In many languages, words and actions are oppositions. Words seem to belong to the dusky domain of theoretical talking, whereas it is the action which courageously creates facts. Take, for instance, the role model of the taciturn cowboy whose communication efforts are focussed upon twinkling and spitting in the prairie wind while his gun acts. But even in civilized areas there are people who deliberate, announce, threaten, promise, and others who shut up and realize the talking. People languish for those active men or women prepared to end all the mourning and babbling. Without explanation, without hesitation.
But this is a misunderstanding of great consequences – and it is due to the implications of the word (!) action. Since human beings rely more exclusively than ever on their eyes, they concentrate on the immediately visible and neglect what can be heard in between. Furthermore, it is easier to close one's eyes than to listen carefully. But if we compare words with actions, it will strike us that they do not differ that much. After all, they both require consciousness and mind; and both of them are meaningful (it might only be dubious what meaning they convey). And both of them can be described with regards to their beginnings, their proceedings and their effects. Describing means understanding. Understanding is based on cultural convention. Words and actions are not contradictory; all the same, they are interdependent, for words must be embodied by actions, and actions become actions by being put in a verbal form. Otherwise we could only speak about behaviour that remains to be interpeted as meaningful action.
Cultural convention can only reveal itself within a certain type of situation. This especially goes for verbal actions. An utterance such as "He is very intelligent" can express as various action patterns as a praise, an envious concession, an ironical remark, a warning. That is why verbal actions are often ambiguous and much more comlicated to handle, for as opposed to nonverbal action they are always directed towards a partner player. We never act alone, whenever we speak; even monologues imagine an interlocutor.
It is the observable effect which separates words and actions. Hitting a nail into a wall to fix a picture is simple by comparison; but nailing another person to the wall in an argument is in contrast very problematic. But this by no means implies using words has no effects and is no action of full value. Vast quantities of human beings have already been delegated in transcendence because someone (but a certain someone) has just uttered certain words referring to a mighty instance called God, Allah, Property, Nation, Race, thus triggering off the manifest action. But we need not address to the world concience. Just look at everyday life. Some diligently chosen words suffice to contract marriages, arrest persons, put masses into a state of highest joy or anger. The issue becomes most crucial when someone intends to achieve a certain effect X, but lamentably ends up with Y - the notorious boomerang effect, for instance when you get spanked for a compliment. Sound waves sometimes generate physical uneasiness.
So we should not be too prompt to separate words from actions. And that fewer and fewer persons are ready to take over responsibility for what they have said does not back denial of words as actions - quite the contrary. Even modern sociological theories which prefer talking about communication to action confirm personal communication must be conceived as action. To put it differently: It may be true all of us are determined by constraints of matter - but we remain us. And at the age of automatism we do not respect people who put decisions into practice, but people who declare themselves responsible. We should not get fatigued to stress that especially persons in leading positions get also paid for being personal address groups for social sanctions. That the word became flesh is only partly true; backbone is indispensable, too.
But this is a misunderstanding of great consequences – and it is due to the implications of the word (!) action. Since human beings rely more exclusively than ever on their eyes, they concentrate on the immediately visible and neglect what can be heard in between. Furthermore, it is easier to close one's eyes than to listen carefully. But if we compare words with actions, it will strike us that they do not differ that much. After all, they both require consciousness and mind; and both of them are meaningful (it might only be dubious what meaning they convey). And both of them can be described with regards to their beginnings, their proceedings and their effects. Describing means understanding. Understanding is based on cultural convention. Words and actions are not contradictory; all the same, they are interdependent, for words must be embodied by actions, and actions become actions by being put in a verbal form. Otherwise we could only speak about behaviour that remains to be interpeted as meaningful action.
Cultural convention can only reveal itself within a certain type of situation. This especially goes for verbal actions. An utterance such as "He is very intelligent" can express as various action patterns as a praise, an envious concession, an ironical remark, a warning. That is why verbal actions are often ambiguous and much more comlicated to handle, for as opposed to nonverbal action they are always directed towards a partner player. We never act alone, whenever we speak; even monologues imagine an interlocutor.
It is the observable effect which separates words and actions. Hitting a nail into a wall to fix a picture is simple by comparison; but nailing another person to the wall in an argument is in contrast very problematic. But this by no means implies using words has no effects and is no action of full value. Vast quantities of human beings have already been delegated in transcendence because someone (but a certain someone) has just uttered certain words referring to a mighty instance called God, Allah, Property, Nation, Race, thus triggering off the manifest action. But we need not address to the world concience. Just look at everyday life. Some diligently chosen words suffice to contract marriages, arrest persons, put masses into a state of highest joy or anger. The issue becomes most crucial when someone intends to achieve a certain effect X, but lamentably ends up with Y - the notorious boomerang effect, for instance when you get spanked for a compliment. Sound waves sometimes generate physical uneasiness.
So we should not be too prompt to separate words from actions. And that fewer and fewer persons are ready to take over responsibility for what they have said does not back denial of words as actions - quite the contrary. Even modern sociological theories which prefer talking about communication to action confirm personal communication must be conceived as action. To put it differently: It may be true all of us are determined by constraints of matter - but we remain us. And at the age of automatism we do not respect people who put decisions into practice, but people who declare themselves responsible. We should not get fatigued to stress that especially persons in leading positions get also paid for being personal address groups for social sanctions. That the word became flesh is only partly true; backbone is indispensable, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment