Conversations that “Save the World”: Part 1

Dan has written recently to make an argument for no longer watching the news (poetically, he wrote this the same week we were on the news twice), in part because there aren’t many useful conversations taking place there. “Western society” emphasizes the consumption and retention of discrete pieces of easily communicated “knowledge” rather than sincerely observing and questioning the complexity of any given situation.

In a way this is understandable, since it is difficult to stay with a question and engage in dialectical thinking. But with the emphasis on simplicity, quick conclusions, and easy answers, it is hard to move forward with truly new and radical ways of thinking and being. It also makes for broadly predictable and boring conversations, which can be hard for people to stay invested in.

If you’ve been to a local town hall gathering or community meeting, then — sincerely, kudos to you for participating — you probably understand exactly what I’m talking about. Coming up with solutions and sharing concerns in a small community quickly becomes fraught. You may have experienced this to some degree in online sub-communities as well. Dan and I certainly have seen this in some witchy “communities”.

Add to the mix that people are often tired, often deeply personally invested in the situation (or not, but they still have strong opinions anyway), not always well-informed, and usually not very aware of communicative nuances. I mean, how aware are we of how we communicate with ourselves, let alone others?

Innovative thought and creation is further complicated through our unexamined acceptance of “first truths” or “first principles” that are often painfully flawed and unhelpful to perceiving the very strange universe we occupy. Living in the confused, the complex, and the grey is difficult.

The Work of Magickians

Yet, as magickians and occultists, we are called to dwelling in the liminal. Our speech is the language of poetry, symbol, metaphor — often trafficking in double meanings and cryptic messages like our familiar spirits do. We have to stay with the complexity of the question — because we know how deep the answers go, even if we haven’t plumbed the depths yet ourselves. Simple answers and concise meanings are not verboten, but we are wary of them, as we are wary of our words.

So how do we communicate about murky subjects and yield complex ideas? Being able to share those complex ideas, and agreeing upon most terms and basic starting places (such as beliefs or values), is essential to “getting somewhere” collectively that we’d actually like to be! Having relevant, nuanced conversations about deeply personal and urgent conversations about subjects such as safe drinking water, food scarcity, “the economy”, and affordable housing is essential to establishing positive changes for all living beings. After all, isn’t that what we are after?

“How you play is what you win” said author Ursula K. LeGuin, so how do we play “conversations” better, so we can “win” better outcomes for us all?

How do we “fix” (i.e. significantly improve) the ways and patterns in which we talk to each other?

Awareness is Key

One way might be to engage in meta-communication about how we usually communicate, becoming aware of patterns we fall into that fails to deepen the question and leads to dead end thinking. Reflect, reconsider, re-examine. We might also become aware of our internal beliefs and values, which is often the neglected beginner work of the occultist. Are we not constantly offered reinforcement that awareness is a powerful tool?

Perhaps this work might open a gateway towards a better way of interfacing with tricky words with layered or hidden meanings, implicit connotations and biases concealed in our speech, and all the other beautiful idiosyncrasies of how we use language to think, communicate, and make changes in our world.

Because we know that language is mercurial, challenging, and immeasurably powerful, we should use it well!

To this end, let’s explore what it might take to enable more good conversations, what might need to change, so that we can “stay with the trouble”, in the words of Donna Haraway, of deeply challenging ideas.

Starting with some unique characteristics of how we communicate.

Stifling Creativity

Communication is shaped by several known linguistic phenomena, which you are almost certainly aware of on some level! In sticking with the question of how we have good conversations, we have to acknowledge one of the things we are told we mustn’t talk about during family dinners — politics.

(Fun fact, Dan completely circumvents this and derails all normal conversation topics by asking everyone what the strangest thing they believe is.)

Most discourse around urgent, complex ideas is perceived as political in some way, signifying where you stand on myriad social issues. Think about the initial topics I proposed just above — food scarcity, the economy etc. — conversations about these usually begin with talking points given by one’s political party, whether or not it is overtly stated. This usually brings creativity in conversation to a screeching halt.

Even certain ways one approaches an idea can signal that you are or are not progressive, liberal, or sensitive to groups that you aren’t a member of. For many communities, the use of specific words to describe communities or topics grants quick insight into where the speaker is coming from socially and politically. When this happens, many of us are quick to respond (internally or aloud) with the talking points/responses of our party, without really thinking carefully or innovatively.

Linguistic Factors

Besides the above examples that align people to various political groups, there are many other factors that affect how people use language and communicate in distinctly different ways. Language usage changes with generations, with younger folks (another questioned term there) more readily adapting language change overall, and open to questioning the value of the words we use. Older people, and here we are actually talking Millennials and up (please don’t @ me: we’re “old” now), are more hesitant to adopt the all proposed changes.

In linguistics, this difference is called “age-graded variation”. Older generations and younger generations do think about and use language differently, which changes how we communicate without us necessarily being aware of it. Here’s an interesting article on how teenage girls in particular have shaped and continue to shape language.

Of course, age and political orientation aren’t the only ways we are divided in how we use language. Geographic location, race and ethnicity, social-economic status, and many other factors impact how we use language (code-switching comes to mind here). There are even differences based on personality — one person’s “being honest” and “telling it as it is” is another person’s “grossly insensitive and offensive”.

Since we are necessarily different in how we speak and what words we choose, this being informed by so many factors, seeking a completely cohesive — or more strictly speaking: identical — usage of language reveals itself to be a pointless end.

But if we can’t have a common agreement on language usage by following the same rules and using the same words to mean one thing in one specific language, how can we effectively communicate?

This is the awareness piece. Acknowledging that we communicate differently, that we will probably not begin or end conversations with universal agreements about all terms and perspectives, and that we are still able to have a good conversation in spite of and maybe even because of these challenges. We can seek to move through linguistic challenges deftly towards better ways of sharing ideas and experiences.

How do you communicate — and would you change anything after some reflection?

There’s more to be explored here, so keep an eye out for Conversations that “Save the World” Part 2.