Variety of conventional conversation challenges

Transforming the Art of Conversation (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

It is useful to review contexts and dynamics in which conversation may be variously considered to be adequately "transformative", whatever that is held to mean:

• academic discourse: despite the almost total lack of innovation over decades, the academic world is content with a mix of "lectures" and panel sessions, possibly followed by a "question and answer" period. This may be packaged in celebration of the eminence of keynote speakers. The pattern is replicated through academic journals and books, and more recently through online discussion and electronic exchange of papers. There is little question as to whether the quality of discussion could be improved through other patterns. It is doubtful whether the philosophical schools of ancient Greece would be surprised by the degree of innovation.
  
  
• political discourse: as is evident at the time of writing, in the final phases of the election of the president of the world's superpower, the quality of discourse merits every challenge given the proportion of negative campaigning and mutual deprecation, and that one or other will "win" in a tight contest. There is little thought as to how the quality might be fruitfully enhanced. Again the pattern would not surprise the senators of the Roman Empire. Parliamentary discourse is itself considered adequate in the eyes of those involved, if seemingly inadequate to the present challenges of governance. It is above all marked by bluster, denial, mutual accusation and blame games.
  
  
• religious discourse: again this takes an unchanging form of sermons asserting a particular perspective -- from an unquestionable moral high ground, typically authorized by scriptures -- with little capacity to engage with those holding other views, whatever is claimed for interfaith dialogue. Such discourse seldom mitigates violence and may well trigger, justify and exacerbate it. It is characterized by unilateral appeals, exhortations and injunctions. It may well focus on conversion and mutual celebration.
  
  
• change agent discourse: as a counterpart to the above, this discourse is primarily characterized by protest and advocacy -- from a position of being necessarily right and appropriate. Again there is little scope for engaging fruitfully with contrary views or for seeking ways of transcending evidently dysfunctional conversational modes
  
  
• marketing discourse: as particularly characterized in seeking commercial advantage, but also evident in "selling" theories, policies, and religious beliefs, such as to achieve "buy in" -- irrespective of whether a degree of puffery and deception is considered appropriate to that process
  
  
• asymmetric discourse: as evident in conversation with those at a relative advantage or disadvantage due to age (young, elderly), circumstances (homelessness, refugee, etc), condition (handicapped, terminally ill, dying, etc), comprehension (intelligence, ignorance, etc), or incarceration (hospice, prison, asylum, etc).

Traces of each of the above are evident in the others, if only in metaphorical form. It is also of interest to review patterns, which may be manifest in the above, tending to undermine the possibility of fruitful conversational outcomes:

• so-called "empty" discourse, characterized by inherently unmemorable exchanges
• repetitive discourse, employing familiar arguments with no ability to recognize and transcend that pattern
• discourse in which the emphasis and satisfaction of the participants is primarily in their involvement and not in the content
• insensitive discourse, whether valued by an audience for its unchallenged condemnation of some poorly represented perspective, or designed to ignore views to the contrary in order to be as persuasive as possible
• so-called grooming, namely abusive forms of chat room discourse
• exclamatory discourse, namely restricted to use of appreciative or deprecatory expletives
• point scoring with the objective of "winning", irrespective of views held by other parties
• one-sided elitist discourse, based on the assumption that one party is well-informed, influential or experienced -- in comparison with the consequentially negligible views of the other
• closed conversations, necessarily precluding other perspectives and styles of conversation (cf. Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities: emergent patterns of isolation within knowledge society, 2004)
• token conversations, pretending to openness, but effectively ensuring that unwanted perspectives and feedback are ignored (Framing the Global Future by Ignoring Alternatives, 2009; Considering All the Strategic Options -- whilst ignoring alternatives and disclaiming cognitive protectionism, 2009)
• conversations with hidden agendas
• conversations primarily focused on mutual celebration

What to do about conversation killers and people who deploy them, whether boring, inebriated, deceptive, abusive, evasive, delusional, incomprehensible, or deaf?

Is there a case for reviewing conversations upheld as important -- such as those of parliaments or global summits -- with analytical tools and expertise? These could usefully highlight problematic and fruitful dynamics -- as well as those held to be necessarily "off the analytical record" (Global Strategic Implications of the "Unsaid": from myth-making towards a "wisdom society", 2003). How might appreciation of conventional (global) conversation be transformed if it was more clearly recognized that:

• few papers and books, of those, held to be significant, are read by more than a few. Little may be recalled, especially as time passes
• few speeches acclaimed as significant are in fact memorable to more than a few in any detail, especially as time passes
• few contributions to electronic discussion groups attract more than relatively limited attention, and are rapidly forgotten as time passes
• those expressing themselves in writing or orally too readily assume that they are heard according to their intention
• a significant proportion of any audience may well feel that their own concerns have been inadequately addressed
• the possibilities for commentary by any audience are typically constrained, tokenistic and readily ignored, if not misrepresented.

Increasing demands on ever more limited attention time result in higher attention to briefer messages. This encourages production of ever briefer messages (advertising, slogans, tweets, texting). This potentially raises issues in ensuring viable communication of more complex patterns of information -- notably with respect to sustained attention chains of argument in conversation (cf. Re-Emergence of the Language of the Birds through Twitter? 2010).

In the light of the above, where are instances of transformative conversation to be found? How can they be experienced? Why are so few examples recorded and cited as worthy of emulation? Why do they not feature on TV, video and the web? Are panel sessions and chat shows the peaks of human conversation possibility? If the skills of a group of musicians can be appreciated around the world, why not those of a group of conversationalists?

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]