Article published In: Controversies, Communication and the Body
Edited by Joseph Lehmann
[Pragmatics & Cognition 23:3] 2016
► pp. 364–375
Biosemiotic conflict in communication
Published online: 20 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.3.02ask
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.3.02ask
Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Y. Michael Barilan have described the conflictual aspects of human communication (Merleau-Ponty, 1967). Humans communicate through verbal language, body-language, and stereotypes. (I coined the term ‘phatic communication’ for stereotypes.) These 3 types of communication can be in harmony or conflict.
Verbal (VC) and corporal (CC) communication are well known. During the past decade, I have examined the field of phatic communication (PC). Phatic communication consists of laughing, crying, yawning, sighing, gasping, sneezing and hiccupping, actions that date back over 500 million years to the Reptilia class of the animal kingdom. During the last million years, these biosemiotic actions have acquired psychological meanings in humans as a result of neocortex connections.
The simultaneous presence of threatening verbal signs with empathic stereotype signs, such as violence with laughter or aggression with a smile, requires a rational / emotional effort to decide within milliseconds if the message is a threat or joke.
References (21)
Askenasy, Jean Jacques. 2007. Un minim necesar despre constiinta pentru un intelectual din mileniul al treilea. Ed. Fundația Națională pentru știință și artă.
Askenasy, Jean Jacques & Adrian Solomon. 2010. Emotions, humor, smile, laughter and crying: The biosemiotics of daily life. Herzlia: J. Askenasy.
Askenasy, Jean Jacques. 2015. Spiralogy: A neurological theory about the relation between knowledge and consciousness. European Institute. [URL]
Barilan, Yechiel Michael. 2012. Human dignity human rights and responsibility: The new language of global ethics and biolaw. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bartels, Andreas & Semir Zeki. 2004. The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. Neuroimage 21(3). 1155–1166.
Burton, John Wear. 1987. Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 74 p.
Chapman, Alexander L., Kim L. Gratz & Milton Z. Brown. 2006. Solving the puzzle of deliberate self-harm: the experimental avoidance model. Behaviour Research and Therapy 44(3). 371–394.
Forrai, Gabor & George Kampis (eds.). 2005. Intentionality: Past and future. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.
Gaertner, David. 2011. “The climax of reconciliation”: Transgression, apology, forgiveness and the body in conflict resolution. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 81. 245–256, Netherlands: Springer.
Glucklich, Ariel. 2001. Sacred pain: Hurting the body for the sake of the soul. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Hoffmeyer, Jesper. 1997. Biosemiotics: Towards a new synthesis in biology. S: European Journal for Semiotic Studies 9(2). 355–376.
Jensen, Rasmus Thybo & Dermot Moran (eds.). 2013. The phenomenology of embodied subjectivity: Contributions to phenomenology, vol. 711. xxxix + 356 p. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mayer, Richard J. 1974. Communication and conflict in organizations. Human Resource Management. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Musallam, Naira, Peter T. Coleman & Andrzej Nowak. 2010. Understanding the spread of malignant conflict: A dynamical system perspective. Peace and Conflict 161. 127–151.
Oliver, Sophie Anne. 2010. Trauma, bodies, and performance art: Towards an embodied ethics of seeing. Continuum Journal of Media 24(1). 119–129.