I'm a chatty cathy. Most anyone who knows me, know that speaking up comes pretty easily to me. In fact, I often struggle with resisting the impulse to think out loud pretty much constantly: to speak every thought that comes to my mind, when it comes to my mind.
Sometimes, I think this is a strength for me. It has certainly been a boon as I have made my way through higher education: particularly graduate school with its heavy emphasis on participation in class discussions. The U.S. educational system seems to be largely based on the assumption that the mark of a successful learner is someone who is able to articulate what she or he has learned, form an opinion, and make a valid argument. When a person does not demonstrate mastery of the material in this way, s/he is presumed to be either ignorant or disengaged. And this assumption seems to rarely be questioned. Although I am a highly verbal person (particularly in academic settings), I find this bias in favor of highly verbal behavior to be very frustrating.
And here's why. I actually think my readiness to speak is sometimes a very significant weakness of mine. This is something I have reflected on quite a bit over the years, and it came up for me again in my feminist theories class last week. When discussing postcolonial feminism, one of my classmates shared a quote from her reading notes from an article by Linda Alcoff. The article discusses the pitfalls of speaking for others. Here is the quote:
Although Alcoff refers to evaluating our "impetus to speak" in situations where we are tempted to speak for others, I think her advice applies to the urge to speak more generally.
Although in White American culture and the U.S. educational system, verbal behavior is highly valued, my understanding is that in some traditional Native American cultures, an educated, well-mannered person would more highly value the ability to listen, absorb, think slowly and carefully, before speaking up. I share this information with a very important qualification: I have been raised in White American culture, so even in sharing this I am "speaking for others."
I have been very much socialized surrounding the importance of speaking and I can see that if everyone was just listening, there would be nobody to listen to. At the same time, I agree with the old adage that we have two ears, one mouth for a reason.
Often, I think it is those who hold the most power who speak up the most. For myself, I've noticed that the more power and privilege I hold relative to whomever I'm interacting with, the more emotionally activated I become when the conversation turns to social justice (especially, but not only, when we talk specifically about the relationship between the particular oppressed and privileged groups to which we belong).
I've also noticed that emotional activation has a lot to do with my likelihood of speaking up. When I do not feel particularly emotionally charged about something, I feel little motivation to speak up and I am not likely to. When I feel more emotionally charged, I feel more motivated to speak. However, that emotional engagement reaches a point of diminishing returns when it comes to me actually speaking up. If I'm TOO emotionally activated, I find it difficult to think clearly. I have difficulty managing my emotions. I become afraid and nervous and fumble over myself. When I feel like this, I'm actually less likely to speak up.
This is just my personal experience: if there are existing models of communication/empowerment/emotion that examine this, I am not familiar with them. But I wonder if this, [coupled with cultural values], might explain why people in power tend to do most of the talking.
In one recent example, a friend of mine posted some links to blog posts by a couple of BYU professors regarding the LDS church's history of denying Black men the priesthood. Having grown up in the LDS church, I struggled SO HARD with the racism in church history: the Blacks and the priesthood issues as well as teachings that Native Americans' skin was turn brown as a result of a curse from god brought on by their sin. It was probably the primary factor that led me to move away from the church. I had so many powerful emotions, and I really wanted to react in some way to these ignorant blog posts. They represented the same ridiculous answers I was given over and over again by men in the church when I tried resolving my faith crisis. I felt completely disempowered, and utterly incapable of joining the conversation. I have been able to join in so many other conversations that just didn't matter as much to me... but when it came to this, the emotions were so strong that I felt like I was choking. Even though the forum it was being discussed in was full of people who were likely to share my view, my history of being shut down when trying to discuss my feelings was so present for me that I was too activated to be able to speak.
[For reference, if interested:
As Alcoff put it, "Some of us have been taught that by right of having the dominant gender, class, race, letters after our name, or some other criterion we are more likely to have the truth. Others have been taught the opposite, and will speak haltingly, with apologies, if they speak at all."
