In your textbook, author Randy Fujishin discusses his theory of the four levels of communication, each of increasing depth.
He notes that as we move into increasingly deep levels of verbal communication, we have greater opportunities to connect interpersonally. However, we also experience heightened vulnerability. As such, we have wonderful opportunities, but also significant interpersonal risks, as we add meaning and significance to what we share with others. Fujishin's four levels of communication are Surface Talk, Reporting Facts, Expressing Opinions, and Sharing Feelings.
As I explained in one of our Zoom meetings earlier in the quarter, Randy Fujishin was a communication instructor at West Valley College until his retirement. Personally, I find his theories to be both practical and directly applicable to modern interpersonal communication and to student life. (I also appreciate that his textbooks are very reasonably priced!)
The first level of communication in Fujishin’s theory is Surface Talk. This is the kind of verbal communication we have that simply acknowledges another person. Examples include, “Hi,” “Hey,” and the like. Depending on the situation, questions that don’t seek a real answer can also be considered Surface Talk, such as “What’s up?” and “How are you?” Information that is obvious to the listener would also count as Surface Talk, such as “Nice day today.”
When a person engages in Surface Talk, they are taking a small risk and experiencing a bit of vulnerability. If you have ever said hello to someone who turned away from you without returning the greeting, you understand this vulnerability. Surface Talk that hangs in the air without verbal acknowledgment can be awkward or even embarrassing. This is not a huge risk, however, and the person whose surface talk is not returned will not tend to dwell on the situation.
According to Fujishin, one level deeper in interpersonal communication is called Reporting Facts. This communication allows for a greater opportunity to connect with another person, and increases the speaker’s vulnerability by a small amount. It’s important to note that, within each level of communication, there is a scale of depth. In other words, reporting some facts will make you more vulnerable than others. The degree of your vulnerability can also depend on the situation and your audience. Let’s imagine, for example, that you are sitting at a bus stop when another passenger approaches. After 15 minutes, there is no bus. You could simply observed that the bus is late. You could also observed that the bus is always late.
When you report a fact, one of the risks is that the person you were speaking with will verbally disagree with you. In this example, the person could look at their watch, then at the bus schedule, then turn to you and say, “No, the bus isn’t due for five more minutes.” This sort of exchange of information can be very positive. Or, depending on the other person’s nonverbal communication, this simple interaction could be unpleasant. Imagine, however, that you have just commented that the bus is always late, and it turns out that your fellow passenger is actually the spouse of the bus driver. Imagine that, even though you are factually correct, your companion takes great offense at your comment and either begins to argue with you or starts to cry. You would not have risked any of this if you had simply stuck with Surface Talk.
Imagine, instead, that when you verbalize that the bus is always late, your companion agrees wholeheartedly. Imagine that they then begin talking about how often the bus has made them late for work. You agree, and ask where the person works. It turns out that your fellow passenger works at your favorite pizza place. Your lighthearted banter continues and you now have a familiar face at a restaurant you enjoy and the potential for a new friendship. This could not have been possible if you had remained at a Surface Talk level.
The next level of communication, according to Randy Fujishin, is Expressing Opinions. As you can imagine, this can be inherently risky. Remember, again, that there are different depths within each level, meaning that some opinions are riskier to share than others. As always, the degree of your vulnerability can also depend on your audience. For instance, it is not particularly risky to express a liberal or progressive political viewpoint here in the San Francisco Bay Area. However, in some parts of the country, this perspective might not be well received. As a result, you may choose to express certain opinions only in particular environments or in the presence of particular people. As another example, you could rest assured that many of your college classmates would agree that education should cost less, or even be free. Expressing such an opinion in the classroom environment would not represent a significant risk of vulnerability.
Even if someone were to disagree, the likelihood is that someone else would stand up on your behalf. But, your boss or uncle or neighbor might have a strong opinion to the contrary, and you might choose not to express your opinion to them.
It's also worth noting that you may enjoy a lively discussion or debate with certain individuals. Conflicting opinions can be very educational, especially if the people involved respect each other and really listen to the ideas that differ from their own. As Holocaust survivor, political activist, and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel said, “To engage with controversy does not mean to refuse to listen.” Willingness to engage intellectually with someone who does not share your opinion, without resorting to unpleasant personal attacks or trying to "win" the conversation can be a wonderful experience.
Discussions about very controversial topics can be much more sensitive, in general. Here in the United States, conversations about abortion, gun control, and several other topics tend to get heated very quickly. Some people, as a result, choose never to publicly share their opinions on such topics. The challenge is that it is often difficult to anticipate others’ reactions before you share an opinion. One of the approaches is to first report a fact about a controversial topic as a way of “testing the water” in a conversation. You can get a sense of your audience’s reaction to the general topic, before deciding whether to express an opinion about it. In other words, you can proceed more slowly to a deeper level of communication. You may even choose not to reach the level of Expressing Opinions at all, based on the information you gather at the Reporting Facts level.
There are some people who prefer never to express their personal opinions, or to only do so in the company of trusted companions. It is true that it is interpersonally safer to not express opinions on controversial topics. It can be easier, within a group of friends, to have no particular opinions about things like where to have dinner or what to do together. But, avoiding expressing opinions also means that you do not have the opportunity to connect with others through your common opinions and shared vulnerability in discussing them. Choosing to communicate at levels of increasing depth is a risk, but also presents the opportunity for great rewards.
According to Fujishin, the deepest level of communication is Sharing Feelings. As is the case for all levels of communication, there are varying degrees of depth within this level. For example, sharing within a group of college classmates that you feel overwhelmed by school, work, and family obligations is likely to receive a warm reception from them. In fact, it is likely that you will hear that many of your classmates feel exactly the same way. Sharing these feelings has made you somewhat vulnerable, but has also created an opportunity to build a connection with these classmates. On the other hand, you might not find it appropriate to share these feelings with a hiring director during a job interview. Take a moment to tap into your own emotional reaction as to how it would feel to share, with someone contemplating offering you a job, this feeling of being overwhelmed, and why you might choose to avoid doing so.
We make countless decisions every day about what parts of our emotional selves to share with others. Sometimes, a particular feeling is simply too personal for us to share with anyone. Other feelings are ones that we might only feel comfortable sharing with I trusted friend or family member.
But there is a great deal of variation in people‘s comfort with sharing feelings. If you have ever felt that someone was “over-sharing”, or that a person’s contribution to your conversation with simply too much information (“TMI”), then you already recognize that what is comfortable for one person can be very uncomfortable for another. You may have thought “there’s a time and a place for that.” Your companion may not agree, instead feeling that this was an excellent time and place for such sharing. Both viewpoints are usually equally valid.
This is similar to our varied comfort levels with personal space, which can be affected by one’s culture, age, upbringing, or simple personal preferences. For example, according to the Book of Lists, the average American has a physical comfort zone of 18 inches. This means that, Covid aside, a statistically typical American feels comfortable when a stranger is standing, nose-to-nose, at least 18 inches away from them. According to the same source, the average Israeli has a physical comfort zone of just 6 inches. This means that the statistically average Israeli would be comfortable with someone a full foot closer to them than the statistically average American would be comfortable. This isn’t particularly surprising, because many cultures in the Middle East have a similar physical comfort zone. Regardless, it reminds us that any two people — whether their physical comfort zone relates to their nationality or age or simple personal preference — need to take the other person’s comfort into account as well. This same variation, and the same required consideration for others’ comfort, also exists when it comes to the levels of communication.
There is no objectively right or wrong level of communication to use in a given situation. Very close coworkers may communicate on a very deep level in the middle of a business meeting. Family members may be more formal with each other in their own particular family dynamic, rarely sharing opinions or feelings. Even people within a relationship with me play different roles. One person may prefer to share feelings regularly, while another prefers not to do so.
The key is to be able to evaluate a given situation and your particular audience, and determine the appropriate level of communication. It is also helpful to know your own personal preferences. Would you feel happier in a workplace that stayed in Levels 1 and 2? Plenty of people would like that. On the other hand, would you rather work somewhere where colleagues’ personal opinions and feelings were readily shared? When choosing friends or a life partner, what level of communication would you like to express? What level of communication would you like to receive? Be sure that you create a life for yourself that allows you to express yourself as you see fit, and to connect with others, as they express themselves, in a way that makes sense to you.
Again, there is no objectively right or wrong level of communication.
When people talk about marriages failing because of poor communication, people often think that this is because a couple does not communicate enough, or because they don’t communicate kindly. While both of those things might be true, more often than not, communication problems result from different expectations. It is important to understand who you are as a communicator, and to seek out a partner who makes you feel fulfilled in that way.
Friendships, intimate relationships, family dynamics, and professional environments can all benefit from a better understanding of the four levels of communication.
The better we understand ourselves and recognize the commonalities and differences we have with others, the more effective communicators we will be.
