I have a renewed interest in focusing upon and discerning process rather than content.

The definitions for “process” are varied and, because of limitations of language (i.e. content), do not fully capture its essence. Perhaps I am also making process more complicated than it really is.

Content refers to the “face value” of communication. Process refers to the implications and impact of communication. We can never be certain of the messages we receive in interpreting the process (because both senders and receivers of information can (in)advertently distort the signal), but we can certainly generate hypotheses based on the data we receive.

Illustrations may be more illuminating:

>> In the realm of blogging, someone may leave a public comment such as, “I linked to your site on my weblog.”

Content: “I linked to your site on my weblog.”

Process: (1) “I read your weblog.” (2) “I want other people to know that I read your weblog.” (3) “I am directing other readers to your weblog because I find the content in your weblog useful/entertaining/thoughtful/etc.” (4) “I want more traffic to my weblog and hope that because I linked to you, you will link to me.” (4) “I want you to know that I exist.” (5) “I want your readers to know I exist.”

>> In the realm of clinical interactions, a patient may remark upon first meeting a resident, “You’re awfully young to be a doctor.”

Content: “You look young for a doctor.”

Process: (1) “Do you know what the heck you’re doing?” (2) “Am I your guinea pig?” (3) “Will I receive appropriate care from you?” (4) “I don’t trust you.” (5) “I want an older doctor.”

>> In the realm of social interactions, a man may attend a black-tie optional gala wearing tattered jeans, a tee shirt with a surfer logo on it, and sneakers—despite full awareness that it is a black-tie optional event.

Content: He is dressed casually at a formal event.

Process: (1) He doesn’t care how he appears to others. (2) He is purposely defying the expected social norms. (3) He is trying to attract attention to himself. (4) He is not socially sophisticated.

There are aspects of speech that fall into the sphere of process. Consider the phrase “have a nice day”. The actual words communicate a certain idea, but how someone says that phrase may communicate something else. What if someone mumbles that phrase softly, such that there is no way the intended recipient hears it? How about a sarcastic tone of voice? What if the phrase is shouted: “HAVE A NICE DAY!!!” It can be said quickly, slowly, irregularly, in pig latin.

Body language also falls under the purview of process:

• Avoiding eye contact and already starting to walk away, he mumbled, “Have a nice day.”
• He clasped her hand in his and, after taking a deep breath, said, “Have a nice day,” while gazing into her liquid green eyes.
• His shoulder propelled his arm back and forth, as if it was a gigantic windshield wiper, as he shouted, “HAVE A NICE DAY!!!”
• He didn’t wipe the tear that was slowly trickling down his ruddy cheek as he murmured, “Have a nice day.”

Same words, different meanings.

The wise Lance Mannion recently posted something that addresses content versus process:

Here are the four most important qualities Zinczenko [in a Men’s Health article] says his readers want in the woman they fall in love with. They want her to be:

1. A woman with a passion in something other than him.

2. A woman with no problem with guy time.

3. A woman with a strut.

4. A woman with good taste in ties.

An intelligent eye will spot immediately, without having to look over Zinczenko’s “analysis,” that boiled down what Zinczenko’s readers are looking for is a hot woman who will leave her man alone except when he wants sex or dinner.

I suspect that life experience, exercises in critical and creative thinking, and attending to metacommunication hones our abilities to regularly recognize (1) the process and (2) the possible messages within the process.

I’m impatient.