Paul Dillon wrote:
>Thank you for explaining that. Several people answered off-list but
>didn't
>seem to take offense at the way I expressed myself when asked the question
>initially. So following your friendly lead, I'll just say that it really
>didn't occur to me to say "please".
To which Kathie replied:
in my head i can assume that your intent is non-threatening,
but the language doesn't support that.
and i wanted to bring that out into the open
in light of the discussion about genres of politeness, on inclusivity, on
awareness of cultural differences. . .
i am hoping to expand awareness, asking everyone to take a moment to
consider how our words _might_ sound to others.
and, of course, how much we care about that.
Kathie's point is valid and important, but it begs an important
question in respect of complex cross-cultural settings such as this
list. I am a New Zealander, so at least my first language is
English, but here in NZ our cultural assumptions about what
constitutes polite and inclusive language differs significantly from
what is general in the US. I have spent a lot of time studying and
working in North America so I know what is happening when I daily
read messages composed by Americans and my gut response is 'how in
your face offensive'. I know it isn't - usually - so, and I make the necessary
internal adjustments.
(As an aside it is interesting that when I am about to land at LAX from
Auckland I go through an unconscious process of cultural orientation
which means that by the time I am in the immigration hall I am
functioning in an American linguistic context. But this is much more difficult
to do when I log on to my computer in Wellington and look at my xmca
mail - the great majority of which is sourced in the US.)
But for many of my fellow citizens who are not
familiar with American linguistic norms, being exposed to American
modes of expression often leads them to conclude that Americans are by
their nature offensive and in your face. The reverse also applies. NZ
modes of polite and inclusive communication can be interpreted as sly
and devious from an American cultural perspective, although most
Americans initially perceive us as naive and charmingly childlike.
So is it reasonable to ask American contributors to this list to
'consider how my words sound to others' when those others are New
Zealanders? No it isn't, because most Americans have no idea how
their words sound to New Zealand ears.
The same thing happens even when you inhabit the same country. A CHAT
informed eye has no difficulty in explaining many of the
bewildered misunderstandings that occur between Maori and European in
the course of meetings, classroom discourse or in the middle of a
rugby scrum (although in this latter case the existence of the
superordinate rugby culture and linguisitic traditions makes such
Maori-European misunderstandings rare). I am also, of course, wrong
to imply, as I do in this message, that there is a universal
'American' way of communicating.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that in cross-cultural
settings such as this forum my best default assumption is that
people are communicating politely and respectfully until they
unequivocally prove otherwise. If they DO prove otherwise then I am
free to choose whether or not to continue to
engage with them. This is the only reasonable position
when it is not reasonable to expect others on the community to know
what is, to my ears, inclusive communication. In other words I take responsibility
for expanding my own awareness and trust others to take
responsibility for expanding theirs.
Phillip Capper
Centre for Research on Work, Education and Business (WEB Research)
PO Box 2855
9th Floor 142 Featherston Street
Wellington
New Zealand
Phone: (64) 04 499 8140
Mobile: 021 251 9741
Fx: (64) 04 499 8395
phillip.capper@webresearch.co.nz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:07 PST