I've been considering how to communicate across disciplines, departments, socio-economic barriers, and cultural identities. I love interdisciplinary non-fiction that challenges a homogenous set of ideas to incorporate a critical analysis of other related concerns. For example, The Journal of Ecological Economics attempts to bridge ecology with economics, which adds depth and dialogue to both disciplines. Or bell hooks describes how the feminist movement must engage African-American women and discard its classist beginnings. We isolate ourselves because it's easier being around those we know, whether we know them by their word choice, skin color, suburban roots, or value system. It is incredibly exhausting to actually listen to one another and be open-minded enough to entertain the thought that we may not be right.
I was having a conservation with two Phd students the other day about how they deal with arguments. When someone won't listen to them, they use jargon to scare them into submission. Although I don't know how often they use this strategy to get their point across, it definitely upsets me that this is an established method of winning an argument, particularly in academia. If you can write the most compicated, unintelligible model, you must know what you're talking about......hmph.
At times, I feel like a chameleon when deciding how to speak to one person or another. What type of slang should I use? Should I cuss? Should I get out my biggest words and stand up straight? Communication is tough. It's essential that my true self always shines through this particular layer of makeup. Are the gobs of paint necessary to relate to others? I often think so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment