“What’s happening here is a failure of communication,” says the Captain (Strother Martin) in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke. Made at the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests in the United States, this shocking film tells the story of Luke’s (Paul Newman) rebellion against a corrupt, authoritarian prison system. Unable to break Luke’s spirit, the system tries to force his loyalty through increasingly harsh “communication” practices. Increasing physical violence (and Luke’s stubborn resistance) ultimately leads to Luke’s death, but also his spiritual survival in the memories of the other prisoners. There are many Christian religious allegories, but for me Cool Hand Luke is primarily an allegory of bad communication and its destructive power.
The best description of “good” communication I’ve found comes from Friedrich Schlegel, a German Romantic philosopher from the late 18th and early 19th century. Schlegel argued that there are three “universally fundamental laws” of communication: 1) you need something to say; 2) you need someone to communicate it to; and 3) you need to really communicate, not just express it for yourself. In other words, you need something worth saying, the right audience to say it to and receive a response, and effective communication tools to get it across. When communication goes wrong, it’s because one or all of these laws are broken.
Effective communication is more essential to life than you might think. A recent article in the journal Science Cell metabolism (https://bit.ly/3Vh6LQP) describes one example of the crucial interdependence of bodily organs (e.g., brain, heart, kidneys, liver) that are in continuous and dynamic molecular communication using hormones, protein interactions, or other chemical or physiological signals. Aging, disease, and even death result directly from the breakdown of these internal communications. For example, the signal being sent may not be the right one (i.e., there is nothing worth saying); or the intended target may not receive or respond to the message correctly (i.e., the receiver is not receptive or is sent to the wrong person); or the particular chemical signal being sent may not be appropriate or in the wrong concentration for the intended message (i.e., an ineffective choice of communication tool). Eventually, either the sender or receiver may give up altogether, usually with disastrous consequences for both.
Apart from these fascinating new scientific studies, the breakdown in communication between communicators, audiences and mediums is also at the heart of the socio-political upheaval we see in many small and large socio-political conflicts in the world today. Raw emotions inevitably lead to distorted messages, lack of receptivity and rational responses, and inappropriate use of electronic communication tools, which only leads to further division and intensification.
Consider the horrors of the Middle East and Eastern Europe through this lens of “bad communication”: the selective communication of horrific beliefs and actions, the targeting of captive and supportive audiences, and the rampant use of propaganda-driven techniques – all of which violate Schlegel’s Law. The US presidential election, too, seems a constant wellspring of unrealistic communication, unreceptive and even hostile voters, and clearly biased “media.” Schlegel’s warning that “it is more important to remain silent” than to engage in bad communication is too often ignored.
Can we fix these broken interactions? I have no illusions that it will be easy or successful, especially at today’s scale. But we can start by modeling better communication locally. Let’s take a step back and think about our immediate world here in Boulder, the different “audiences” that inhabit it, and the tools we use. Let me give you one simple example. Sturm und Drang (Thinking back to Schlegel’s environment) Around the Boulder airport, there are messages (mostly opinions) everywhere, some of which are true, messages with varying degrees of receptivity to many different audiences (aviators, non-aviators, environmentalists, housing advocates, density deniers, airport neighbors), and many messaging tools used to persuade others (this opinion page, Nextdoor, X, etc.).
On this topic, and on any topic of greater importance beyond our little world, I tend to side with the best communicators: those who are most honest about the facts underlying their reasoning, most open to feedback from their intended audience, and most careful in their selection of appropriate engagement tools. I think Schlegel and our basic biology support that approach.
Fintan Steele is a former Benedictine monk and priest with a PhD in Biology/Genetics. He has dedicated most of his life to science communication, working in scientific publishing and more recently in biopharmaceutical and academic centres. He and his husband live in Hygiene. Email: fsteele1@me.com.
