Context 1
My conversations, arguments, expressive content make sense to me and those listening. I sound like I have something meaningful to say and my conversational respondents (I think I should say interlocutor(s) if I want some sort of linguistic credibility) seem to engage with me in a manner that suggests to me that I come across as reasonably articulate and intelligent. These conversations and dialogues are easy for me, I express what I'm thinking almost without censure. Most times I come away from these interactions thinking to myself - wow, I actually make sense, I have something to say, people understand what I'm saying. Ah I have a voice.
Context 2
My conversations and expressions mostly feel contrived. I'm thinking about what I'm thinking before I feel comfortable to open my mouth and say what I'm thinking. These conversations always feel to me, anyway, as if there is something missing, a gap, a disconnect. I come away wondering if I was understood, at best, or if I came across as a total idiot, as the worst case scenario. I struggle with my word choices, my expressions, with how I phrase my sentences, highly conscious of how I sound, my limited vocabulary, my grammatical ineptitude. I usually come away from these interactions wondering where the hell my voice went.
Why is this so? Shall I just lay the blame on context? But isn't that just a cop-out? Maybe it's me and how I'm selecting to see and present these interactions in these two contexts - creating so sort of positive/negative context binary. Maybe I'm just over exaggerating the distinctions between the situations to make a point. Maybe my evaluation of these contextual interactions lacks critical perspective? Maybe it does reflect on my personal abilities/inabilities and lack of adjustment or inability to adjust to the context.
I'm reminded of Blommaert who says - where there are problems of voice -even perceived problems of voice (my own inclusion) - there are inequalities present in that situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment