Cultures of Conversation

There a great post over on LessWrong on the subject of "wait" vs "interrupt" culture. The basic thesis is that the two are different cultures of communication, complete with different expectations of behavior, definitions of what is rude, etc. The two have different advantages and disadvantages, as well, and moving between the two cultures tends to be rocky. Here, for example, are some remarks concerning the benefits of a "wait" culture of conversation:

And when a lull in the conversation is treated as an opportunity to think about the last thing said, rather than an opportunity to jump in with the thing you were holding onto from 15 minutes ago because you couldn’t just interrupt and say it – then you also open yourself up to being genuinely surprised, to seeing the conversation go somewhere that no one in the room would have predicted, to introduce ideas that no one brought with them when they sat down at the table.

The post is short and worth the read, so check it out.

The concept that there are different "cultures" of conversation, complete with different expectations, definitions of politeness and rudeness, etc. seems a powerful one, and it has gotten me thinking about ways in which my own frustration and bewilderment in conversations might be understood as a function of divergent cultural norms.

My own approach to conversations could probably best be termed a dialogical culture of communication. Such an approach has a number of distinguishing features.

• It is subject-oriented. Conversations are about something, whether a concept, event, project, person, etc. This thing that they are about guides the structure of the conversation. The subject matter may be lofty (e.g., the nature of justice) or mundane (e.g., what time we will all meet for dinner), but it is the organizing focal point (or points, if there are multiple subjects) of the discussion.
• It is aimed at discovery. Conversations occur when interlocutors inquire after a subject matter under the presumption that there is possibly something to learn about it. I am often confident in my prior estimation of the subject-matter, but I am likewise hoping to enhance or replace that estimation with something better. We have all been in situations where an interlocutor believes his understanding of the subject matter to be perfect, and are well aware that no genuine conversation can happen in such cases.
• It achieves concrete community. One of the great benefits of conversations, besides learning about a subject matter, is building closer relationships to those people with whom one is conversing. The relationship that emerges from such conversations is defined by its concretion: it is not merely a social pleasantry, but an actual connection born of a shared experience in working toward a common end (namely, the understanding of some subject matter).
• It emphasizes the role of difference in discovery. The structure of discovery is that my world is broadened, changed, or otherwise enhanced by something that is different than what I already know. One of the reasons conversations are so powerful and exciting is that two (or more) people bring their own horizons of meaning, experience, and perspective together, sort through the inevitable discrepancies that result, and learn something. This is why you cannot have a conversation with yourself -- you can't say anything truly different. The tension between two divergent perspectives is the engine driving conversational progress.

This, of course, is only an ideal description; any actual conversation may more or less approximate these features. On the basis of this description, though, it is possible to articulate the reasons I find certain conversational practices confusing.

• Idle chatter. I can become rather frustrated when a conversation is happening that does not seem to be about anything at all. I often feel as though such discourses are dead, in the sense that there is no possibility of something really "happening" in them. In terms of dialogical conversation, it seems they have no capacity for discovery (and, as a correlate, little capacity for building community).
• Avoiding difference. Often, I am involved in a conversation in which I try to communicate some of my thoughts about its subject matter, but my interlocutor responds with silence, acquiescence, or a change in topic. They neither ask questions about my views nor advance their own (which presumably both agree with and diverge from mine). In such circumstances, I often feel bewildered. My first two reactions are usually to be offended -- am I not worth having a conversation with, or my views so juvenile that they cannot even be criticized? -- and to worry that I have caused offense -- did I tread upon delicately held opinions, or come across as uncaring? In terms of dialogical conversation, avoiding the task of identifying and calibrating the differences of horizon between interlocutors is equivalent to pressing the "kill switch" on the engine, abandoning the discussion and leaving the other participant(s) wondering what went wrong.
• Merely "stating your opinion." When differences emerge in conversations concerning some subject matter, some people have an impulse not to ignore the difference completely but to simply mark it and end the conversation. When I was teaching college freshmen, for example, they would often simply say, "well, I think X," "oh, I think Y," and then pretend as though the discussion was completed. From the perspective of dialogical conversation, this is downright maddening -- you have just gotten to the good part! It is like "eating dinner" by choosing what to cook, finding the recipe, getting out all the ingredients, and then saying, "okay, this is chicken, that is garlic, that is salt, that is a stove, and they are all different; time to put everything away and go to bed." Stating one's opinion is only worthwhile because it can then be changed through contact with other opinions as you work out a more accurate view of the subject matter at hand.
• Presumption of perfection (or hopelessness regarding growth). There have been a number of times that I have began discussing topics of relative importance and people have commented, typically early in the conversation, "Well, you have your opinion and I have mine, and neither of us is going to change." I still find myself a bit shocked when this happens. Why would we not change our minds, unless we are convinced that they are either (a) so perfect that improvement is impossible or (b) so damaged and incapable that improvement is likewise impossible? In terms of dialogical conversation, one hopes and expects to change one's mind -- one of the primary goals of having a conversation is to come to a more accurate understanding of the subject matter.

There are many other examples that could be given, of course, of ways in which certain conversational actions seem frustrating or bewildering from within this cultural context, but this will serve to illustrate the point.

The next step would be to think about different conversational cultures and identify (a) some of the ways in which these practices that make little or no sense within a dialogical culture might make perfect sense from the perspective of a different conversational culture and (b) some of the ways in which dialogically-oriented practices might be senseless and frustrating from within the context of other approaches.

What are some of the other "cultures of communication" that you have experienced or encountered?