I don't believe in the impossibility of communication! Well, let me
qualify that: I think our understanding of another person is always
filtered through our own lens. Yet, of course we can understand one
another "well enough", both intraculturally and interculturally, for
practical purposes. However, I think there are times when it is
NOT possible for two people to arrive at an understanding, and this
doesn't have anything to do with the inherent communicability or
incommunicability of their positions. By "understanding," I mean
to part ways with both people having positive feelings about the
interaction... It is unfortunate when one or both people harbors
bitterness about an interaction, when one or both feels wronged
by the other, but it happens. In these situations, who is "right"?
Where does "justice" lay? Whose version of what transpired
do we accept when we make a decision regarding whether or not
coercion or cruelty was present in the interaction? For instance:
a boss who lets an employee go for cause; the employee feels
wronged, the boss feels it was deserved. The employee feels the
boss is coercive, cruel; the boss feels the employee was not
competent in his or her performance of the job. Whose perception
is the "right" one?
Robin