Is there a difference between a "conversation" and a "discussion"?This is a question I've been kicking around lately, particularly as it relates to my work at a Christian university.
I've wrestled with this question in the wake of the SoulForce visit to ACU. (SoulForce is a LGBT advocacy group.) After the SoulForce visit I gathered with some students, faculty and administrators to discuss reactions to the visit. During that discussion some students expressed some frustration with how the various "conversations" with SoulForce were handled.
My contribution on this subject was an attempt to make a distinction between "conversations" and "discussions." My point was that our campus tends to overplay the "conversation" frame. Everything is framed as a "conversation" on our campus. For instance, we said we invited SoulForce onto campus to have a "conversation" with them and that we remain keen to keep these "conversations" going on campus in the wake of their visit. Because these "conversations" are important. And so on.
My argument was that the word "conversation" has thicker connotations than simply "good mannered people talking." And it's these connotations that are causing trust problems and hard feelings between the students and the university.
Specifically, when we use the frame "conversation" we suggest that we go into the exchange with some degree of openness to change. Conversations have the potential for persuasion. Conversation entails risk. The Latin root of the word conversation is conversatio and it is the same root in the word conversion. The Latin conversatio literally means "to turn around/about." That is, when we enter a conversation we have some expectation that a "conversion" might take place. You might convert me, or I might convert you. That's the dynamic of a conversation.
The point is, when we deploy the frame "conversation" we activate an expectation in the minds of the students that the dialogue we are about to engage in has the potential for conversion. That both parties are placing some things at risk and are expressing an openness to change.
The trouble is, on some issues the University simply isn't willing or able to change. At least not at this time. So when we invite students to talk with us about these issues are we really, then, "having a conversation"? We're certainly talking to each other and listening respectfully. But are we "in conversation"?
My argument was, no, we're not. And this is the source of the hurt feelings between the students and the university. By deploying the frame "conversation" we create the impression of risk, potential for change, for conversion. We're saying to the students that you might change our minds on this topic. But when the "conversation" occurs the students face a brick wall. They quickly find out that the university isn't going to budge on this particular issue. So the students feel cheated and lied to. They thought they were getting one thing--a conversation--and instead got something very different, a pseudoconversation where students were listened to while they vented, but where nothing was really ever at risk. So the students walk away feeling psychologically managed and manipulated ("They just let us complain and vent so we'll feel listened to and then go away.").
Now let me be clear. All institutions have to have some non-negotiables that define its core identity and commitments. This is perfectly healthy and legitimate. So the problem isn't with these non-negotiables. The problem comes when we suggest we can have "conversations" about these non-negotiables. Because some things you just can't have conversations about. Yes, you can discuss or talk or vent or explain around these non-negotiables, but you can't really have a true conversation about them. To do so would be to put the non-negotiables on the table and make them open for negotiation, placing them at risk. In short, at any given time in the life of an institution there will be both non-negotiables and negotibles. Things we can have a conversation about and things that we can only discuss (where I explain more than I change). The trouble with overusing the frame "conversation" is that we blur this distinction in the minds of students. We make it seem that certain things are up for negotiation when they really aren't. And when students realize this in the midst of these "conversations" they feel lied to and cheated. They thought they were getting one thing and got something very different.
I know why we use the frame "conversation" so much. It conjures up notions of sharing, civility, listening, perspective taking, and hospitality. Beyond notions of "conversion" the Latin roots of conversation also mean "to live with." Which is a perfect word for what happens on a college campus: We live with each other. So this is a very good word for most of what we do at the university. But living with each other implies a kind of egalitarianism that suggests that we might also change each other. Or at least be open to that change. And it's at that point where the ideal of the university--scholars living together in free discourse--runs up against the institutional reality of the university, where some things, like it or not, aren't really open for conversation.
And that's okay, we just need to be clear about that up front and be alerted to the hopes we dash when our "conversations" turn out to be something very different.
No comments:
Post a Comment