On the right hand side you find a poll about a question I was discussing with a lot of people. I want to know your opinion so please vote, or if your opinion doesnt fit put a comment. In particular I would like to know if also on this issue (under which several people in my aquaintances are suffering) the general opinion diverges from the actual behaviour of people. Of course this is only a very limited approach, but I'm not a sociologist so I have to use what comes my way.
Thanks already for your cooperation!
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
Free Rice
Play, improve your knowledge, and feed starving people.
11 commenti:
Examples:
a) Latvians tend to be too unnecessarily tolerant towards different languages, so it leads to some common absurds that in company of 5, where one person is russian with mediocre latvian knowledge, everybody speaks russian.
b) You sit in mensa, and everybody else talks lithuanian - you're not considered being unsocial since they are obviously you're not expected to take part into conversation :), but your advantage is that you can plug-in in English at any favorable moment, when you hear a topic of interest of yours.
c) You sit in mensa - eating and being totally unsocial, everybody at the table are lithuanians, but they all talk in english, for me to understand, but it's totally unnecessary cos I'm not even listening.
d) We had a LAN party some time last year, there were us 4 latvians, and 1 lithuanian - everybody talked english - more or less ok. Lithunian left, everybody still talked in english, now that's sicko :D
e) You're feel very social, but everybody around you talks the lanaguage you don't understand, so to comfort your needs you have to interrupt those people every single time when they talk their own language - now that's disturbing!
i think b) and e) are just 2 sides of the same coin. if you are not understanding the language how should you plug in in English? you will never know when it would be interesting to you so you are bound to interrupt the other's elite conversation, if you like to or not! and this seriously sucks.
what is missing here is a definition of a group, at least for me. If it is work and everybody needs to be informed, then you got to sync. In unofficial situations the group is usually self-organizing system. Humans, differently than monkeys, ought to give respect and a chance to enter the group, otherwise it is considered impolite.
So let us say the group is normal, i.e. initially the group switches to the other language. Then later if:
1) the group always switches in the presence of the other person -the other person is a high-rank individual and gets proper respek.
2) the group switches only when they want to communicate and involve the other person - no exceptional respek, but some amounts of tolerance.
3) the group never switches unless forced - deliberate elimination, no tolerance, i.e. time to retreat or change behavior.
actually i do not think that any 'normal' group in the definition of always initially switching exist. i think it is rather the attitude of people in it, with which i mean: either they are well mannered enough to nearly always switch or they are being rude and don't give a damn if they exclude someone and communicate with them only when they need them. i admit that this is a very crude distinction, but i think that in the end it boils down to it. otherwise i could not explain why some groups involving a big proportion of friends from the same nationality always consider another one's incapability to converse in one language whereas some others seem to not bother at all when by conversing in their 'secret language' and in this way completely exclude even someone they call a good friend. In this case I'm actually not even speaking for myself, because people i consider my friends are not humiliating me in that way. but i have observed this behaviour also as an outsider in other cases and simply define it as no-go.
as to speak of point 2) and 3) i do not think it is at all polite to put one person at the mercy of some 'elite' group to decide when it is allowed to communicate with them. in this way the individual is squeezed into a nice which leaves only two options: either they just ignore everyone or they are forced to randomly interrupt conversation (which is not pleasant for any of the people involved) since they can not understand the context.
to conclude: i do not expect a big group of people with the same mothertongue to exclusively speak in some relais language like english. however, i do expect people in general to have the courtesy and self discipline to not exclude the people in their environment in terms of language.
A group can perfectly exclude or ignore a person even when speaking the same language. Several times I have witnessed or even experienced situations like that.
There can be many reasons for this, I think the language is almost never a reason to exclude a person. Although it is easier to do that when one doesn't speak the language of the group. It's very easy not to bother to speak English if almost everyone in a group understands your mother tongue.
In many cases I guess it is not a deliberate decision to ignore someone. If you don't like a person you just naturally avoid talking to him, avoid the eye contact.. and very often if asked you could not even tell what are the reasons for this denial. Now is it impolite? I don't know, depends on a situation probably.
