Language Experiment

Over the course of this language experiment I was exposed to the profound role of body language and the way power shifts based on who controls the flow of dialogue. 

In Part 1, the required silence made me feel very powerless; despite being physically present and mentally engaged in the conversation, only relying on non-verbal cues was incredibly limiting and humbling. I simply could not fully convey what I wanted to communicate, and had to fight every instinct to not speak to clarify my gestures or thoughts with spoken words. I conducted Part 1 while at work, during a slow morning shift, and was thoroughly surprised by how quickly my coworkers managed to adapt and change how all three of us communicated. I thought they'd take advantage of the situation or just carry on normally, but their sentences transformed into simplistic lines and yes/no things I could easily contribute and respond to. Particularly, their tones became more inquisitive and almost suspicious as they worked to try and figure out what I was communicating with just my eyebrows and laughter and thumbs up/down. 

In many ways, the two speakers held the power in the conversation, introducing new topics and easily changing the subject and even being able to just explain something more complex than my yes or no answers. I think this naturally would have given the speakers more control and power over the interaction, but within five minutes of the experiment, the topics on hand would remain until they got a detailed enough response from me and seemed satisfied with my perspective. Still with the yes/no questions, they'd specify and offer hypothetical situations in varying detail to try and grasp as much of my perspective as possible.

As a metaphor for communication between two drastically different cultures, non-verbal communication will always appear to be more limited and less capable of deep, "meaningful" conversations, especially to a speaking culture. However, the non-speaking culture requires much more abstract thinking, personal attentiveness and connection, as well as precise clarification. The speaking population may execute their ideas faster, but popular opinion would eventually begin to set in and sway many perspectives as well, whereas the non-speaking population would remain precise and determined to properly communicate an individual opinion. The latter population would likely be considered primitive, limited, or even less intelligent by the speaking population which could foster and immense superiority complex and imbalance of power against the symbolic culture. 

In our own population, individuals with speech impediments, that are non-verbal, or those on the autism spectrum have clear parallels to the symbolic communication I experienced in Part 1 of the experiment. These individuals are often interacting with other people impatiently fill in the blanks, assuming their thoughts and contributions in the conversation, overlooking their ability and sense of self entirely because they do not verbally communicate the same way. This very clearly strips symbolic communicators of their  power and reinforces how exclusionary the societal norms regarding communication are. Symbolic language asserts identity often more straightforward than verbal language alone.

In Part 2 of the experiment, I struggled even more, but forced myself to complete the full 15 minutes. Every few words or so, I'd find myself catching and stopping my tone from changing, making my face go blank, and clasping my hands behind my back to refrain from using them. It felt incredibly unnatural, like I was some sort of expertly trained Artificial Intelligence that could say all the right things but wasn't yet programmed to actually respond and engage in the conversation. 

My partner explained my lack of emotion in the entirety of the interaction left them feeling very disconnected, unsure of my general mood regarding the topics at hand, and questioning if I was even present in the moment. Once the timer was up, they circled back to each point we discussed, asking for clarification if I was being sarcastic and this part or trying to be funny at that part.

This revealed how crucial the nonverbal "signs" in regular, everyday communication is in our language. They surpass the role of "support" to what we have to say and instead have become part of what we have to say: through emotion, clarity, and emphasis. I also found it incredibly hard to keep any sort of rhythm or pace while speaking, though I might have just been too busy trying to remain monotone and still, but I think this also speaks to how particular people are on body language compared to the words we speak. For instance, "I'm fine," while dodging eye contact, fidgeting, and overall physically looking not fine- all that body language contradicting the spoken language forces the conversation partner to reinforce or challenge the interaction. 

Similarly, within our population individuals with autism or social anxiety disorders may feel overwhelmed or unnatural trying to constantly interpret and analyze body language in every interaction. 

Within high-stakes situations like conferences, speeches, negotiations, or confrontations, body language can be a bit of a liability. Unless masterfully controlled, which I now know from first hand experience is very hard to do, body language in situations like these can reveal unsettling feeling, nervousness, or simply too much emotion; this means the ability to withhold such body language becomes a form of power in particular dynamics. From personal experience, tense or highly emotionally charged situations become easier if you do ignore the other person's body language and instead focus on actively listening or just driving your point across. 

Part 3 of this experiment offers more conditional examination, the effect of written language while communicating. Overall, I think Part 1 would have been easier to complete if I had been allowed to write, as I could have completely gotten all my points across throughout the conversation. While I did observe my partners adjusting their communication style to try and get as much of my contribution as they could, they were still limited as to what questions they should have been asking as my cues were so limited, we could've taken the full 15 minutes getting my crystal clear, unspoken take on a singular topic. The ability to write also would have given me much more authority in guiding the conversation to new areas or even circling back to previous points made. 

Ultimately, I find written language to be a massive advantage to any culture. It allows for the storage, expansion, and transformation of knowledge across generations and continents. As such, international communication opens the door to spread even more ideas, translate even more cultures, and coordinate various populations economically and even politically. Written language allowed isolated communities to transform into the globalized world we see today. 

To sum up, this experiment offered me gratitude for my methods of communication, and revealed just how delicate even an ordinary, mundane, or "meaningless" conversation is. Words are incredibly powerful, but gain so much permanence and strength from non-verbal context and writing. Communication is a dynamic, mutual exchange that flows from each eyebrow raise and spoken word alike. This experiment has also granted me the perspective to work for more connection and attentiveness when interacting with symbolic communicators, and also just mentally acknowledging any/all body language in any interaction.