My understanding of communication is a process whereby individuals exchange some sort of information. It is very important to pay attention to each letter of this definition. the word "Individuals" implies that there are , at least , two sides actively involved in the process, none being more important than the other. The next word " exchange" indicates that both sides are at the receiving end with the aid of a feedback forming a closed circuit. The word "process" is meant to be an ongoing one.
The importance of good communication 8
11.11.2007. Blogā
Who am I ,then, to talk about communication? Well, it what I do everday. As a teacher, I am involved in this continuous process of exchange of information. The feedback I get from students is not less important than the message I pass on. However, this does not mean that they dictate what I do or say. It only means that I am in the continuous process of convincing them that I am acting in their best interest, and they ,on their side, have to demontrate that the methods I use is having an impact on their lives. It is a win-win situation which everyone seems to be enjoying and benefiting from.
The example above is a typical classroom situation. However, I am absolutely convinced that this model of communication can work elsewhere, especially in public speeches. As someone quite interested in politics and deeply concerned , I have been obseving and analysing statements being made by top ranking politicians and leaders. The question I often ask is this " Are they really communicating? "
Watch some of these:
"Let noone has any hope concerning the new government. If this government falls, our coalition will come together to form another government and continue doing what we have been doing" ( a minister)
" I am not going to answer to your questions because you represent the interest of Swedish enterprises" ( a deputy)
" Everybody is to blame for the high inflation. We are all living beyond our means. We keep borrowing , and then we are surprised that inflation is so high" ( Prime Minister)
" All those people who participated in the demonstrations of 18th October and 3rd November are enemies of Latvia. They are not happy that we are progressing and developing. These are staged events " ( a deputy)
A look at some of these statements shows a serious lack of consideration for the other side of the communication process. It implies that the speaker leaves no room for the receivers. It seems that these people claim to have the absolute truth without the obligation to explain their actions to their electorate. Another strange conclusion is that it is what the coalition decides that is important, not what the people want. This communication problem has been the biggest problem of this government, not its actions.
As the coalition is now dwelling on the composition of the new government, I hope it will keeps its ears open to hear what the other side is saying. I hope it will appoint people who can engage in harmonious closed circuit of communication.
CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE ĻAUJ RAKSTU PĀRPUBLICĒT BEZ MAKSAS, ATSAUCOTIES UZ AUTORU UN PORTĀLU PROVIDUS.LV, TAČU PUBLIKĀCIJU NEDRĪKST LABOT VAI PAPILDINĀT. AICINĀM ATBALSTĪT PROVIDUS.LV AR ZIEDOJUMU!
Komentāri (8) secība: augoša / dilstoša
Juritis 22.07.2008 14:32
However much someone is communication, this nemainitu fact, that a government has operated crossing laws. www.dzivokli.com No communication holds nevar palidzet - a fault is and remains fault!
Christopher Ejugbo 17.11.2007 23:49
Man ir prieks par cilvēkiem, kas mīl savu dzimteni un savu valodu. Es ļoti respektēju to, ka valsts valoda ir latviešu un ka viesiem jāmak to lietot. Ja ir nepieciešams, es varu arī rakstīt latviski. Taja pašā laikā, nevienam nav aizliegts izmatot citas valodas. Šeit, politika.lv deva tādu iespēju rakstīt angliski. Mājas lapa ir divās valodās.
Šeit pareizi aztīmēt ka, ta ka neesmu politiķis, pret mani nav tāda prasības, kā pret politiķiem. Tas ne maina faktu, ka man ir tiesības izteikties.
Paldies Aleksim, kas rakstīja, ka te jāraksta komtāri un veidokļi, nevis uzbrukumi par personiskajām īpašībām.
Inese 17.11.2007 23:23
Ja nemaldos, portāls www.politika.lv ir gan latviski, gan angliski.
Un ja paskatās uz šī portāla angliskās versijas piedāvājumu - www.policy.lv blogs - tiek piedāvāts 3 autoru blogi: Christopher Ejugbo, Mark Case, Maria Golubeva. Turklāt visi trīs raksta angliski.
