BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. IT COUNTS EVEN IF IT DOESN'T.

Be Careful what you say...it counts.

I overheard two persons at the fitness gym today talking about their respective recuperations from heart and pulmonary surgery. The conversation went like this:

#1 "I don't know when I'm ever going to feel better."
#2 "I used to feel that way. You'll get over it."

I was struck by the possible interpretations from that snippet. What did they each mean?

Was #1 saying she knew that her illness was chronic and that recovery for her was not possible?
Was she venting her frustration at how long it was taking to recuperate? Maybe she was just complaining and discouraged? Who knows what she was saying. At this point we can only guess.

The #2 person's response was curious. What did she mean? Was she offering an encouraging word that was saying she had been sick too and now she is better and soon #1 will too? Was she telling #1 what to feel? Was she trying to solve her own problem of not knowing what to say? Was this just a casual comment; a cliche?
How could #2 say "You'll get over it"? Over what? Feeling sick? Not getting better? Being discouraged? Or, "Cheer up. Things will get better you'll see." What does #2 know about #1's condition in the first place. They only say hi to each other at the gym.

All these possibilities from just two sentences strung together. How are we to know what either one of them meant or heard the other one say?

That is exactly the point. We don't know what we don't know. However, according to the common rules of commiseration when someone is sick we are to offer some kind of kind statement.
If that were true then it doesn't matter what person #2 says. Her good intentions are all that count. She meant well by what she said. No harm done. Maybe not. Maybe. Maybe the result was benign. Whatever happened the two did not continue talking. Which raises more questions. Was #2 satisfied or put off by #1's response? Did she find it helpful or not? If so how was it helpful? If not how was it not helpful? Or did she ignore the comment?

Back to the point. Even with good intentions we still don't know what we don't know. If you think the answer is simple that is fine but simple does not answer what they were actually talking about. It only defines your (the reader) answer. How can anyone get inside their heads?

To this writer, there is much more here than meets the eye. Or the ears. Or mind. Or heart.
One of those things are the fascinating (to me anyway) complexities of language which bring persons close or keep them at a preferred distance. Every word we speak allows someone to inch towards us or leaves them where they are or pushes them away.

This simple and complex two sentence interchange is a microcosm for the language we use to create or not create intimacy. Or closeness, Or empathy. Or just being on the same wave length.

The old children's poem is a lie to protect. "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Maybe they will and maybe they won't. It depends, does it not? The words may be well intended and "meaningless" or deliberately spiteful. The words may harm through benign neglectfulness or a direct attack. Or through an everyday conversational exchange.

Be careful what you say..it counts.

WHAT IS REAL? HOW DO WE KNOW IT?

There is no debate that a clock is a clock, a computer is a computer, a traffic light is what it is, and all material things can be studied and/or something produced from them. If I look at the stars and say there are alien spaceships fixed in the sky I am not being a modern-scientific thinker. We are all modern thinkers weather we are scientists or not. If a thing is solid (matter/mass) or energy (like electricity) there is no debate. No questions asked. It is what it is.

This is where modern thinking and postmodern thinking part company. Modern thinking is the type of thinking we take so for granted we aren't even aware we are thinking modern. Modern thinking is thinking the way science thinks. We know what we know because a thing is observable, provable, measurable. See is believing. What you see is what you get.

Postmodern thinking completely and radically shifts the scientific paradigm just described. According to postmodern thinkers rocks, trees, and cars and (yes) tables are not real because science says so. Why? Because postmodernists answer the question of what is real differently. According to science: How do we know what we know? What is real? Through objective, rational, reasonable facts that we can prove. Post modernists instead say "Who says determines reality". This is where the two part company. To ask what is real is modern thinking. Postmodernists are more concerned how a thing gets "called" real in the first place. Who says what is real? Their answer: society who decides what is real.


Example: George Carlin was asked why is the sky blue? His postmodern answer? "Because we say so". Modern thinking would use science to answer the question. This is it in a nut shell. This is the big difference between modern and postmodern thinking. What is real? Let me consult my science book or my common sense. Who says so? Let me consult society about what is real.

A postmodernist example: Politics. Who says why the economy is in trouble. Economists, business people, and politicians all will have different answers. Not only that "liberals" (what is a liberal and who says so?) will define the problem and disparage the conservatives (what is a conservative and who says so?) Vice versa. Is there an objective fact or set of facts as to what the "real" problem is? Not according to postmodernists. The real problem is asked and answered by real people, real groups, with real opinions and biases. Again, postmodernists want to know, who decides what is "real" in any given situation. Even the words "opinion" "facts" bias", "objective" are socially determined. Behind every "what" is a "who" which proceeds it.


Postmodernists not only take everything that is called real with a grain a salt, they do so with a bottle of salt and assume nothing and question everything including their own opinions about "who says".


The next time someone asks you what time it is have some serious fun. Tell them Time is a social construction. Is it "really" 5:00 p.m.? According to commonsense and scientific thinking it is. According to postmodernists we have all agreed that in this time zone and and according to the official world clock in England it is 5:00 p.m. Are there other possibilities for "telling" time?

WHO SAYS? WHAT IS REAL?

I remember when I was 12 years old and my mother asked me would I rather be smart or be well liked. I said both. She said I was being a smart ass. Obviously I gave the "wrong" answer. I still don't know which one is "better". I had challenged and disagreed with the who said "thus and so" is true. In my head I remember saying to myself, "Who said it is either/or?" That's the day I became a postmodernist thinker even though I didn't know it at the time. Ever since then I have questioned and asked, "Who is it that is saying this particular thing is "true"'? Who do they represent? What are their bias, opinions, points of view? What "causes" them to believe a certain thing is true? What do their words mean? In other words, Who says so? And who gets to decide if I am a smart ass or not? Whatever that means.

What is important about who says? Who, after all, cares, who says? So what if a tree falls in the forest and does or does not make a sound? Who cares? A table is a table and let's get on with important stuff. Who cares what the American dream means positively and negatively? Let's live up to it the best we can. Will an oil spill in the seas hurt the seas and life within it? In the short and long term? Who says? Who says Adam and Eve and the world were created in seven days? Who says it was? Who says it wasn't? And what difference do different answers make? Or liberals are spend thrifts in favor of big government? What do they mean by that? Further who says a particular women is beautiful? (A postmodernist might say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) Who defines female beauty "itself". Is there really such a thing?

"What is real" is a real question. Scientific thinking is based on what is real, rational, logical, reasonable, provable, observable, and/or measurable. Postmodernists have a far different answer. Their answer: We are the who, who say what reality is not science (modern thinking).

One example is seen in politics where everyone and anyone can express a political opinion about a topic. Politics, comes in many categories both formal and informal, official and unofficial, elected or not, public and private, governmental both local and national. In the broadest sense politics is power and power is political. Power suggests there are different spheres of influence among those who say what is to be. There are more and less powerful groups who vie for what is real. Persons "belong" to many micro(few to a few) and many macro (group to group) spheres of influence over time and simultaneously.

Here are some thoughts: 1) Who says is speaking for a truth/the truth/their truth. 2) Who says will decide how much room there is for dfferences (races, customs, traditions, world views, diversity, etc.) in society. 3) Who says and who says will often be in conflict. How will they resolve or live with their differences? 4) Who says as a predominant story can offer great good or evoke great evil. Who says what is good or evil?

Does the "Who says" ever end? Yes and No . No because the possibilities for understanding socially contrusted stories are endless. Yes because society and in all its diversity will weave "agreed upon" sets of rules, laws, ethics, conduct, beliefs, values, etc. However, socially construsted realities/stories are not static. They are dynamic.

One example of what difference "who says"makes is the issue of "capitalism"? Does capitalism works "better" with fewer government regulations involved in the business world. Who decides what is better? Who agrees? Who disagrees? For whom is deregulation "better"? What is a "helpful" deregulation? Helpful to whom? Who benefits. How? Does anyone get hurt or have less power or authority because the others have more power and authority? Whose story about government and business should and will prevail? Now imagine all the various kinds of businesses. Who says which regulations will fit which business?

All fields of endeavor and pursuit ask Who says. From theology to medicine. From biology to geology. From education to prisons. In our public worlds and private ones. All fields have stories to tell about what is real (to them) .

If you like black and white questions, either/or, and right or wrong answers postmodern thinking is not for you. Better to "own" your mindset ( which ironically is a postmodern statement) .

TAKEN-FOR-GRANTED

Name one thing that you take-for-granted. By take-for-granted I mean something you haven't thought about as being a habit in your life and you are unaware of it. By definition if it is taken-for-granted and you become aware of it then it is no longer taken-for granted since you are now aware of it. Try it.

Maybe you said, "I take for granted that I am an American citizen." In the mere act of speaking those words you become aware of them and it is impossible to take them for granted anymore. Why? Because as soon as you say I am an American citizen certain thoughts, images, and beliefs immediately fill your mind. The flag. The National Anthem. Voter. Pride. Tax payer. Freedom. You can not take that statement for granted because it conjures up your definition of an American citizen as soon as you say it.

Are there things you are unaware of that you take for granted? Yes and no. As long as you are not aware then you are taking them for granted but as soon as you become aware of something it can no longer have a taken for granted status attached to it. So what's the point of this?

What if somebody accused you by saying "You don't appreciate our friendship. You take me for granted." There is nothing you can say to defend yourself; except to see if you can argue your way back into their good graces. You have been had by the-taken-for-granted blame monster.

Parents do this to their children. "You don't appreciate all I do for you around here." First you are suddenly aware the topic is "appreciation" and "enough." Second, anything you say will be used against you. The mere fact you are having this argument proves their point. If you didn't take them for granted they wouldn't have had to say anything. Of course there is one thing. You weren't made aware in advance that the unspoken topic was "awareness". Had you been aware before being blamed for taking them for granted you could have prepared yourself and not gone on the defense.


Don't worry. Anyone who feels unappreciated speaks this way. It's like they don't know any other way. But there are other ways to have this conversation.

Mom: "I'm tired of doing all I do around here and nobody saying anything about appreciating it. So in the future, I'd like you to tell me when you sincerely feel like saying thank you or some such thing so I won't feel taken for granted."

Response: "You're right mom. We don't say it enough. We overlook and take what you do for granted. So when you least expect it and I feel it, watch out for some new words of appreciation.
Oh, And I won't be saying anything just because you asked. When I do say something you'll know it comes from my heart."

Mom: "Ok. And by the way I'd appreciate it if would you take out the garbage in the next five minutes?"

THE THREE LITTLE PIGS WHO DANCE WITH WOLVES ?

The words "the Other" keep cropping up in my postmodern readings. As in we all have a tendency (stronger for some than others) to feel more secure being around people like us. Makes sense "in this day and age" to play it safe, even though statistically, we are more at risk being beaten, raped, or murdered by some one we know than a complete stranger. We are taught from an early age:"Don't talk to strangers". "Don't let anybody do anything strange to you."

There are several kinds of strangers: ranging from a person we pass in the grocery store aisle to the fear of someone following us. Some strangers we give a quick second glance and check out our danger thermometer. Others we don't bother with and just pass on by.

For all of us there are certain kinds of strangers who are so different from us that we freeze up or experience a twinge of anxiety. Motorcycle guys. Men with lots of tattoos. Some homeless looking person. And then when we see several of "these" strangers in a group our degree of alertness goes up accordingly.

Some strangers just get to us. They might even be dressed in a business suit and yet we don't feel comfortable around them. They don't seem trustworthy.

