GO::DH response to ADHO: What do we suggest about different cultural attitudes towards tone, argumentation, and so on?
Hi all,
There have been some excellent comments suggested in the language document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLB3-QYZdETd-fjBO9Bw6W93JbcJgcc5_m8BmUKp...
But a central question asked by Karina van Dalen-Oskam is not being answered there: what to do about intercultural differences in acceptable rhetoric?
This is a real issue and one that goes much farther than just interpersonal communication. Some disciplines, some cultures, have traditionally had very aggressive argumentative and rhetorical approaches to research communication; others have had far less aggressive ones.
I come from Anglo-Saxon studies, for example, which used to have a very hard and aggressive tone at conferences and the like (though it has toned itself down a lot in the current generation). But I'm also in North America, which has a far less aggressive academic culture on the whole, than, I'd say, the UK, Australia, or Germany.
I think there can also often be a strong gender aspect to this: part of the lessening of the aggression of tone in Anglo-Saxon studies, I'd argue, has been a result of the sea change in gender composition of the field in the last couple of decades: apparently 2/3 of the speakers at the last ISAS meeting were women, for example (I couldn't go).
So a real question is what to suggest about handling this? If you work in a discipline or culture that values that aggressive edge, for example, you can find not being tested aggressively vaguely insulting (as my father-the-physicist used to say, the worst thing in the world is being told you're not even wrong). But if you are used to a culture that values a more supportive or deferential or indirect approach to criticism and questioning, that same approach can come across as incredibly rude and exclusionary.
My own feeling is that this needs to be treated a little like native-speaker use of international English: i.e. that we need to strive, regardless of what we consider to be the norm, for an approach that is accommodating and inclusive rather than divisive. So if I'm used to asking hard questions in a hard way in my own discipline, in an international context, I need to consciously practice a style that is more deferential and supportive, even while asking necessary questions and making necessary value judgments, in an international forum.
Or is it as simple as saying "don't be an asshole"? I really don't know.
Dear Dan,
To put it very straight and easy: one of my main problems with communicating in English is: how do I know when people are positive? When critique is expressed in a way that sounds mostly positive to me: “This is good but I am slightly concerned about...”; when do I know when people are really positive? That is easier for me in a language setting where people say: “This is wrong because...”
Easier for me. With my background.
Then I have worked on it for some years and I start to get the English language way now. But it is really really difficult to read those nuances.
To me the statement “You are stupid because you say...” is different. It is nothing like “This is wrong because...”. “You are stupid because you say...” is just rude. Is there any culture where attacking the good sense or mental skills of the person instead of the work is acceptable?
Because, you know, Dan: I have no clue what you mean with expressions such as “aggressive.” I assume it is not like when I grew up: if you say certain things some people will hit you in the face. So what is it?
All the best,
Øyvind
On 28. nov. 2015, at 19:39, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
Hi all,
There have been some excellent comments suggested in the language document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLB3-QYZdETd-fjBO9Bw6W93JbcJgcc5_m8BmUKp...
But a central question asked by Karina van Dalen-Oskam is not being answered there: what to do about intercultural differences in acceptable rhetoric?
This is a real issue and one that goes much farther than just interpersonal communication. Some disciplines, some cultures, have traditionally had very aggressive argumentative and rhetorical approaches to research communication; others have had far less aggressive ones.
I come from Anglo-Saxon studies, for example, which used to have a very hard and aggressive tone at conferences and the like (though it has toned itself down a lot in the current generation). But I'm also in North America, which has a far less aggressive academic culture on the whole, than, I'd say, the UK, Australia, or Germany.
I think there can also often be a strong gender aspect to this: part of the lessening of the aggression of tone in Anglo-Saxon studies, I'd argue, has been a result of the sea change in gender composition of the field in the last couple of decades: apparently 2/3 of the speakers at the last ISAS meeting were women, for example (I couldn't go).
So a real question is what to suggest about handling this? If you work in a discipline or culture that values that aggressive edge, for example, you can find not being tested aggressively vaguely insulting (as my father-the-physicist used to say, the worst thing in the world is being told you're not even wrong). But if you are used to a culture that values a more supportive or deferential or indirect approach to criticism and questioning, that same approach can come across as incredibly rude and exclusionary.
