Interfaith Dialogue Paper

Hi,

This Thursday I will make a mini-presentation on my Interfaith Dialogue Paper in class!!! I am planning to finalize the paper according to your questions and comments.


Have a great week

We Do Babies

Here is the article RevCat was referring to in class:

http://media.web.britannica.com/ebsco/pdf/644/34641644.pdf

Review of the Field

I found Palczewski's article laying the groundwork to be a particularly helpful overview of feminist approaches to argumentation, and really appreciated the historical presentation. As a side note, it was cool to see names that I remember from my first go-around in school 20 years ago! I heard Dolores Williams present at Re-imagining (a feminist theology conference) in 1993, and she was very provocative (and argumentative, in the popular sense of the word, come to think of it)! I have long been intrigued by the idea of women, and other traditionally marginalized groups, coming to "voice" - in fact, that will enter into my semester project on animal perspectives in animal rights discourse. When it comes to the history of the "voice" of women, clearly there are issues with whose voice exactly we are talking about. When I was working on my MDiv (1988-1991), we were reading a lot of theology by women of color/Third World women as an attempt to widen the perspectives with which we approached our understanding of religion. It was fascinating!

Throughout the work I was doing at that time, it was clear that one thing feminist theologians were claiming was the authority of women's experience as a normative source for theological truth. This was (and I think, is) a radical claim! If traditional texts were all written from a patriarchal perspective, then women's voices need to be reclaimed in order to have a full understanding of religious truth. Taking experience seriously is one way to do that. However, as Palczewski notes, sometimes this broader emphasis on women's experience has devolved into a narrower focus on "personal testimony" as "feminine," which in the end is essentializing and unhelpful.

This brings up for me a caution about our reading of these articles, and our discussion this evening. In particular in the Bruner article, I saw a tendency to be less than clear about distinguishing between "patriarchy" and "male" on the one hand, and "feminist" and "female" on the other. To me, it is not automatically essentializing to construe patriarchal argumentation as power-over, attempting to control/change, etc and feminist argumentation as pursuing a different path based on "equality, immanent value, and self-determination." It only becomes essentializing if we assume patriarchy = male/masculine and feminist = female/feminine. Some of the biggest fights I have had with people over feminist issues have been with those who make this conflation! Patriarchy demeans/limits everyone - male and female alike. Ideally, feminist critique of patriarchy aims at a liberation that is for everyone. It is about a system, not sex/gender at the biological level.

That being said, of course Crenshaw's article brings up very interesting biological issues! I think her consideration of the "male norm" is very helpful, although I found myself wondering at a couple of points if she was trying to have it both ways regarding the "difference" issue. This will be worth more discussion in class...

Feminism and arguing differently

Fulkerson article was interesting in that at the very beginning, he says that being a WHIMM makes him a suspect his position to say and write something about the subject! I did not read a lot about feminism before but the papers I read so far also made me think that even though feminist writers blame other writers to be violent, harsh in their writings, I sense these while reading these papers.
Fulkerson makes a great comment, as Cathy highlighted, that feminists state that any kind of persuasion is violent, but their writing is trying to persuade the writers so they break their rules. In addition, this claim turns rhetoric into a complete violence, am I right?
I agree with Fulkerson that taking these arguments from a broader sense will change a lot. I was working on Interfaith dialogue and found out that some of the comments, attempts to come together was rejected because it was thought to be completely Christian, Islamic….. and now these meeting s and discussions are thought to be a great step for the humanity.
Two of the papers we read were mentioning the metaphor we use and their affects on us. I did not read Metaphors we live by yet but it is on the top of my reading list.

Argument and difference

I could not agree more with Crenshaw who argues that no laws can be neutral, esp. in relation to women, since the laws were made from the standpoint of men. The issues is not in fact as straightforward as it may look at the first glance. The laws, any social rules and contracts for that matter, are created based on some assumptions and values, and we often forget them when it comes to practicing those laws and contracts. As a result, those who are suppressed due to such laws and contracts can hardly challenge, or even if they challenge, they are hardly heard, because those assumptions and values are presented as unquestionable truths. It leads to the negation of differences that have been maintained throughout, and those who have been suppressed are expected to practice “equality” with those who have been suppressing throughout the history.

