|
I read in the NY Review of books in my late 20s an article about Lev Vygotsky and his teasing out how "inner speech" works in our thinking, learning, and behavior. That he died very young (in his 30s) from TB and wrote out the theory at a crazy pace with the idea that his assistants would write up and release the research data after his death just added to the charm.
My own frustrations with interpersonal talk, which I might call InterSpeech or OuterSpeech, leads me to playing out here some rules or new choices for myself. I'll poke around the idea in no special order.
1. Tonic Speech. Tonic speech does just that. It's they type of talking between friends that Emerson celebrates in his essay on friendship. Both people needn't speak all the time they are together, as the silent pauses for reflection or relief just add to the sauciness of what follows. In all my interactions with friends, acquaintances, and others, this is less than 2%.
My challenge has been that till this morning when I reviewed my "data" I engage in every conversation as though it's can turn into tonic speech, if it doesn't start off there. Now, with just 1 in 50 chance of this being the case, I'll have to reassess what I'm hoping to feel, hear, say, and do in those 49 exchanges that won't be tonic giving.
2. Random Speech. This is something I've been tracking for many months. Lots of people have no "Theory of Talk." This leaves them to talk randomly. It also leaves them no quick choices when asked to talk in a specific way. Here's an example.
At a party last night I had this exchange between myself (R) and Ann (not her name, and other details changed). We're at her party to celebrate the launching of her latest book of poetry about an historical event.
1::R: You know, though the court case didn't lead to holding the owners of the building responsible, the public attention led to changes to rule and laws that have made a difference at least.
2::A: But buildings still collapse due to poor construction all over the world.
3::R: I'm not celebrating that the issue is fully solved. But that in our lives and where we live the codes are in place and that's a result of this incident you write about.
4::A: But owners are still getting away with shoddy work.
5::R: Can I have 20 seconds to celebrate the parts of success people have brought forward, at least? Someone had to write laws, pass them, and use taxes for inspectors to see that they are followed. That's something to celebrate.
6::A: But other countries don't follow these rules and multinationals follow the local rules and people still die.
7::R: Alright, I see I should never try to celebrate something like this with you.
8::A: I wouldn't say that.
9::R: [changed subject]
To me, Ann had no Theory of Talk. When I made a direct and clear request for something easily within her abilities (line 5), with a Theory of Talk that informed her that allowing space for a minor request of another person is allowed, she would have said something like: "OK, Go, you can take even a minute" to make a joke of it. And I would have spoken more fully. And then her NEXT comment needed to bracket the sequence with something like, "Thanks for that." And I would have felt complete for that exchange.
Now, contrast this with a theory of hosting, which she had as it was her party. Had I said, "I spilled something, do you have a mop?" She might have said, "Oh, that happens, don't worry about it, I'll clean it up."
Or, had I asked for a knife to cut a cake she'd gone and found one. But, in this case she couldn't "find" 20 seconds to allow in the possibility of something to celebrate however constrained or still under development.
Enough with people like that!
Revu2
|