Setting/context
phrasing
Major ideas in interview:
Suddenness of the topic switch (example of the boy’s convo)
calls it jarring, unrelated, and had nothing to do with.
Another thing is who is directing the conversation and how
it is done. In the boy example she calls it being “talked to” wheras with the
muslim friend she calls it “having discussions”. With the muslim girl, neither
one of them is specifically directing the conversation, it is a natural flow
with give and take.
Another thing is natural. To her, natural is expanded on
when she says its about answering questions and giving info for knowledge. She
also references not “trying to convert me” here, within the context of being
natural. Again, related to the conversation being directed. I suppose if its
being directed by the religious person that’s when they’re ‘triyng to convert’
you.
Another thing is having a relationship in advance. The
muslim girl is called a “close friend”, H adds that strong acquaintance would
be a good level to start at, but I get the feeling that people feel that the
closer the relationship, the more normal it is to talk abt religion. The convo
handbook also says to avoid religion as a topic of conversation, assumably for
even friends and definitely acquaintences and strangers.
Another thing is context. She says her response to the convo
will depend on the context. I’m assuming that the level of awkwardness, leading
to their response, is also dependent on context. Being able to get out of the
conversation smoothly (like at a table or at the door) is important to the
comfort level. Being trapped, like she was at the lunch table, makes it more
uncomfortable. (this kind of entrapment is more social than physical.. with
friends or acquanitences, we may feel more pressure to stay and listen. At an
open table in the UC it is easier to just walk away. Some people are kinder
than others and will feel more social pressure about staying to be polite, some
people have an easier time brushing others off)
Another thing is the way the conversation is initiated. She
mentions “inflammatory comments” as a bad way to start, one that will make her
angry or less polite. The other thing is how the convo is carried out. She
admits that most of the time it is well-meaning. Well meaning is not the same
as unawkward. She expands later on the guy by saying “he was always kind in his
approach” when I ask her why it is still awkward even with kindness, she notes
the persistence and the fact that he continued even when she was giving social
cues that she wasn’t interested.
I think that accepting these social cues is a way of
respecting nonbelievers. They always talk about wanting to be respected in
their beliefs, one way of exhibiting that respect is by taking their no for a
no.
Another thing is the prhasing. The boy started off with
“have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?” I think it’s a
mouthful to use. Understanding it as I do, I
don’t know why you would use the entire phrase on someone. It is
unnecessary to phrase it in exactly this way, it is lengthy, and it is most
likely not going to be understood. H explains 2 reasons why it might make you
uncomfortable (even though I didn’t directly ask her this). The first is that
itt makes assumptions about the recipient, assumes that they’ll understand,
assumes that they’ll know how to answer, assumes that they want to have this
type of conversation. The second reason it might make you uncomfortable is that
it “kind of cages you”. That phrase forces you to have a conversation with him.
There is not an easy way out. (again, related to the idea of context and social
pressure) Being forced to enter the conversation. She adds that that phrsing
makes her assume that he’s from a particular branch of Christianity that was
extra concerned with “saving souls” or conversion.
Another thing was the idea of not knowing why he kept
coming. It’s related to the persisitance thing, and an idea on my part of why
persisitance makes people uncomfortable is that we are uncomfortable when we don’t know what people
want. She couldn’t figure out why he
kept trying, and it made the situation uncomfortable. We don’t like when we
don’t know what others think about us or
what something’s relation is to us. For H, she didn’t know why this guy saw
hope in talking to her, or what connection he (and others) made which made them
think that they should try talking to her. (something she and others from the
open conversation mentioned, not knowing why they were singled out to get
talked to. That makes them feel uncomfortable.)
Other notes:
She sums it up with the quote on page 5 when I ask about
other awkward conversations and she says [8:57:21 PM] H: Yes, I think so. Most
of the conversations that I've had about religion that I've felt were awkward
were all conversations that felt as though they were trying to convert me, and
they were almost always conversations that had little or nothing to do with the
setting or what was going on in the conversation prior to them offering the
topic.
Narrows it down to 3 factors: felt they were trying to
convert me (related to being directed and being intentional), were out of
context, and broke rules of normal convo by bringing up a random topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment