Metacommunication Should Be Avoided In Civil Dialogue.

Let's be honest, decoding communication can sometimes feel like trying to understand a foreign language. We all want to connect with each other, especially when engaging in civil dialogue. But what if I told you that one communication concept, often touted as insightful, can actually muddy the waters and make things harder? I'm talking about metacommunication – communicating about communication itself. Stick with me, because understanding why to steer clear of it in many instances can lead to clearer, more productive conversations.

So, what exactly is metacommunication? Simply put, it's talking about how you're talking. Instead of directly addressing the issue at hand, you focus on the communication style, tone, or underlying assumptions. For example, saying "I feel like you're being defensive" instead of directly addressing the point someone is making. While it might seem helpful in theory, in practice, it often backfires during civil discourse.

Why should we avoid it? Several reasons. Firstly, metacommunication can easily become accusatory. When you comment on someone's tone or perceived intent, you're essentially putting them on the defensive. "You always raise your voice when we disagree" is more likely to escalate a conflict than to resolve it. Accusations rarely lead to open and honest dialogue. Instead, focus on the content of what’s being said, not how it’s being said (unless it is overtly offensive or aggressive).

Secondly, it can be a major detour from the actual issue. Imagine you're discussing a proposed budget cut. Instead of analyzing the potential impact, you get sidetracked into a debate about whether someone's tone is "respectful enough." This diverts attention from the substantive matter and wastes valuable time. Stay on topic! The goal is to understand the issue and find common ground, not to analyze each other's communication techniques.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, metacommunication often relies on assumptions and interpretations. You might think someone is being defensive, but that's your perception. They might simply be passionate about their viewpoint. Jumping to conclusions about someone's intent can lead to misunderstandings and resentment. It's better to seek clarification directly. Ask questions like, "Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?" This directly addresses the underlying issue without attacking their communication style.

So, what should you do instead? Focus on active listening. Pay attention to what the other person is saying, ask clarifying questions, and try to understand their perspective. Respond to the content of their message, not your interpretation of their communication style. Strive for clarity and directness. If something is unclear, ask for clarification. By focusing on the substance of the conversation, you're more likely to build understanding and find common ground. While metacommunication might have its place in therapeutic settings or relationship counseling, it's often best left out of civil dialogue aimed at problem-solving and mutual understanding. Stay on target, be respectful, and listen intently!