Redefining the (im)perfect speaker
What opportunities are lost when we expect ourselves and others to have a certain vocabulary or way of communicating?
[Image description: a teal rectangle containing white script that reads: “Redefining the imperfect speaker” — the text is framed by one purple and one yellow talking bubble]
WE CAN’T BE ARTICULATE ALL THE TIME
As much as we may wish we could! Often people feel hesitant to participate in a workshop or meeting for fear of “messing up” or stumbling over their words. We want everyone to feel comfortable participating, even if you don’t feel you have the perfect words to express your thoughts.
—AORTA, suggested Community Agreements (www.aorta.coop)
The specter of the perfect, eloquent, articulate, fully informed speaker looms in public space (especially on social media). Not only is our language held to this standard by various institutions, but we also extend the reach of those institutions by monitoring ourselves and each other.
Most impacted by these expectations are: people who speak languages and dialects that aren't white, suburban English, people whose verbal language sounds different from what able-bodied people expect, people who speak through signing or other forms of non-verbal communication, and poor people whose vocabulary and grammar are considered "improper."
The expectation that there is a universal "correct" way of speaking upholds ableist and white supremacist norms that have social, emotional, and material impacts on people's lives. When we are routinely corrected (or witness others being corrected) toward alignment (assimilation) with in-group language, we begin to self-monitor our own participation in public space. We identify the spaces where our language is accepted and reciprocated, and quiet or silence ourselves in the spaces where not only our language but by extension our ideas, feelings, experiences, and creativity are dismissed. We do this out of self-preservation to avoid harmful attention, or out of a real sense that speaking up won't be worth the effort.
When people are afraid to share their ideas—or even more insidious: simply parrot the ideas and language that is deemed acceptable—we lose opportunities to hear and discuss genuine ideas. Anti-oppressive decision-making and problem solving are only as effective as our willingness to hear the perspectives, needs, and interests of everyone and especially those who have been most harmed or impacted by the systems we want to change. That requires us to embrace a new definition of who the "perfect speaker" is. Not the ones who know in-group language, but the ones who have the courage to contribute ideas toward a better world, even when the words they have are not the ones we would use ourselves.
Of course there are times when someone uses oppressive or harmful language. When that language is intentional and knowingly violent, we should respond in defense of ourselves and those impacted by that language. When that language is unintended and comes from a lack of knowledge, awareness, or exposure, we should remember that we did not always know what we know. We can respond to these mistakes with the same transformative justice principles that we would any other harm: toward the possibility of transformation and harm prevention.
In practice, this looks like:
Acknowledging the meaning of what the person was trying to say,
naming the mistake,
offering more affirming language, and
moving the conversation along by engaging them in ongoing conversation about their ideas.
When we are the person who has made the mistake, we can:
Express gratitude for being given the opportunity to change our harmful language,
apologize,keep the conversation going in a way that focuses on the meaningful subjects up for discussion.
When the way someone communicates in public is not harmful but is different from how we learned to communicate, this isn't wrong, incorrect, or a mistake. There is no "correct" form of communication in public space. We can work toward understanding by asking what does that mean to you? when we aren't familiar with how a word is being used. Otherwise, focusing on the meaning, ideas, feelings, and experiences being communicated gives us a richer conversation that allows us to meet as collaborators rather than competitors or enforcers.
If we approach open communication in this way, we can create an environment where we can be trusted with someone's most authentic voice and we are more likely to receive unique, innovative input and contributions to shared world-making. If we understand that trust as the invaluable opportunity that it is, perhaps we can give ourselves the same permission to speak authentically, creatively, and bravely, which is necessary in creating a world free of oppression.
Note: This post originally appeared on my instagram account as a series of images; it can be found @conflicttransformation—this post was created as a test so that I can learn how to use substack and did not go out in the newsletter.