Non linear conversations

Roland Barthes, in one of his last courses at the College de France explained the way conversations are concocted and why they are the source of conflict and, sometimes, of understanding.

For Barthes any conversation starts with an statement or with a question. An statement is always a way of stablishing how things are for one of the parts. If the conversation starts with a question, then it is the person who is being questioned who gets all the responsibility of being responsive.

I talked about optimal responsiveness as the way of ethically answering to demands of others in social interactions. If you accept there´s always a demand of others, then you will have to be responsive in the most optimal way. That was the main law of "optimal responsiveness".

In conversations, when one person makes a question, it can be made with a sense of linearity or without it. If the question is linear it demands an answer in terms of yes or no, or a certain solution to the asked for problem. And Barthes intends to show out that the questioned person feels some kind of pressure. She is actually being questioned.

This is where the barthesian argument gains interest, when he suggests ways of making any conversation non linear; that is, transforming a power ridden relationship into a creative game of word exchange.

Barthes explains three different ways of concoting non linear conversations. One is tempted to think whether being non linear can drive to misunderstanding, but that is precisely Barthes' point. Conversations taken place in non linear fields provide meaning, though it is a meaning different of the one coming from the powerful/powerless equation.

These are ways of concoting non linear conversations:

A) Ways of avoiding the conversation.

1.Silence. Avoiding the answer is an alternative way of responsiveness. It has a dramatic effect, though not a conversational yield.

2. Forgetfulness. It means beginning the conversation anew. It is as if we started to write an essay on a topic from a prejudice-free point. The aristotelian "Tabula rassa" describes well this attitude.

3. Point of departure. It happens when you are expected to say something and you don´t feel like saying it. You just say: Ok, I´m on a travel!

4. Gettaway. It has more to do with a certain sensation of boredom. You get away from sameness.

B) Ways of deflecting the conversation.

These are more subtle ways of changing the meaning of a conversation. Their effect can be described graphically as changing rails. In Barthes words, "it  is a very strong impression of the unusual, of the quimeric. It´s the openness to something undefined".

For instance, when one person asks for telling yes or no, truth or false, the deflection yields by opening the question to a wider context, a context not previously contained in the question.

Yesterday it was wonderful day, wasn´t it? Says the man.

It was a sunny day. Answers the woman. Which is not good or bad, it simply changes the paradigm.

C) Another logic, another dialogue.

This is the most groundbreaking of all, the most post modern. It means the assumption that the third rule of Herbert Paul Grice, that is, the rule of pertinence can be violated.

As a classic example of this Barthes tells the case of a eastern conversations such as:

"All things can be reduced to the One, but what can the One be reduced to? When I visited the province of Seiju, I bought a new dress of seven kin (kilos)".

Comments

[Steve Sherlock]

Felix, good food for thought! Especially as it pertains to the conversation on the internet with blogs, comments, audience, etc.

Another way of avoiding the conversation is simply not being aware of the possibility. For those without internet access, this is easy. For those with internet access, but who have not heard of blogs, this is also easy. For those with internet access and who have heard of blogs, this is still fairly easy as there simply are so many.

What was the Technorati count? 35.3 Million! How do we (as individuals) really expect our voice to be heard amongst that mess? The only chance I see is to create a network and gradually expand that network, i.e. let the net work!

[Felix Gerena]

Hi, Steve. I do really think Barthes ideas are very cool and can make you think about such trivial -again this word- things as daily conversations.