What the content-free conversation says about communication

For years I have had a number of friends with whom I have perfected the art of the content-free conversation. Such a conversation is primarily one had in quotes and pop-culture associations where the point is more to test the other’s knowledge and see if (hopefully) it matches your own. A content-free conversation is not meaningless; every gesture and speech act is laden with symbolism, reference and assumption of understanding. A content-free conversation differs from a normal conversation as it does not serve primarily as an exchange of ideas or to elicit new information. Even the concept of a topic or theme is somewhat skewed by the highly personal nature of the exchange. The point of a content-free conversation is that the conversation itself is not had primarily to communicate any new information; it is had for having its sake and to pass the time among friends (albeit geeky ones).

What does a content-free conversation contain then if not content? It is probably best we consider what communication is first of all. Communication is generally considered as the act of conveying a message between a sender and a receiver through speech, action, or signs. The significant aspect of communication is that something is communicated rather than everything or nothing. Communication is a selection process in which the chosen message by the sender is not pre-known by the receiver so that something novel is communicated: the process must be stochastic otherwise there is nothing to communicate. Meaning however cannot be communicated as any simple understanding of semiotics will show: a sender uses words and action in order to transmit a message; even if the receiver receives these clearly how they interpret it is open to question. My personal ‘favourite’ example of this is the proclivity for American and Japanese friends of mine to give me two fingers when they want two of something from me. My enunciation of despair at their action unfortunately falls on deaf ears as for them they are merely creating a sign indicating two (and not recreating a uniquely British way of telling someone where to go). Communication then can utilise multiple ways of transmitting a message from a sender to a receiver but the sender can never attached their preferred meaning to this.

The very act of communication seems problematic from this analysis, taken in part from the introduction to Claude E. Shannon’s seminal paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication. We can however seemingly communicate meaning. When I express thoughts and opinions to a friend, or try to ask for something in a shop, I usually manage to get my wants and needs across in the end. This level of meaning cannot take place at the level of communication though, it happens concurrently with it at the level of normative expectation (i.e. at the level in which we consider what words and actions normally mean to us). This for the most part operates blind to us as it occurs without so much as a thought. The vast majority of the language I use and most of the signs and actions I perform, if performed in order to communicate, are understood second-nature to those I communicate with. All these normative relations however come into stark focus when one strays away from those who follow the same normative rules as you. The one aspect of my communication I am always brought up on from people outside of the North is my insistence on asking when I nip out if “You wan’ owt from t’ shop”. Such language is decried by my Standard English speaking friends but it is merely an example of speaking in a colloquial way which is normatively expected from where I was raised (If conversely I asked in my finest Queens “Pardon me but would you like me to buy you anything from the shop?” in the North I’d be more than stared at). This also follows with the continual misunderstanding in nuances in communication between British and Americans: truly two peoples divided by a common language. Not only are so accepted word meanings vary enough to inhibit communicative flow, cultural traits also lead to different meanings being assigned to the same actions (British cynicism vs. America arrogance exists only as a relational property in the eyes of the other, or as a difference in normativity). Normativity then, I argue, is not innate or necessarily taught but is learned as part of the background in which one is raised. When one moves away from this the underlying normative expectations in communication start to reveal themselves.

This is why, in my opinion, culture shock occurs. The cultural norms of the place you are visiting mean that even the most mundane tasks often follow different rules and hence if you do not follow them you are essentially communicating by not following them. A friend of mine who has lived in Japan for three years exhibited this when returning to England in a reverse-manner. Placing his basket on the checkout conveyor belt fully-laden he was promptly stared at by all around. In Japanese terms he was just following the normative expectation; in England he was doing the exact opposite. Our normative expectations are so ingrained that to not follow them is to communicate either one’s ignorance to them or more likely (in the given case) the assumed purposeful rejection of them. Even though no communication process was instigated, meaning was assigned to the action which instigated further communications (i.e. the question “What are you doing boy?!”).

A consolidation of all this is needed, especially as the point of this post was about content-free conversation (even if this post itself is anything but – at least in the mind of the sender of this communication). Communication takes place between a sender and a receiver with the sender sending a message that is not already know to the receiver but one that has to by its nature be devoid of inherent meaning. Meaning arises from normative expectations, be they understanding of signs/signifiers or normative expectations relating to communication. These expectations though are that ingrained that we do not notice their functioning until they stop working, as in the case of specific language uses between regions or nations and in the case of (reverse) culture-shock. It would seem that these expectations are constructed through background and experience: multicultural Britain is proof enough that it does not matter where one is ethnically or geographically from, it is the experiences one has which sets one’s normative expectations. With all this considered it is evident that the process of communication is rather difficult, in fact a great deal of it relies on Knowing Me Knowing You (a-ha!).

So, back to the content-free conversation. It is content free as all conversations are, however this one does not wish to communicate a message in a classical sense as the point of the message is not to convey information. What is being tested however is the normative expectations that the sender has on the receiver. So, when I burst into a room suitably smashed having been for a walk and gone for some time and announce, in my faux-American accent, “Hello boys!” the response I’m ideally looking for is “I’m back!”. This response (I’ll leave you to decide where it’s from to see if you can understand my normativity) indicates a successful communication as it has both elicited a reply and hence furthered communication whilst also indicating that the meaning I attached to it has been understood. These conversations, as those of you who have met me will know, can last for hours and the point of them is not to convey any novel information but to seek confirmation of a shared normativity in the realm of interests. The expectation value of communication here then is not only brought to light but is directly tested with the payoff being, if communication is successful, that you see yourselves in the eyes of the Other. Obviously this process works with all jovial conversations, be they about football, music or any shared interest. There doesn’t seem to be any other though which revels in its inanity whilst also acting to strongly reinforce a shared normative standpoint.

What’s the point then? Well with Wittgenstein throwing us forever to the mercy of language, the collapse of inherent meaning in communication and our reliance on expected normative values being shared, perhaps the content-free conversation is the best thing we have to communicate on a personal level with. Though we have the ability to share nothing and we are forever trapped within ourselves, through conversations about nothing at least we can glean from others the feeling that whilst we are not unique snowflakes there are a few in whom we can see our own reflection.