Our words have become 'hygienic speak' - a way of speaking with caveats in fear of being socially annihilated. What does this do to how we empathize and grow?
This is a topic that's been on my mind in some capacity for years now. I've hesitated translating it from thoughts to words for some time now, mostly because I wasn't sure how to describe what I was feeling. But I knew I needed to take my own advocacy of writing things down in order to become a bit more clear on what I was feeling. I'm not sure I even did it justice in this post, but at least my thoughts feel a little less muddled now.
—
We can all think of a time our parents instructed us to do something for our betterment. Maybe it was making our rooms more organized or getting some exercise. The bottom line is they were giving us some knowledge with the intention of it improving our lives. The amount of times as teenagers or young adults we applied that knowledge? Likely low. But when our friends or an older sibling conveys advice we actually act upon it. Why this discrepancy? That's something I want to call attention to in today's post: Prevent the context of knowledge from muddying the waters of its content.
In instances when I'm expressing an opinion, I often find myself caveating before making my point. I'll build a protective shield of verbal armor by listing edge cases, convincing the listening party of my views, or attempting to shape my stance for every possible counterargument. Which makes me sound horribly unsure of myself when it comes time to actually deliver the point. But it's not just me, it's something I've noticed in podcast hosts, friends, conference speakers, etc. Due to the unforgiving 'cancel culture' it seems we've all been frightened into ensuring we're acknowledged by everyone we speak to.
That's actually something about my mom I admire. She's the least caveated person I know. She says exactly what's on her mind, and if you assume something about her and let her know, she'll clear up your confusions but she doesn't feel the need to tailor to your values in every conversation. However, she is from the generation before 'cancel culture', which makes it a bit easier to overlook this nature of caveating.
It never fails to surprise me how differently two people might digest the same information. Where one may pick out all that is wrong with an argument, another may find what they can use from it going forward. This has led me to think, to what degree is it a speaker's responsibility to patch up every hole in their delivery? When the author must go through a checklist of "approval" measures, it can distract from the main point they are attempting to make. I'd like to impose a certain level of responsibility on the reader to dissolve content into broader context. In other words, tailor what is being said in ways it may best suit you.
I'm sure there are arguments where little use can be derived, but a habit worth acquiring is an understanding of the various ways in which information (regardless of it's opposition with your beliefs) can add to your horizons:
- Insight into a demographic of people you were unfamiliar with previously - "interesting cultural observation as to what is generally prioritized in this community"
- Can apply advice to situations you see fit - "I see what they're saying, I don't think it'll work for me in this case, but I can see it work for me when this other situation happens"
- Understanding general human behavior of desires / needs / fulfillment / drives - "so this is what is causing those that interact this way to do so"
- Cut down extremes to catch your attention - "this is the best book ever, period!" : "I might like this, let me add it to my list and give it a shot"
These mixture of thoughts mostly stem from my experience as a writer but also from noticing reactions to the content of some of my favorite writers. It has lead me to wonder that instead of authors needing to put disclaimers before they talk might the audience have a sense to know that all of what is being said might not be carved for them? Although, text open to interpretation may incite questionable behavior (just look at any religious movement). And I'm thankful for the progress we've made as a society to hold one another accountable for the implication of our words.
But the kind of behavior I'm referring to is specifically for those who find themselves looking for all the holes in a speech, and leave with the smugness of knowing they've revealed weaknesses but with no knowledge to better support their thinking going forward. There is no sense of productivity behind this type of tearing apart of ideas.
My practice in entertaining beliefs I may not hold stems largely from growing up first generation. From parent-child culture clashes, to confusions with peers who grew up ridiculously different than I, my life has been filled with attempts to make sense of things I don't agree with. It's exhausting to dissuade every person of a belief you don't hold as truth, which is why in recent years I have found it more productive to take what you can from what is being said.
This practice has developed the habit of interpreting someone charitably. Very rarely do you come across a person with truly malicious intent in their perspective. Oftentimes, it's just your values / priorities / beliefs that feel threatened, which lead to the sounding of an alarm to tear down what they're saying.
When you cross cultural lines, there is going to be a certain level of incoherency from both speakers. It's likely your word choice may not make your message come across seamlessly to the ears of another. There are many reasons I'm grateful for having both eastern and western roots, and this is one of them: Developing an ability to acknowledge and extract meaning, without being deterred by the context.