Old/New World Discourse: A Little More Theory of Discourse, Part III: Possible Nexuses for High-Context and Low-Context Discourse

As aforementioned in "A Little More Theory of Discourse, Part II, Context-Sensitive and Context-Free Language, Nov. 13, 2008" our essential understanding of language, as demonstrated by the range of responses that might be elicited by the phrase "Saintly Fools," depends on our starting points, i.e. on our individually held and on our collectively held beliefs about the universe.

Simply, if we hold that meaning is static, we understand terms far differently than if we hold that meaning is flexible. Alternatively, if we embrace a third option, that meaning has latitude, but only within a fixed system, i.e. if we hold by the epistemology of Torah, then we create entirely other constructs to undergird our discourse.

Consider that among the conduits, which Hashem Created for anti-Semitism, is this "otherness"” of our knowledge/truth. It is not only the case that we dress differently, eat differently, and celebrate different important moments than do the world's other nations; it is also the case that we  grapple with the foundation of thought and of expressed thought, communication, differently, too. In turn, this deep incommensurability, this alien, relative to the other nations, nature of core beliefs, necessitates that The Nation of Israel will be misunderstood.

More interestingly, when we fail to follow The Boss's Word and insist on emulating other nations, not only to we fail to thrive, because out role is not the same as theirs, but we also fail to represent, in this reality, our innovative, influential perspective. I will not write an apologia or a celebration of the impact of Jews living according to Jewish mores. The first is the stuff of cowards and the latter is the province of Torah-enlightened heroes. Instead, I invite us to consider, as a group, reaction of the nations, to the epistemic stance of the Kingdom of Israel.

Cultures, which base their beliefs on ideas communicated with a richness of paralinguistic qualities, e.g. with tone, stance, facial expression, and so forth, can not appreciate why or how certain foundational norms of ours are nonnegotiable. Specifically, nations such as Korea and China, find it difficult to grasp why the Kingdom of Israel is concurrently disinterested in political tea parties and adamant about not compromising certain facets of living. To societies with a history of polytheism, such apparent positivism seems bafflingly counterintuitive, even ignorant.

On the other hand, cultures, which base their beliefs on ideas communicated within a low-context system of communication, like Europe and North America, lack the prowess to make sense of why the Kingdom of Israel is so dedicated to making its mores easy to understand, yet has no desire to convert other nations to its cause. To societies invested in the Enlightenment perspectives, such apparent hermeneutic sensibilities seem bafflingly naive, even primitive.

What both the high-context communication and low-context communication nations are missing is that The Kingdom of Israel is simeltaneously of this Earth and of a reality beyond. The Kingdom of Israel communicates in a mundane, yet consecrated manner. Such discourse has no referents in contemporary societies. Such language resembles no current linguistic coinage. It’s expected that we are misunderstood.
--------------------------------------------------------
Little Smile: Matters of Modesty

On a lighter note, when one of my daughters was pointing out that, in their all girl school, pants were not only permitted, but were, in fact, required, to be worn under skirts for physical education, I replied, I might as well (you have to be of a certain age to appreciate this pun) make the stretch to accept them.