You Can't Be a Prophet in Your Own Town
Ramon and I were talking about a dichotomous conversation dynamic, based off of my experience trying to convince my roommate to vote in the upcoming Virginia primary election.
In that conversation, I ran up against a few dead ends:
1)
Me: Why are you not interested in voting?
Roommate: I don't think it makes much of a difference to vote for delegates.
M: Well we're actually voting for Governor.
R: Virginia is not my home state.
M: If you had a vote that could make a difference in any state, why wouldn't you use it? You do care about people other than yourself, right? This vote is a privilege that not all american citizens have, but you do!
R: Well, I'm not interested in voting.
M: Why aren't you interested?
R: Because I'm not.
2)
R: I have a different perspective on power than you do, and that's okay.
M: It's not okay for me, if I think your vote could be of benefit to others, then it is my responsibility as a U.S. citizen and within my ethical framework to try to convince you to vote.
R: Well, you can respect my right to choose.
M: Then you can respect my right to bug you
3)
R: I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
M: Why do you think that when I have already brought new information to the table?
R: Because I don't think you're going to convince me.
M: Why not?
R: Because we have gone over everything already. You've said all you are going to say.
Eventually I re-evaluated. I was pushing it, definitely bothering my roommate, and they expressed that I was making them mad. My strategy of conversation was not going to be effective. It was framework vs. framework, and while I was willing to change my framework, my roommate was not interested in convincing me to change my framework, nor their own.
I realized that this discussion had import outside of the immediate issue of voting.
I thought of discussions that I had within the past month about an element of Social Work in my research.
Something to note, about this conversation: I was asking questions that would be inappropriate for asking a stranger. I was asking why someone wasn't interested. I was trying to understand my roommate, who I have been friends with for the majority of my life, more than I was just trying to understand the decision.
The important bit: I was trying to get my roommate to acquiesce to a model similar to mine. This is a teaching strategy. When I teach, I have to be confident (about 90% confident ) in my framework, in order for me to be able to communicate the model like I need to, and in order for the students to develop confidence in it. I'm not forcing them to adopt my model, and if I trust my research and the learning theories of constructivism, my communication is not just espousing my model. I coach students: find how my model is compatible with what they know, work with the incompatibilities, and help them build something that will demonstrate the learning objective. And if students don't trust the process of my teaching, and the conversation and coaching that I do, I am in the position to tell them, "You can find your own way, though I will be skeptical of it". In a way, based on what kind of teacher I am, I am paid for students to trust me and my model. They have a default level of trust in me because I occupy the role of teacher - though of course I also have to earn students further trust because the default isn't enough.
Now apply that to a conversation where I am not assigned that role institutionally. In college, my friends and I would occupy the role of mutual teachers and mutual students to each-other. But this only extends so far. When someone does not have the same background, interest, and they are unwilling to occupy the student role, then it can't be effective to take the teaching role. I cannot expect them to trust the medium of conversation as I have been practicing it. And I can't expect my wielding of my own worldview to be effective at all. I will be bludgeoning them with it, because they resist.
I think some people can adopt the student role more consistently in their lives. This might have something to do with reflective judgement, or with lifelong learning. In a way I think it has something to do with ego or shame - related to the idea that it is uncomfortable to be positioned as wrong at any point, even if that strategy avoids learning. It is related to hesitance to change who one is.
The big take away for me is an alternative strategy for those situations where I cannot be the teacher, and that strategy is to try to adopt the worldview of the other. No longer is my worldview operating like a beacon, but more like a home base to go back to, alone, once I have listened well. Fully immersing myself in the worldview of the other, I truly "work with what I have". I no longer take steps that seem like leaps to the other. I work in a logic that the other understands. I can't do this perfectly of course. I cannot claim to be able to adopt anyone's worldview but my own. Still I can try to simulate another's worldview. I think this is a mode of conversation to aspire to when I can't claim to be a teacher - and possibly even when I am a teacher.
In that conversation, I ran up against a few dead ends:
1)
Me: Why are you not interested in voting?
Roommate: I don't think it makes much of a difference to vote for delegates.
M: Well we're actually voting for Governor.
R: Virginia is not my home state.
M: If you had a vote that could make a difference in any state, why wouldn't you use it? You do care about people other than yourself, right? This vote is a privilege that not all american citizens have, but you do!
R: Well, I'm not interested in voting.
M: Why aren't you interested?
R: Because I'm not.
2)
R: I have a different perspective on power than you do, and that's okay.
M: It's not okay for me, if I think your vote could be of benefit to others, then it is my responsibility as a U.S. citizen and within my ethical framework to try to convince you to vote.
R: Well, you can respect my right to choose.
M: Then you can respect my right to bug you
3)
R: I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
M: Why do you think that when I have already brought new information to the table?
R: Because I don't think you're going to convince me.
M: Why not?
R: Because we have gone over everything already. You've said all you are going to say.
Eventually I re-evaluated. I was pushing it, definitely bothering my roommate, and they expressed that I was making them mad. My strategy of conversation was not going to be effective. It was framework vs. framework, and while I was willing to change my framework, my roommate was not interested in convincing me to change my framework, nor their own.
I realized that this discussion had import outside of the immediate issue of voting.
I thought of discussions that I had within the past month about an element of Social Work in my research.
Something to note, about this conversation: I was asking questions that would be inappropriate for asking a stranger. I was asking why someone wasn't interested. I was trying to understand my roommate, who I have been friends with for the majority of my life, more than I was just trying to understand the decision.
The important bit: I was trying to get my roommate to acquiesce to a model similar to mine. This is a teaching strategy. When I teach, I have to be confident (about 90% confident ) in my framework, in order for me to be able to communicate the model like I need to, and in order for the students to develop confidence in it. I'm not forcing them to adopt my model, and if I trust my research and the learning theories of constructivism, my communication is not just espousing my model. I coach students: find how my model is compatible with what they know, work with the incompatibilities, and help them build something that will demonstrate the learning objective. And if students don't trust the process of my teaching, and the conversation and coaching that I do, I am in the position to tell them, "You can find your own way, though I will be skeptical of it". In a way, based on what kind of teacher I am, I am paid for students to trust me and my model. They have a default level of trust in me because I occupy the role of teacher - though of course I also have to earn students further trust because the default isn't enough.
Now apply that to a conversation where I am not assigned that role institutionally. In college, my friends and I would occupy the role of mutual teachers and mutual students to each-other. But this only extends so far. When someone does not have the same background, interest, and they are unwilling to occupy the student role, then it can't be effective to take the teaching role. I cannot expect them to trust the medium of conversation as I have been practicing it. And I can't expect my wielding of my own worldview to be effective at all. I will be bludgeoning them with it, because they resist.
I think some people can adopt the student role more consistently in their lives. This might have something to do with reflective judgement, or with lifelong learning. In a way I think it has something to do with ego or shame - related to the idea that it is uncomfortable to be positioned as wrong at any point, even if that strategy avoids learning. It is related to hesitance to change who one is.
The big take away for me is an alternative strategy for those situations where I cannot be the teacher, and that strategy is to try to adopt the worldview of the other. No longer is my worldview operating like a beacon, but more like a home base to go back to, alone, once I have listened well. Fully immersing myself in the worldview of the other, I truly "work with what I have". I no longer take steps that seem like leaps to the other. I work in a logic that the other understands. I can't do this perfectly of course. I cannot claim to be able to adopt anyone's worldview but my own. Still I can try to simulate another's worldview. I think this is a mode of conversation to aspire to when I can't claim to be a teacher - and possibly even when I am a teacher.
Comments
Post a Comment