Communication masters of glass

I find that we keep deferring to 'communication' as both the fault-point and the savior in our relationships.
Why?

I’ve heard it countless times: “It’s all about how you communicate.”

But what about when it isn’t?

As someone who has dissociated through many relationships, I have to pause.

If I’ve learned anything lately, it’s that 'communication' can be the ultimate lip service in a dynamic that is fundamentally empty.

When the formula for how to speak replaces actual embodiment, people aren't relating—they're just managing each other.

This is why attachment and shadow work are pertinent.
Without them, the scripts, the skills, and even the 'I feel' statements simply allow an avoidant to hide in a template rather than inhabit their experience.

It creates a loop of intellectualizing relationships with partners they cannot actually attune with—
Constantly processing a connection that the body is not present for.

There is a subtle vacancy in these 'informed' relationships. One person communicates. Another is informed. The box is checked, yet neither has been profoundly met.

In this space, a 'check-in' becomes a way to seek buy-in for the dissonance to continue.

Any fear of intimacy isn't resolved here; it merely learns the language of connection and hides there.

However, a person can learn to articulate their absence so well that they never have to come into contact with it.

In that void, 'reflective listening' is nothing more than mirroring another while staying made of glass.

My question is: Even if the communication is workbook-perfect, is it not still possible that something (or someone) vital is missing?