Seite 1 von 1
The following text is a small excerpt of a larger article
by Dr. Ulrike Elsdörfer, Königstein/Frankfurt, Germany on
Languages and social environments
-
encountering and changing each other
Intercultural aspects of German every day life
The author, when she is dealing with examples for verbal communication-structures of people in Ger-many, with “their ways of thinking, their styles to express oneself, their demands in life and their sys-tems, by which they perceive of our world, by which they structure it and –if so- by which they also complicate it” states like this:
“(At the 15th International Seminar on Intercultural Pastoral Care and Counselling one of the key lec-turers, representing the ideas of the research department of a German banking association, had) a hard time to come across with most of the points he tried to convey, as he was using the language of the banking- and business-world, which very likely is very ‘clear’ for him.Perhaps one could factually critisize some of his stated points, but most of the complaint of the audience arose from using just one ‘picture’ in his speech.
In general he went along using rather abstract terms,while he was adressing theologians and pastoral psycholgists who tend to like to transform a subject matter into a colourful depiction.
(The lecturer…) once referred to his dog and the dog’s habits to play around, in order to examplify the rules of the international markets – using a picture very plausible in his mind: the dog would be searching for the ball he wanted to play with in his own autonomous way!
With some of the audience the picture became independent from the context it was used in, and lead to own perceptions and connotations with regard to the person of the lecturer. They then started to ‘in-ternally’ communicate with this lecturing person who simply offered other patterns.
Furthermore, some of the participants of the seminar could not understand another situation: the lec-turer joined in on one of the morning prayers of the seminar where the parable of the workers in the vineyard was the devotional text. In a discussion afterwards he stated his point of view, i.e. that one cannot apply the parable to be the blueprint for financial politics. At this point he was obviously com-municating out of his ‘inner world’ with regard to an issue given to him from the outside.
So in both of these situations both sides could not really ‘come together’.
A link was missing that could have’regulated’ more clearly the modalities of mutual communication. In my interpretation both sides affected and took effect of each other, while there was no arranged and consented way of feeding back on these affections and effects, respectively, while they did not handle to separate certain aspects of these interacting effects from each other.
His statement: “One cannot use the parable of the unequal wages for the workers in the kingdom of God in order to construct financial politics!” in my eyes is an opinion, firstly brought forward to be discussed and –maybe- to be checked or screened by examples. And besides, and from my point of view: I do not know of a conclusive refutation of his argument that could be based on exegetical or systematical theology!
Nevertheless, the ‘church-people’ interpreted something as an expression of a lack of understanding for the intended subject-matter, which basically would have been open for dialog and discussion about it, for a discourse and an emotional encounter.
This is why I think that we must find ways to more carefully plan such encounters between the ‘worlds’ we live in with regard to languages and/or life-styles, to keep our eyes on them and to ‘stage’ such encounters as a learning process!…
Seite 2 von 2
So we have to question ourselves about the ‘languages’ we use in our own common social settings and groups, when we deal with each other there? Which pictures do we apply, what do they stand for? In how far are we able to understand all of them?…
Only in the ‘language of consumerism’ we all have the same pictures. Here everybody can see, hear, taste, sense what is offered. Here we can outplay each other, begrudge each other, or even look after each other –once in a while.Here our sensuality is addressed and expressed. here it seems as if one would be addressed in a holistic way as a human being. Those who want to, may buy a fast car, or go on holiday in the Caribbean, or one may play golf. For [communicating] mere enjoyment there seem to be no social or cultural limits, while there seems to be offered a ‘language’[or ‘code’] which is easy to grasp and international, and with a manageable set of forms of expression.
……….
Our ‘life-styles’ and their respective ‘languages’ need bearing foundations within which they are au-thentic…… Therefore it really would make sense to carefully check our ‘languages’ in how far they can form a basis with regard to mutual understandig and mutual respect of our respective ‘life-styles’… In my eyes it is about time to have people from most different ‘life-styles’ meet and exchange about their ways of peceiving and understanding reality, long before aggressions may grow strong which stem from demarcations and mutual misunderstandings. When we do so, social status and dif-ferences in wealth must not be unsurmountable borderlines, as same as religion, nationality and lan-guage.
One must facilitate an exchange about the ‘worlds’ of symbols, of languages and of emotions, not only about our shared ‘world of consumerism’….[And of course this must include] more exchange among those who presume to be ‘close’ to each other, i.e. among the subcultures of our every day life here.
What did you say and how do you mean what you said?
A question like this surely would be one of the first and most reasonable questions for ‘us’
theologians and psychologists to put to a banker when he tells about the playfulness of his
dog. “ Are you otherwise a playful person, too?” – “Couldn’t we start sharing about leisure
acitivities and what they mean to you?” We could try to address him talking about aspects of
his conduct that are comprehendible to us, closer, amiable.
….[In doing so]… we could find an access to ways of thinking that are strange to us and that
would draw upon our competence ‘to understand’. And vice versa, there would be a world of
communication opening up for a banker that very likely will be as important to him (.. aside
from business topics..) as it is to many other people.
Our main goal must be to find a matching dimension for our encounters to make them
suc-cessful, while neither under- nor overestimating the other, and to make the forms and the
sub-ject matters of our communicaton fit. Surely this will include considerations about positions
that one should represent and hold on to. On the other hand it is as important to learn about
the subjects concerned, i.e. for example about the international money flow…..
But the most important asset of an encounter like this are the single persons encountering
each other and exchanging about these subjects. They are the vessel, in which the various
‘contents’ must fit.
An open encounter, an encounter without prejudices, where we learn from each other, is the
important thing. But as important is the clear assessment of differences that persist; may it be
differences with regard to social realities ( where many of us had had hopes for longer years,
that man could overcome them by means of ideology), may it be differences with regard to
religion and culture.
Seite 3 von 3
