Blog 29 Final Paper

What Religious Conversations Show about    Awkwardness

Alison DiGiacomo

Introduction of Purposes and Terms

Almost everyone can describe an experience they have had when a conversation about religion came up unexpectedly. One of the most common ways this experience is characterized is awkward. What makes this situation so awkward? Are these conversations doomed to be forever labeled as such, or are there preventable factors that can be addressed? To discover these answers, I chose to research the causes of awkwardness in religious conversation. Not only does this discussion offer valuable insight about the causes of awkwardness in general, but it would also be useful in considering how to make a conversation (about religion or otherwise) function more naturally and effectively.

Due to their surrounding controversies, religious conversations are more inclined toward inducing tension and discomfort. Therefore, they function well as an example of conversation in general because they allow for a heightened level of awareness and sensitivity to the factors for successful conversation. Through researching awkwardness in religious conversations, it becomes possible to pull apart communication into more basic elements. This allows us to be able to study the underlying presumptions that are so much a part of conversation. Moreover, a discussion of awkwardness brings to light the emotional side of discourse. Much of what we hear and experience in a conversation is affected by our feelings. Our feelings, in turn, are manipulated both prior to and during the conversation based on the cues received from the other person and other factors inherent in the conversation itself. A discussion of religious conversation allow us to analyze this emotional factor and consider how it is caused, what its effects might be, and how it might be prevented or adjusted in conversation.

For the purposes of this paper, a religious conversation is any which is directed by the believer of a religion and focuses on the topic of religion. Because Christianity is the faith I am most familiar with, I found it easiest to reference Christian-based religious discourse in my research. Most commonly, awkward religious conversations are those involving proselytization, or what a Christian might calling sharing one’s faith. Since the purpose of conversations vary greatly, and often change in action, my discussion is not intended to be limited to only rhetorically inclined conversation. Although coercion and insensitivity are frequently topics which arise when discussing this topic, and well worth discussion, this paper is intended to focus strictly on the concept of awkwardness as felt by the recipient of the conversation. However, as will be disclosed, those factors which guide an unawkward conversation are by nature those which guide one of respect and sensitivity.

For my purposes, awkwardness is considered to be the feeling of tension one has in a situation of discomfort. It is an internal feeling usually developed in a social context when something unpleasant or unexpected happens. As opposed to offense, it is not necessarily accompanied by a feeling of anger. Awkwardness is a problem for people not only because it creates temporary discomfort, but also because it makes them less likely to enter into that type of situation again.

How the Research Was Done

In order to understand the many possible causes of awkwardness, I chose to do research of available literature as well as conduct an interview. As it happens, Christian literature is particularly lacking when it comes to this topic. Although plenty of guides consider how to share one’s faith, little is said from the perspective of the recipient or about the feeling of awkwardness. The one article I reviewed from a Christian writer was a Master’s thesis intended to discuss Christian rhetoric as a whole. Beyond this, secular sources were just as useful. I looked into conversational etiquette guides to get an idea of what people generally consider normal and abnormal moves in a conversation.

I also performed an interview with hopes of gaining a more personal version of the causes of awkwardness, and possibly some examples of real-life incidences. It was important to me that the subject be someone with first-hand experience on the “receiving” end of such a conversation. When I proposed my need for this interview to a group of friends, H immediately offered to participate. I presumed, correctly, that this was because she had a particular experience in mind that she wanted to share. Another factor which made H a good candidate was that she considers herself agnostic, so she does not have a commitment to any religion in particular, and would therefore have a heightened awareness to these conversations. The interview was conducted through Skype chat on a Friday evening and lasted a little over an hour. Afterwards, I analyzed the interview through discourse analysis to draw out the meanings. I wanted to be able to pull out the factors that H referenced both through what she said directly and indirectly.

What Other Writings Show

I began my research with an article by Benjamin Cline titled “Reaching Others: The Rhetoric of Proselytizing and Community of a Christian Campus Organization”. This article describes a Christian college group and discusses how its outreach methods are a type of rhetoric. It next discusses how proselytizing can be done with sensitivity. Using another researcher’s discussion of Rhetorical sensitivity, Cline develops a list of seven criteria for measuring a sensitive Christian rhetoric. These criteria, although intended for sensitivity, work well as a way to discover potential causes of awkwardness.

