Is Deaf Culture still High Context?

[jillio]

You both have highlighted an important point: Face-to-face communication is much higher context than faceless written words. Something precious is lost. I hate the rude comments and bile of many anonymous comments that are posted on the internet ("trolls" they are known as). They wouldn't be able to interact like that face-to-face.

A follow-up observation is that sign language has to be face-to-face, while English can be "lowered" (contextually speaking) to anonymous words. So Deaf culture has to be "higher" context due to this interpersonal aspect of its language.

Very insightful, and the perfect example of how culture is influenced by the language. And since the language adapts to fit the needs of the members of the culture.....well, you've already connected the dots!

 

[Berry]

I'm slowly learning about this low and high context thing, it also helps that I by coindence am reading some scholary books on sociology at the moment.

If you have not already read this book, it is the best place to start if you are interested in the humanities or just humanity:

Gregory Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind"

It should be read every five years.

It is interesting that he was once married to Margaret Mead who gave the world proof positive about a simple, basic tenant, of humanity. What is even more interesting is that while she was lauded and praised for her discovery, the implications and import of it have been totally ignored by all. What is most interesting is that her wonderful discovery that amazed the Low Context world is just a matter of common sense to the High Context world.

 

[Berry]

Trying to come up with an aspect:

Politics

I have wondered what politics would be like in a High Context world.

First we have to look at leadership.

In a Low Context world leadership is very important. You can't be a leader without an education. The military trains leaders. Colleges teach that "You too can be a leader." It is considered something to strive for until it has been achieved, and once it has been achieved it is bragged about. "We are the leader in producing the leaders of he next generation." Joe is the leader of the sales team. and so on.

Now here is a fact about leadership.

In order to deliberately become a leader you MUST do those things required of a leader and NEVER do those things that will jeopardize your future chances. You limit and curtail your own actions to those that are acceptable to your potential followers. If you are going to grow up to be president you better not be caught kissing Nikki the future Go-Go dancer in the sixth grade. Nor do you want to hang out with Smokey the future stoner in the seventh grade.

In a High Context world modeling yourself into something you are not in order to achieve any goal does not make sense. In fact while it is an extremely sane thing to do in a Low Context world, to a High Context person it appears more like insanity.

Politics in the U.S. by its very nature has to be extremely Low Context simply because it is dominated by lawyers -- Members of the Lowest Context profession in the world.

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were modeled after the ideas of certain Native American Tribes. If I were to study the subject I think I would start there.

 

[AJWSmith]

Politics in the U.S. by its very nature has to be extremely Low Context simply because it is dominated by lawyers -- Members of the Lowest Context profession in the world.

So true. So true. I read somewhere that the number of lawyers in recent years has tripled. Apparently it's the only profession that has grown in recent years. And it's entirely due to our society's drift to low context. A high context society is where people say "my word is my bond". A low context society is where people say "if it's not written down in black and white and countersigned, then my word doesn't count - I can get away with making empty verbal promises to trick you as long as it's not written down in a legal contract!".

 

[Berry]

Now you made me curious. Metafluency? If you make some new discoveries, please update us

Not so much new discoveries as new connections.

The English language is very schizophrenic largely because it is so easy to be so. Given people's "sensitivities" and "morals" and now "political correctness" it is getting more so. Unfortunately it is beginning to affect ASL and I don't like the effect. I am told the old sign for "toilet" is rude and the new sign "restroom" should be used instead.

A schizophrenic is incapable of telling someone they care for, "I love you and I'm going to miss you while you are gone." So what they will say is "Iraq is a long ways away." You, the listener, have to become metafluent enough to read through to the answer.

 

[Berry]

Now you made me curious. Metafluency? If you make some new discoveries, please update us

Not so much new discoveries as new connections.

The English language is very schizophrenic largely because it is so easy to be so. Given people's "sensitivities" and "morals" and now "political correctness" it is getting more so. Unfortunately it is beginning to affect ASL and I don't like the effect. I am told the old sign for "toilet" is rude and the new sign "restroom" should be used instead.

A schizophrenic is incapable of telling someone they care for, "I love you and I'm going to miss you while you are gone." So what they will say is "Iraq is a long ways away." You, the listener, have to become metafluent enough to read through to the answer.

In an earlier post I said, "If you tell someone you are going to sit on the toilet for a few minutes" and everyone understood what was meant. I am perfectly capable of saying exactly what I mean -- But social restrictions that maintain bodily functions are obscene require that I become metafluent enough to come up with a euphemism and others be metafluent enough to understand.

But lets put these in the hands of a master:

"Song sung blue
"Everybody knows one
"Song sung blue
"Every garden grows one"

Melodies Neil Diamond -- And we know what he is talking about.

If you watch the movie "Open Range" listen to Sue, played by Annette Bening as she does what a woman is not supposed to do in that time and place: Declare her love. She does so by never saying it, by using metafluency to the max.

I first started wondering about a way to discuss what Shakespeare did in Hamlet when I was a kid. "To be or not to be, Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against them."

I was told it was euphemism, implied, reading between the lines, and a bunch of other stuff. But the second I knew what "disfluency" meant I KNEW that "metafluency" is the concept I have been lacking all these years.

Nowhere in this poem does he directly tackle the questions that were probably outlawed in his day. He does not directly state suicide or suicidal action -- Nor does he directly question the existence of God or Heaven -- But that and more are all there.

Into the mouth of a madman he placed all the questions every sane person must ask themself at some point -- But society tends to reject all conversation on the subject.

Shakespeare was the master of metafluency.

 

[Berry]

This is a very thought provoking thread.

I'll take that as a compliment.

This is a very thought provoking thread. As I was thinking about the stuff written about here, it struck me that increasing influence of the internet in a culture will push that culture towards being low context.

But is it necessary? The net is capable of videos. I am looking at OICMovies.com. I hope at least a few will gravitate to sites such as these.

So, in answering the original question of this thread, it would appear that through the growth of the internet (and forums like AllDeaf), Deaf culture will inevitably become less high context.

Sad, but I believe you are right.

I know I may be stating the obvious, but the follow-up question I wanted to ask is "What contextual strands are lost as Deaf culture becomes low(er) context?"

I noticed when I studied mathematics that while other cultures apologized for "Stating the obvious" or "going back to square one" mathematicians never start in the middle of an argument. They always go back to "One plus one equals two." Then build up.

The question is "What will be lost to whom?"

Low Context thinkers already believe they have the only one true way to think. Part of this is believing the winner is always right and the other guy lost because he was wrong.

With less competition, with fewer supporters of High Context thinking and High Context values, there will become the reinforcement of the idea that Low Context thinking is the only right way to think.

All of society, not just Deaf, will have lost some of its creativity, its ability to tolerate differences, its ability to see people as people and not simply an inferior class of robot -- In short it will have lost a part of its own humanity

 

[shel90]

When two people use ASL, even on a computer, they are forced to look at each other. There's a physical connection. That gets lost when writing in English (like here). Maybe that fact makes a difference?

I dont know because I have met ASL users who are not really high context thinkers. It all depends on the individual. However, by having constant barriers to language and information, a deaf child is put at risks for not having the ability to become high context thinkers.

 

[Berry]

Probably none as the persons utilizing ASL will stay within familiar context. Has it been determined which contextual style of thinking ASL is?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

ASL is High Context.

You do not have to study it much to know that. But for those who have not I will elaborate:

In correct English you say, "Good morning, DrPhil. How are you today?"

In ASL you simply sign "How" toward the person whom you are speaking to. One sign is all that is needed.

Why?

In English I have to remind you who you are in case you might inadvertently forget. So I tell you who you are. How nice of me.

Well to begin with in ASL you are looking me in the eye. Who do you think the other is talking too? The picture on the wall? So there is no need for either of us to use the others name. Everyone in the room knows who is speaking to whom.

As to "Good morning."

Well either you are looking at me with a happy expression and enjoy seeing me or your aren't.

Or maybe you are looking at me with an uncertain expression because you are worried about me.

But maybe your are frowning at me and want to know if I feel in good enough shape to duke it out with you.

As to the "Morning" part -- Which one of us is too stupid to know what time of day it is? And does it matter anyway?

And then English goes on with "Today."

I know this is standard, and it highlights how redundant English is, which some folk think is a great thing ... But...

You just said "Good morning" .. Do you really think I thought you were referring to some morning last week, or maybe you are saying "Good morning, DrPhil, How are you tomorrow at this time?"

Fortunately in ASL we are both smart enough to realize it IS morning and it IS today and we even know with whom we are speaking.

This is akin to the educated city slicker who scorns the Higher Context hillbilly who says, "Howdy." because the hillbilly didn't bother to stick in all the stupid stuff the city slicker has come to expect.

English is Low Context.

ASL is High Context.

 

[shel90]

ASL is High Context.

You do not have to study it much to know that. But for those who have not I will elaborate:

In correct English you say, "Good morning, DrPhil. How are you today?"

In ASL you simply sign "How" toward the person whom you are speaking to. One sign is all that is needed.

Why?

In English I have to remind you who you are in case you might inadvertently forget. So I tell you who you are. How nice of me.

Well to begin with in ASL you are looking me in the eye. Who do you think the other is talking too? The picture on the wall? So there is no need for either of us to use the others name. Everyone in the room knows who is speaking to whom.

As to "Good morning."

Well either you are looking at me with a happy expression and enjoy seeing me or your aren't.

Or maybe you are looking at me with an uncertain expression because you are worried about me.

But maybe your are frowning at me and want to know if I feel in good enough shape to duke it out with you.

As to the "Morning" part -- Which one of us is too stupid to know what time of day it is? And does it matter anyway?

And then English goes on with "Today."

I know this is standard, and it highlights how redundant English is, which some folk think is a great thing ... But...

You just said "Good morning" .. Do you really think I thought you were referring to some morning last week, or maybe you are saying "Good morning, DrPhil, How are you tomorrow at this time?"

Fortunately in ASL we are both smart enough to realize it IS morning and it IS today and we even know who we are talking too.

This is akin to the educated city slicker who scorns the Higher Context hillbilly who says, "Howdy." because the hillbilly didn't bother to stick in all the stupid stuff the city slicker has come to expect.

English is Low Context.



ASL is High Context.

Ohhh I misunderstood...never mind my last post, then.

 

[Berry]

Hmmmmm.

Have I mentioned that I consider High Context thinking to be more creative than Low Context thinking?

 

[Berry]

Ohhh I misunderstood...never mind my last post, then.

I think you last post made a valid point.

 

[jillio]

Probably none as the persons utilizing ASL will stay within familiar context. Has it been determined which contextual style of thinking ASL is?

Implanted A B Harmony activated Aug/07

Persons using ASL are not limited to any one particular context. They can utilize high or low contextual thinking and/or communication depending upon the situation. Limitations are based in the individual, not the language.

 

[Bottesini]

Hmmmmm.

Have I mentioned that I consider High Context thinking to be more creative than Low Context thinking?

Yes, but it is somewhat like saying lemons are far better than limes.

It is a subjective judgement.

 

[Berry]

Hmmmmm.

Have I mentioned that I consider High Context thinking to be more creative than Low Context thinking?

Yes, but it is somewhat like saying lemons are far better than limes.

It is a subjective judgement.

Actually I prefer limes over lemons.

Yes, it is subjective. I prefer semantics and systems because I can do more of what I want to do with them.

But in many cases I use other methodologies.

Does not mean there is any objective difference.

 

[jillio]

Yes, but it is somewhat like saying lemons are far better than limes.

It is a subjective judgement.

Not so much subjective as situational.

 

[Bottesini]

Not so much subjective as situational.

Thank you. Sometimes the correct word escapes me.

 

[jillio]

Thank you. Sometimes the correct word escapes me.

No problem. I knew what you were saying!:P

 

[Berry]

Not so much subjective as situational.

Okay, I'll accept that.

Thank you.

 

[StSapphire]

Berry: I've honestly not had the time to go back to... well, everything in this thread, honestly. I would say that a large majority of what you've written seems, at best, vaguely judgmental, and at worst, flat out wrong (not the entirety, but specific parts). Unfortunately, the issue with responding to everything you've said is that you seem to be using vast generalizations and sweeping statements in addition to clearly loaded and highly ambiguous terms.

So, to clarify a few concepts, I'm wondering if you can do the following for me, since I'm not even certain anymore about what it is we disagree on. (Jillio or anyone else, also feel free to chime in, I'm only picking out Berry since he seems to be making the vast majority of declarative statements.) You said you prefer semantical thinking, so this should be right up your alley.

1) Can you describe what you mean by "high context" and "low context" without using any of the following words or their synonyms? Context, English, Speaking, Hearing, Deaf, ASL, Jargon, Logic, Language, Thinking, Culture, Semantics.

2) Can you also do this without your definition containing implications of superiority or inferiority, or any direct applications which could be viewed as an implication of superiority/inferiority by those who are different?