Language Blog
This was a very interesting experiment. My partner and I both felt uncomfortable, but we also felt the difficulty of doing these tasks. At the beginning, when my partner started, she explained to me how it felt like she was talking to a wall or talking to her own reflection, like she was giving herself a pep talk. She tried her best to talk for 15 minutes, but in the end, she couldn't do it. She explained it to me as, "the more I kept talking, the more awkward it felt". Even though she was free to say anything, move anything, or do anything she wanted, it was too uncomfortable for her to keep going. Before my partner and I began the experiment, I had a feeling the person who would feel more "in power" would be the person speaking, but after the experiment, the person who wasn't speaking had more power. The reason why I said the one who didn't speak had more power was because the speaker started to feel discomfort the more the non-speaker didn't say or react to anything.
If I were to imagine that my partner and I represented two different cultures meeting for the first time, I would have to say the culture that has the advantage would be the "speaker" culture. I know I just said that the non-speaker held more power, but I think this would be a different situation. If it were two cultures meeting for the first time, I would believe the speaker would have more power in terms of showing what their culture is. For example, a culture could show its culture through a dance or maybe a song. If we talk about individuals throughout our own culture, I would say those with disabilities have difficulty communicating. There are times when they may not be heard by others or times when they are. I believe that most of the time, people with disabilities aren't heard because there are people who may think they have a higher status than they do. In a way, it reminds me of the times my cousins and I would have to listen to our parents, aunts, and uncles because we'd get disowned if we didn't.
When it was my turn to speak, I kept forgetting I could only talk, but couldn't move anything else. Because of this, our conversation was more of laughter than talking, so I guess you could say I didn't last the 15 minutes. Since my partner and I kept laughing, this part of the experiment felt comfortable and somewhat normal because, usually, when we talk, we're free to move however we want. Since I kept trying to move around when I talked, it just made things feel normal and funny. My partner explained that while it felt somewhat normal, it was missing my expressiveness because she thinks I'm an expressive person, so her seeing me not move anything, but just talk, was weird.
I think this experiment shows how important the use of "signs" is in our language because it helps us express or convey our message. If we were to just stand still and talk with no emotions or movements, is the message we're trying to portray to people being heard? Sometimes, if our emotions and movements are used in our language, the message is still not heard by others, but I believe that it's still important for us to use emotions and movements in our language because it brings emphasis to what we want to say. I think everyone can have a hard time reading body language depending on the situation. For example, seeing a new person for the first time and observing them from afar. You may think they're not friendly because they're not talking to anyone, and they're just standing there doing nothing. It's not until you talk to that person and realize their personality is completely different from what you thought. I don't think it's difficult to read body language, but I don't think it's easy to read body language either.
Hi Zyra!
ReplyDeleteI had a similar consideration in the power dynamic during Part 1. I think we're obviously so conditioned to communicate a particular way that when we broke that standard and had to remain quiet, it naturally just unnerved the other people/person in the experiment and made them tune in even more to the reactions of the non-speaking party as a desperate attempt for clarification.
I also had a similar take on the power dynamic between a speaking and symbolic culture compared to the power dynamic between neurotypical and bodily abled individuals in our population and those with disabilities. As speaking communicators, we see we can get our point across faster, or with less effort and automatically assume its superior.
It's also a good point to acknowledge that even in day to day communicating, we are constantly ignoring and missing people's emotions and body language out of convenience or just not being present enough in the conversation.
Part 1: Great opening description of your experiment. Well written.
ReplyDelete"after the experiment, the person who wasn't speaking had more power. "
While I can understand your reasoning here, I suggest you aren't seeing the big picture here. Could this be related to doing this experiment with friends instead of strangers? Could you change topics at will? Ask questions? Steer the conversation where you wanted it to go? And if you did feel this way, could it be because your friends let you do this? If you had engaged in this discussion with a stranger on the street, just how much control would you have had? Would they have patiently tolerated your limited communication or might they have just walked away? Did you really have control? Or did your friends give you the control? In which case, was it really yours to begin with?
"I know I just said that the non-speaker held more power but I think this would be a different situation."
A couple of things here:
First, in the way you describe it, it would be *exactly* the same situation. :-) A speaking culture and a non-speaking culture trying to communicate.
But second, that wasn't the question here. The prompt asks you which culture would have the advantage of communicating a complex idea *within* its own culture. Back up and understand what "complex ideas" actually are. Would you be able to explain Darwin's theory of natural selection or Einstein's theory of relativity without symbolic language? I don't think I could. If body language was better at communicating these complex ideas, we wouldn't need spoken symbolic language. Because symbolic language is pervasive in all cultures, that tells us that it is advantageous in communication, particularly with concepts that are just ideas and not things to demonstrate and show.
"I would say those with disabilities have difficulty communicating"
Wouldn't this depend upon the disability? Yes, a person who is deaf would have a language barrier to conquer, but a person with a spinal cord injury to their lower back would have difficulty walking, but they would still be able to communicate fully using words and body language. So your example is valid depending upon the disability you had in mind.
To find a real life example of this experiment, we need to find a situation where you have a speaking population and another group that doesn't speak that language, and this results in a power differential, with the speaking culture having power over the non-speaking. We see that in the interaction between English speakers and non-English speaking immigrant populations. Think about how non-English speaking immigrants are treated in Southern California? Are they treated as equals?
Part 2: Very good opening description and I appreciate how well you explored your partner's experience here as that is most often the interesting part of the process. This in particular drew my attention:
"It was missing my expressiveness because she thinks I'm an expressive person, so her seeing me not move anything, but just talk, was weird. "
Was it "expression" that was missing? Or something more fundamental? More on this below.
Body language goes beyond just providing emotional emphasis to the spoken word. It *validates* our words, providing evidence that we mean what we say. So when our body language doesn't match our spoken word, our partners miss that "validation" (that's why it feels "weird"). Effectively, your body language is telling your partner that your words are lying to them, which is an uncomfortable experience, especially with someone you know and trust. Humans tend to use body language as a type of lie detector. Think about how being able to detect liars might help an individual's ability to survive and reproduce.
Google limited the length of my comment. I'll finish it here:
Delete___________________________________________________________
"I think everyone can have a hard time reading body language"
Like all human traits, there is normal variation in expression, and the ability to read body language is no different. But beyond that, there are groups of people who have great difficulty or an outright inability to read body language due to physical or mental disability, such as those who are in the autism spectrum or those who are blind (though they can read vocal intonation).
The prompt asks for an example of when it would be best to avoid reading body language. You seem to combine the question of "not being able to read body language" with this last question and, while related, they are actually separate issues. For the example you offer, where someone perhaps gets the wrong impression of a new person through their body language, step back and re-think that. The person might actually be shy and reserved and uncertain. That is still important information for you to have. It will change how you approach her and it might even encourage you to check-in with her to make sure she is okay. The information you are getting from her body language isn't wrong. It is just different than what she would use with someone she actually knows, and you don't know that until you get to know her.
But is there any situation you can think of where body language might actually mislead you, not because the person is lying but because you don't know how to read the body language? Do all cultures use the same system of body language? They all use different systems of spoken/writen language, so why would we assume their body language isn't different? If you travel to another country, can you trust the information you get from their body language?
Part 3: For the first question, remember that you were not able to use any spoken language for Part 1, only body language. So you don't think being able to add written language would have made that experiment easier? Could you have gained power by using written language? Rethink this section.
Good response to the second question.
Missing a response to the final question about globalization? How has the written language contributed to globalization, defined as the process of increased interconnectedness and interdependence among countries around the world. Think about how fast information can be sent globally through the written word now instead of by word of mouth. This can certainly have a positive impact, but consider the possibility of negative impact as well, since written facts can be sent just as fast as written misinformation.
Hey Zyra you brought some interesting points. One part in particular when you mentioned how the power roles switched was very similar to the way I felt too. I also noticed how silence could actually create more discomfort if anything. Do you think that silence always gives the listener more power, or does it depend on the context? It was also interesting how you mentioned your usual way to express differed greatly when you stood still. I also like your point on how written language is essential to preserve culture. Do you feel like that is the main contributor or is there any other factors as well. Great post overall!
ReplyDelete