Thank goodness most of the people we see during the day share something in common with us: we are all strangers to someone. And most of the time our experience has taught us that nothing is going to happen. We all socially agree to be strangers who go about our business without bothering anyone (especially depending on circumstances, location, time of day, etc).

What happens when we perceive someone to be different because they are different? What makes them different from us is our attitude about people of color, with different languages. or different faiths. The more we perceive them to be different the more we don't like them. There is a line from a song in West Side Story, "Stay with your own kind".

What can we do with those strangers we think are really different from us? Pass laws. Accept negative beliefs about them. See their being different as dangerous or bad. We can do this with strange religions, different races and foreign countries. The world is filled with strangeness.

Eevery generation has a group of strangers who are so different as to be treated different. It used to be blacks, Catholics and Jews. Then it was blacks and Jews. Now it is Hispanics (And always the Jews and blacks and now the Muslims). Who will be the next stranger a generation from now? Maybe someday it will be white people who are the minority and become the stranger. In the meantime, keep those "guns" locked and loaded. It may be the ballot, the bullet or bullying that we will need to keep the stranger at the door.

WHO'S FUNNY NOW?

The words we use in a sentence describe, predict, limit, expand, open, close, prejudge, liberate, etc. a persons view of themselves. Words in a sentence shape and may even determine who we are to others. Every word in a sentence about us are the words we select or are selected by us and we obey.



An example might be, "Uncle Fred". Whenever you are around your Aunt Nancy she calls you Uncle Fred. You think that strange because your name is William. Being three years old it is hard to figure out why she is calling you Uncle Fred. Fortunately you only see her a couple of times a year and so you don't hear these words from her very often.



Then during one visit you notice she just hasn't been saying Uncle Fred. She has been saying, "You're just like your Uncle Fred." Now you are more confused. You think Uncle Fred is pretty neat but the look on Aunt Nancy's face is stern. There doesn't look like there is anything funny about being like Uncle Fred. In fact it sounds bad.



Over the years you pay more attention with they come to your house. You notice how your Aunt treats your Uncle. She is critical of him whenever he makes a joke or speaks up for himself. You begin to wonder. "I talk and I tell jokes, maybe there is something wrong with giving my opinion and being funny with my friends." Your Aunt is your mother's favorite sister and so you begin to give credence to her criticisms of him.



One Christmas Eve you are alone in the kitchen with her when she blurts out, "You know William people won't like you if you keep making light of everything and if you talk too much." That does it. Right then and there you decide to curb your tongue and be more serious at home and around friends. You say to yourself, "I sure don't want to be like Uncle Fred."



Twenty years pass and you are at a party shyly relating to one person at a time. You're kind of restless and wished you were with another crowd on the other side of the room where they are making jokes and laughing. By now you have forgotten about old Uncle Fred and Aunt Nancy's sentence. All you know is you are restless.



Later that evening you speak to your significant other and your partner says, "I've always wondered why you seem to hold yourself back. You really are a funny person. " For some unknown reason those words hit home. You come to yourself and realize your dear partner is right. "I am funny at times and I can carry on a conversation."



The next Christmas, when the family gets together, Aunt Nancy and you are talking about Uncle Fred who died the year before. You notice she is still critical of his sense of humor and his ability to talk with people. Conversationally, you say, "I always liked Uncle Fred. He had a way of putting people at ease when he talked and cracked silly puns." Aunt Nancy was aghast and maybe because she has had a few egg nogs, says, "I was always jealous of Fred. I could never be that comfortable with people."



For you this ends the old "Uncle Fred" story and now you have a new "Uncle Fred"story about yourself. Especially whenever your nieces come up to you and say, "Uncle William, tell us a joke".

SUBTLE SEXIST WORD CHOICES

I am a male feminist. Or more accurately I am a recovering male. I wouldn't want the headaches of being a women in this society. So I am lucky. I am a privileged male. Here are some things I have learned along the way.

I have had single men say to me "I'm dating this girl". My response is "Oh my, how old is she?

A single female says, "I am dating this man." I've never heard a woman refer to a dating companion as a boy. How interesting.

How do men "deal" with crying or sadness. Often they will say, "He is just being "touchy-feely". He cries like a girl. (There is that "girl" again.) Or men will say, "He's such a pussy." The implication being that because a woman has a vagina she is weak, subservient, and a wimp.

How do men "deal" with women who cry? Get uncomfortable. Don't know what to do. And sometimes say, "Stop being so sensitive. I didn't mean it".

Another everyday example: At work some men refer to their wives as "the little woman". Endearing? Perhaps. And also demeaning. What would it sound like to hear women refer to their husbands as "my little man"? Has an odd ring to it. That's because language subtly enables men to put women in an inferior position to themselves.

Another example: When men get angry with their partners, they sometimes swear and call their wives a "C...". As if a woman and her genitalia were despicable.

Another way we dehumanize women is to not just look at an attractive women but turn them into "objects" of sexual fantasy.

What is a recovering male? A man who is willing to become aware of his blind spots when it comes to how they treat and think about women. So men, if you have the nerve and the opportunity ask a woman how she sees you treating women. You might be unpleasantly surprised.

(I am aware this is a heterosexually oriented article)

AMBIGUITY

Webster defines "ambiguous" as something that is "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways". The result is another definition: "uncertain or doubtful". For example, the word "passed" could mean, "He passed the football". Or it could mean, "I passed him in the hallway". And it could be used this way, "He passed". By itself the word is ambiguous and its exact meaning uncertain. When we use it in a sentence passed suddenly makes sense. It is clear because of the context in which it is being used. Otherwise, we are uncertain as to its meaning.

Movie endings can be filled with ambiguity. Did the couple get back together in the closing scene? Did the hero live or die or remain an invalid? Sometimes a movie with an uncertain conclusion can be unsatisfying if we want a "happy ending" or least a clear cut curtain. On the other hand, a movie with an uncertain ending can be intriguing when we fill in our own possible interpretations.

However, when it comes to life we prefer to have clear boundaries of right and wrong or truth versus falsehood. As Jack Webb, from Dragnet used to say, "Just the facts, Ma'am." But what happens to us when the facts don't add up or can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Ask a police officer what kind of "facts" she gets when asking witnesses to describe the "perp?" Ambiguity among their statements.

There are two sides to us (plus more): Modern and postmodern thinking. Our modernist thinking likes things black and white with few if any shades of grey. Our postmodern side prefers uncertainty, doubts, non-clarity, ambiguity. "Modern thinking prefers "I'm sure." Postmodern thinking prefers "I'm not so sure."

Another example: Which reason do you have for fighting the war in Iraq and the two other countries? Let's pretend there are five possible answers. Our "reasonable" side would probably agree with the government's story. Or with our friend's story. Or our political party's story. Or some media explanation. Whichever we would select would become the reason for those wars. (Usually our answer would be along the lines of "fighting terrorists"). Our answer becomes the answer and "that settles that". No ambiguity here.

The other side of us, the postmodern side will not settle for a simple answer to a complex situation like war. Pretend a postmodern thinker were given ten reasons for those wars which do you think she would pick. Several. Maybe even many. And this thinker would say "There are many factors at play. There are economic, political, religious, etc. reasons on all sides of the issue. It depends. Some of the reasons I may see as invalid and not worthy of war and others..."

Two, at least, emotional responses arise out of our two sided thinking. There is a part of us that prefers certainty and the rationality of feeling certain. We prefer the confidence that comes from being sure about a thing. On the other hand, we know life is very uncertain and if we let in the ambiguous stuff we will probably feel anxious,worried, scared. But it gets in anyway, at times.

Modernists and postmodernists agree there are many solutions to the ambiguous state of being both certain and uncertain at the same time: religion, psychology, philosophy, reason, etc.

How do you deal with ambiguity, uncertainty, doubt, the color "grey", the many possible "answers", the numerous viewpoints, and the multitude of ethical and relational choices?