All Rights Reserved - De Corporis Voce - Andrea Zinno
Do you want to face a meeting at your best? Bring a bottle of water
We are now quite aware that every emotion corresponds to a specific facial expression and specific body movements, where the former is a symptom of the emotion felt, while the latter are the way we react to it. For example, if during a conversation we say something that irritates our interlocutor, their face will show that emotion (anger) and then, reasonably and in reaction to it, their body will assume one or more typical closed positions, making their displeasure at what was said and their unwillingness to continue along that line evident (closure, in fact).
If in some way we are aware of how to manage situations like the one just described, for example by correcting what was said, in the hope of breaking the closure of our interlocutor, we know less about how to handle a negative attitude when it does not directly depend on the subject of the conversation, but for example is linked to something that happened before and that, coming back to our interlocutor’s memory, leads them to relive it, causing the negativity of the memory to pollute the harmony of the conversation.
Finally—and here we are perhaps even less aware—we must not forget about basal behavior, which in some people can be such that, completely disconnected from the subject of the conversation, they assume postures that, at a superficial reading, can be considered negative (closed, evasive, ...). I myself, for example, tend to cross my arms and I do it “because I feel more comfortable”. I do it unconsciously, therefore, without any connection to what I am saying or to whom I am listening; however, mainly because I work in this field, I notice it and I know that what my interlocutors observe transcends the motivations that guide this gesture of mine and that, therefore, their interpretation will probably be negative and, even worse, could affect the continuation of the conversation, which is why I immediately abandon such a posture, hoping that its manifestation, albeit brief, has not had significant consequences.
It should also not be forgotten, as numerous studies have shown, that structural and biological factors are closely interconnected with psychological factors, that is, emotional experiences, perceptions, sensations, and needs, which creates a close link not only between emotions and posture, but also the reverse, where assuming and maintaining a certain posture induces in the individual the emotional state of which that posture is normally an expression[1], giving rise to a functional or dysfunctional cycle depending on the circumstances (1).
To summarize, on one hand we have a posture assumed by our interlocutor and, on the other, different motivations that may have led to it, motivations that could be reasonably evident, as when it is due to something we have just said, but also completely obscure, which happens when they are rooted in a previous experience of our interlocutor or, more simply, are the natural consequence of their postural habits.
This partial knowledge about the motivations, which obviously we cannot always investigate, since we are having a conversation and not conducting an interrogation, leaves us with the only alternative of trying to break the posture—I am obviously limiting the discussion to postures with a clearly negative meaning—in the hope of also interrupting the connection it has with the psychological component, something that will not necessarily solve the potential problem but, at least, should mitigate its effects.
If, for example, we think of crossing arms, one of the best-known closed positions, here is where our water bottle comes into play, which on one hand represents a common and legitimate object in a meeting, and on the other an excellent interruption tool, by handing it, for example, to our interlocutor and asking them to help us open it, giving some reason why we cannot do it ourselves (muscle pain, lack of strength, ...), which will have a double effect: breaking the posture and gratifying our interlocutor for helping us do something we could not do alone[2].
It is, essentially, about acting on the sign rather than the symptom, which from a medical point of view may be an oversimplification, but from a communication perspective is often the only viable path, since it is rarely possible to make an anamnesis of the gesture without interrupting the ongoing conversation.
In conclusion, let us always remember that there is a strong connection between what we feel and how we manifest it and that this connection, contrary to what is commonly thought, works both ways and although it would always be preferable to act on the
emotional
(inner) component, this is not always possible, leaving us with the only alternative of acting on the
physical
(outer) component, trusting that this will be reflected, at least in part, on what we could not address directly.
Andrea Zinno - De Corporis Voce
Notes [1] It is precisely on these studies, for example, that the now famous “smile therapy” (2) is based, where inducing a state of cheerfulness in patients has direct physiological benefits, which substantially improve their clinical condition. [2] This second effect, however, must be carefully evaluated, especially when our interlocutor shows an attitude of superiority or dominance, since in this case having helped us could exacerbate this attitude even more, further worsening the situation.
Bibliographic references