Is Deaf Culture still High Context?

[kyleb]

Berry: I've honestly not had the time to go back to... well, everything in this thread, honestly. I would say that a large majority of what you've written seems, at best, vaguely judgmental, and at worst, flat out wrong (not the entirety, but specific parts). Unfortunately, the issue with responding to everything you've said is that you seem to be using vast generalizations and sweeping statements in addition to clearly loaded and highly ambiguous terms.

So, to clarify a few concepts, I'm wondering if you can do the following for me, since I'm not even certain anymore about what it is we disagree on. (Jillio or anyone else, also feel free to chime in, I'm only picking out Berry since he seems to be making the vast majority of declarative statements.) You said you prefer semantical thinking, so this should be right up your alley.

1) Can you describe what you mean by "high context" and "low context" without using any of the following words or their synonyms? Context, English, Speaking, Hearing, Deaf, ASL, Jargon, Logic, Language, Thinking, Culture, Semantics.

2) Can you also do this without your definition containing implications of superiority or inferiority, or any direct applications which could be viewed as an implication of superiority/inferiority by those who are different?

A link might help:

High Context vs. Low Context Communication

 

[StSapphire]

A link might help:

High Context vs. Low Context Communication

I understand that meaning, but the myriad of other aspects of "contextual communication style" that Berry has been implying does not seem to follow from a mere high/low context.

Additionally, I wanted to actually get his working definition, with the words mentioned taboo'd so that he can explain what is actually meant, so that everyone is on the same page, and so that I can actually evaluate whether the many actions/activities actually flow from (or even are impacted at all) a high/low context communication method, since I remain skeptical.

 

[Berry]

Berry: I've honestly not had the time to go back to... well, everything in this thread, honestly. I would say that a large majority of what you've written seems, at best, vaguely judgmental, and at worst, flat out wrong (not the entirety, but specific parts). Unfortunately, the issue with responding to everything you've said is that you seem to be using vast generalizations and sweeping statements in addition to clearly loaded and highly ambiguous terms.

vaguely judgmental,

I would say "reverse judgmental". In other words I would not say other modes of thinking are superior to logic -- I contend they have equal value. I do not knock logic -- It does have a place, and has had for a long time, probably even before Aristotle came around in spite of his being accredited with inventing it. My problem is with those devotees of logic who feel all other forms of reason are "Obviously inferior."

In fact I was a student of logic up until I read Bertrand Russel's "Our Knowledge of the External World" when I came upon a horrendous sentence that went something like this, "When that class of things we call water meets that class of things we call dry it becomes that class of things we call wet." I don't remember the exact sentence, I read it over 40 years ago.

But my reaction was, "This is ridiculous. Reasonable thinking should not have to be so cumbersome to be effective."

I set out to find other ways of thinking.

I found them.

Lots of them.

and at worst flat out wrong

Not wrong, different.

Starting out with a different premise: Sometimes ending with a different conclusion.

Different conclusions are not of necessity wrong.

Just different.

Unfortunately, the issue with responding to everything you've said is that you seem to be using vast generalizations and sweeping statements in addition to clearly loaded and highly ambiguous terms.

You mean I have not been sticking to "just the facts, Ma'm", as a very Low Context Joe Friday was fond of saying on the old TV show Dragnet.

The value of High Context reasoning is that you bring everything you know into the argument that pertains to the subject. Not just what has been "clearly defined and proven."

In other words I am defending nonlogical reasoning with non logic -- Let us say "Non Aristotelian Logic"

If you wish to be scholarly may I direct you here -> Science and sanity: an introduction ... - Google Books

It was the next book I read on reasoning after Bertrand Russel's.

If you find this as astounding as I did when I first read it in my early 20's your thinking will never be the same.

in addition to clearly loaded and highly ambiguous terms.

That is because it was not written for you. It was written for people who think Nonlogically and have suffered the inevitable abuse nonlogical thinkers tend to receive from those who believe logic is, was, and always will be, the repository of truth in a Low Context society such as the U.S.

I am telling them it is not. I am telling them they do not need to be ashamed of the way they think. They may need to organize their way of thinking, but they do not have to abandon it.

Logic is the provence of philosophers. Most people are not philosophers and they do not need to be.

Philosophers often tend to believe they can arrive at truth through words, written or spoken, and do not like to face the fact words and language(s) are simply maps, and not very good ones. You can find your way from point A to point B on a map, but you CANNOT find "truth" on a map because it is NOT the territory.

You have to get out there and kick reality in the ass to find out if it grunts.

So, to clarify a few concepts, I'm wondering if you can do the following for me, since I'm not even certain anymore about what it is we disagree on.

I am not sure we do disagree.

You believe logic is a valid form of reasoning.

I believe logic is a valid form of reasoning that has proven itself a valuable tool for thinkers since Ancient Greece.

Here is where we appear to disagree:

And that's without invoking anything silly like "scientific knowledge" or "definitions", which is what is done with the "all men are mortal" statements.


..

I really believe it is silly for someone communicating on the web to call “scientific knowledge” silly.

And ...

This is why introductory logic is taught. One of the first things you should be taught is that you can only come to a true conclusion given two important things - fully valid logic, and true premises. If you reject the premises, then of course you can reject the outcome, regardless of its veracity or not. That's why the initial statements are presented as 'givens'. Namely, you can make a valid conclusion if you start with the assumption that the givens are true.



..

To which I replied:

The bolded part is the problem and the point:

This is NOT the only way to come to a true conclusion.

This is the only way you can come to a LOGICALLY true conclusion.

To come to a semantically true conclusion you use different approaches.

To come to an empirically true conclusion you use still different approaches.

To come to a dichotomously true conclusion you use still different approaches.

To come to a systemically true conclusion you use a systems approach.

To come to a mathematically true conclusion you might use Boolean Algebra.

To come to a problematically true conclusion you would use probability theory.

To come to an erratically true conclusion you consult Eris.





Can you see that the part in bold is a learned response and not a thinking response from yourself. It was programmed into you by people who firmly believe, and will not accept, that there are other, equally valid, forms of reasoning out there.

It is not just asking High Context thinkers to suspend their disbelief for future gains; it is insinuating their thought processes are somehow inferior.

If you agree that other forms of reasoning besides logic are also valid then we have NO disagreement.

1)Can you describe what you mean by "high context" and "low context" without using any of the following words or their synonyms? Context, English, Speaking, Hearing, Deaf, ASL, Jargon, Logic, Language, Thinking, Culture, Semantics.

They are key concepts in the field of study of inter and intra communication patterns between groups of people as originally espoused by Edward T. Hall.

To give a few links:

http://ishkbooks.com/hall.pdf

High and Low Context

The Impact of Edward Hall on Cross-Cultural Leadership Communication - by Steve W. Raimo - EmergingLeader.com


proxemic

CSISS Classics - Edward T. Hall:
Proxemic Theory, 1966

http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review24/2.pdf

2)Can you also do this without your definition containing implications of superiority or inferiority, or any direct applications which could be viewed as an implication of superiority/inferiority by those who are different?

I am not aiming this at you specifically as I believe you are simply trying to understand what I am professing here, but in general--

When those who espouse logic and low context thinking quit referring to those of us who espouse semantics and high context thinking as ignorant, obstinate, uninformed, illiterate, ill-informed, uneducated, childish, savage, and backward.....

Then I will quit bothering to say “We have as much right to be here and to think our way as they do.”

 

[Berry]

I understand that meaning, but the myriad of other aspects of "contextual communication style" that Berry has been implying does not seem to follow from a mere high/low context.

Additionally, I wanted to actually get his working definition, with the words mentioned taboo'd so that he can explain what is actually meant, so that everyone is on the same page, and so that I can actually evaluate whether the many actions/activities actually flow from (or even are impacted at all) a high/low context communication method, since I remain skeptical.

There is a lot of study goes into that.

I myself was astounded by the number of things effected by one's degree of High Context / Low Context thinking.

Uses of Time and Space are two I find very fascinating.

Money, Achievement, Respect, -- The list goes on and on.

But I'm only an uneducated halfbreed lad who was a straight "F" student and who can't even claim to be a high school graduate because he never made that far.

So you don't want to learn from me. You want to go to the sources I cited in the post above and start from there.

