Ever since I joined SMART, I have been puzzled by the organization's assertion that "We encourage crosstalk" as a fundamental practice in meetings. My difficulty stems from the fact that the term "crosstalk" in any context— whether referring to recovery meetings or radio communication— virtually always has a negative connotation.  

I have been able to come up with only one rationale for SMART sticking with this term: I imagine that in the early years, as SMART worked to establish itself as an alternative to 12 Step programs, it latched onto “crosstalk” to differentiate itself from more restrictive meeting formats that avoid any kind of interactive sharing at all. These groups actively discourage it by name, stating in the meeting introduction that “We don’t allow crosstalk.”  Of course, there are often conflicting interpretations over just what constitutes crosstalk.  Is it interrupting, disrupting, having side conversations, or using one's turn to voice an opinion about another person's share? Is it to judge other people's behavior and responses? Whatever the local interpretation, the overall meaning is negative. 

It’s difficult in any context to take a term that has a standard interpretation in common usage that is negative, and to reframe its accepted meaning with a positive connotation.  This is a basic principle of branding.  "Open discussion," in contrast, is an accessible term with a clear meaning and neutral or positive connotations. What does holding on to the term crosstalk do, other than confuse, annoy and have the potential of driving people away? 

Consider the following hypothetical situation: 

Imagine a woman is looking for an alternative to AA. She learns about SMART and goes to a meeting, where she hears at the beginning of the meeting that they “encourage crosstalk.” She knows what crosstalk is from her experience with AA and has seen its detrimental effects. This puzzles her, but she is open-minded and resolute in her quest to find an approach that is a better fit for her.  She goes to another meeting and sees another woman's process-oriented, "talking-through-the-problem" share interrupted midstream by a more domineering male who wants to suggest a fix to the woman's problem. The visiting woman decides not to share, feeling a little intimidated, but she wants to give the meeting a fair chance.  She comes to the next meeting, shares a difficult anecdote about her week with no indication she is looking for any advice. A man who wants to help "fix" her problem offers a well-intentioned, yet ill-informed solution without really listening to what the woman was saying. "We encourage crosstalk?" the woman thinks, “I didn't come here to be talked at. I have better things to do with my time."  And she never returns.  She then tells everyone who asks her about SMART that the meetings are dominated by men who seem to think that crosstalk is a good thing.  The intended meaning—that “crosstalk” means “open discussion”—has been completely lost. 

So what are some of the other contexts where the term "crosstalk" is used? In 1979, famed sociolinguist John J. Gumperz, who died this past March, created the classic documentary "Crosstalk," about the frequency of miscommunication in multicultural communities— unintentional but damaging “talking at cross-purposes.” In electronics and radio communication, crosstalk is the undesired effects of signal or device interaction and interference.  The most neutral connotation is found in biology, where it is used to refer to chemical interactions across cell membranes and the like. 

In the end, the possibility of outcomes like the hypothetical scenario above—which is based on actual observation and discussion with attendees at SMART meetings—seems like a high price to pay for something that has really no redeeming functionality, can be expressed transparently with simpler terminology, and has the potential to do so much damage to the branding and reputation of SMART. I think it's time that we get smart, get rid of the term, and move on.