I participate in many listserves; too many, in fact.  They range from one on decluttering (one of my favourites) to one on social policy research, to two related to keeping a journal or diary, one focussed on on-line journals.  Only one of the listservies I'm on is Canadian; the rest are either British, American, or in some case, international (run by the United Nations).   I am struck, continually, by the comparative culture of argument, as witnessed on these lists.

The British are so proper, even in argument, that it's hard to tell they're disagreeing. Unless one reads content, rather than focussing on style.   (Yes, there is a 'style' of writing that expresses a wide range of emotions, even in listserves.)  Then it's clear that no-one can insult someone more graciously than an educated Brit.  The international lists are mostly notice lists, official ones, out of the United Nations; these are neutral in tone. Even the words, while familiar to me, are used in an intentionally neutral fashion, as is often the case in international institutions.

The Canadian list I'm on is one focussed on women's issues -- policy, action and research.  While there is often anger at the world in general, and in particular at any misogynists within the world, there is little conflict.  Even when the women disagree, it is by carefully expressing emotionless views, perhaps because so many of the members are academics, or journalists, or lobbyists, all of whom learn to express their ideas without intentionally annoying the person they are trying to persuade.

Some of the lists I'm on are truly international, in that while they may be based in either the UK or the US, they include many people from both countries, and some significant representation from still othes, developed and developing.   The language, particularly around confronting injustice, varies widely in tone.   The Americans, without a doubt, are the most angry in their posting.  We all abhor the injustice that the lists are dedicated to fighting, but no-one says it more clearly than the Americans.

And then there are lists that are predominantly American, including both devoted to the keeping of journals.  People who keep journals, one would have to assume, are interested in using language to express themselves, and have practice, if not talent, at using language in that way.  With that assumption, I can conclude only that a significant proportion of participants express their freedom to speak out by being intentionally confrontational, often hostile, and apparently intentionally hurtful to others. 

Requests for politeness, or even nice-ness are derided, seen as censorship, and evidence that the person making the plea is too sensitive, and thin-skinned, and clearly doesn't understand the culture of the list.  Each list had quite a distinct culture (both American), but when individuals got angry enough, the style of the two converged: being nasty was somehow seen as a sign of strength and passion and intensity of points of view. 

I have little doubt that Canadians are far too "polite", and that our manners get in the way of our effectiveness.  Often.   And I have the utmost and genuine respect for the wilingness of Americans to be intentionally unpopular to protect their individual freedoms.  But, I am unable to discern the inherent value in being nasty and hurtful to other people.  In public.  

There are people I have a srong antipathy toward.  I have enormous difficulty even talking to them.  They embody malevolence to me.  There aren't a lot of people like this in my life, but there are a few.  My instinct in those situations is to either avoid their company or to remain silent in their presence.    Occasionally, I'm capable of ignoring them, but it is rare, if I am truly of the view that they are malevolent.  Perhaps the sentiments that get expressed on these listserves are of that intensity.  Sometimes.  But often, the nastiness seems to be "fun" to those who engage in it.  Like sticking their tongue out or flexing their muscles in front of the weaklings, those incapable or unwilling to engage in the same behaviour. 

Whatever it is, I am not persuaded that it adds value to the discussion on the lists.  And I wonder whether it serves as an obstacle to cross-cultural communication.  Perhaps this frequent namecalling and putting down of others is an American thing, and I'm not the only non-American who finds it foreign and uncomfortable.  Of course, one of the problems with that notion is that one can't present it to bullies for discussion, because they're likely to dismiss it in an intentionally hurtful way. 

I continue to read the lists. But reluctantly. I feel I have to put on my emotional armour, even to read the responses to others.  The few times I've posted messages, I've feared that I'd be subject to ridicule and dismissal by the oh-so-clever crafters of language as a weapon.  I haven't reached conclusions on this one, so I may have to write about it again.  And again.  And again.  But I do wonder about the cultural context of anger. And I'll continue to wonder.  Sigh.

Next entry

Archived entries