I usually think these things. I dedicate myself to the study of communicational phenomena and find myself going back to basics, as often as I discover that people, these beings who are communicators par excellence, manage to reveal a total incomprehension of their own nature.
Imagine: a group of friends looking at content posted by any social network. It's someone who speaks in public. He was certainly prepared, not least because he is a person with higher education and has a habit of studying (who doesn't watch everyone and, perhaps the members of the group I now imagine, watch very little).
He speaks with an eloquence based on something very difficult to achieve: empathy. He is a person who possesses this natural quality and manages, in his speech (which has much more complex content than those in the front row of scathing criticism) seem, to also reveal a sense of humour.
Grabs the audience, as they say. No need to gesture emphatically; you don't need to abuse platitudes, nor do you need to manipulate fear. Speaks and reveals in an unpretentious way what he thinks.
Ah, but the group, at home, my friends, is red-hot, as if there were a ball game to comment: “- Speak up, speak up”, they say, “and they don't know anything about the subject! Why the graces and what a basic language”! Ah, they comment: – “Creature that doesn't speak well and reveals, in its speech, all its incapacity”! They laugh and are already on the social network commenting, they do, as they imagine, with enormous eloquence and perfection, because they are finished examples of virtues and competence, above all they are a paradigm of the more Christian values that, whether you like it or not, shape our societies Westerners! So exemplary!
Doesn't it look familiar? I see this all the time, in the comments that are produced on Facebook, Instagram, websites... As you would say in good Algarve, "pearls" of wisdom and conduct, which unfortunately only serve to conclude, in the good manner of the common sense, that digital is a bad environment, where nefarious things happen, forgetting that those who live in digital are ourselves and we share in it what we want: virtues or defects...
And actually, as I said at the beginning, these attitudes only reveal the little, even little that we know about our own nature. Communicating orally is not the same as communicating in writing; communicating with different audiences also requires changes; communicating is a process that only becomes efficient and effective when the relationship between everyone who takes part in it is the target of attention, whether the issuer (which currently also assumes the role of content creator, being what Toffler once classified as “prosumer”), be it the message, be it the listener, be the channel used to communicate.
If, in the first instance, it is at the level of the message that the problems of interpretation and meaning are raised, since it is necessary to promote understanding, reducing the phenomena that can hinder it (noise, which can be of an internal/psychological nature, or simply being linked to phenomena of a physical nature) it is necessary to consider other less objective factors that often interfere and which are physiological, emotional or cognitive in nature. Or affective, because I like it – or not like it! – whoever communicates greatly shapes, over and over again, the way we receive and interpret messages.
And now the little group is ready again: it analyzes a text written by the same victim from a moment ago and they already say, perentório: It wasn't written by him/her! Someone wrote to him/her!
Here's another basic error: between what you think and what you say goes a long way; between what is heard and understood/memorized, there is also a huge leap.
But, my friends, writing and speaking are two different ways of communicating and, as I said, they have to be thought out, structured differently. So, basic mistake: I don't have to speak the way I write and, by doing so, I'm not being less me, therefore less real. I'm sure the eloquent members of the imaginary group would understand me perfectly.
I review texts, some quite complex, such as theses, and I always try to see what Humberto Eco theorized: the model author, who writes for a model reader, expecting from him the necessary collaboration to effectively become a participant in the work.
And as a proofreader, this is my most important role: not to alter the author's communication in any way, but to propose him the semantic, orthographic, syntactic paths that lead his message to the ideal state of efficiency and effectiveness. Like any reader who truly seeks to communicate.
And the same applies to other communication products, broadcast through the most different channels. The little group…
The little group, on the other hand, these distinguished and critical imaginary “communicating readers” present in this chronicle, ignore the “ifs” and “buts” of any and all messages. In fact, although their egos are something bigger than the world, they ignore their own “ifs” and “buts”, because they don't want to see clearly what moves them to such a hard critical work... Anyway, I'm sure: whoever has so many convictions will one day find his equal and receive the same kind of treatment. And only then do you understand.
Here are just a few reasons for reflection for those who read.
PS - As I said in a previous text, I know that from the moment this one is published, it certainly expects "careful attention" from readers, but at least I hope that everything you want to comment comes in good vernacular and with a careful language level.
Author: Sandra Côrtes Moreira has a degree in Social Communication from the FCSH of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, a Master's in Educational Communication from the Faculties of Arts and Human and Social Sciences of the Un. from Lisbon and Algarve and Mestre in Education in Multicultural Society by the University of Huelva. She is a doctoral student in Educommunication and Media Literacy by the University of Huelva.
Superior Language and Communication Technician at the Municipality of Faro, is also Advisor to the Information Office of the Diocese of Algarve, member of the Pastoral do Turismo and ONPT team.
Comments