You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The subject and process of communication is indeed a tremendously complex one. The topic under discussion here is neurotic distortion of the process. But before we can discuss distortions of communication, we have to concern ourselves with what constitutes normal communication; what is its nature and definition. This means considering the means and methods of communication, whether preverbal, verbal, emotional, paranormal, behavioral, gestural, or other1; the content of what is being communicated, and the symbolic transformation of this content. My own longstanding interest in the subject has been in the symbolizing process as a means of communication—that is, in the way inner experience is transformed in order to be communicated to another. Or we can consider the communicative situation and its elements, the sender and receiver, or the purpose, functions, and effects of the communication between them.
In theory, these considerations could take us into the field of semantics or of symbolism, into such factors as the neurotic personality structure and the interpersonal relationship, of which one particular aspect would be the doctor-patient relationship or transference in analysis.
Each of the speakers on this panel has chosen one aspect of the subject in which he is most directly interested. Each is well qualified to speak on this aspect, having spent much time and effort, much thought and clinical work on its development. The first paper considers the compulsive (neurotic) emotional factors which influence communication, and how they express themselves in behavior. It focuses on the sender aspect of the total process. The second is concerned with the deaf child and focuses on deficient communication, whether the deficiency is due to an inborn defect or imposed by the means of learning. It is mainly about the means of communication. The third