Touro Communication Club Notes #77

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire was a 18^th Century French Enlightenment writer and philosopher. His statement is a cornerstone of the right of freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Voltaire wrote “Candide” whose hero’s mentor, Dr. Pangloss, taught him that “This was the best of all possible worlds.” Leonard Bernstein wrote a brilliant score in 1955 for the operetta of the same name.

Please Note: Next week’s meeting is postponed.

We will take a day off on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, because Hal Wicke has to attend a meeting on the Graduate School of Education. We will continue on Wednesday, June 24^th with “Anatomy of Freedom.”

This Week: Wednesday, June 24, 2009

2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown

“Anatomy of Freedom”

This topic derived from the civil rights discussion after the Carvell program. Other ideas included “Is freedom really free?” A fascinating universal subject which every person faces in some way all the time. Among many other authors, Erich Fromm, a well-known psychologist, wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom” The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another…Much to talk about.

A Note for Communicators:

Strategy: to discern the truth of what is being said.

Tactic: To listen to the words and compare them to other statements and actions.

In President Barack Obama’s speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, he responded to the tension between America and the Muslim world by asserting, “We must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect each other, and to seek common ground.”

The world of international diplomacy is not the only place where people “speak with forked tongue.” We tell white lies so as not to hurt someone’s feelings. We withhold information as a tactic to manipulate a situation in order to gain advantage. We use weasel words (see any advertising copy.) to hide unproved claims or shortcomings of the product.

Verbal duplicity has been with us since the beginnings of language in civilization. One view says that this tendency toward indirection reached its zenith in the 19^th century with Queen Victoria who disliked direct statements of any kind. The euphemism. the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant was raised to an artful level.

Direct speech, the candid statement of thoughts and feelings, is often considered profane, akin to using curse words. Where indirect speech is a basic tool of advertising, linguistic

protocol in politics prohibits against direct speech. Nations, families, businesses do not want to offend. Former president George W. Bush often twisted these protocols with familiar speech and inappropriate non-verbal behavior.

George Orwell’s famous article, “Politics and the English Lan guage,’ analyzes the ways language is manipulated for political advantage. In Japan, indirect speech remains the order of the day where the smile covers a multitude of thoughts.

Fear is another motivation for using direct speech. We don’t want to hurt the feelings of someone important. We are afraid of losing a loved one. We are afraid of incurring the wrath of an important person. We are afraid of losing our job.

We may not have the vocabulary to surmount the fear. One colleague says, “I do not use profanity. I have a vocabulary.”

With practice indirect speech, the artful use of euphemisms, can grease the wheels of social intercourse. It can also improve business and political relationships. Some people perfect their skill at superficial amenities. Indirect speech can get us through ritual and ceremonial occasions. It can even allow us to survive stressful and confrontational situations.

Still, many people use indirect speech as a way of life. For me, the consistent use of indirect speech produces in me an alienation from the other person, a shadow, a ghost that may inhibit serious conversation. Personally, I try to be as direct as I can as often as I can, using feeble attempts at humor to overcome my discomfort. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not.

Ultimately, each of us has to determine for ourselves when and how to use direct and indirect speech. More importantly, every communicator needs to work toward becoming conscious of the style of language we use every time we open our mouths.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:

July lst – “Talking to Men” – Recently, we had a spirited discussion of what women expect when they have a conversation. Some men had difficulty withholding their own expectations of what their experience was when they talked to women. Now the men – and yes, the women – have the opportunity to explore their expectations when they have a conversation. Lots of energy is expected!

July 8 – “Stand-Up Comedy” - We owe this topic to recent Geovanny Leon’s impromptu speech. His performance led to a discussion of what is funny and how to make people laugh. The joke and its well-honed implicit structure will induce a laugh if told well. In the open-ended discussion, we’ll explore a series of questions about humor and comedy. Just in case it gets boring, bring your favorite joke.

What happened on Wednesday, June 10, 2009? “Interviewing Strategies”

The session attracted eleven participants, with the faculty dominating the students. Faculty and staff included David Nussbaum, Carlisle Yearwood, Markus Vayndorf, Rich Cohen, Hal Wicke and newcomer Michael Aiello. The students were Lorinda Moore, James Millner, Anna Indelicato, Drani Gabu and Brian Brown.

Hal established that there were strategies and tactics to the interviewing process. The group agreed that the interviewer’s strategy is to find the best applicant. The applicant’s strategy is to be that best applicant. Although we did not examine them, there are many other strategies that both interviewer and applicant may have in their minds.

Since no one had a resume, Hal asked the applicants to briefly state what job in what company they were applying for. Then he asked the interviewers to shape the interview – style of introduction -interview itself and the good byes.

Then three role plays followed. James interviewed Anna. Lorinda interviewed Drani and Brian interviewed Lorinda. After each interview, each participant was asked to evaluate his/her performance. Then the group commented on the interview.

Among the issues we talked about were:

• Who dominated the interview?
• Typically the interviewer dominated the exchange.
• How much should and must the applicant assert him/herself into the questioning remained unanswered.
• The quality of the questions was important – rote closed end questions need to be varied with open end questions.
• What kind of questions elicited what kind of responses?
• What level of formality should be present in the opening and closing of the interview?
• The applicant must take control of setting up a follow-up appointment.

A very tense disagreement arose over age-ism – the presumed bias against older workers. One interviewed felt that the statements and questions asked were not illegal. Several others took issue with the implications of the phraseology. Hal cut the discussion short because it was moving toward more heat and light. (We have to work on communication strategies for facing and overcoming disagreement in any situation. Otherwise we move quickly to argument, fights and perhaps war.)

Everyone felt the session was very productive. Rich commented accurately on how many issues were not addressed in the session. Obviously this was just a superficial introduction to the interviewing process. There are many, many nuances that can be brought up in a future session. With experienced interviewers, more tactics can be introduced.

In three weeks, we will focus on the second half of the Gender discussion – “Talking to Men.” Considering the frustration, some men had with the discussion on “Talking to Women,” we should have an interesting time with this session.

----

Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.

As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke