Posted by Helen on: 01.10.2007 /
Scot McKnight has begun a series on his blog about the art of conversation.
He draws on the book The Age of Conversation by Benedetta Craveri. It’s a detailed analysis of 17th Century salons, directed mostly by women (I was pleasantly surprised by that part!) These were designed not for professors and specialists but for a nobility that wanted to form a society where its values and interests could become the central focus.
Here’s an excerpt from Scot’s blog entry (emphasis mostly mine).
The Age of Conversation, seen in the salons especially in France, found a group of people who had the following characteristics:
Now to the issue of “style”…
Life was made in the salons of France into “the most elegant of games” (340) that was shaped by loving one’s partner and fellow salon members as they ought to be loved. Tolerance and mutual respect shaped the conversation completely; honoring the integrity and value of the other shaped the the conversation as well. These conversations became the educational force for those so involved.
Central to the task was the aim of pleasing others and to do this they developed several strategies, and I shall try to use the French words with some brief translation:
There are dangers here, like snobbishness, and they are obvious for anyone to see. But what happened was that the French salons created an environment where conversation occurred, not to beat the daylights out of someone else, not to denounce the other, but to enjoy the pleasure of discussing pressing concerns of a given group. They learned to converse in order to learn from one another and make one another more educated.
Conversation like this, however, has its problems. As Craveri sums them up, “their exquisite courtesy was a means of domination, and their intellectual malleability was a mask for sterility and sophism” (356). In fact, at times such conversations refused to ask the hard question. “As on the battlefield where French officers took their hats off to the enemy, or in life’s crucial moments when notaries drink to the health of their expiring clients, so, in theological discussion, politesse had the upper hand, and Morellet would turn to his adversary and address him as “Monsieur and dear atheist’” (359).
Comment by: Eliza
1To make a broad generalization, women are good at social connection, talking, and being observant of clues as to the status of relationship(s). Was the type of interaction described here better suited to women than to men, do you think?
Comment by: Helen
2Eliza, I think it would be interesting to know what the male-female breakdown was in these groups. I.e. did many men participate in them or were they mostly made up of women?
Comment by: Rachel
3It sounds a lot like what we have going here! And our facilitator is a diplomatic and thoughtful female. :-)
Comment by: Karen
4I love the idea of civility and I think it does wonders when people traditionally on opposite sides that tend to demonize each other can converse politely. However I do relate to this one:
The dichotomy for a lot of atheists (and probably Christians too) is that once you get personally friendly with people it sometimes becomes uncomfortable to be really forthright with them. In other words, you start mincing words to “spare their feelings” because you consider them friends. And then you run into the dangers of developing underlying feelings of patronism and disrespect. It’s a dilemma I find myself in sometimes - anybody else?
Comment by: Rachel
5I definitely relate to that, Karen. It’s a struggle when you genuinely like people and don’t want to be unkind but you also want to be authentic and truthful. I’m not sure exactly how to find the balance. But I think it is a good sign that we are even having this dilemna. Because it means that we are actually in dialogue with people who are different from us and we are recognizing them as worthwhile and valued people, not just cardboard enemies to vilify.
Comment by: Helen
6Karen, yes, I know exactly what you mean.
Comment by: NCxian
7I understand what you are saying, Karen, and I think you are right.
The phrase “their intellectual malleability was a mask for sterility and sophism” also made me think of something perhaps slightly different. Sometimes in conversation, in an attempt to remain open to other viewpoints, it is easy to lose sight of the notion that there are some values that I really don’t want to abdicate on. If I allow my discourse to become just asking questions, or worse, just nodding and saying “uh-huh” like a psychiatrist or something, I become disconnected emotionally from the topic. I am not “engaged”. That’s what the word “sterility” made me think of–a “dialogue” that is in fact a monologue because I am not willing to place my personal thoughts or positions up for criticism. My sense from reading about the “salons” (or reading novels that purport to depict them) is that the folks held themselves above the reality of whatever they were talking about–they were disconnected, not truly engaged.
I recall somebody saying on the DB at some point, that it was possible to be “so open-minded that your brains fall out”!
Comment by: Karen
8NC:
Hee, hee. I think that was me, but I heard it in probably the opposite context of what you’re referring to. That was a phrase that the pastors at Calvary Chapel (particularly Greg Laurie) were fond of using back in the 70s when warning us against the dangers of higher education and considering other viewpoints (probably exactly like what we’re doing here, in fact). I was a college student at the time and made sure to guard my thinking against being “too open-minded.” Glad that didn’t last forever, for me. ;-)
Rachel:
That’s a really good point, thanks.
Comment by: Rachel
9That’s the context I always heard it in too, Karen. The phrase basically meant “don’t listen to or even consider any viewpoints outside our neat little box.” The implication was always that we were very stupid and vulnerable and could be easily led astray. I actually saw a lapel pin for sale recently at a Christian bookstore that said, “Closed-Minded.” Yuck!!
Comment by: Helen
10Yes, the context in which I’ve heard “Don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out” used is when a Christian is warning other Christians against being too open to ‘false beliefs and teaching’.
NCxian I think if we don’t emotionally engage then it can become just an intellectual game which we don’t allow to change us in any meaningful way. Part of what changes us, I think, is being willing to be vulnerable rather than keeping our emotional distance.
Comment by: NCxian
11Yes, I think so.
Comment by: Karen
12Okay, Rachel and I definitely went to the same churches. :-) The constant comparisons to believers as “little children” make sense, too, in the context of not being grown up enough to avoid being “easily led astray.” And it wasn’t just Calvary Chapel - my last pastor used to say that god erected “boundaries” around our minds that we weren’t supposed to cross, but it wasn’t oppression, it was for our own protection. It’s kind of creepy thinking about that now.
I’ve heard something about this in-your-face “I’m Intolerant” slogan being picked up by young fundamentalists, which I gather is aimed mostly at attacking people who tolerate homosexuality. Double Yuck!
Comment by: Rachel
13Yep. James Dobson’s son Ryan has published a book targeted to young people that is actually titled “Be Intolerant.”
Comment by: Karen
14That’s really sad. He’s a kid who didn’t grow up to the the “perfect preacher’s son” and had some troubles with not being accepted by his father’s hyper-critical followers (I recall reading some scatching criticism of him once). You might think that would give him a little bit of empathy for others who don’t “measure up” to those ridiculous standards, but I guess not. Yeesh.
Comment by: Helen
15I’ve noticed the conversative evangelical reversal in which ‘tolerance’ is a bad thing and ‘intolerance’ is good. In conservative evangelical circles that’s apparently accepted or even approved of. Outside them I think the response tends to be ‘yuck’.
Comment by: JG
16Have done a google search for this and found reference to it at:
http://www.mpbooks.com/book_detail.aspx?ISBN=1590521528
The summary on this page reads:
Part of the book is available to read as a pdf.
I’m not keen on the title but it strikes me that it is the content of the book that matters not the title.
Is intolerance always wrong? Wasn’t the principle of the protest against Mark Driscoll that there are some things we should not tolerate?
Whilst I would avoid using the term intolerant, it strikes me that what matters is the nature of the things we are intolerant about rather than whether we are tolerant or not. And secondly, the way in which we express our intolerance.
Comment by: Rachel
17You would think certainly think so. Ryan Dobson is (gasp!) divorced and currently in his second marriage. Can you imagine growing up as the son of the Focus on the Family founder and then committing the cardinal sin of divorce? I can’t imagine the kind of shame that went along with that. I would expect him to come out of that experience with an attitude of grace and understanding toward others and a recognition that none of us are in a position to throw stones. Sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case. But as much as I object to his “Be Intolerant” message, I also feel sorry for him because I suspect that deep down is a little boy who just wants his daddy’s approval.
Comment by: Helen
18JG wrote:
I agree, but if he is using it the way other conservative evangelicals do I know I won’t like it.