Happy learning

 

[flip]

This is a very thought provoking thread. As I was thinking about the stuff written about here, it struck me that increasing influence of the internet in a culture will push that culture towards being low context.

It seems to me that the many shared strands of a high context culture requires its members to live physically close to each other, along with restricting the flow of information from other cultures (e.g. the Amish).

The internet pushes in the opposite direction. It allows people to interact from opposite sides of the world and it's not a flow of information, it's a waterfall of information from all different cultures.

So, in answering the original question of this thread, it would appear that through the growth of the internet (and forums like AllDeaf), Deaf culture will inevitably become less high context. I know I may be stating the obvious, but the follow-up question I wanted to ask is "What contextual strands are lost as Deaf culture becomes low(er) context?"

Good questions, but how do you know that the future is low context? I'm just speculating, but another possibility, is that in the post-secular(or whatever we call our times of late postmodernism) era, the benfits of high context thinking will become more visible. If that happens, deaf people will probably start to value their high context skills more than before.

 

[flip]

I have wondered what politics would be like in a High Context world.

First we have to look at leadership.

In a Low Context world leadership is very important. You can't be a leader without an education. The military trains leaders. Colleges teach that "You too can be a leader." It is considered something to strive for until it has been achieved, and once it has been achieved it is bragged about. "We are the leader in producing the leaders of he next generation." Joe is the leader of the sales team. and so on.

Now here is a fact about leadership.

In order to deliberately become a leader you MUST do those things required of a leader and NEVER do those things that will jeopardize your future chances. You limit and curtail your own actions to those that are acceptable to your potential followers. If you are going to grow up to be president you better not be caught kissing Nikki the future Go-Go dancer in the sixth grade. Nor do you want to hang out with Smokey the future stoner in the seventh grade.

In a High Context world modeling yourself into something you are not in order to achieve any goal does not make sense. In fact while it is an extremely sane thing to do in a Low Context world, to a High Context person it appears more like insanity.

Politics in the U.S. by its very nature has to be extremely Low Context simply because it is dominated by lawyers -- Members of the Lowest Context profession in the world.

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were modeled after the ideas of certain Native American Tribes. If I were to study the subject I think I would start there.

Thanks for the suggestion about the book, will do some reading this summer.

The political debate between two US president candinates on a TV show... say no more.

Didn't knew about US consitution modeled after natives. That was quite interesting to me as an european. Found a link with some info on this if anyone else want to read a bit more,
The United States Constitution: The Native American Source for the Declaration and the Constitution

 

[Berry]

The maximum effect of Low Context thinking and politics in America came to me one day many years ago. A commentator, female, I'm thinking Barbara Walters but am not certain, was interviewing a political candidate. It may have been a presidential candidate but I am not sure of that either.

What I do remember, and what sent me into gales of laughter so hard I could not hear his answer even though I tried.

She turned to him and said, "We have thirty seconds left. Tell us what you will do if you are elected."

 

[Berry]

Good questions, but how do you know that the future is low context? I'm just speculating, but another possibility, is that in the post-secular(or whatever we call our times of late postmodernism) era, the benfits of high context thinking will become more visible. If that happens, deaf people will probably start to value their high context skills more than before.

Attitudes do change.

And there is hope. When I was very young the attitude toward the Native American Indians was, "The only good injun was a dead injun." I was told openly that I was "A product of miscegenation, and there used to be laws against such things," and that "Had my mother been a decent woman she would have killed herself rather than have carnal knowledge with a savage," and failing that she "Should have aborted any issue." (Meaning me, the child.)

Then one day I looked around and people were talking about "The wise Native American Indians who lived in harmony with nature." and my friend has a bumper sticker that reads, "I was an Indian before it was 'cool'."

So maybe somewhere in the future there will be another me saying, "Hey, Low Context people can be pretty good people too."

 

[dogmom]

I've seen that bumper sticker around.

interesting how attitudes take such a wide turn, either one way or the other..both far sides have their demons....

balance, like low context thought, can be pretty cool too.

 

[jillio]

There is a lot of study goes into that.

I myself was astounded by the number of things effected by one's degree of High Context / Low Context thinking.

Uses of Time and Space are two I find very fascinating.

Money, Achievement, Respect, -- The list goes on and on.

But I'm only an uneducated halfbreed lad who was a straight "F" student and who can't even claim to be a high school graduate because he never made that far.

So you don't want to learn from me. You want to go to the sources I cited in the post above and start from there.

Happy learning

And I am a multiethnic girl with a doctorate...I still want to learn from you. And do on a consistent basis.

 

[KristinaB]

This thread has totally gone over my head. Ah well.

 

[jillio]

This thread has totally gone over my head. Ah well.

I bet you are just tired. I don't see anything here above your level of understanding.

 

[Berry]

I haven't even figured out which is the good one.

I was thinking about this while at work today.

Neither one taken to the max is good.

Extremely low context culture tends to inspire selfishness, greed, and put the lowest possible rating on humanity and human feelings. Logic comes from the Greeks who at the time believed the brain to be the highest organ of thought and that all emotions should be removed from the equation. Compare the modern concept of "professionalism" with how a robot would act in the same situation.

I dated a very low context woman once. She was intelligent, pretty, and had an engaging sense of humor.

I am the kind of guy who makes friends with everyone every where he goes. People like me, I like them, and almost everyone I deal with over time becomes a friend of mine.

On our last date she explained this to me on our way out of the restaurant: "Waitresses are there to perform a function. They bring you food and refill your coffee cup. They are not there to be your friend and nobody gives a damn if her cat tries to climb inside her refrigerator or not."

On the other hand extremely High Context cultures tend to become bogged down in formalities, rituals, and traditions. The most extreme example of this is probably Imperial China. Toward the end the entire society was so bogged down in formalities, rituals, and traditions, that no one, not the lowest ranking peasant nor the Emperor himself had the ability or the right to initiate any changes -- No matter how necessary.

They had the manpower, they had the intelligence, they had gunpowder: It is possible a few Low Context leaders could have saved Ancient China from the West. How ignoble to be defeated by the guns that were made possible because of the gunpowder the Chinese invented.

Read "The Last Empress of China" for a rather shocking, and slightly different glimpse of history.

What our world needs is not an "Either / Or" but a balanced view and a tolerant attitude.

 

[sallylou]

In public, people are constantly telling me their life stories. I guess that I look like a safe mom and I'm a good listener. You wouldn't believe how many people are just desperate to be heard. I can usually find a way to connect with people based on my own experiences. Whatever kind of society we have, it needs simple human connection. The Dali Lama writes about this in his book The Art of Happiness. It's a good book.

 

[Berry]

And I am a multiethnic girl with a doctorate...I still want to learn from you. And do on a consistent basis.

I am at a loss for words.

 

[Berry]

In public, people are constantly telling me their life stories. I guess that I look like a safe mom and I'm a good listener. You wouldn't believe how many people are just desperate to be heard. I can usually find a way to connect with people based on my own experiences. Whatever kind of society we have, it needs simple human connection. The Dali Lama writes about this in his book The Art of Happiness. It's a good book.

You have one of the basic qualifications for becoming a writer.

Have you thought of doing so?

 

[sallylou]

Berry, I'm a good writer. I'm an attorney by training. A lot of writing. Maybe I'll get some stories down on paper one day. I'm getting more breathing room now that my youngest child is more independent.

I agree that one of the most important qualifications for a good writer is understanding how people tick. It's the reason that authors like Shakespeare and Jane Austin stand the test of time.

 

[jillio]

Berry, I'm a good writer. I'm an attorney by training. A lot of writing. Maybe I'll get some stories down on paper one day. I'm getting more breathing room now that my youngest child is more independent.

I agree that one of the most important qualifications for a good writer is understanding how people tick. It's the reason that authors like Shakespeare and Jane Austin stand the test of time.

The very best writers, IMO, are those that develop their characters from a psychological, behavioral perspective. They become 3 dimensional as you read.

 

[sallylou]

I love how Jane Austen reveals her characters from their conversations. JK Rowling does the same thing. I feel like the people are real and that I know them. Every single character has a back story.

 

[jillio]

I love how Jane Austen reveals her characters from their conversations. JK Rowling does the same thing. I feel like the people are real and that I know them. Every single character has a back story.

Agreed. Both are two of my favs.