Tas, ka latviskajā versijā tiek piedāvāti visi autori - tajā skaitā angliski rakstošie, ir drīzāk kā kompliments latviešiem, jo tiek sagaidīts, ka latvieši to sapratīs! :)
Diemžēl, jāsecina, ka Staburags te vēlas izcelties ar personiskiem un raistiskiem izlēcieniem, nekā iedziļināties lietas būtībā!
Nemaz nešaubos, ja politika.lv lūgtu Ejugbo kungu rakstīt latviski, viņš to arī darītu! ;)
Aleksis 17.11.2007 22:36
Staburagam - Jūsu argumentu sauc par "ad hominem" jeb uzbrukumu nevis runātāja viedoklim, bet viņa personiskajām īpašībām (rasei, izskatam). Kamēr nav konstatēts, ka cilvēks pārkāpis likumu vai nelegāli imigrējis Latvijā (kā piemēram, bēdīgi slavenie 7 somāliešu robežpārkāpēji), tikmēr mēs pret viņu izturamies civilizēti.
No otras puses, Staburags gluži vietā iestājas par komunicēšanās kultūru - ja reiz Christofer Ejugbo vēlas efektīvu komunikāciju, tad lai pats arī rāda piemēru. Protams, viņš nav vēlēts politiķis un prasību pret viņu ir mazāk, bet tiem, kas redz skabargu otra acī, ir jāizņem baļķis arī no savas acs.
(To the author - this is a reference from the Scripture: "Mat 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?". I.e. if you suggest communicating effectively about the political classes of the Republic of Latvia, it is preferable to use the official language - namely, Latvian. All the politicians to which you implicitly refer, were in fact using Latvian. To me as a Latvian nationalist this shows an incomparably higher respect to their fellow-citizens than communication in a foreign language. I understand that you probably do not hold a public office, etcetera, but before we criticize anything, we should set a good example ourselves.)
Christopher 14.11.2007 10:41
Well, I think that a politician has an obligation to explain his stand to his people. There is no need to leave room for speculations. If a government cannot find the means or medium to communicate, it has a problem then. Blaming foreign source/forces does not seem to be the way out
Kalvis 12.11.2007 23:04
To illustrate the point that 1968 is an experience that separates Latvians from Swedes, let's consider a "Beatles" - "...Imagine all the people sharing all the world...". Quite a few people raised in Sweden behave as if this Lennon's sentiment were valid. For a person raised in Latvia it sounds like Soviet propaganda - friendship and harmony between all the peoples, while all the best apartments are being given to the occupying Soviet army officers.
Unfortunately, those Swedes who come here to speak about politics and human rights are very fond of moralizing. Quite often they have no time to learn about our frame of reference. About those facts in history, which cause us to believe that Soviet tanks can affect us much more than the ethos of "Beatles".
Kalvis 12.11.2007 22:45
Sometimes a person can prove its point by communicating. Sometimes it can do it by not communicating. What should a parliamentarian (Jānis Šmits (LPP)) do, if there is indeed a major newspaper in Latvia ("Diena"), which is controlled by a Swedish company ("Bonnier AB"), and quite often it is exploiting certain topics (anti-discrimination topics, gay-rights, etc.) to the maximum advantage of their so called "human rights experts", but without much regard of the people, whom they say they want to protect.
Since "Diena" journalists and those "experts" are, in fact, quite prosperous, and have all advantages (citizenship, ethnicity, race, wealth, foreign contacts) to their side. Their pitch for diversity and acceptance in Latvia is loud and emotional, but it lacks any authenticity - it sounds like pure imitation of some post-1968 sentimental liberal Swedish feeling (we did not have any kind of "cultural revolution" of 1968 in Latvia as it was part of USSR). If such "imported" sentiments were enough to change anything, then the rock-star Bono (Paul David Hewson) would have made a big difference with his activism regarding the plight of Africa. From my perspective it looks like this guy (Bono) is merely promoting himself. And so is "Diena".
Inese 12.11.2007 14:24
Nevēlos piekrist apgalvojumam, ka komunikācijas problēma, nevis darbi, ir lielākā šīs valdības problēme.
Šīs valdības nespēja komunicēt ir tikai viena no tās neskaitāmajām problēmām.
Vienalga kāda būtu komunikācija, tas nemainītu faktu, ka valdība ir rīkojusies pārkāpjot likumus. Tur nekāda komunikācija nevar palīdzēt - pārkāpums ir un paliek pārkāpums!