Conversation as an Art, or Not

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine directed me to an internet link that featured an article written in the Economist Magazine, entitled The Art of Conversation: Chattering Classes.

The article, written in 2006, touches on the subject of conversation, which has gnawed at my mind considerably for a while now. It gave me the framework, so to speak, to develop my thoughts on the matter.

Is conversation an art? There are many definitions of the word art. In the context of conversation, art is, to me, an activity carried out by people with an aesthetic or communicative purpose. Art expresses an idea and/or emotion. I doubt that many people, especially the ones I have had the fortune to interact with over the years, consider conversation as possessing any aesthetic quality; other than, possibly, for romantic and seduction purposes.  It seems to me they regard conversation primarily as a means by which their needs are aired and acted upon; never mind that it involves mutual reciprocity. Mutual interchange.

Interestingly, the aforementioned article pays tribute to the Roman philosopher, politician and lawyer Marcus Cicero, for outlining the rules that guide the conduct of conversation. That such a tribute is accorded Cicero was a revelation to me, for, my introduction to the philosopher was in a political theory class. What had struck me then, was that Cicero had a philosophy that was based on the principle that the status of the world’s success is dependant on how people act in order to make the world a better place.  At the time I did not realize that this philosophy was tied up with a book he wrote in 44BC entitled “On Duties” (incidentally 44BC was the year Cicero was assassinated, so much for people acting to make the world a better place.) In “On Duties” Cicero laid down rules for ordinary conversation as follows:

Speak clearly 

Many are the times, I have become irritated when I do not get a response to a comment I have made, only for close acquaintances or family to tell me I often mumble.  Paradoxically, I am a motivational speaker and the response to my talks is, by and large, overwhelmingly positive. Could it be those closest to me chose not to hear me?

Speak easily but not too much, especially when others want their turn

Is this not a crime many are guilty of? It becomes obvious at some point that those we engage with in conversation, would also appreciate a turn to voice their thoughts, however, we chose to be oblivious to this fact and instead rumble on and on thus denying them their turn.

Do not interrupt, be courteous

You talk, but alas, you cannot complete your sentence, the person with whom you speak decides to interject.  Courtesy has no place in their lives; they will interrupt because they believe there is an urgency for their own opinion to be voiced. After all, is said opinion not more valuable than yours, they reason?

Deal seriously with serious matters and gracefully with lighter ones

How often does one bring a grave concern to the table only for the other party to treat the issue impolitely?  It is frustrating. The reverse being when lighter matters are raised, grace flies out the window together with a sense of humour.

Never criticize others behind their backs

Sadly, I am guilty of this.    Cicero gives me food for thought. If I feel ever so sanctimonious engaging in this kind of conversation, which certainly is not aesthetic, surely, should I not have the courage to voice such criticism to a person’s face? That way, we will both be engaged in growth.

Do not talk about yourself

Why is it that people find it imperative that the topic of conversation should revolve solely around them?

Above all never lose your temper

Yes, Cicero I am guilty there too!  In my defence, I am a works in progress.  It is getting better.

According to the article, centuries after Cicero laid down rules to conversation; the American teacher of Public Speaking, Dale Carnegie, added four rules to the Cicero's as follows:

Remember a person’s name

How annoying is it for someone to continually ask you in conversation “what was your name again”. What is interesting about this, is that, when someone wants something from you, they will never forget your name.  Is this not just rudeness with a generous portion of self-absorption thrown in for good measure?

Be a good listener

There are times when one can plainly see the person they are talking with has their brain engaged in something other than what is being communicated to them.  It kills conversation and indeed the communication process.

Over the course of the last five years or so, I, together with others no doubt,  have increasingly felt that modern technology, specifically the mobile phone and internet, act as a distraction that play a key role in the killing of the art of conversation. If you take a moment to observe people out on a date today, be it friends, a courting couple, husband and wife, parents and children; one, both or all members of the interacting alliance will be glued to their mobile phones or a laptop. However, thanks to the Economist I learnt that way back with the introduction of the radio and television, it was thought then, that they too would kill the art of conversation. They did not.

Rather, the Economist article notes that “conversation has survived worse challenges and it will doubtless survive more.”  It argues that evidence that conversation thrives still, will be found if one were to go into any smart New York restaurant, where the noise level will be deafening.  I have to agree, because even in my part of my woods, if one goes into any social gathering the noise levels are, indeed, at deafening decibels. So, maybe there is truth in the observation that modern technology will not ultimately kill the art of conversation.

The Economist article aptly concludes by borrowing from Carnegie who observed “making friends and influencing people, amount in the end to much the same thing, both of them require charm, courtesy and the desire to understand the ideas and opinions of others”. 

So that, whatever the strategic objective, those can never be bad tactics, can they?

Therein lays the art.