Surface level conversations, DMCs and the preservation of privacy (Fromm, Being, 22-23)
Conversations revolve around the mundane. Rarely piercing the nexus of one’s true nature. The same questions receive the same answers. How was your week? Good. Awkward silence following for a brief moment until a similar question is asked. What have you been up to today? Not much just work. There isn’t much to go by and a sense of responsibility to interact without ever delving deeper.
There are two sides to every conversation. Dialogue means two speakers as opposed to a monologue found in plays. The encounter between the two is lopsided. It is an attempt to make conversation without really feeling a need to. Whether it is seeing a friend passing by or calling a parent. To some degree the nature of the relationship is irrelevant. Even deep connections may only warrant a bland conversation depending on the situation. A parent and child may have meaningful conversations but those are regulated to the in-person situations. Calling over the phone is merely a way of checking in. Though it has no purpose other than hearing the voice on the other line affirming their existence. The lackadaisical dialogue is more from the demented intent than an inability. Given the connection, a parent and a child can have a moment but that is reserved for its allocated time. Ironically, the call meets its awkward stage because both sides know there is more to say. There is more feeling in the heart but it isn’t the time. The conversation is flushed out or ended abruptly to avoid emotional havoc.
A similar situation is running into a friend on the way to work. Despite the obligation of arriving at work, the friend takes priority. A sense of urgency tells the employee to stop for a few seconds. The friend deserves a moment of your time. Strong responsibility surges through his veins. It wouldn’t be all that bad to ignore him or wave but a desire to speak overwhelms the employee. He stops and plays it off like he’s not in a rush. There is no destination waiting on him. The friend may be slightly annoyed if the employee brushed him off but letting him know he has to get to work wouldn’t bother him too greatly and yet the employee many a time stops nonetheless. This friend is in my path I must say something to him. This happens generally when the friend calls out to him. If the employee sees the friend from afar he keeps on his merry way but if the friend calls out to him, he feels the need to respond. The friend is acknowledging him, he must reciprocate. So he comes over and yip yaps for some time. Caught up in the conversation, he loses track of time before realising he abruptly apologises and runs off to work.
The intended conversation is surface level. He may ask some penetrating questions about work and home life but it is just to get the simple things out of the way. There isn’t a deeper layer because there isn’t time for it. Yet a need to speak blandly sufficiently checks off the satisfied discussion list. The same goes for a parent. So the conversation wasn’t extensive or life changing but it was still a conversation. Due diligence of contacting a parent to display concern for them is enough. To an extent that is what people want. They do not care for the substance as long as they are being acknowledged. Children calling their parents showing they care and vice versa. While the friend situation acknowledges their friendship. In both cases one can afford especially in our day to call them back but there is an instinctive obligation to those we know. Walking through city traffic will not strike up a conversation with random pedestrians but running into someone special fills one with an urgency to say something. It is generally reactive. Doing it out of obligation when they make the first move. They’ve acknowledged me now I must be polite and do the same back.
These surface level conversations mobilise in average discussions amongst guests. Growing up it was sports and girls. Now alcohol and work has been added to the mix. Many times gossip is the strengthening cause to heightening the desire to continue. Talking about who won the ballgame fades quickly but then moving onto players who bad poor performances debating their lack of skill with some teasing elongates a seemingly unimportant and useless conversation. This happens all the time. Gossip laced with conversations only makes them more interesting. It attacks the taboo nature of enjoyment. The desire to escalate to the private mannerisms of the category deepens interest. Though gossip is construed as negative it is the unconfirmed private talk that is the correct definition. There is a certain level of pondering the worst that gathers intrigued listeners. Yet malice need not be the downright conclusion of gossip. It is the juicy news, the potential possibilities that raise interest and social unity. A once bland item spiced up.
There is an urge to socialise. To attract others in an effort to be a part of something bigger. Sometimes that something bigger is just two friends but that still is more than the self. Finding completion in the addition of another. Feeling belonging and acknowledgement. This person likes me and wishes to spend their time with me. The content of events is irrelevant to the events happening. To being involved in the events. Even if the duo loses at the park or has a lacklustre lunch, the experience together is charming. Much of the conversation is bland. Yet the conversation is laced with joy of togetherness. There isn’t a need for a deeper discussion of the origin of the universe or other philosophical quandaries. Such questions involving identity and beliefs open up the heart to another. Yet hanging out together is itself an expression of opening oneself up. There is a power to silence. There is a power to blandness as long as the encounter is enjoyed. As long as their mutual desire to be together. Conversation doesn’t need to exist in forced activity but in periodic insulation.
Surface conversation can be seen as a way of avoiding certain topics. Prioritising extraverted nature to avoid harsher inquiries. Deflecting in order to have fun. In a sense ruling from a problem. Those who have experienced traumatic moments deflect to avoid discussing the hurtful past. In many instances this is done regularly. Not out of spite or fear but out of protection. The protection is more subconscious. Actions are more verifiable but they miss the deeper layer to a person. Playing in the park with someone is a game of enjoyment but there is no sit down dialogue. It is simply business. The same goes for office workers. There is a sense of order that rejects any deeper connection. Formalism is placed and injecting a privatised mode of conversation is off-putting. Privacy is held quite tightly by people. While certain topics are seen as off-limits, even regular questions receive simple answers. Walking into the office and asking how everyone is doing will get short bursts of similar responses. While the asker may not expect more, the replies do reflect a desire to keep the private discreet. Blab but be careful of what you blab. It could be embarrassing. What if it is ignored? What if people react negatively? Why bother informing when others aren’t necessarily interested.