I think the call to women to practice equality, in this particular context, to make argument from an equal footing misses the point that they have already experienced the “difference.” Not acknowledging that difference is in a way to silence their voice. It reminds me of some of the discussions, like on affirmative action, that have been going on in America. And I find some recent debates, and decisions that have been taken in Arizona. The decision not to teach students “differently,” is a very interesting issue. This discourse assumes that there no need to differentiate between students, and all will benefit equally by if they are treated equally (without difference of race, ethnicity, etc.). On the surface it looks like treating all people equally, making a fair argument for all, but in fact this kind of argument silences historical realities, and disempowers the already suppressed. That, I suppose, explains about the problematics feminist argumentation.

Some things I am walking away with

The Crenshaw piece & the Fulkerson piece both have a few things that I will walk away with.

First, the Crenshaw piece is pretty great because it highlights something that I have been arguing since my years as a debater, which is that: Our legal system is inherently patriarchal. Additionally, it supports this claim and expands on this idea in form and function through a case study, and shows how it continues to be patriarchal through current examples in the case study. So, not only do I like that he supports one of the claims that I like to make, but he backs up the claim well.

Additionally, the execution of this case study is also worth a pat on the back. Not only do I appreciate the ways that Crenshaw shows how women, through the equality argument, are pitted against the man (the norm), but I also appreciate the way he reverses lines of argument to show and make clear harms, limitations, and opportunities. This practice of reversing arguments to highlight limits may even be something that can be useful for Lane's proposal of the study of limits in feminist scholarship.

Next, at first I was a bit weary of the Fulkerson article after the first few paragraphs, but I like it for a few reasons. First, he does a nice job of establishing credibility and this example may be used to help others in understanding how this is and can be done. Next, I like his debunking/critique of the feminist critiques:  The equity critique and the cognitive/development critique. I think he makes excellent points in both. For the equity critique I concur with one of his major points which is that "most writers who articulate the equity critique simultaneously violate it, but attempting to argue readers into sharing their views" (Fulkerson, 1996). Additionally, I am not convinced either that persuasion is inherently violent. If so, people should stop talking now. Just stop. Because I believe that a lot of communication is rhetorical, and as such- persuasive.

Next, as was mentioned in my previous post- and is discussed in this article, the cognitive/developmental critique has "frequently led to essentializing stereotypes".

Overall, I think that both the substance of these articles and their form and functions are worthy of more attention and bring things to the table for feminist rhetoricians to engage, practice, and further explore.








Crenshaw, C. (1996). The normality of man and the female otherness: (Re)producing patriarchal lines of argument in the law. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32(4). 170.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Transcending our conception of argument in the light of feminist critiques. Argumentation and Advocacy, 32(4). 199.

ok so it's not just me....lableing practices to be feminine & masculine can reify gender stereotypes

I just finished the piece by Lane titled "Producing identities: Gender problematization and feminist argumentation" and it is  really nice to see that some of what I have tried to articulate in the past with lots of backlash exists in other people's minds as well.

I have always felt uncomfortable with labeling speech, rhetoric, debate, and/or argumentation practices as either feminine and/or masculine. And, I have particularly felt uncomfortable when this type of labeling is done within the proposed framework/lens of "feminist". As Lane (1996) notes, this risks reifying gender stereotypes more than problematizing them .

What I like about this piece, not only that it critiques  feminist practices that re-entrench gender stereotypes, is that it offers an alternative. Lane (1996) suggests "limit work" and identifies this as "a theory of subjectivity based upon the assumption that all language systems, and more specifically all identities are simultaneously enabling and constraining". She further states that the "goal of limit work is to analyze systems of constraint in order to determine their productive/constraining ratios" (Lane, 1996).

I believe that this alternative practice of limit work can be a viable approach to studying rhetoric, argumentation, and speech. A major advantage of this approach is that it not only is very critical and highlights of course what is problematic, but it also allows for discussion of positives, what is done well, what enables. The combination, which ideally won't fall too much into the real of binarism, allows for openings and more insight into what one is studying. For me, someone who is interested in political movements, their campaigns, and their advertisements, and is especially concerned with social justice, this approach seems as though it could provide for some useful findings that could potentially add to existing knowledge and possible improvements with social justice campaigns and movements.

normality of man and female....

I also liked this week’s readings, thank you Cathy! I read the introduction and two papers so far, one more to go.
So far I found Carrie Crenshaws’ paper the most interesting. While reading the paper especially the first pages, I was surprised to see there was a legal case against a law totally for the benefit of the women. I put a lot of question marks around the lines and asked a few times “what is wrong with this idea”? I was especially shocked when I read the part about seeing pregnant women the same as men. Women are similar to men, pregnant women are similar to non-pregnant women. So pregnant women are similar to man. (This should be written by someone who never got pregnant, seriously). I still do not agree with this section! but especially the conclusion part of the paper made it clear that this law especially paralyzed the hiring chances of females, did not really helped them as stated and there are some other ways to solve the problem.
One other focus of Crenshaw was the objectivity of news. I believe her point is very correct that news try to be objective by listening to all parties in the discussion but they listen only the leading figures. Isn’t it interesting that none of the sources cited mentions the ideas of the blue-color female workers but the ideas of feminist rhetoricians and law enforcers.

Feminist Argumentation Theory: Limit Work

First of all, thanks to RevCat for bringing up this reading topic. I'm enjoying the way feminist argumentation is applied to these different topics. The readings have been very interesting so far, and give good examples of the variety of ways a particular area of inquiry (like Feminism) can be applied. It's this kind of interdisciplinary approach that can raise questions which a single focus might leave behind.
I started with the Intro and "Producing Identites". Both of these articles are good in their own right but I found the idea of limit work to be especially thought-provoking (troublesome, complicated, intriguing, etc). At first I was a bit thrown off by Bruner's use of the term. He introduces this theory by calling it a 'feminist argumentation strategy' that can be used to 'distinguish enabling constraints from constraining limitations.' It wasn't until the end of the "constraining features" section that Bruner addressed limit work in much detail (at first I was confused by this, but as I read on I started to see how he revealed the argument slowly to the reader: a very nice strategy). To me, limit work is a means for creating identity by testing the limits of what currently constrains it. There can be enabling constraints, but for the most part, this is a transgressive act which helps the user of this theory understand and work to extend those limits. For example, it's not wrong to address the fact that patriarchal and feminist arguing styles are different (see KKC 1973), but that understanding must only be a starting point to greater inquiry. This greater inquiry, in my opinion, is the standard by which effective argumentation should be measured. Rather than violent, aggressive, agonistic forms of arguing, I prefer a theory like this that emphasizes reflection, identity, and transgression. There were some parts of this theory that I didn't understand fully (essentialism and deconstruction, how one might actually use this in practice, etc), but on the whole it was a good piece of theory-building scholarship.

I'll close with a question. Feel free to comment with answers, ideas, complaints. Seeing how Limit Work operates with a transgressive, liberatory, emancipating ethic, how might Paolo Friere's voice might add to this discussion?

What shall we read next.....

Hello all. After our dialogue this evening (which was wonderful by the way, the only thing missing was a Californian opinion) we ran out of time before we could talk about our plan of action for when we return from break.

Any suggestions? Anything jump out at you from the syllabus? Perhaps there's something not on the syllabus that you'd like to bring to the class' attention?

Post a comment below with your input :)

The Contentiousness of Dialogue

Dialogue as presented by Bohm, Factor, & Garrett is an interesting proposal, especially when compared to other people's ideas of what dialogue is (ex: Peters - as noted by Cathy), and it seems that dialogue is itself contentious because there seems to be many interpretations of what dialogue is and isn't. First, I found Peter's interpretation of dialogue to be privileged, to embrace and perform white paternalism, and without compassion. So, with that said I am not really a fan of Peter's ideas of dialogue. Mostly because I believe privilege, white paternalism, and lack of compassion to not be qualities of dialogue. And, as I am being reminded of Peter's interpretation of dialogue I am more inclined to appreciate what Bohm, factor, & Garrett are trying to present. Now,I must say that I think they try to set too many boundaries of what is and isn't dialogue (which is inherently problematic), but at the same time they highlight some really important points that I believe do service to conceptualizing what dialogue is, and can be.

A great starting point to conceptualize what dialogue is would be the concept of listening and it being just as important as speaking. Although listening is supposed to be a general component of communication and not necessarily anything special, it seems that daily communication practices may not appreciate listening as much as dialogue does.To focus on listening, and with an empathetic and compassionate ear, may be a place where people can start to really conceptualize dialogue. This may also be an interesting site to explore arguing differently. Although again, listening is something that should be a core component to arguing and even debate, it may not be practiced as much as it should or could be.

Synthesizing Thoughts

The Tannen book articulated most of my reasons for disliking argument and rhetoric as they play out in popular (often political) culture. One of the reasons I took this class is because I find the combativeness of academic and popular discourse tiring. I don’t mean that in an affected way. I mean it enervates me rather than energizes me.

To me, argument, rhetoric, dialectic---these all relate to how we construct and come to know what we call ‘truth.’ Each is a method of discovery and communication. When it comes to truth, I don’t spell it with a capital T. That being said, I do think rigor is important if hope to have usable and reliable results from inquiry. In other words, truth just is what we call the result of our context-driven inquiry. I’m a fallibilist when it comes to knowledge.

