This morning I remembered a pet peeve of mine from university days. I think it was provoked by my reading of Pride and Prejudice in English literature classes. The young people depicted in Jane Austen's novels spent much of their time sitting around in drawing-rooms or on picnics with interesting new acquaintances, engaging in discussions on topics ranging from balls and books to military service and politics. I envied their spirited interaction. It made me bemoan what I saw as the lost art of conversation in the twentieth century.
Looking back, I realise that my twenty-something opinion was very narrow. I simply hadn't been exposed to the kind of conversation I craved. Nowadays, with the advent of podcasts and the ability to tune into conversations between people I really relate to, it seems to me that the art of conversation is perhaps at an all-time high. We are exposed through television and radio to expert communicators and we have become more discriminating in regard to people who demand our attention with clever marketing ploys.
Lockdown has added another dimension to our capacity for conversation. The proliferation of contacts via Zoom and other online platforms proves how much we need to talk to each other. However, the talking hasn't all been satisfying. Sometimes it is downright irritating, especially when one person dominates the conversation for the whole time we are together.
I am reminded here of a talk I heard recently about four types of knowledge. After making some notes in my journal, I managed to connect them to the art of conversation. Below is a brief outline of the four types of knowledge, together with some thoughts on how we can apply them when sharing with one another:
There are four types of knowledge; namely:
1. Propositional knowledge, which is about what we believe or deem to be true. For example, I know there are twelve months in a year, and that drinking milk is good for strengthening my bones.
2. Procedural knowledge, which is about how to do things. For example, I know how to work a washing machine and forgive those who harm me.
3. Perspectival knowledge, which is about the experience of other people, animals and inanimate things. For example, I know what it must feel like to be a sailor lost at sea, and a cow weaned from her calf when it is just a few days old.
4. Participatory knowledge, which is about being in a certain place at a certain time. For example, I know what it feels like to be a visually-impaired person walking along a broken pavement in Johannesburg, and what it felt like to visit France at Christmas after my mother died.
The above descriptions are my own and are probably slightly inaccurate but they serve my purpose. Conversation is a way of communicating knowledge to each other in all four categories, and the kind of knowledge we communicate makes for different kinds of conversation.
When we converse using propositional knowledge we exchange ideas, beliefs, facts and figures. This produces lots of information, some of it fascinating, some of it dubious, and some of it downright wrong. When we limit ourselves to conversing around ideology and data, we stand a strong chance of being opposed, and this can lead to conflict if both parties are not skilled in reasoning things out. Using propositional knowledge in conversation can also result in one person ending up looking like an expert while everyone else sits and listens. This often puts a damper on conversation in the long run because people grow tired of lectures.
When we converse using procedural knowledge we discuss ways of doing things. Sometimes one person assumes the role of expert, teaching the others how to perform a task or fix a problem, but there is more room for engagement. Listeners can ask questions or point out flaws in the described method. They can also offer alternative methods, illustrating their descriptions with stories. Procedural knowledge lends itself to humour in storytelling and may lead to banter when listeners spot potential misunderstanding or disaster in the suggested approach. There is less potential for conflict than in conversation which uses propositional knowledge and more likelihood of inspiration and teamwork.
When we converse using perspectival knowledge we exchange thoughts on how things must be for those outside our circle. We project ourselves into the lives of people we've heard about, commenting on their likely motives, relationships, past experiences, future hopes and probable outcomes. This kind of conversation is highly subjective and can quickly degenerate into gossip; however, if we are careful to stay respectful of others it can also be extremely illuminating. We put ourselves in other peoples' shoes and imagine the challenges they face, then ask ourselves what we would do in similar circumstances. Such exploration of our shared humanity can deepen our connection with each other and result in significant breakthroughs in our own self-knowledge.
When we converse using participatory knowledge we exchange stories about where we have been and what we have done, as well as impressions of where we are now and what we are currently involved in. Such conversations can vary widely in their degree of intimacy, from general report-backs on the weekend's events to very personal reflections on our doubts and fears. This is the most nonconfrontational style of conversation because it offers no truths or best practices; neither does it presume to know how others feel and why they behave as they do. Rather, it simply communicates our lived experience. Each person has an equal right to contribute because no-one's experience is more or less important than anyone else's.
For me personally, lockdown has provided a unique opportunity to observe myself communicating. I've noticed the problems that crop up when I try to present what I deem to be true, such as evidence for altered business practices during the pandemic. When I've tried exchanging procedural knowledge in the form of advice or suggestions about how to stay busy, I've been disappointed by my lack of influence. I've had some success with perspectival knowledge, talking about mutual friends and well-known personalities with a view to deepening my appreciation for our common humanity, but I've found that this can only be done with people who are willing to forgo judgement and take a compassionate stance. Of the four types of knowledge, the one most conducive to good conversation is participatory knowledge, the kind that shares personal experience without attempting to persuade, teach or understand anyone else.
Of course, sharing my own experience can be a copout. I can, if I want to, keep things really shallow and not involve myself in anyone else's problems. Yet lockdown has shown me how interconnected we are; how the illness of one person can spread to millions and how a simple act of kindness can lighten many hearts. By sharing my life experiences with others through conversation, I validate their experiences. The mere act of talking about my visit to the shops or my anxiety ahead of a trip gives them permission to talk about what is on their minds. I don't have to convince anyone about the meaning of life, or instruct them on how to invest their money, or reveal to them my insights about the suffering of orphans in South Africa. It is enough to be myself and talk about what I know from my own participation in the world.
To summarise then, this is what I've been thinking about: I've been paying attention to conversations during lockdown and trying to work out which ones are the most satisfying to me. I have observed that sharing my own experiences results in the best feedback from others and the greatest sense of authenticity within myself. Whether this is helpful to anyone else I don't know, but it feels like something worth sharing.