Sometimes, I really think conversations would be much richer if things happened the other way around. If the people in power would listen more than they talk. I also wish we could move away from evaluating people's engagement based on their verbal behavior, and realize that engaging in that way is driven by cultural values, empowerment, and emotional activation.
Although in White American culture and the U.S. educational system, verbal behavior is highly valued, my understanding is that in some traditional Native American cultures, an educated, well-mannered person would more highly value the ability to listen, absorb, think slowly and carefully, before speaking up. I share this information with a very important qualification: I have been raised in White American culture, so even in sharing this I am "speaking for others."
I have been very much socialized surrounding the importance of speaking and I can see that if everyone was just listening, there would be nobody to listen to. At the same time, I agree with the old adage that we have two ears, one mouth for a reason.
Often, I think it is those who hold the most power who speak up the most. For myself, I've noticed that the more power and privilege I hold relative to whomever I'm interacting with, the more emotionally activated I become when the conversation turns to social justice (especially, but not only, when we talk specifically about the relationship between the particular oppressed and privileged groups to which we belong).
I've also noticed that emotional activation has a lot to do with my likelihood of speaking up. When I do not feel particularly emotionally charged about something, I feel little motivation to speak up and I am not likely to. When I feel more emotionally charged, I feel more motivated to speak. However, that emotional engagement reaches a point of diminishing returns when it comes to me actually speaking up. If I'm TOO emotionally activated, I find it difficult to think clearly. I have difficulty managing my emotions. I become afraid and nervous and fumble over myself. When I feel like this, I'm actually less likely to speak up.
This is just my personal experience: if there are existing models of communication/empowerment/emotion that examine this, I am not familiar with them. But I wonder if this, [coupled with cultural values], might explain why people in power tend to do most of the talking.
In one recent example, a friend of mine posted some links to blog posts by a couple of BYU professors regarding the LDS church's history of denying Black men the priesthood. Having grown up in the LDS church, I struggled SO HARD with the racism in church history: the Blacks and the priesthood issues as well as teachings that Native Americans' skin was turn brown as a result of a curse from god brought on by their sin. It was probably the primary factor that led me to move away from the church. I had so many powerful emotions, and I really wanted to react in some way to these ignorant blog posts. They represented the same ridiculous answers I was given over and over again by men in the church when I tried resolving my faith crisis. I felt completely disempowered, and utterly incapable of joining the conversation. I have been able to join in so many other conversations that just didn't matter as much to me... but when it came to this, the emotions were so strong that I felt like I was choking. Even though the forum it was being discussed in was full of people who were likely to share my view, my history of being shut down when trying to discuss my feelings was so present for me that I was too activated to be able to speak.
[For reference, if interested:
- First professor's blog
- Second professor's blog
- Church statement in response ]
As Alcoff put it, "Some of us have been taught that by right of having the dominant gender, class, race, letters after our name, or some other criterion we are more likely to have the truth. Others have been taught the opposite, and will speak haltingly, with apologies, if they speak at all."
Sometimes, I really think conversations would be much richer if things happened the other way around. If the people in power would listen more than they talk. I also wish we could move away from evaluating people's engagement based on their verbal behavior, and realize that engaging in that way is driven by cultural values, empowerment, and emotional activation.
It is very interesting for me to think about how I participate in various conversations, dependent on the situation. The topic of conversation, the people present, and the amount of people present all have a significant impact on how much I speak, how comfortable I feel speaking, and how much I get out of listening. Sometimes I don't speak, and other times I'm bursting with conversation.
ReplyDeletePower dynamics is certainly a big part of that. Besides monopolizing the conversation, people in power will often direct the conversation. The fewer people that can relate to the direction the conversation goes, the more powerful being able to speak seems to get. In these situations, if I find myself listening a disproportional amount of time, I sometimes want to get a few words in (despite what they are) just so that I feel more powerful.