Toulmin gave me new tools for thinking about the structure of the types of arguments I often encounter and find myself constructing. But he also helped me to see the similarities between various argument domains.

My interest in argument stems from my desire to become a good teacher of composition and argument, and my desire to understand the way in which beliefs are arrived at and supported. As our course has developed, I have come to see (have I accepted it, yet?) that formal argument is often post hoc. That is, somehow argumentation doesn’t seem constitutive of belief. It supports belief, but it seems that argument is more negative than positive. That is, it can judge the coherence of professed belief, but I’m not sure argument can motivate us to alter our beliefs. Not any one argument, anyway.

This hasn’t turned out to be much of a synthesis.

I guess I’m not sure in what direction I have moved since the course began.

Dialogue & Speaking into the Air

As I have been reading Dialogue - A Proposal, I have found myself wondering whether it might be beneficial for us to read (at least a portion of) a book that our Communication Theory class read last year: J. D. Peters' Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. Peters delineates a contrast between dialogue and dissemination, critiquing what he sees as an ideal of perfection of dialogue that is both unattainable and ultimately damaging to communication. Here is a portion of a summary/reflection that I wrote for Dr. McKinney last year on Peters' opening chapters (Dr. M asks us a series of questions, so these paragraphs do not necessarily flow one to the other):

Q1: If the ideal of communication is defined as the meeting of minds, the consensus and even consubstantiation of two interiorities that are separated by the unbridgeable chasm of their embodiment, then communication will always be imperfect. Our modern experience of communication is marked by a sense that we aren’t really connecting with one another, a “problem” we have attempted to solve either through technology or through therapeutic efforts to improve interpersonal dialogue and understanding.

Q2: Communication as dialogue is exemplified by Plato’s Socrates, who in Phaedrus puts forward a vision of communication that “must be soul-to-soul, among embodied live people, in an intimate interaction that is uniquely fit for each participant” (Peters, p. 47). Communication as dissemination is exemplified by Jesus, who in the parable of the sower, “celebrates broadcasting as an equitable mode of communication that leaves the harvest of meaning to the will and capacity of the recipient” (p. 52). Dialogue is rooted in a longing for union with the untouchable other, while dissemination respects the other’s otherness, giving without thought of receiving in return.

I am persuaded by Peters’ argument, and find his biblical interpretation fascinating, particularly his discussion of reciprocity, gift-giving and love. Schooled in a faith tradition (Lutheranism) that emphasizes the radical grace of God, it is probably natural that I would resonate with this image of communication. However, I am a child of the modern age with its emphasis on dialogue, and I still see a place for that intimate communication that seeks a true meeting of the minds/spirits. I agree with Peters, though, that this is far too great a burden, and actually an intrusion on boundaries, to expect from most communicative encounters.

[note: this question asked us to reflect on Peters' discussion of angels, which he puts forward as an example of pure dialogue] Q3: Because (conceding the traditional view of their existence) angels are not encumbered with bodies or embodied language, they are free to communicate directly with one another and with God, through the immediate exchange of understanding, “fusing together in the bliss of pure intelligence” (p. 74). Time and spatial location make no difference to the transparency of their interiorities. It is this ideal of communication that Peters believes has pervaded our own conceptions of how communication should work, with the consequence that we always fall short. But would we (humans) be better off if we could communicate (with one another) this way? It seems to me that much would be lost – mystery, compassion (how could we “feel with” if we already immediately knew the other?), sense of self, respect for others’ otherness, maybe even love (which entails a certain separateness). Yet, since the ideal of communicating like the angels is, in actuality, impossible, perhaps an alternate question is whether there is any place for such a longing. I believe there is, but agree with Peters that it cannot and should not be the ideal for all communication.

I share what I wrote at length because it provides a background to my question for Bohm & Garrett: is their vision of dialogue even attainable? I can see the value in proprioception as a goal, but it almost seems presumptuous to be trying to do that for someone else - it assumes a transparency of interiorities that seems almost like an invasion of boundaries. And when that is taking place in a group with no designated leader or purpose, it seems like a situation ripe for real damage. Much to think about...

Reflexes and argument

I’m very much impressed and convinced by Bohm’s idea of reflexes. Our value system works at the level of reflexes, and so we are unable to explain them consciously, and so unable to get rid of them. It very much explains how much conditioned we all are in our discussions/ argumentations. Everybody thinks and argues believing that he/ she is right – based on the perception (value systems), he/ she might be right. But from another person’s value systems, that are again working at the level of reflexes, that might be completely unacceptable. It’s certainly a quagmire that we cannot come out of, but perhaps even a realization of this fact might help us become more accommodating in our argumentation. Just a thought!