My own feeling is that this needs to be treated a little like native-speaker use of international English: i.e. that we need to strive, regardless of what we consider to be the norm, for an approach that is accommodating and inclusive rather than divisive. So if I'm used to asking hard questions in a hard way in my own discipline, in an international context, I need to consciously practice a style that is more deferential and supportive, even while asking necessary questions and making necessary value judgments, in an international forum.
Or is it as simple as saying "don't be an asshole"? I really don't know. _______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
Excellent point.
By aggressive, I meant the "you are stupid because..."
Maybe that is exactly the answer: there's no culture in which personalising an argument should be considered a positive thing--so things like "I don't know where you learned that, but..." are always bad.
That doesn't mean that such things are not actually valued in some places: literary circles, for example, seem to love the vicious review.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 at 15:21 Øyvind Eide lister@oeide.no wrote:
Dear Dan,
To put it very straight and easy: one of my main problems with communicating in English is: how do I know when people are positive? When critique is expressed in a way that sounds mostly positive to me: “This is good but I am slightly concerned about...”; when do I know when people are really positive? That is easier for me in a language setting where people say: “This is wrong because...”
Easier for me. With my background.
Then I have worked on it for some years and I start to get the English language way now. But it is really really difficult to read those nuances.
To me the statement “You are stupid because you say...” is different. It is nothing like “This is wrong because...”. “You are stupid because you say...” is just rude. Is there any culture where attacking the good sense or mental skills of the person instead of the work is acceptable?
Because, you know, Dan: I have no clue what you mean with expressions such as “aggressive.” I assume it is not like when I grew up: if you say certain things some people will hit you in the face. So what is it?
All the best,
Øyvind
On 28. nov. 2015, at 19:39, Daniel O'Donnell wrote:
Hi all,
There have been some excellent comments suggested in the language
document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLB3-QYZdETd-fjBO9Bw6W93JbcJgcc5_m8BmUKp...
But a central question asked by Karina van Dalen-Oskam is not being
answered there: what to do about intercultural differences in acceptable rhetoric?
This is a real issue and one that goes much farther than just
interpersonal communication. Some disciplines, some cultures, have traditionally had very aggressive argumentative and rhetorical approaches to research communication; others have had far less aggressive ones.
I come from Anglo-Saxon studies, for example, which used to have a very
hard and aggressive tone at conferences and the like (though it has toned itself down a lot in the current generation). But I'm also in North America, which has a far less aggressive academic culture on the whole, than, I'd say, the UK, Australia, or Germany.
I think there can also often be a strong gender aspect to this: part of
the lessening of the aggression of tone in Anglo-Saxon studies, I'd argue, has been a result of the sea change in gender composition of the field in the last couple of decades: apparently 2/3 of the speakers at the last ISAS meeting were women, for example (I couldn't go).
So a real question is what to suggest about handling this? If you work
in a discipline or culture that values that aggressive edge, for example, you can find not being tested aggressively vaguely insulting (as my father-the-physicist used to say, the worst thing in the world is being told you're not even wrong). But if you are used to a culture that values a more supportive or deferential or indirect approach to criticism and questioning, that same approach can come across as incredibly rude and exclusionary.
My own feeling is that this needs to be treated a little like
native-speaker use of international English: i.e. that we need to strive, regardless of what we consider to be the norm, for an approach that is accommodating and inclusive rather than divisive. So if I'm used to asking hard questions in a hard way in my own discipline, in an international context, I need to consciously practice a style that is more deferential and supportive, even while asking necessary questions and making necessary value judgments, in an international forum.
Or is it as simple as saying "don't be an asshole"? I really don't know. _______________________________________________ globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means
you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST
mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
globaloutlookdh-l mailing list globaloutlookdh-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/globaloutlookdh-l
You are currently subscribed to this list in NON-digest mode. This means you receive every message as it is posted.
If this represents too much traffic, you can also subscribe in DIGEST mode. This sends out a single email once a day containing the entire day's postings. To change your settings go to http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/options/globaloutlookdh-l You can request a password reminder from this page if you have forgotten yours.
-
Daniel O'Donnell -
Øyvind Eide