The Plague of Modern Communications

Autonomy vs. Heteronomy

Can we learn how to communicate effectively? Is it possible for us to regain a sense of peace? The main issue dividing our society is related to our communication preferences: autonomy versus heteronomy (self-governance versus being governed). At its core, this concept comes down to how individuals react to different communication styles. Both the autonomy and the heteronomy crowds want the same thing, but the difference lies in each being told they can't have self-governance because of the other. And not all ideologies are created equally. Let's elaborate.

“You’re not wrong, Dominick. It's just how you say it is the problem.” I have heard some version of this numerous times throughout my life. And it is not just me living this experience at the margins. Many experience this criticism. My communication style has evolved with experience and maturity, but I am still me, and I own it. However, I see this as a false flag, the rejection of communication by claiming hurt feelings because of firmly chosen and stated words, regardless of their truthfulness or value. It is troubling that, as a culture, we are more apt to ignore the fire because of the way we were told the house was burning down. The essence of our communication problems points to a more significant issue in our cultural discourse. The frustrating reality is that when communicating a problem, the how and who often overshadow the what and why. In “olden times,” as my kids would say, this would be addressed simply: “Don’t kill the messenger,” it makes me wonder if we have lost our ability to focus on what matters.

I am by far not always right. I am as wrong as the average person, especially when leaping to conclusions without having all the facts. The fascinating thing to me is that the presentation of information matters to the extent it does now. There may be circumstances that call for delicacy, and I understand that. But I notice that a greater range of communications seems to call for delicacy in recent years. I prefer blunt, factual assessments, but that’s just me. This critique of communication style is one thing, but that it overshadows more pressing and critical issues is something else entirely. What should people do when they start beige and bland, and nobody gets the point? When the stakes are low, it’s easier to throw up your hands and say, “Whatever, dude.” On the contrary, if I try beige with no results, you bet I’m going red, purple, and yellow when the stakes are high! When I do, I often get the “whatever, dude” treatment and shake my head. You can’t win.

Today, there are almost no circumstances in our society where the presentation of what is said doesn’t matter. A stand-up comic could have an audience rolling on the floor at the absurdity of the eggshells one has to tip-toe around when communicating truthful and valid assessments of anything from the most innocuous to the most harmful. The expectation for pleasant communication is so extreme that it's as if there is no floor or ceiling to how important it is that information be communicated in a non-threatening manner, by a non-threatening, pleasant vocal tone, and overall bland, dispassionate, neutral appearing person. What happened to us?

Pardon me, I was screaming that the house is on fire at you because you were stuck in the garden complaining about the weeds despite the heat, flames, and falling ash. The fire is what’s important, not my screaming about it. Focus, people!

Why is the responsibility on the communicator and not on the information receiver? Should it be one or the other? Do we have a reasonable expectation that it should be both? This is where the rubber meets the road. Critical thinking and the ability to listen and understand are dying skill sets. The digital age of constant streaming videos, TikTok, and gaming has degenerated our ability to get the point and to maintain attention to what is essential, especially when it’s not carefully wrapped up in a soft-spoken beige package that is so watered down that we miss the point anyway. The receiver's role in communication is crucial, and it's time we start acknowledging that.

Why do we prefer calm platitudes to passionate authenticity? A most astounding recent example of this phenomenon is the Supreme Court’s decision on the Colorado ballot issue. Most commentators and legal scholars explain this decision as the court punting the matter. The collective wisdom in legal commentator land was this was the expected decision. Nobody stood up and screamed; if they did, I didn’t hear them. If they did, they would have been shunned as an out-of-touch alarmist.

The Supreme Court went much further than that. By refusing to enforce the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, they irreparably diminished the constitutional balance of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. They not only “punted” the broken, do-nothing congress but also prevented themselves from enforcing the constitution on this or any issues unless Congress specifically addressed the matter. Why have a constitution or a judiciary?

Why do we engage with the raging liars but dismiss the raging truth-tellers?

Immanuel Kant defined heteronomy as an action influenced by a force outside the individual, in other words, the state or condition of being ruled, governed, or under the sway of another, as in a military occupation. He considered this nonmoral. In another life, I trained salespeople. Some believe a sales career is engaging in nonmoral behavior. I'm afraid I must disagree. However, I have thought back on some of my training techniques and how they relate to this issue of autonomy vs. heteronomy. To help salespeople understand their role, I would say things like:

• The customer often makes incorrect assumptions. When you see something wrong, it’s your job to tell them.

• If a customer asks you what you think they should do, you should tell them. They ask you because you won their trust, and people want to be told what to do.

• An objection is a “yes, but” -overcome the objection.

• If they keep objecting, go for the hard takeaway. (You can’t have this now).

In hindsight, this highly effective strategy is eerily reminiscent of heteronomy, and it worked uniquely well in the intangible sales environment of the for-profit technical school where I worked. Some people want autonomy and need it, while others want heteronomy; they would instead be ruled or governed. And within both structures, there are lots of grey areas.

We can look at our political landscape today and see this compelling communications nuance play out in real time. The GOP tent is supported by those who wish to be governed. The Democratic tent is supported by those who want autonomy—to live and let live. Each misaligned group is critical of the other and astounded at how anyone could help the other.

This concept plays out daily for many people, whether you are the communicator, the receiver of communication, or a passerby and witness.

Thinking about these things and how they relate to the daily work of happiness has been helpful. If you hate beige, don’t pretend to love it, but do respect it if you want to get anywhere. Adding purple is sometimes essential if beige doesn’t finish the job.

Communication is a two-way street, with each side responsible for its success. No one should demand that their dysregulation be tolerated, and likewise, no one should expect others to walk on eggshells around them. All parties should work toward mutual understanding. And for goodness’ sake, our society's obsession with calm platitudes is destroying our humanity. Can we move on?