In balance of my silence, I want to examine the different ways in which I use language, and the particular effects its different uses have on me. I realized that we all engage in a variety of rhetoric, depending on our moment-to-moment situations. There is a rhetoric for conversation with friends, generally less formal and hinging off of an implied context of mutual understanding than say would be academic rhetoric, in which we would employ an elevated use of vocabulary and make context explicit in words for utmost clarity and proof of intelligence. Speech with friends includes more play and wit of words, can make great leaps from topic to topic, and even come back full circle after multiple interruptions and interjections. There is a sort of loose, free-form weaving of ideas that encourages the meandering of thoughts, the effusiveness of emotions. When we speak in an academic setting, we imitate the language, the vocabulary, trajectories of thought, and meanings of those that we read, who we deem to be of certain authority. There is a rhetoric for parents, which could include some degree of censorship or filtering, a rhetoric for lovers, draped in terms of endearment and often a rawness of emotion encapsulated in words exchanged (words delicate and highly flammable). It is possible we even have a rhetoric that we reserve only for our own inner ear.
My work rhetoric as a waitress at the breakfast joint Slim Goodies is full of repetition. After many hours waiting tables, I feel as if I have slipped into auto-pilot, thoughtlessly running through a handful of phrases that apply to most communicative needs. Like a mockingbird that sings as if on loop, I become an automated recording of myself, and hear myself speaking as if from afar. While I can surely snap out of my floating reverie of detachment to my immediacy if something on the outside engages me, such as a customer who actually desires to interact with me as the person and not just me as a figurehead representing the means to a full belly, I am mostly insulated in my inner world of thoughts with content far removed from my speech. I thus experienced it entirely possible to be speaking and thinking worlds apart, especially through the use of habitual rhetoric that does not require much focus or effort.
I realized too in this setting that we not only draw from distinct wells of language depending on situation, but our voices, the very sounds we make, too change. We speak a different plane of sound to affect or appeal to different listeners, inflecting and texturing, sweetening or deepening to the ears of particular listeners. When I serve customers, my voice becomes higher in pitch, my accent rounded and my rhythm chipper, my language polite but decidedly informal (this was a definite change from the rhetoric I had been required to use at my previous job, an upscale tapas restaurant). After some time at Slim Goodies, I caught myself saying “ya’ll” very often, and didn’t remember ever having used it regularly before. While the choice was most likely not conscious, I reflected that I probably had adapted my accent to be more accepted by locals, and “more southern” for tourists looking for that local color and flare that affirms they are having a “true New Orleans experience.” I highly encourage this exploration of the ways in which we conform (consciously or not) to the uses of different rhetoric in different circumstance. One might even try switching to an out-of-context rhetoric and see how odd it feels. Speak to a baby as you would to your Environmental Theory professor. Or perhaps this is a good idea.
These effortless, albeit scholarly meditations will take you places far and wide. Such honesty is rare. Refreshing. I could leave you with high-brow paragraphs, but I will just say that this is wonderful. This resonates during work, for I have lived this in an even trickier setting; a purely touristic, Puerto Rico restaurant. You evoke with fluidity things I keep sacred, thoughts I only reflect on internally. It also resonates now, with swollen feet, more conscious than usual. Our duty of service forces us to adapt to all customers and situations. We try very hard to please, it's an unspoken part of our job description. We must please in some shape or form, otherwise we are not attractive employees fit to "sell", "please", "adapt". We are chameleons. Varying degrees of self-serving, self-conscious or unconscious practices guarantee success or failure in the service industry.
ReplyDeleteI started thinking about something similar in the past year or so, specifically as it relates to our interactions with children. Virtually everyone whose voice is dynamic enough uses an easily recognizable "baby voice" for infants, toddlers, and sometimes pets. I began wondering, though, whether this wasn't insulting on some level. Clearly, the infants and pets don't mind, but at what point do children realize we speak to them differently than we do to their parents? I suppose the more humanly relevant question would be "Do they care?". I remember as a child (age ~4-8) loving whenever an adult seemed to take my ideas seriously. But I realize now that my way of determining interest was based less on the adult's tone of voice than by his/her otherwise noticeable attention (eye contact, etc.). In fact, if one of my mom's friends had spoken to me as she might have to my mother, I would likely have tuned her out or failed to follow her words; perhaps because of the color infused into everything child-centric, we tend as children to become easily bored by most things adult: monotone voices, gray hardware stores, books without images.
ReplyDeleteThis still doesn't solve the issue of older children, though. I remember feeling as though I crossed some sort of barrier at about age 12, when it seemed that my mother began talking to me as a fellow, adult human being, and respected and considered my ideas not out of parental duty, but out of honest approval. I now can recognize, however, that although I treat my 13-year-old cousin significantly differently than an 8-year-old, breaching topics that would have seemed absurd to discuss with her even two years ago, the way I speak with her is still fundamentally different than the way I address her 17-year-old sister, or my peers, or my professors (which are all different cases, as well). Does this spectrum ever cease evolving--perhaps when we consider ourselves entirely "grown up"? At 60, I expect the gap between myself and and the now-13-year-olds (then 52) to be lesser, but will it ever fully disappear? I suppose our experiences will have covered more similar territory by that time, which would enable us to use a similar sort of language with one another, that of relative equals, although in certain situations (e.g. discussions related to one of our careers about which the other knows little), an inequality would present itself. I suppose the difference between this and the situation I'm currently in is a deeper mutual respect and the willingness to acknowledge that each person is capable of fully understanding the other.
I don't know if there's any conclusion to find, but maybe with more knowledge and experience comes the opportunity to use more varied forms of language, but also the responsibility to choose the most appropriate for each situation.
Beautiful ruminations, and I suppose there is not much else we can do. I am not sure if it is possible that a person has "one true rhetoric" that he or she could choose to use in every scenario, so as not to be false in any way. And I am not sure if a person is being false in "putting on" a voice as you would a garment, if the intention behind that voice is true.. What should we hold our fellow dwellers in language to more, their words or their intent?
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks for sharing your reflections!
ReplyDelete