Privacy is private because as much as people are curious they’d rather keep it mysterious. People would rather guess than know for sure. It is more enjoyable to speculate than know the truth. To know enough to entertain the possibility but to be ignorant enough to estimate the possibility. People generally do not want to hear sob stories. They don’t want to get mixed up in private affairs. Yet they will stir their gossiping. If an employee enters the office with a broken arm, many will say feel better, others may ask hoping she’ll just give a one word answer. If the employee says, I fell, good moving on but if the employee goes into a long winded story well that could spell annoyance for everyone. In the former both sides accept the surface level conditions. In the latter, the deeper region is exposed but it may not be acknowledged as highly. It is a risk to open the flood gates. There is a time and place to do so. This doesn’t mean that people do not gossip extensively. It is generally standard procedure in order to get through the interaction and carry on with the day. It depends on the relationship with the co-worker but the divulgence of personal experiences with others must be met with a trustful belonging.
Surface level discussions always begin the interaction. A polite way of introducing the encounter. It is a way to slowly move deeper. Most people will hesitate if you quickly begin asking them the origin of the universe or challenge them on their political leanings. To induce a deeper conversation, trust must be formed. A sense of belonging must be acknowledged. The experience must be mutual and understanding. It takes time. For some, it is a special place for certain people. Private information which generally is the ideological side not only secrets, is selective. To expose oneself is to be honest. Amongst friends is easier than strangers. Say you go on a date, the early awkwardness is mitigated by the breeze of fresh air or by playing to the classic twenty questions. Learning more about the simple things that being job, pets, siblings slowly translates to elaborating on those elements. Such as why did you choose that job, would you ever consider buying your own pet, is your relationship with your siblings amicable. Delving deeper whether by asking why or adding a second element to the question is entering private territory. One’s job, pets or siblings can be found on the internet but how one feels about these aspects is personal. A technique that uses bland questions to gradually find the person’s personal take on the issue. Once they open up personally, other personal questions can be unlocked.
There is a question game designed to develop a more intimate connection. As guessed, they begin bland and gradually become more personal. The intensity rises but the mellow shift of simple conversation veils the intrusive nature of these questions. The encounter is engulfed in this frenzy decreasing the bind around these private manners. The joyride of mutual expression alleviates much of the stress of opening up. Since both are doing it, there is a sense of comfort in the other’s willingness to dilute their own privacy. The goal is to get to know one another and is accomplished by selfless interaction. While dates have this point, it applies everywhere. In order to be comfortable opening up, others must demonstrate their own vulnerability. Since most people cover up their wounds others do the same. A broken arm can’t hide the wound but redirection is an effective tool of voiding the deeper layer. At times, it isn’t so much people do not wish to talk insofar as there is no reciprocation. Opening up requires mutuality. If only one side is vulnerable then why do it. Trust be deep in order for the deplorable to honestly say to others that which he desires to say. Everyone has that someone they go to when the going gets tough because that person has either shared their vulnerability with you or has shown their care and tenderness in the past.
Society is a lost art of conversation. People level with the rare impactful stuff. Running around in circles about dubious ideas that affect no one. When emotions do breech they are contested. Ideologies place people at odds and cause strife. So tied to the emotional overhaul that the private is solely one’s own. Afraid to share their opinion and be crucified. Surface conversation hides this by compiling a general narrative that fills the void. An escape that everyone uses. A societal shield that allows belonging without division. A sneaky but ingenuous model of acknowledgement. Belonging to the dubious abstract instead of exclusion of opinion. Comfort is more with the impersonal aspects. Most pass other citizens in the street without knowing who they are. The world is bigger and concentration on family and work take us away from building connections. Many friends are those who gossip with. We discuss a third party to deflect from our own insecurities about ourselves. Only for a select few are our insecurities highlighted. We lament earnestly knowing the response will be well received. Whether praise or criticism, the other is honest and trustworthy. He can be DMCed with. Only those who have gained the faith level can be trusted with sensitive information.
It isn’t that society is at a sad state in its evolution. While locals in the past or even in rural areas may have more knowledge of a situation, it doesn’t mean they are any more trusting with sensitive information. Sometimes more knowledge doesn’t mean deeper knowledge. Though the modern swing and isolation tendencies have concealed even more secrets. Things that weren’t so well known are in the air. Social media forums publicise these scandalous points to discredit. Sometimes it is a big hit and other times it is only reflective of societal concealment. Relatively exploitative to the magnitude societal revelation but considerably negligible to other areas of the world. Though the crux of private divulging is the spirit faith. In a Kierkegaardian sense, it a leap of faith. Yet the leap is mitigated given the consistent nature of reciprocation. If God saves at every turn then faith isn’t so incredible, if anything it would be devilish to not believe. Human trust may begin with a step of hope but it is backed by recognisable mutuality. A desire for unified expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment