On conversation and our duty to reasonable dialogue

A few weeks ago I was having a lunch time chat with some friends of mine when the topic of offense came up. In the ensuing back and forth, I remember one of them saying"It's always the responsibility of the speaker when someone understands something as offensive". I found this odd given that the idiom "taking offense" implies at least passive participation on the part of the listener. Also , in the case that several listeners interpret something said differently, which interpretation should be given more weight? Suffice to say, we were broaching a subject that required more than the 1 hour break our employers grant us to feed.

But the conversation stayed with me. I certainly understood their point about the responsibility of the speaker in communicating ideas judiciously.  But certainly, so do too the people listening. Surely there is an obligation not to betray the intentions or ideas , not the context and devices used by the active speaker.

I do fear that , especially with on line discussions on sociopolitical issues, the emotions and tempers run hot and despite what many claim, emotion can inspire the utilization of logic. Motivated reasoning begins from a certain position or issue of interest and like a proverbial hammer, can be utilized to put down troublesome nails of seeming objection , if you'll excuse the over extended metaphor.

You cannot argue with someones feelings because they alone hold purview over the impact of an issue or utterance on their lives. We all feel things yes, but the particularities of our individual identities-our background, skin color, nationality, social standing, gender, you name it mean that understanding each other is really difficult. Even with the best intention, we run afoul. We misspeak, use an antiquated term for a certain group, give in to an easy stereotype, joke about something someone else finds sacred. They then communicate their displeasure, we feel that they're overreacting and the vicious cycle goes on and on.




I truly believe that most people, for the most part, are not being malicious or harmful. And so I think we must seek first to understand and then be understood. It appears, especially in our on-line conversations that we've reversed the effort. Perhaps because the physical distance reduces our empathy, were the human simply interacting with the screen. We become the most important person our feelings and thoughts paramount to the things on our phone.

This reminded me of the maxims of conversation I first read about in college in a linguistics class I was auditing, and that stayed with me . I share these now just as a reminder to myself and others , that as information gets more and more abundant and available and  as individuality(and expression of the same) becomes more central to our ways of life,  how we communicate will be more paramount than ever in order for us to get along. We're in this shit together.


The Cooperative principle and maxims of conversation

In the realm of pragmatics, it is suggested that for a conversation to take place successfully, the speakers involved should be cooperative. The criterion of success in a conversation is much more significant in case of settling oral disputes. Online encyclopaedia of law defines dispute as “an assertion of a right, claim or demand on one side met by contrary claims or allegations on the other”. Thus, settling this controversy or disagreement, entails a more cooperative role for the speakers.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814027074/
 
From the cooperative principle, come four maxims to be used for interpretation suggested by Paul Grice . (as cited in http://www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php/)

1.  Quality: Try to make your contribution 
        one that is true. 
(1) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(2) Do not say that for which you lack 
        adequate evidence.

2.  Quantity
(1) Make your contribution as informative as is 
        required for the current purposes of the exchange.
(2) Do not make your contribution more informative 
        than is required. 

3.  Relation: Be relevant. 

4.  Manner: Be perspicuous.
(1) Avoid obscurity of expression.
(2) Avoid ambiguity.
(3) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
(4) Be orderly. 

The above serve as normative rules but we flout the rules all the time especially when we're being sarcastic or facetious, when exaggerating or when referencing shared experiences that cut to the quick. These are really more for public conversation in which the chances of miscommunication increase and there remains few avenues for correction or requests for charitable interpretation might fall on deaf ears.



The listener's duty

Most rules about active cooperative listening extended to non verbal efforts-nodding along, paying attention with our bodies and eyes, etc. But for an online conversation, it often means not just listening to reply , but seeking to cut through any confusion and then proceeding to either address the matter raised by your interlocutor or state your own view. The golden rule is to be in position to be able to present the other party's argument so well as for them to be happy to stand by your expression of it.

Don't feed the trolls.There's people who aren't seeking active productive dialogue and simply stir shit.Trolls. Avoid feeding these because you end up becoming one yourself.

I realize this all sounds very tiring but I think we must put in the effort and not give in to our basest desires. Let's not just trumpet catch phrases at each other and score likes at the cost of actual consciousnesses lifting exchanges.  We cannot dismiss and simplify the motivations and interests of others all the while accusing them of doing the same to us or the people on whose behalf we advocate. It's exhausting, painstaking but also worthwhile when you finally discover that it allows you to grow , to also see your own flaws and this allows others to follow you down that path.That's how change seems to happen..slowly , painfully and with great patience.




There. I've solved all public debate with this short post. Yay.