Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts

Sunday, May 3, 2020

Foreign tolerance



                                                          
                                                            [Picture of Oliver Cromwell*]

For every native-speaker of English, there are around four non-native speakers. This means 80% of English users not only have imperfect knowledge of English grammar and spelling but how to express tone. In other words, of increasing importance due to social media, most are not familiar with the manner in which it is possible to express ideas without sounding rude or aggressive. In this regard, it is important to understand that each language has its own acceptable style of written expression, which may sound ridiculous or rude when translating literally.

Two extremes are French and Hebrew. French is a flowery language arising from a culture that highly values formal politeness.  Some beautiful phrases found common in French correspondence of all kinds include: nous avons l’honneuer de …  [we have the honor of], je suis dans l’obligation [I am in the obligation of], en vous addressant mes meilleurs voeux de succes [in sending my best wishes of success], and je me permits d’attirer votre attention [I allow myself to bring it to your attention], even when the the content does not reflect such thoughts. By contrast, Israeli society and the Hebrew language are quite direct, if not blunt, which is reflected in the written language. For example, Hebrew generally avoids use of such fillers as please in  sentences and how are you doing at the beginning of emails. Since, its syntax generally follows the subject-verb-object order and the language has often has few synonyms, the message is to the point. Its tendency to call a spade a spade is the polar opposite of the French indirect style.

English is a direct language in terms of sentence syntax but developed in a class society that valued politeness. In practical terms, the polish in English correspondence is added through doubt, understatement and vagueness, among others. To avoid putting people in uncomfortable corners, English has many phrases to allow for error, at least in form. These include to the best of my knowledge, as far as I can know, it appears that and I have received information that. These words avoid direct accusation. Another technique, typically British, is reducing the severity of the term, sometimes to the point of sarcasm. For instance, your services did not meet my satisfaction means that the contractor’s worker was awful while I find it regretful often expresses great anger. When it would be too confrontational to formally mention a painful matter, native English speakers prefer vague terms. Some examples include please advise, payment issues, contractual obligations and resolving the issue. Using these techniques, English correspondence loses its uncomfortable aggressiveness at least as far as native speakers are concerned.

However, most users of English are neither native speakers nor advanced students of English in terms of formal studies or living in an English-speaking country. At the same time, they increasingly are active in international writing, especially in social media and email. Their language is generally understandable in terms of content but sometimes creates misunderstanding in terms of tone. Specifically, the writer may have intended the greatest respect but the reader, especially a native English speaker, may forget that the writer does not share a common culture and interpret a comment as rude, even insulting, or bloated This communication gap can create avoidable communication barriers.

In terms of implications, it is clear that non-native English-speaking professionals that actively use email and social media should seek guidance on the matter to ensure that they transmit their true message. For example, my wife, an Israeli, occasionally consults me in regards to sensitive email to make sure that the underlying message is effectively expressed. On a greater scale, when reading and reacting to various comments in social media, especially Facebook, it is important to consider the background of the writers. If they are non-native English speakers writing in English, however correct that English may be, they may be entirely unaware of English writing conventions and, consequently, how insulting their comments sounded to a native English speaker. Accordingly, we native speakers must be patient with foreigners not only because they are the majority but also because the vast majority have limited knowledge of English. I hope for the same when I write in French or Hebrew. As Cromwell would say, tolerance is the basis for a civil society.

* For the sake of the blind, do not forget to caption your pictures. Picture taken from wikipedia site.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Degrees of discomfort – Tests of tolerance

I define myself as a liberal, tolerant person and a secular Jew.  I did not grow up in a religious family or in Israel. Yet, having lived in Israel for more than 26 years, I have become acquainted with many religious people, especially my wife's family, who accept me completely. Living in the Galilee, I teach as well as work and interact with many local Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, and have visited many Druze houses.  So, the terms "religious Jew" and "Arab" represent real people to me.

Recently, I experienced two "challenging" situation in terms of my self-definition as a liberal. Several weeks ago, on the train from Ben Gurion Airport to Acco after a long flight from California, a group of five Arab college students entered the train, filled with enthusiasm and energy. After 20 plus hours, my wife and I wanted some peace and quiet but did not get any. The students talked loudly, told jokes and made comments about a series of videos on their phones, all in Arabic.  We could not conveniently go to another carriage as our luggage was on the rack there. To clarify, they were not behaving badly but instead boisterously. After being asked to lower the volume a bit, they tried but were simply unable.
During the hour we shared that carriage, I considered the reasons for my annoyance. Was it the level of noise on my already frayed nerves? Was it the sheer energy level when I wanted serenity?  Was it the fact that they were loudly speaking Arabic? In other words, if a similar group of Hebrew speaking students had entered, would I have been equally disturbed? After careful thought, I had to admit that the third issue was also a factor. It somehow bothered that they were so loud in a foreign language and Arabic at that.  I then considered the issue and realized that, while it may annoy me at this moment, the Arabic language was a matter of their cultural identification and, moreover, national pride for Israel, which allows its minorities to feel sufficiently comfortable to express themselves openly in their own language, even in public.

Last week, I visited a religious family in mourning.  The deceased having left behind many siblings and children as well as a husband, the apartment was packed with people with almost everybody wearing a kippa or head covering. I did my best to blend in and looked for a conversation to participate in or at least listen with interest. In fact, everybody, young and old, was talking about the manner of the upcoming Yom Kippur prayers in all their aspects. More strikingly, they were discussing such matters with great joy and interest.  This attitude ignited the question that generally pops up in my mind when seeing religious conversations: why do you waste so much time and energy on such irrelevant matters? Of course, the question presupposes that my secular way of thinking is correct as compared to the "brainwashing" religious people get. In all probability, they considered my lack of interest in Torah equally errant. In such cases, I remind myself that the world is made of many faiths, no matter how ridiculous I may consider them.

The cultural gap between me as a Jewish atheist and them is as least as great as I felt on the train. The latter is easier to bridge as I consciously recognize the legitimacy of cultural self-expression.  On the other hand, my inability to grasp the faith base of religious people makes it harder to maintain my tolerance. Marx wrote that religion is the opium of the people.  Accepting the right of people to take opium creates much discomfort.