UNIVERSITY OF NATAL
12. An intrusive personal question
4.2 DISCUSSION OF THE VIGNETTES
These instances of perceived impoliteness of others and, in response, of self, emerge from the multiracial, multilingual and multicultural interactions at the University of Natal, the research site. (It is one of the contentions of this research that impoliteness is always culturally located; what is perceived as polite or impolite varies from one culture to another (Kasper 1990 and Tannen 1990).
The following discussion is based on the interpretation of the vignette situations offered by the observers themselves.
In a context where numerous different languages are spoken, the choice of a language which others do not understand is regularly considered impolite, as is the case in Vignette 1. My survey of the languages spoken by the entire group of respondents demonstrated the extent of multilingualism in the research site.
Respondents reported a total of 29 languages as 'mother tongues and main languages of exchange'. Out of these, 17 were African languages, six were European languages, and the remaining six were languages of Asia. Each of the 17 African languages had the status of mother tongue of the respondent. My respondents included students from outside of South Africa; within South Africa itself at least 50
'mother tongues' are spoken1. Clearly, in such a context, there will need to be considerable negotiation as to choice of language, with English functioning in the main as lingua franca, and there will be many occasions for perceived impoliteness, should an uncomprehended language be selected2.
1 See Langtag documentation
2Although English is the common language of teaching and learning, and the preferred language of choice outside the classroom, students report that they communicate in many other different languages at the university. The majority of Coloured, Indian and White students use English, but some do draw on Zulu, Afrikaans and (for Indian students) Gujerati. Black South Africans use in the main English and Zulu as languages of exchange. The black non-South African students, however, report a wide range of languages of exchange such as English, French, Swahili, Yoruba, Hausa, Rundi, Creole, Pidgin, Kingarwandi and Setswana. Some of these languages will be used to interact only with students from their own country; others can be used across broader groups - Pidgin, for instance, by people from West African states, Swahili by people from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since the closest ally of language is culture, the norms of the language which is commonly used in daily exchanges may at times overturn the inherited norms of the culture of the speaker, as will be argued in the focus group discussions.
In Vignette 1 the students who use a language other than the one understood by all are seen as inconsiderate by others and therefore impolite. They are impolite because their colleagues feel excluded from the group and perceive it as a deliberate disregard for them as members of the group. The proper consideration for others in a group working together has been breached. The use of a language not understood by some other group members places those who understand and those who do not on different levels. As the others are unable to access the full content of the discussion, it is disempowering to them in the group, which is why it is likely to be considered rude.
Many of the following vignettes reflect power differentials between students and members of staff and tutors, in a university where these relationships often still remain rather hierarchical. These power differentials are impacted on and made increasingly complex by real or perceived racial tensions; in almost all cases, a cross-racial encounter is reported. At the University of Natal, the majority of teaching or support staff (including graduate tutors) was white or Indian; given that substantial numbers of students are black Africans, much teaching is done across races, cultures and languages.
The speech act of advising involves giving a directive in the form of an opinion or recommendation, probably from the position of an expert, as to what the hearer should do or how he/she should behave (Searle 1969 and Allan 1986). In Vignette 2, the advice was received by the student as a racist attack instead of recommendation.
Because the statement is perceived as devoid of guidance but filled with destructive criticism, it is considered impolite. In terms of power relations, the course advisor is superior to the student and has an obligation to give directions based on experience, as to the choice of study. But the student felt insulted and put down by the advisor on the basis of her skin colour: 'you are black, from such and such place and you think you are going to make it with English as a major'. She obviously felt that the advisor had breached his contract as an advisor, and she sensed a racial power play.
The word "madness" used by the advisor, probably to communicate folly, was received literally by the student to mean lunacy.
Vignette 3 involves a behaviour for which the 'reporter' / student felt that an apology was due, which is compounded by the lack of any apology. The behaviour is perceived by the student as deliberate impoliteness, intended to attack her confidence and make her subservient. When an apology is offered which expresses real regret, it tends to redress the situation and usually the receiver of such an apology accepts it and moves on. The absence of apology in the case above is perceived as impolite, because the speaker feels that she was entitled to expect one, and it was not offered. The student feels belittled by the senior person's behaviour, and especially for his failing to apologise for his mistake, 'But no apology was made for this, and there was nothing I could do about it'. When an apology is not given where it is expected as in this case, the student (or the offended person) is likely to refer to it as rude. It is perceived as deliberate and power-related.
Vignettes 4 and 5 each present a request and the response to this request. A request is an explicit expression of a speaker's intention that his or her hearer perform an action, and as such is inherently face-threatening (Cohen 1983; Olshtain and Blum- Kulka 1984; Blum-Kulka 1989; Brown and Levinson 1987). This threat to face needs to be carefully negotiated. The ways in which requests tend to be expressed, as well as the perceived weight of specific requests, have been shown to be culturally specific, and hence offer ample opportunity for perceived impoliteness, in terms of both the perception of the request, and the manner of responding. In Vignette 4, which is between equals, the request seems to have been received by the hearer as a demand rather than an appeal to use the computer. In response, the hearer shows her disapproval of the request by attacking the 'face' of the speaker in return through non-verbal and verbal expression and storming out of the room. The request made here by one student to another is one that asserts the greater right of someone who wants to do academic work as compared to someone concerned with purely personal matters, and the receiver may feel powerless to refuse.
In Vignette 5, the reporter acknowledges that he refused to give directions to the student, because there was no formal greeting from the student before the request.
This is probably so because greetings are an important act of communication in Zulu culture. It is, for instance, considered unacceptable to walk pass a person without the exchange of greetings (as reported in subsequent chapters five and six; see also de Kadt 1996; Gough 1994; Wood 1992). In this case we see possible cultural differences, in the importance of a greeting to Zulu-speaker, and the English typical polite request 'could you', which is perhaps not being understood as polite by the Zulu-speaker. The Zulu-speaker seem to have a customary expectation that the person who requires information will show courtesy by greeting the hearer before making the request and then use explicit formulae of politeness, such as 'please' (de Kadt 1996, 1998; Ige 2001)
Many South African students are poorly informed about other African countries, and what information is available may well be limited to negative stereotypes 'Oh, you are from Y country where people are killing themselves, people die everyday from hunger, Aids'. The speaker in Vignette 6 may be unaware that the hearer feels ridiculed and belittled by the images painted for him/her of her home. Because to this hearer it is belittling, he perceives it as rude. The hearer feels that stereotypical images will always prevent any judgement of him or her which might be based on real merits, and these stereotypes will probably be used to judge his/her performance in class or else where. The immediate reaction of this particular respondent so judged is to refuse the construct and assert his/her preferred identity to ensure fair play.
In Vignette 7, the offended person sees the action as a lack of respect for fellow students living in the residence. The refrigerator could not be used by anyone but the student who fitted the padlock, after she had changed the lock without consulting or at least informing other legitimate users . Access to what is meant to be accessible to all is suddenly under the control of one person. The fact that the person who locked the fridge did not leave a message to inform others about her whereabouts or where the keys were, was taken as a sign of disrespect for hall-mates. The action makes the
offended person feel unimportant, as she wondered if the others had been informed.
The thought of being treated as insignificant caused her to react angrily.
Vignettes 8 and 9 involve power differentials among students - students who are being taught, and (senior) students who are teaching. In both cases a racial dimension contributes some complexity. Vignette 8 is very brief, it is not made clear just why the (black) student constantly interrupts the (white) tutor. The student
reporting Vignette 9 interprets the action of smoking as a deliberate attempt by a male Indian student to be disrespectful to a black female tutor. A black female tutor (empowered over Indian and white students) is likely to present something of a challenge to persisting racial stereotypes.
Vignettes 10 and 11 continue this same theme, with the respondent in each case admitting that perceived rudeness on behalf of the tutor finally provokes deliberate rudeness by the student.
Finally, Vignette 12 presents what is experienced as intrusive interpersonal behaviour, and finally an intrusive personal question. Possibly this behaviour emerged out of a real interest by the 'white guy'; but certainly the other student experienced his behaviour as rude and belittling.