Â In this post, I am the Sender. I am the Initiator of this message. In writing the post, I am encoding it, that is, I am putting the idea into language while adding my own meaning to the words. I am posting it to my blog readers, or Receivers. You as a reader will receive the message and decode it. In the process of decoding it you will internally, privately translate my post into something you understand, by using your knowledge of language and your personal experience. The blog post is travelling to you through written communication channel. You may or may not provide feedback on the post via a blog comment or perhaps personal email to me, both written communication channels. Throughout the entire process, the message is subject to Noise.Â In communication, Noise is considered anything that interferes with effective transmission or reception of the message.Â There can be physical noise or external noise that is environmental to you. Perhaps while you are reading this, your young child interrupts you causing you to look away or begin another task. Your receipt of this message was interrupted and as such may influence your understanding of it. Other types of noise physiological (maybe you have the flue) Â psychological (your own preconceptions and bias towards â€œsomeone like meâ€) and finally, semantic noise.Â If I chose words that are confusing or distracting to your reading, that would be semantic noise.
Keep these concepts in mind. Noise is important, in my opinion, when we consider adoption conversations, particularly those that occur online, in written form, with people we have never met before.
Consider the recent comment thread between Daniel, myself, Rich and Janet.Â I believe this illustrates challenges with communication and supports my belief that we need to consider these challenges in the conversations we have.
Daniel is not American. By his own words he is an adoptee from Lebanon. He writes very well, but very much rhetorically.Â During our conversation, I found myself impressed with his writing (smart people who write well can always hook me) and I was interested in hearing his thoughts. I continued to prod him to explain himself when I did not quite understand. This seemed to frustrate him for in the end, rather than explain himself, again, in a simpler way; he resorts to Arabic slang derogatory terms towards me, Janet and Rich.
I am American. I am a natural mother that surrendered her child to adoption. I am in reunion with a child that wants nothing to do with me or her first family. I am a reform activist and I believe adoption should always be a last resort and even when needed ties to the family of origin should be maintained. I donâ€™t believe in amended birth certificates.Â My communication style is one that places understanding high on the list of requirements (or so I like to think). All of these factors and more impact your understanding of my blog posts.
Rich is American.Â He is not personally effected by adoption, rather he is collateral damage to anotherâ€™s experience, mine. Rich is my fiancÃ©.Â Rich responds to Daniel with a very American phrase that suggests if he is not part of the solution he is part of this problem. This message could have been completely lost on Daniel or offensive as he is not familiar with Rich or what Americans may mean when they suggest such things. Daniel likely thought from his own perspective he was offering solutions. The fact that I, nor Rich, nor Janet understood what he was saying did not negate the fact that he said it.Â Hence, noise.
Janet astutely noted that Daniel was talking in very academic, rhetorical terms that can create confusion.Â Daniel may have been doing this on purpose but he may indeed speak like that all the time.Â Since none of us know Daniel personally, we cannot know but we make those assumptions based on our own personal experiences (noise). Perhaps someone in our past talked down to us like that. If so, we may be reacting to Danielâ€™s words from a past experience versus a present one.
I posit that communication challenges like this happen all the time in adoption circles. We are continually influenced by our own personal noise, and holy jeebzuss there is a lot of personal noise in adoption trauma.Â If we are not able to identify that, see that what we are offering up or how we are receiving messages is effected by that, we cannot communicate effectively.Â
Daniel suggests (or at least I think he does, again, not clear) that Americans and those of us in adoption reform discussions are too politically correct. He suggests that adoptees are told to â€œplay niceâ€ and their voices are squelched in conversations they have with adoptive parents.Â I am not disagreeing that is done (although I am not an adoptee or an adoptive parent) but I do disagree that not playing nice is productive to conversation.Â Daniel also balks at things like Roberts Rule of Order and that we must have rules on how we will engage. I disagreed here too.
While I agree that those of us that have beenÂ torched (not touched) by adoption have a right to be angry and hurt and such, I do question how discussion can be productive if one or more parties to that discussion are permitted to be uncivilized. As I shared in a different post, I tend to avoid people who cannot have a conversation with me without resorting to calling me an abandoning c*nt whore.Â I donâ€™t see how that is relevant to changing adoption. I am interested in progress, moving forward, making change, not you showing me how colorful your language can be.
Thoughts? Can we have unemotional discussion on adoption? More importantly, do we even want to, for isnâ€™t the pain, the damage, the emotion of adoption a primary motivator for change? Do we really want to eliminate it from the conversation? How do we keep it without turning off the people we are speaking to?