The Touro Communication Club Notes #91 –October 7, 2009
Communication Quote of the Week
“Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place.”
Johnny Carson, the late comedian, was host of “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” for thirty years. During his career, he won six Emmy Awards, a Peabody Award and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1992.
The Touro Communication Club
2 pm - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 – Room 223
“Civility”
Several weeks ago, Hal wrote about “On Civility” in this blog. In August, we saw a Congressman yell, “You lie!” during a speech by President Obama. We watched a month of yelling in August with the health care “debates.” We saw professional tennis players Serena Williams and Roger Federer behave badly when they lost. The Pittsburgh G20 summit showed more evidence of incivility. Comedian Dave Letterman announces his pre-marital affairs during his show. Elected officials continue to betray their wives. A student shouts in a class that he is right and they are wrong. Incivility occurs at all levels of society. How do we recognize it? Why does it occur? Is incivility just part of our life? How do we handle incivility when it is directed at us? Are we always uncivil at times?
A Note to Communicators:
The Effects of an Argument Culture
Strategy: To notice patterns of communication behavior and deconstruct these verbal and non-verbal behaviors.
Tactic: To become more aware of the factors that affect and filter communication.
This week’s entry takes its cue from the 1999 book “The Argument Culture” by linguist Deborah Tannen. The subtitle is “Moving from Debate to Dialogue.” Tannen is one of a very small handful of public intellectuals who are interested in communication issues. With several books focused on communication issues for women, Dr. Tannen’s 2009 book is You Were Always Mom's Favorite!: Sisters in Conversation Throughout Their Lives
Even ten years after Tannen’s book, the “argument culture” still prevails in American public life. Last summer saw a number of incidents which highlights how argumentative public figures can be when they are met with disagreement or something they don’t like. Perhaps we should consider “argument” as an endemic part of the civil structure we call “democracy.” If we are to accept that “all men [and women] are equal,” then don’t we have to accept the reality that we will not agree on everything – or anythingsometimes. Why does this occur?
One view is that our culture does intrinsically support a binary view of the world. Some examples may support this view.
· Everything is either/or, rarely both/and.
· If you don’t win, you lose.
· In a world that is getting faster every moment, there is no time for shades of gray.
· You are either right or you are wrong.
· If you have a nuanced point of view, the noise from the opposition will drown out you and your ideas.
Even President Obama’s receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize this week has generated for and against positions. Who ever heard of a middle ground?
All our models for discourse are binary: On/off switches without dimmers. There are only two major political parties. Sports teams win or lose. Courts of law are win/lose arenas. My religion is the only one; other religions are wrong.
As Green Bay Packer’s legendary coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing,” On a football field, such singularity of purpose is very important.
However, that lesson leaves the athletic field and carries into our daily life. We have only two options in our lives: win or lose.
· “If I don’t get an A, I fail. A B is not acceptable.”< /FONT>
· ““If I don’t get an A, I’m a terrible person.”
· “If I don’t win the Lotto, I’m a loser.”
· “If I don’t win, I must be wrong.”
· If I don’t leap a tall building at a single bound, I’m a failure.”
The psychology beneath these outlooks is for the psychologists, not communicators. We focus on the operational aspects of communication. Whatever the psychology, the two-choice-only option ratchets up an enormous tension.
Such a world view lends itself to argument. More importantly, you must be right in your world view, or you are embarrassed by being wrong.
Proof – evidence – is primary in a binary world. As René Descartes has conditioned us to believe, we delete emotions as any factor in proving your “rational” point that is syllogistically proved.
But emotions are powerful forces. Unless we sit on them, they escape and infect our pristine rational position. It is at this vulnerable moment that powerful emotions replace any chance of reason dominating a disagreement. Then an argument explodes.
All of this discussion is but a first draft of a much larger communication issue. As I reread what I’ve just written, there are many gaps in the sequence of my words. I have to spend another time filling out this sketch.
Since I would support Tannen’s outlook that we live in a c ulture of argument, perhaps I could proceed in a couple of directions. I could continue to bemoan this vitriolic atmosphere, adding more examples and some history. I could explore alternatives to argument, particularly those of dialogue which accept differences among and between people and work toward commonalities, Or I could try briefly to how to understand this dichotomous environment and find ways to move toward more productive outcomes.
I’ll explore briefly the third option. I will start with a basic statement: “All people are different.” I’m pretty sure that no one will disagree with this cliché. If that axiom is true, then it should follow that we are different in many ways. Even twins are different.
Without belaboring the point, we need to realize that, although we accept that we are all different, we expect others to behave the same way as we do. We have a mental flip to “know” one thing in the abstract, but “expect” that we should behave identically=2 0– almost.
Perhaps we’ll accept differences from A to B, but beyond B, things become dicey. The idea needs further exploration, but as communicators we must realize that we don’t live in that ideal world where everyone believes and behaves as we do.
Our continuing challenge is how to recognize differences quickly, accept them, understand them and, if you and your partner choose, mediate them toward a productive outcome.
As always, our first requirement is to be awake.
:”Our spirits are c orroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention – the argument culture.” [Deborah Tannen, “The Argument Culture” p. 3]
The subtitle of Tannen’s book, “Moving from Debate to Dialogue” is a rich area to explore.
To be continued – sometime.
UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
October 21 – “The Seven Deadly Sins”- Originating with the Greeks and codified by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, these seven human behaviors are thought to be central to our difficulties in the world. Unfortunately, today we take these behaviors as the norm. We’ll explore as many as time allows. They include: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
October 21 – “Entitlement” Do you believe in “entitlement”? You believe that you are deserving of or entitled to certain privileges. Are you entitled to “respect”? Are you entitled to an A grade in every course? Are you entitled to say, “I am King”? (Sean John’s new men’s fragrance). Does fame make you entitled? Because you are male or female, does that make you e ntitled? What are the criteria for being “entitled”? Another complex topic that shows up in the words we choose and the behavior we use.
What about one of these topics?
“How Do You Fire Someone?”
“Thinking”
“Rap and Hip Hop – What’s the Message?"
”SPAR Debate”
“Rodney King: ‘Why Can’t We Get Along?”
“Asking Questions in Class”
“Cold Calling in Sales”
“Communication Lessons from Martial Arts”
“Meaning”
“The Seven Heavenly Virtues”
“Why Does History Repeat Itself?”
“Charles Borkhuis and his Radio Plays”
And dozens of others!
What happened on Wednesday, October 7, 2009? “Giving Criticism”
Newcomer Iris Hymowitz was game in sharing her views with Erica Bell, Drani Gabu, Donne Kampel, Carlisle Yearwood, Gary Sheinfeld, Markus Vayndorf, Lorinda Moore, Meggy Lindsay, Charles Mason, Ronald Johnson and Hal Wicke
Hal wrote a few questions on the board:
· What is criticism?
· What kinds of criticism are there?
· What gives you the right to give criticism to someone?
· Is there such a thing as “constructive criticism”?
· When do you give criticism?
· How do you do it?
Some responses to “When do you give criticism?”
· When something is wrong.
· When I am annoyed.
· I’m just expressing my opinion.
· I’m trying to improve ideas.
When you give criticism, do you find yourself in a particular role that gives you the “right” to give criticism?
· A person of recognized authority - teacher, boss, police officer
· Criticism is part of the job.
· Students expect criticism from teachers which is “respectful.”
· A parent to child. What about a parent to a child of someone else?
Lorinda cited an incident on the train where she approached several people who were swearing loudly, suggesting that they should not use profanity – there were other ways of expressing themselves.
What if you don’t have any of these roles?
Two people said “I give it anyway because my boss was wrong and I knew better.” One said she was suspended for insubordination and later left her job.
You have the right to criticize when you are someone’s friend. Lots of disagreement
Criticism becomes. advice in a job interview, “You’d better wear more appropriate clothes to work here.” Particularly in a job situation where shared values are important to achieve a common goal.
Where does “power” enter the equation?
· A person “should” do something – says who?
What about “power distance”? [The phenomena of the power built into hierarchy and superior/inferior relationships.]
· Boss/employee.
· Officer/enlisted person.
· Teacher/student.
· Parent/child.
Or arguable power distance relationships of women being superior to men and the reverse or racial and ethnic relationships where one race or culture is superior to another.
Gary described an instance where two people were 0making out” during the movie “Schindler’s List.” There are certain expectations in specific circumstances – inappropriate behavior in a place of worship, or in a class.
The pattern of incidents discussed seemed to be that conflict occurred when one or more persons were sufficiently absorbed in his/their world (living in a bubble?) to be unaware of or deliberately defying the prevailing value system in the environment. If “Life is all about me,” then it is likely that there will be conflict and hostility when that person(s) is criticized.
Drani spoke about growing up in Sudan and learning that politics, money and religion were not subjects to be discussed because there would be trouble. Hal suggested that sexual issues be included in the list of difficult topics in a ”polite” conversation. To bring such a topic up, Drani said, would create many problems.
Hal brought up the international incident several years ago when the satirical cartoons making fun of Islam’s founder were published in a Danish newspaper and caused riots and at least one killing in Denmark and other countries.
The discussion moved to the Jewish Holocaust and one question asked by a student, “How many people have to die to have a holocaust?”
Markus defined criticism as “an objective reaction to what does not work and have both physical and logical aspects.” He continued his explanation at the blackboard and the group seemed not to follow his lecture.
Clearly tired at this point, the group seemed to lose focus. Among the topics that were tossed about:
· The idea of exploring “constructive criticism” was lost in lots of cross-talk.
· Criticizing professors .and bosses – everyone has that right.
· Professors with accents who cannot be understood
· “Everyone has the right to criticize anyone.” Lots of discussion here.
· Cautions; Think twice before you speak. Be calm, Step out of the situation
· Erica’s Mom’s saying, “A closed mouth doesn’t get fed.”
· Pick your battles.
· Non-verbal clues like sustained eye contact create negative critical environments.
· One person’s criticism is another’s advice.
Like many of our discussions, this one on criticism was beginning to scratch the surface as we ran out of energy. Perhaps at some point we can become more disciplined in keeping our focus narrowed on an area until we exhaust its possibilities. Too often we skip from topic to topic – interesting at the moment, but distracting from fully understanding what other people are saying.
We always have a great time exploring these issues. So often our daily life never focuses on these Communication issues. If you have something you want us to discuss please let us know and we’ll add it to the list.
Next time bring a friend. The Communication Club is always an open discussion, limited only by time. Everyone gets a chance to speak. All opinions are welcome. Here is an opportunity for students to challenge professors’ views outside the class without any homework or assignments. You just have to show up and listen and talk if you want.
Hal Wicke
No comments:
Post a Comment