A contact wrote a message to me on facebook, saying that he didn’t want to collaborate any more on a project we had been working on together. He suggested that we meet face to face. This made me glad. We met and we talked our way through, and though we didn’t continue the collaboration, at least we cleared the air, and we both learned what had to be learned from that experience.
Had we finished our interaction via Facebook messenger, we probably wouldn’t have come to an understanding, and the issue would have been left unresolved, – or worse. Why is it that we keep misunderstanding each other when communicating through social media, sms and emails?
Is it because text is not the right medium to solve complex problems? I say that no matter how many emoticons we add up in an sms, it is never going to convey all the nuances of our feelings.
What about a phone call? Well. Am I the only one experiencing that the connexion is horrendous most of the time? “Did you hang up?” “No, no! It was the connexion!!”
It seems that nothing beats real life face to face communication.
Also read this: Can social media help us build our collectives?
Gestures with our faces, bodies and voices are all intertwined channels of communication, and it makes a lot of sense to regard them in a holistic way. For a moment, however, let’s look at what happens in the interactions we have through sound alone. And how this affects our capacity for building sustainable collectives.
When speaking, we are not only simply saying words. We accompany our words and other utterances with certain ways of using our voices. We are capable of expressing and perceiving very intricate patterns in melody, breaks, volume, quality of voice and rhythm. In other words: We rock at prosody.
First of all, sound has to do with our voices. Since the voice sits in the body, it reflects what’s going on in there. All the processes and rhythms of my body are influencing the way I sound. My heart rate, the rhythm of my breathing, and the degree of tension or release I am feeling, – it will all affect the tempo, timbre and volume of my utterances.
Let’s look at it this way: I make a sound. The vibrations of my body make the air vibrate. And these waves of air will reach you, causing vibrations in your body, creating a similar kind of feeling in you. In other words: we have an innate capacity for empathy.
Empathizing is fundamental when it comes to building sustainable collectives. Still, our societies fail at it. Why? Group dynamics based on social control, competition and exclusion teach us to control our voices, making sure nothing slips through. And if it does, the recipient has learned to suppress his or her natural physical reactions.
Also read this article: What Is Empathy?
Secondly, the way we distribute time in our interactions is staged through sound. Breaks, pauses, hesitation are all markers of how you react to what I am saying. It tells me something about the extent to which you are taking me seriously. Are you giving me space in the conversation? Are you snapping off my words? Are you RAISING YOUR VOICE so that you can conquer space and impose your points in the conversation? Therefore timing in conversation is about power and hierarchy. When building a collective, the question of power and hierarchy is important. I believe that in a sustainable collective, there should be an equal amount of space for each member. It’s a place where we all have an equal right to be heard.
A third aspect of sound as a means of expression is our capability of establishing a link with movement through sound. We are excellent at mimicking movement, acceleration, and physical volume with our voices.
This allows us to bring aspects of our bodily intentions into the dialogue in an abstract form. I might feel the urge to punch someone in the face, but there might be many reasons for not doing it. What I can do, legitimately, is to give life to this wished for movement through sound. “Aaaaaaaarr-he-is-simply-so-aaaaaNOying!”. A crescendo and a raise in pitch with a full stop. No need for broken knuckles there.
In many situations we are not using the words that correspond to our intentions. Think about flirting, which is all about NOT saying what we intend to do, with words. Here, words are simply marionettes for a whole performance in sound and gesture about all kinds of hinted at activities.
Read about one of my workshops here.
By imitating real or imagined bodily movements through sound, we are capable of staging actual as well as possible scenarios, and it enables us to test real or imagined outcomes of our social interactions, in a safe way, before proceeding to actual action. In other words: A sustainable collective is capable of handling controversy.
Let’s sum this up:
|Our voices are..||through (primarily)…||This helps the collective …||while establishing a relation to …|
|conveying our feelings||timbre||Building trust||the body|
|timing our utterances||rhythm||Establishing equality||time|
|giving an abstract form to our physical intentions||melody||Handling controversy||space|
Does this make sense? Please contribute with your comments below!
For my part, I think that these questions are relevant for a further discussion:
- Does the table above make sense? Is there a relationship between specific characteristics of sound, and the way we use them in specific modalities of building collectives?
- Can we create better collectives by training our capacity for using sound as a means of expression?
- Does our current conception of musical practices and learning strengthen our capacities for interaction through sound? Or is it merely teaching us to become good consumers?
- Which kind of practice would help us become experts in building sustainable collectives through sound?