1.3.5 Communication Involves Content and Relationship Dimensions

     Communications, to a certain extent at least, refer to the real world—to something external to both speaker and listener. At the same time, however, communications also refer to the relationships between the parties (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). In other words, communication has both content and relationship dimensions.
     For example, an employer may say to a worker, “See me after the meeting.” This simple message has a content aspect and a relational aspect. The content message refers to the behavioral response expected—namely, that the worker see the employer after the meeting. The relationship message tells how the communication is to be dealt with. For example, the use of the simple command says that there’s a status difference between the two parties: The employer can command the worker. This aspect is perhaps seen most clearly if you imagine the worker giving this command to the employer; to do so would be awkward and out of place because it would violate the expected relationship between employer and worker.
     In any communication situation, the content dimension may stay the same but the relationship aspect may vary. For example, the employer could say to the worker either “You had better see me after the meeting” or “May I please see you after the meeting?” In each case, the content is essentially the same; that is, the message being communicated about the behaviors expected is the same. But the relationship dimension is very different. The first example signifies a definite superior–inferior relationship and even a put-down of the worker. In the second, the employer signals a more equal relationship and shows respect for the worker.
     Similarly, at times the content may be different but the relationship essentially the same. For example, a teenager might say to his or her parents, “May I go away this weekend?” or “May I use the car tonight?” The content of the two messages is clearly very different. The relationship dimension, however, is essentially the same. It clearly denotes a superior–inferior relationship in which permission to do certain things must be secured.

Ignoring Relationship Dimensions

     Problems may arise when the distinction between the content and relationship levels of communication is ignored. Consider a couple arguing over the fact that Pat made plans to study with friends during the weekend without first asking Chris if that would be all right. Probably both would have agreed that to study over the weekend was the right choice to make. Thus, the argument is not at all related to the content level. The argument centers on the relationship level. Chris expected to be consulted about plans for the weekend. Pat, in not doing so, rejected this definition of the relationship.
     Consider the following interchange:

Thom: 

I’m going bowling tomorrow. The guys at the plant are starting a team. [He focuses  on the content and ignores any relational implications of the message.]

Sofia: 

Why can’t we ever do anything together? [She responds primarily on a relational level, ignoring the content implications of the message and expressing her displeasure at being ignored in his decision.]

Thom: 

We can do something together anytime; tomorrow’s the day they’re organizing the team. [Again, he focuses almost exclusively on the content.]

Recognizing Relationship Dimensions

Here’s essentially the same situation but with added sensitivity to relationship messages:

Thom: 

The guys at the plant are organizing a bowling team. I’d sure like to be on the team. Do you mind if I go to the organizational meeting tomorrow? [Although he focuses on content, he shows awareness of the relational dimensions by asking if this would be a problem. He also shows this in expressing his desire rather than his decision to attend this meeting.]

Sofia: 

That sounds great, but I’d really like to do something together tomorrow. [She focuses on the relational dimension but also acknowledges his content message. Note too that she does not respond as if she has to defend herself or her emphasis on relational aspects.]

Thom: 

How about you meet me at Luigi’s for dinner after the organizational meeting? [He responds to the relational aspect without abandoning his desire to join the bowling team—and seeks to incorporate it into his communications. He attempts to negotiate a solution that will meet both Sofia’s and his needs and desires.]

Sofia: 

Perfect. I’m dying for spaghetti and meatballs. [She responds to both messages, approving of both his joining the team and their dinner date.]

Arguments over content are relatively easy to resolve. You can look something up in a book or ask someone what actually took place. Arguments on the relationship level, however, are much more difficult to resolve, in part because you may not recognize that the argument is in fact about your relationship.