The first guideline is what Cline calls “sensitivity to role playing”. “The sensitive proselytizer is sensitive to the role that religious rhetors are playing within a particular scene…and recognizes there are times not to play that role” (29).  What this means is that a Christian, for example, should understand that there are times and settings which are appropriate for sharing his/her faith. In other words, it is about developing awareness to context. People do not expect to be approached about religion at any random time. This is why a sudden shift in conversation topic or an approach from a stranger with a tract may feel more like an ambush than a natural conversation.

A second cause of discomfort in conversations is what Cline refers to as using “in-group jargon”. Using specialized lingo with someone who doesn’t understand it will make them feel uncomfortable because they may not know exactly what is meant, or how to respond appropriately. Furthermore, use of an unexpected word or phrase can serve as a marker that the conversation is about to change to a weird subject, and prepares the person to feel awkward.  Christianity, as a discourse community, certainly has its own specialized terminology. For whatever reason, Christians seem to be especially prone to using this insider language with the outside world, presuming grandly that everyone is familiar with it. This, when added to the fact that Christian jargon tends to be downright dorky, makes for the perfect cause of awkwardness in conversation.

The Cline article brings to light particular expectations people have for “normal conversations”. These include that the conversation’s topic and purpose will: fit the setting it takes place in, evolve through a mutual give and take process, and use language that all members are familiar with. Going outside of peoples’ expectations without thinking of how it will make them feel is part of what makes it insensitive, by Cline’s definition. These expectations are in part governed by everyday social rules, the same unspoken standards that we measure “good” and “bad” conversations against every day. In order pin down these social guidelines, I looked into several short blogs about conversational etiquette. I thought these would be helpful because an awkward-free religious conversation must first and foremost be an awkward-free conversation in general.

The article “The Art of Conversation” explains some of the major Do’s and Don’ts for a “a laid-back, casual manner that sets people immediately at ease” (McKay). Its suggestions include that one should tailor the conversation to the listener, which means sticking to topics everyone can and wants to interact about. The obvious guideline which topped every one of the etiquette guides was listening well. Listening conveys respect and interest in your conversation partner. Moreover, it gives you valuable feedback to decide what the other person may or may not want to talk about. This is critical in the setting of a religious conversation, for if the person guiding the conversation is listening well, they should be able to take cues from the other person on whether or not they’re interested.

Another standard social rule the “The Art of Conversation” mentions is that of taking your turn. The article states “A conversation is a group project”. It seems almost obvious to say that a good conversation will involve give and take, leading to a natural pacing of topics. Although the article doesn’t use the term context or role-playing, this is related to Cline’s guideline in the sense that interrupting the “flow” of the conversation to bring up something off-topic is outside of the context that was already established. The new topic is outside of the expectations that all talk has created thus far. Henrik Edberg references this idea in his blog post on common conversational mistakes. He says, “No one will be that impressed if you “win” every conversation”. It is considered impolite to hijack a conversation for one’s personal motivation. The moves which surround such hijacking then, naturally create a sense of uneasiness in the recipient. In a religious conversation, such a shift would create even more suspicion because it could lead the recipient to believe (perhaps correctly so) that the other person is focused on the personal agenda of conversion.

What the Interview Showed

            The interview with H went very well and offered a lot of potential insights on the causes of awkwardness. Different sections of her interview can be used to draw out some of the factors that she referenced.

After discussing her religious background a bit, I asked H to tell me more about her experiences with religious conversations. Immediately our conversation picked up in speed, and she related the following story of an awkward conversation. Right after, without my prompting, she offered a cross comparison of conversations she’s had with a friend.

H: Sure. The experience that immediately pops into my head was when I was in my first year of undergrad. I was on campus and sitting in the lunch room with a friend and a guy who I had seen around my high school. We were sitting around the table talking about something unrelated when he began talking about his religion to the two of us. It was very jarring because it had nothing to do with what we were talking about at that time.

A: Yeah that'd be weird

H: I've also had some discussions about religion with a close friend of mine (she is Muslim) and she often shares some information about her religion with me when the conversation calls for it or I happen to ask.

A: Oh ok. Yeah those are two pretty different things

A: With the muslim girl does it seem more natural?

H: Definitely. Even during our first conversation about her religion, it was about answering questions and giving information for knowledge. I didn't get the impression she was trying to convert me.

H references relationship as one factor that can affect awkwardness in a conversation. One of the first indications of why the second experience was not awkward is given in how H identifies each person. The boy is called “a guy I had seen around” where the girl is more personally referred to as “a close friend of mine”. The fact that she is Muslim is added in parenthesis almost as an afterthought. This makes it clear that her friendship is the primary quality in question, not her religion. When asked directly later in the interview, she states “Of course, we also had a relationship, so it definitely took away awkwardness”. We even discussed the potential level of relationship needed to make such a conversation appropriate, and she suggested “strong acquaintance would be a good starting point”.

H makes it clear that the first experience was uncomfortable by characterizing it as “very jarring”. This factor, of how the topic of religion came up, became one of the most important factors H referred to throughout her interview. Her words here communicate how unprepared she was for the topic switch by clarifying that they had been talking about “something unrelated” previously and that what he brought up “had nothing to do with” the old topic. She even repeats  this idea again in her second example, stating that she and her friend only talk about religion “when the conversation calls for it or I happen to ask”. The fact that she mentions this factor so many times within this brief account makes it clear how important it is to her.

When I asked H about memorable phrases from religious conversations, her answer was again immediate and came straight from the same aforementioned example.

H: Ah, yeah. The one that immediately comes to mind is "have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?"

After some shared laughter and commenting on how awkward this was…

A: what about it makes it weird, do you think?

A: did you even know what he meant?

H: Well, to start it makes some assumptions about you, I think. I remembered thinking "is there a specific reason why you would decide to start talking to me about this unprompted?" It also kind of cages you. No matter how you answer, you're being forced to enter the conversation with him

H clarifies why and how the phrasing played a part in an awkward feeling. She specifies that it “makes assumptions about you” which I take to mean it presumes that you understand the phrase and are familiar with the religious discourse group it comes from. She also shows here that the phrasing made her wonder what had made him bring it up, again connecting her to the idea of how the conversation was initiated. Somehow, his phrasing brought to light that she did not know what his intention was, and this in turn created discomfort.  She also pointed out an aspect of the phrasing that I hadn’t specifically thought of before, which is that it “cages you”. I had to agree that when a conversation is started with a phrase like this, the recipient has no way of getting around a religious conversation. It has to be understood that not everyone may want to have a religious conversation, so the set up to that topic should allow for them to “get out” and send it in another direction if they choose.

Although H was not able to give any other specific phrases that she thought of as awkward, she did add that “when the tone and language gets preachy it gets problematic. When I'm being told about my soul, or that I should or need to do something (be it attend a church or read literature)”. I was glad to see that she agreed that overall language use was a factor in how awkward a conversation would feel. Generally, “preachy” sounding language has a negative connotation., perhaps because it is associated with those who are overly focused on inducing guilt or gaining converts through the religious conversation.  Also, as H mentions, being told to “do” something can be annoying. She also noted that a good religious conversation is “more passive and has ownership. Phrases like "I believe" or "In my religion/church" tend to be said”.  Perhaps this makes the conversation less awkward because such qualifiers would help make it clear that the initiator is not suggesting that their religion should belong to the other person. It also leaves open the fact that the other person might have a different opinion, and so does not set up a conflict.

After our discussion of phrasing, H brought it back to her earlier example.

H: To kind of expand this experience even though it's sort of off the question, when he saw me on campus at future times he would sometimes try to give me things to read and try to make me promise to read them. They were usually about Jesus

A: oh man

A: that must have been weird to have him recognize you

A: I wonder why he kept going like that

H: It was less weird and more awkward. He was always kind in his approach, but he just would not let up. And again, I never gave him any information on me, so I couldn't figure out why he kept trying.

I realized that there was something of a conflict here, since she mentioned that he was “kind in his approach”. So I asked what specifically was making these encounters awkward.

 H: the persistance and the continual attempt to engage me when it should have been really clear (in a polite way) that I wasn't interested in talking with him about it

The factor that H is identifying is persistence. The guy from her high school continued to approach her and attempt to have a religious conversation even when it “should have been really clear” that she wasn’t interested. Based on the guidelines of the conversation etiquette articles, his persistence could be blamed on a lack of social skill and awareness. It is clear that H was giving off the normal cues for “I’m not interested”, yet he was either ignorant of them or intentionally ignoring them. This section also shows that even though the recipient understands that the person is well-meaning, the situation can still feel awkward. Ease in conversation is not necessarily dependent on a mutual feeling of goodwill, it needs to be established through the actual moves of the conversation.

A final thing we can note from this section of dialogue is that confusion is an integral part of awkwardness. H felt uncomfortable because she “couldn’t figure out why he kept trying”. We often have a sense of uneasiness when we don’t understand people’s intention in a topic, or what that topic’s connection is to us. Awkwardness is one of the feelings we develop when trying to figure these things out. Letting a natural flow of conversation lead into these topics would help avoid this problem because there would be contextual language for why that topic was coming up.

Discussion of Results and Closing Thoughts

Through the first section of dialogue, H identified two features which I feel can be classified as part of Cline’s idea of role-playing, or context. These are relationship and how the topic comes up. Relationship is a key factor to how conversations work because people do not generally share any information with anyone. Sensitive topics are typically reserved for discussion with closer relationships, perhaps because it is here it can be safely assumed you are not being judged. So, when a conversation like religion comes up between acquaintances it is, in a sense, out of an appropriate context.

Still, it occasionally happens that near-strangers end up talking about deep topics with each other (such as two people seated next to each other on public transportation). What makes this occurrence natural hinges on the second feature that H pointed out. The flow of a conversation should lead to that that topic naturally; it cannot be forced there by either member. H’s repeated mention of this emphasized just how important this factor is. The fact that the guy in her example moved suddenly to that topic made her nervous, surprised, and confused. These are not comfortable feelings and are not conducive to a successful conversation.

I had a strong expectation that phrasing would play a part in making awkwardness. Cline’s discussion of phrasing focused mainly on the use of unfamiliar jargon on someone who does not understand it. I was hoping to uncover specific phrases that H found unfamiliar or strange through her interview; however, H did not actually have many particular phrases in mind. What her interview did reveal was the specifics of why and how phrasing affected her as the recipient in the conversation. This is in fact more useful for generalizing to all conversations because it is important to break apart the idea of phrasing and consider just how it is working, before it can be addressed how to avoid the negative effects it may cause.

In H’s case, and what could be true for many people, odd phrasing made her feel uncomfortable because it presumes things about you; not only that you understand the phrase, but also that you are able and willing to discuss that topic in that language. It presumes certain background knowledge as well as a similarity in core values that may not be there. A second thing that her discussion showed was that terminology could be used positively in conversation to clarify whose beliefs are whose. Possessive qualifiers allow for the recipient to carry an alternative belief without being singled out for it, and also gives them the opportunity to share what their own personal beliefs may be. 

Finally, persistence and confusion as to purpose were shown to be two other factors that H identified as creating awkwardness. The conversation guides showed that keeping the topic focused on things that all people can and want to talk about is one of the crucial features of a comfortable conversation. The guy in H’s example failed to listen to both verbal and nonverbal cues that she wasn’t interested, and thus failed to keep the topic appropriate. Also, when he switched to that topic forcefully and refused to take her signals, it created confusion because the conversation was no longer a mutual exchange of ideas, but a thrust of his idea. She was not prepared for that purpose because the language of the conversation had not led to that topic, and allowed her no way out. 

The successful conversation will depend on many interrelated components, and is not entirely definable. This research showed that phrasing, context, and social etiquette each play a part in how well the conversation will unfold, yet there are still other factors which could be considered.  This research focused on only one person’s experience and point of view. It is necessary to point out that not everyone would have the same opinions as H. Personality has a big influence on how much relationship a person would think of as appropriate, what phrasing they would consider odd, and how much persistence would be too much. Additionally, this research was limited to a small number of the many factors present in conversation. Nevertheless, considering H’s viewpoint is very important in discussion of successful conversation. She offers real life examples and her thoughts on what made these experiences work or not work are useful. Moreover, her reflections matched perfectly with what the research suggested as factors, offering the valid insight that these guides are connecting with reality.  There is much more that can be done in discussing the successful conversation. Guides such as the social etiquette blogs are clearly not having enough of an influence on those in the religious communities. Also, listening to the voices of people like H will offer insight on just how the religious conversation, or any other conversation, is felt by those receiving them.

Works Cited

Cline, Benjamin J. "Reaching Others: The Rhetoric of Proselytizing and Community of a

            Christian Campus Organization." Bowling Green State University, 2005. United States –

            Ohio: ProQuest. Web. 7 May 2013.

Mckay, Brett, and Kate Brett. “ The Art of Conversation.” The Art of Manliness. The Art of

            Manliness, 25 Sep. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.