Lost in Translation Part 1
I have come to have a renewed appreciation for the “glass ceiling” that limits relationships in the blogosphere. Yes, we can exchange ideas, beliefs, and opinions with many to spare, yet it is a different story when we cannot be so personally invested in relationship. Because of the limits to personal interaction, there is a limit to shared experience as well. And while we exchange “ideas,” we do so in a sterile environment, bereft of the richness and depth of experience each of us has to offer.
A friend of mine was recently talking about how she was able to put 8 years of learning French to use at work. Her employer often deals with another company in Canada. While they normally have an English option, they received an email that was entirely in French, so her co-workers called her over. She sat down and started reading the email, some of it out loud. She explained that for some reason, this company couldn’t respond at this time, they weren’t there anymore, etc. She was excited that she could understand what they were writing and hadn’t lost many of her hard-earned skills.
Towards the bottom she realized that it was an automatic “out of office reply” sent by the system.
It was pretty funny as she told it, but she remarked about how she would have never understood that’s what it was, had she not known several key aspects of the situation, such as:
- It was an email
- She is an administrator familiar with automatic messages
- The company normally provides an English alternative
She realized that an accurate translation would have been impossible if she didn’t know the context in which it was written. She may have understood the words themselves, but would not have understood their full or intended meaning.
Almost instantly, I recognized 2 strong parallels, specifically in reference to blogging:
- Bloggers hardly know each others’ contexts (experience, perspective, etc.), and thus need to give a lot of grace and effort in understanding, as well as refrain from quick judgment.
- The Christian faith cannot be fully communicated or understood in such a personally sterile environment.
This post is far more concerned with #1, but I intend to follow up with a second post addressing #2. I think that we (at COAS, as well as bloggers as a whole) often mistakenly assume that we are communicating clearly and effectively in a way that is generally relevant for all experiences and perspectives. I often criticize “Fundie” Christians who commit the crime of “drive-by tracting” blogs where people are just asking honest questions (Remember: Truth without love is abuse!).
But am I listening any more, or judging any less, when I respond in a way that does not sufficiently weigh the experience of those I am responding to? Can I truly claim to know the full context of an issue without intimately knowing the person involved? Don’t get me wrong, I can certainly disagree and hold to opposing convictions, yet I think the limitations blogging has in personal interaction removes some of the accountability and responsibility that personal relationship requires so fundamentally.
I know my friend pretty well, as I see her almost every week. I have another friend that I don’t see as often, who was also involved in this conversation. Yet, I realized that one hour of face-to-face interaction with him was more enlightening than a multitude of disembodied comments exchanged while blogging every week. I have, in a sense, “underestimated” him; not in a qualitative sense, but certainly in an appreciative sense.
So, I guess the bottom line is: listening is good.
… Real helpful, aren’t I? Isn’t this just the kind of wisdom you were hoping to find on here?
While I realize how obvious this may be, I do not mean to make light of it either. I have been blessed with a (slightly) better understanding of the contextual elements in communication as a whole, but specifically how limiting blogging can be to that end.
But what do you all think? Is it possible to get around this or compensate in some way? Should blogging even be about relating to others on a personal level? Or is the goal solely the objective exchange of information and ideas? How do you minimize the limitations of impersonal communication? Is “impersonal communication” an oxymoron?
Next week, I will post an article addressing realization #2: That the Christian faith cannot be fully communicated or understood in a personally sterile environment like the blogosphere.
Posts
Excellent thoughts. That example of the French e-mail; very telling.
Although a very real challenge and conducive for disaster among those who choose not to be very thoughtful, I don’t know if this situation is all that new or all that dismaying.
I think of CS Lewis. Much of his work is culled from his radio broadcasts. He obviously could not ‘know’ his audience but nevertheless he was able to convey his message very thoughtfully and very effectively. What helped him with this, I think, is that he probably gaged his comments against the social examples set by Christ. We may still be misunderstood, but if we follow this example, we will be less likely to inflame.
Brad, the best parts are when bloggers meet and do the cross-over into real-life. You’re right, it’s a glass ceiling. Many of the bloggers I read never explain the background of their circumstance and so it’s easy to jump to conclusions (especially trans-atlantic and cross-culture). Many people used to think I must work for a church (how?) so I now have a bit more of my background on the blog. As with any relationship, it takes time to build. You learn what frustrates, what makes them happy, what they are doing and where they are going, as you just read regularly. I don’t know many of the guys, but you read things from people that you would just like to meet eventually, just to discuss life. It’s been good reading your blog, I look forward to hearing more of your story.
We try to breach these exact (seemingly) insuperable boundaries and walls with theatre! (proviso: anyone who is actually committed to the art does so; people interested in the limelight or in simple spectacle, not so much)
I think any communicative art form begins with you (the blogger, the performer, the interpreter) taking something you see/hear/feel/touch/know/taste and relating it through some medium toward others (the listener, the reader, the viewer, the taster, the learner). Maybe this is pretty basic, but when I hit quandaries like the one you are confronting, it helps me to think of the basic process.
So, you relate a thing, and the other group perceives/receives it, they unravel it, they process it, then they (usually) send something back your way. In theatre it can be — in the case of successful communication — applause, cheering, silence, laughter, gasping, or even just conversing back (in the case of less conventional theatre). and sometimes with theatre you hit a golden vein: you strike total artistic crude oil. The thing you have said was so perfect for this audience, for this moment, for this place, for everything, and those moments occur maybe once per run of a show. More if the group is especially brilliant.
I suppose I’m saying all that because I think blogging is really similar to the type of theatre my company does. We basically do theatrical blogging: intensely personal, journalistic, informative shows that are generated from an honest, earnest sense to connect with others.
In my theatre community, we try to follow a simple rule (as stated by Finley Peter Dunne in his definition of newspapers: comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
I think as long as you are earnestly trying to communicate (REALLY communicate; two-ways; ready to accept that you may be wrong; that the communication may go an unexpected way), and you are communicating something that matters to you, and you are doing it in a way that is presented well (meaning you are actually good at what you do), then it is a very worthwhile endeavor.