-Thou relationship we risk walking out on that narrow ridge. This is the same as Yoshikawa's between which he refers to as "the process of balance between the opposing forces of life." (327) Between does not mean beyond there isn't a sense of separation as in an ascetic sense between us and the world, but it does take transcending our comfortable I-It world view and stepping out into seeming nothingness, perhaps much like the scene in Indiana Jones that I'm sure your familiar with. Yoshikawa concludes by saying, "The sphere of between does not represent exclusively either the Eastern perspective or the Western perspective but rather a third perspective. It is here where we can see that everything is real and vibrant and at the same time nothing is real and alive. The goal must be to live in the between. I think this became very real to me the other day when I was meditating on a prayer in the Jewish prayer book. It says, "My God, let my soul be like dust to all." At first glance one could take this to mean that we should allow others to trample us underfoot, but then I realized that dust is the between. It is equally at home ont ground as well as in the air. It is in fact the source of Earth's greatest power -- lightning. It is when dust particles in the air rub together that we get lightning. You should pardon the pun, but being dust is nothing to sneeze at. Indeed, dust can blind fools as well as wise men. I hope someday to achieve the lofty goal of being like dust. |