One of the basic steps in understanding communication is to view it as peoples’ process instead of a language process. Thus, if an individual is to make improvements in his communication process, he/she ought to first improve his/her interpersonal relationship. Changing the degree of the defensive behavior is one of the mechanisms that one can use to improve the communication process. Defensive behavior is the behavior shown by an individual who either anticipates or expects the threat from his group. A defensive individual is generally concerned with how he appears to others. He/ She wants to dominate or win over others (Adler, Proctor & Proctor II, 2015). The converse holds for a supportive individual. “I can be right, or I can be happy” is one of the many statements which are often misunderstood by people depending on context and the interpersonal relationships. In this essay, we analyze the statement with regard to the defensive and non-defensive concepts (Adler et al., 2015). Additionally, relevant Gibb’s communication climate components will be used to expound on the meaning of the saying.
Distortion of Critical Information
The saying “I can be right, or I can be happy” can be considered as one of the defensive reactions depending on the context. It is a defensive mechanism that incorporates the use of psychological devices to iron out dissonance. The speaker settles the dissonance by upholding a positive image. The saying can be thought of as distortion of critical information. The speaker attempts to protect his/her presenting self-image from attacks by the defender by modifying some critical information in a manner that leaves the speaker’s image concrete. The saying is an example of regression statements for distorting critical information. The use of ‘can’ emphasizes that the decision to be either happy or right is beyond his/her control. As such it is as if he/she is a victim of circumstances. It absconds him of the obligation of determining whether he/she is either right or happy.
Gibb’s Climate Components
The statement can be equally viewed in the line with Gibb’s communication climate. It is apparent the statement is a judgmental statement. It is more of self-evaluation by the speaker. Therefore, the statement is bound to spark a defensive reaction. The speaker has already reached a definite conclusion on what he/she can be. The statement falls under the Evaluation versus description tenet of Gibb’s climate. For the speaker to correct the defensive climate, he should omit the word ‘can’ and use other words that demonstrate uncertainty of what he/she can be. For example, I don’t know if I will be either right or happy.
The saying can be considered as an act of dogmatism from the speaker. Dogmatism can be conceived by the listeners as an act of authoritarianism which often yields resentment from the listeners (Wood, 2015). In this regard, the statement falls under the certainty versus provisionalism tenet of Gibb’s communication climate. The speaker passes out as someone who is sure of what he/she will be. Although there are two possible states the speaker can assume (happy or right), the listeners can interpret the speaker saying as a deliberate attempt to show that he/she does not respect the opinions of others. The speaker’s utterance is final. Evidently, this would yield defensive reactions from the listeners as the speaker passes out as someone not ready to respect the opinion of others.
Besides, the statement can also pass out as speakers attempt to exalt superiority on the listeners. Irrespective of the context and intonation of the speaker, the saying is likely to attract a defensive reaction from the listeners. It portrays the speaker as being inconsiderate of the listeners and makes it difficult for the speaker to convey his/her ideas to others.
References
Adler, R., Proctor, R. F., " Proctor II, R. F. (2015). Looking out, looking in. Nelson Education.
Wood, J. T. (2015). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. Nelson Education.