Are we obliged to give our attention to everyone who wants it? Definitely not. Is it normal for a person who is ignored to stand up and walk away? Quite so. Unfortunately, sometimes it's impossible to walk away because you work together or you're stuck together for some other reason.
Thanks Valdemaras, you said what I wanted to say, just in normal language :) So if among normal individuals someone is being excluded, it is not that they are lazy to switch, they are not interested in the other person or to be more precise, they dislike the other person and don't want to be friends.
There are maybe people, who want to be friendly with everyone (such people are ok, but they never become friends). Others maybe think life is too short to waste it on talking to some very boring people. As there are billions of people on Earth I suppose it is possible to satisfy from most normal to most pervert communication needs. Attacking any random person/group is not the best way to do it.
look, you two certainly touched up on a lot of issues and said many things that contain some truth. but i feel you missed the point. it is no use to come to a conclusion if one is changing the parameters that set up the frame. it's possible that it was my fault in being not clear enough, so i will try another time.
my parameters were:
a randomly selected group of friends, which by definition already excludes the possibility that the people are generally not interested in that one person in question. nor do they not like him, or disrespect him - as in that case the definition of friend would be a rather strange one.
secondly, my goal was only to analyse how it could possibly happen that this above mentioned group excludes one of its members by (ignoring/not caring/whatever i dont know, this is what i am after) that this one can not understand the language. so i am not talking about random situations when someone is being excluded by something else.
thirdly, the issue of language does not stop at direct communication - it is just more easy to notice. conversely, i have observed a curious thing, namely that inclusion/exclusion on a language level seems also to depend on the indirect communication in the sense that one can understand also what is going on around oneself. i think it works like a map to understand the context of a situation. and actually, i think the metaphor suits well, as without this contextual map it becomes quite difficult to calibrate behaviour accordingly. which in turn could become quite frustrating to the single individual as well as for the group as a whole.
Lastly, i did not intend to attack anyone, but i guess i could not agree with some statements so my respone might not have been the best - sorry about that.
Kaip ne keista, bet is tikruju labai idomi diskusija. Malonu, kad Veronika nusprende iskelti sia tema i viesuma. Sutinku su Valdemaru, kad pats kalbejimas grupes mazumai (arba vienam asmeniui) nesuprantama kalba dar nera grupes/asmens ignoravimas, tai gali buti tik priemone. O kalbant apie Veronikos apklausa, manyciau tai daugiau primena skunda, o ne realu troskima suzinoti kitu zmoniu nuomone. Pats klausimas yra per daug subjektyvus, cia tas pats kaip klausti Ar asmuo turi paskolinti savo draugui pinigu jei jie pazistami savaite. I abu klausimus tiketis kitokio atsakymo nei 'priklauso' gali tik itin naivus zmogus..
O apskritai tai as esu pries kalbine diskriminacija ir nesuprantu kaip zmones gali vartoti sau priimtina kalba kai ju grupej yra nesuprantanciu, Dieve mano kaip tai neteisinga ir amoralu. Ir slykstu netgi.
thank you gytis for setting an excellent example..
Es pilnībā piekrītu Gītim - katrai desai 2 gali.
Now I finally understand what kind of group you meant. But I have never witnessed a case of such exclusion, neither myself feeling excluded or noticing that we have excluded some friend. Anyway, if it happens, and if they are friends, I would tell them with a face full of fear: "can you see me or have I become invisible?", (I would guess friends would say I am invisible, and everybody would laugh) imagining this as a lightweight solution. Anyway if they are friends to be trusted, and I am in a mood "I do not care", I would also wait until they finish their talk (if they chose to speak the other language, let it be) and start/join some other conversation in English. And if I am not good friends with everybody (this is already out of topic, I know), and something funny has been said, I would turn to the person I consider friend and ask what was there so funny, so I can resonate on same joke.
Posta un commento