If I say, “You are compromising your principles,” and repeat it over and over again, I might actually be setting into motion a redefinition of the word “compromise.”
‘Compromise” for many of us still might mean a “win-win” way to move a complicated project forward. It’s what governance meant in the past. It has been a positive word for many people. But that might now be changing.
The word “dog” brings me happy thoughts, while it might bring you grungy and smelly ones. The word “democracy” for me embraces individual freedom, but dictators today claim they have democracies because they hold periodic “orchestrated” elections. The word “friend” for me describes very close relationships, but now it means a large collection of names on Facebook. And on and on…
Meanings are in people. Even when it comes to single words, people must have the same meaning in their mind or communication will fail. Their prior experiences must overlap. And only over time can we interact enough to reach common understanding. And what’s worse, we can choose to reach out for understanding… or we can choose to shut it out.
In an already polarized world, it’s difficult to imagine the conditions under which communication can succeed. When it comes to individual, institutional, or even international understanding, maybe all we can do is chip away little-by-little at creating more shared experiences. That way we can at least hope for little pieces of understanding to appear, and maybe over time we can build on them.
Is there a plan in place anywhere to apply this kind of strategic communication understanding to Syria, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea, or China? Is this a matter of more effective diplomacy, or is it the future of international education?
Larry D. Lauer 
Leave a Reply