Our individual knowledge is one of the few things we can be sure of. Relating back to Descartes philosophy, one can only be sure of what goes on in their own mind, for the means of communication between human beings are fairly unreliable. However, as we do live in a joint society, we rely on means of communication, the most prevalent being language. This can come in the form of body language, written language, and spoken language, all of which are interconnected. However, it is these connections that vary from person to person, and culture to culture. Humans rely on language to accurately deliver our private subjective knowledge to others, but when using a means of communication with so many leeways, several knowledge issues are encountered.
The means in which individual knowledge and mutual knowledge are integrated bring upon the difficulties of communication. When dealing with communication, there are several ways to do so. As we experienced during the drawing exercise and charades, both body language and spoken language hold their limitations. For example, during the drawing exercise, I was the narrator. I had the individual knowledge of what the picture looked like, however I could not fully transfer this knowledge to the drawers. Although I tried my best to communicate what the picture looked like through spoken language, it was not enough to send across the message. Likewise, when playing charades, mere body language was not enough to convey the detailed prompts of the game. From this we can see how body, spoken, and written language are necessary for humans to overcome the vast uncertainty of communication.
Language in itself can be perceived differently from person to person. Hence come the ideas of Pinker and ‘Outliers’. In Pinker’s video, the concepts of individual and mutual knowledge are further described. Individual knowledge consists of one’s own knowledge, A knows X and B knows X. mutual knowledge considered the correlation of this knowledge, does A know that B knows X? Does B know that A knows X? From this, comes awkwardness. Although some knowledge might be mutual, in order to avoid the awkwardness, people tend to find means of complicating our language even further, to make sure that the mutual knowledge cannot be fully gained. Perhaps it is a frightening concept, for one to know exactly what your intentions are when we speak, so instead we ‘veil’ our intentions with language. Such ‘veils’ vary from person to person, and from culture to culture. In some cultures, it would be considered rude to straight out ask for sex, even though calling someone up to see their ‘etchings’ is partially as obvious.
This awkwardness not only comes across when there is a difference of interests, but also when there is a difference of power. As presented in the Pinker video, difference in power can lead to that awkwardness, especially if one is unsure of a relationship they have with a person. This concept of language and power relates to the Power-Distance Index described in the ‘Outliers’ chapter. PDI’s are a measure of the acceptance of unequally distributed power, which is a major factor when dealing with societal interactions. When in a foreign culture, the rules of body language and spoken language may be different, hence leading to awkwardness. From this chapter we can see the drastic measures humans take in order to avoid this awkwardness or confrontation, which have presumably led to plane crashes. In different cultures, certain ways of communication are deemed more appropriate. Since I am Indian, I come from a culture with a relatively high PDI. Whether it is culture, religion, or tradition, we are taught to respect our elders and treat them in a certain manner. Our way of speaking to parents or teachers are significantly different from the way we speak to our peers, and therefore, our ways of communicating are influenced.
All in all, language as a means of communication has its issues. The consequences of these issues can vary from awkwardness to plane crashes. Although as a way of knowing, it may seem unreliable, I feel that it is this unreliability that brings beauty to language. Without this constant need to interpret what people say, humans would be extremely bored. People can spend hours deciphering a person’s words, just to catch a glimpse at their individual knowledge – what really goes on in their head. Without this ambiguity of language, there would be no poetry, no culture, no humor, no awkwardness that we love to analyze, and most importantly, there would be no individualism. The ambiguity of language is what gives each individual the ability to perceive others the way they chose, which is the basis of all human- to- human relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment