First, Pamela Druckerman's article "Decoding the Rules of Conversation" stood out to me because one of my favorite classes I have taken here is Fundamentals of Linguistic Anthropology.1 I find it fascinating to see how people use language. Druckerman focuses on the French and British uses of language, especially in the context of socialization. The French desire wit to put themselves up, while the Brits rely on irony and self-deprecation to be the star. Both approaches constitute a bit of humor in their respective cultures, but I prefer wit. In my opinion, you need to be intelligent to be witty. How else could you come up with word play or clever comments? I also dislike the idea of self-deprecation. Why put yourself down, even if for humor? I think the Brits do this to show they are so confident with themselves that they can mock themselves, but I am still not a fan. Overall, Druckerman's point that "instead of planning your next remark, just listen very hard to what the other person is saying. Call if 'mindful conversation.'" While forming your own polished response is important, it is more critical to listen to the material that needs responding. Otherwise, your comment could miss the ball. Less selfishly, listening shows respect to your counterpart. For Lent, I tried to become a better listener and to give what I was hearing more thought instead of rushing to what I wanted to say. The "rules" of conversation can impact one's own influence.
Influence is something I think most people wish to have in some realm of their life. There is, however, a difference between good and bad influence; Rodrigue calls this manipulation.2 Diction is important in influencing. I was surprised when Rodrigue said that communication is not being yourself, but her argument made sense. To some degree, you have to find the key to the other person in order to make them cooperate with you. This sounds a bit like manipulation. However, I think the point is more psychological. Rodrigue mentions that you should reflect the deportment and linguistic style of the one you are trying to influence so that they will be more receptive to you. It makes sense – humans tend to gravitate to those like ourselves. In Rodrigue's three suggestions to achieve influence (synchrony, reciprocity, and cooperation), she notes that the language you use should be positive and appeal to the person you want to influence. Otherwise, you might appear to be a manipulator.
_________
1) Pamela Druckerman, "Decoding the Rules of Conversation,” New York Times (3/17/15): A27. All citations from this edition.
2) Valérie Rodrigue, “Become an Influential Woman,” trans. J. Douthwaite, Marie France (April 2013): 48-51. All citations from this edition.
Interesting thoughts, yes. Reading you has led me to reflect on the different spheres in which one influences others. We influence people in our family circles, our neighborhoods or local communities, and possibly we may, if lucky, wield some kind of positive influence on our generation / world during our lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to contribute to your blog a thought I included in the eulogy I wrote for my mom, Mary Somerville, to capture something powerful she taught me and my brothers.
The most interesting thing about human life is not how we live our culture’s determinism but rather how we are infused with its possibilities. As columnist Leonard Pitts wrote in a commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, “the lesson wasn’t about what we could do, or how we could do, but ‘that’ we could do, that transformation lived within our hands.”
Once we replace the word "influence" with "transformation," what a new light shines on the issues and potentials of our time here on earth!