Synthesizing Continues

"Arguing differently" echoes Kroll a little too much perhaps, especially due to the article, which we have already discussed. But I think that it’s really a worth-discussing and worth-exploring issue, and I’m glad that we have been looking at it from various perspectives – not just limiting to Kroll’s perspectives.

Yes, one issue I think has been argument's relationship to rhetoric. We’ve had some discussion, and some really good insights, and now I’m curious to know what has been written on the issue and if we could discuss them here. I haven’t come across any article or book of this kind yet and so I cannot say whether they really exist, but I think we can talk about it bringing in definitions of rhetoric, argument, dialectic, and even philosophy into discussions (perhaps). That would, I hope, what actually we want to accomplish by involving in an argument (or let’s say by promoting it as a means of civil discourse).

I’m also thinking that it would be useful to think about methods of persuasion that do not involve argument directly. I do not know much about it but I’m thinking about what Perelman talks about in his book under “Demonstration and Argumentation.” We have discussed many things from Perelman but I’m not sure if we had any discussion on this issue. How is demonstrative method different from argumentative method? What are some of the opportunities that demonstrative method might provide us? Could that be interpreted as yet another method of “arguing differently?”

Similarly, we might also consider some other methods of persuasion. Here I remember Kastely’s “From Formalism to Inquiry: A Model for Argument in Antigone.” I think that will fit very well into our discussion. And I’m trying to understand how literary or similar genres of writing might be understood and interpreted as different methods of argumentation. This semester I taught an article by Maureen Dowd, “Our Own Warrior Princess” (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/01/opinion/our-own-warrior-princess.html), and it was very exciting to see how she makes her argument here. I think Toulminian argumentative methods may not apply in this context. How would classical rhetoric help us understand such genres?

Our discussion of the body in argument has also been very insightful. I suppose we will have more discussion today, based on Bohm’s text. And I think we can take our discussion even further.  

Overall, I can see so many things happening in our discussions, and I’m glad that we are exploring the issue of argumentation in such a depth. And look forward to more exciting discussions.

Bohm reading....

The beginning chapters of Bohm’s book were easy to understand. I found a lot of things in common. To illustrate, Bohm mentions that our anxieties block the listening and so the communication. We have the same concept in education, especially for second language learners. Being in a different environment, learning a different language may increase their anxiety level (so called affective filter) and inhibit learning. There are numerous researches about lowering the affective filter of the students. However, Bohm does not really mention how to decrease this anxiety so that it will not block the communication much in his chapter. He just states that we need to be aware of it.
I like his chapter about the role of assumptions on communication. I agree that we do observe and judge with our assumptions. But I could not really understand where he wants to go with his chapter on Suspension, the body, and propriocepcion .I think I understood how he used the terms and their meanings but how he wants to combine them with communication is a bit confusing.

Synthesizing also...

This is the first class I take on argumentation, even on rhetoric so lots of things were eye opening for me. In the first book we read, Tannen’s book, I underlined so many pages, put so many stickers around the book. The second, the third… But now as I read Bohm, I feel myself compare and contrast, agree and disagree with him. I believe this is the biggest change in me. I feel the influence of knowledge (cannot be compared to my classmates’) on me, my accepting and not accepting some of the claims.
In addition, I feel like I approach what I hear on TV programs or how I discuss with people differently. Even the most recent one, Bohm’s chapter on assumptions (ch.5) made me reconsider my attitudes in discussions, listening, observing.
Even the class discussions were very useful for me. One day Hayley described an anecdote happened with one of her students and I remember thinking “What I would say if I were that student?”.
As the reading so far, as I stated above the first a few of them were too hard for me to understand but I feel I can get a better grasp of the subjects now. The way people argue has been changing according to needs, culture of the people. The argumentation model that Toulmin has is pretty different than what Aristotle stated. Toulmin and Perelman, though they have some similarities, are different than each other also. The rhetoric model in Asia is different than the ones in West.

Values, the body, and argument

Role of assumptions and values in the way we look at ourselves and the world is very powerfully expressed by Bohm. When he says the observer is the observed, he is very much contending that we see what we tend to be, i.e. what values we tend to live with. I think that very much relates to the way we think about arguments. Arguments arise for lack of agreement between/ among parties. Hence, every argument situations is bound to bring in different values and assumptions together. How would we be able to make productive arguments within the values we live with?

The idea of proprioception very much explains how we function at the level of body/ emotion and how much we perform any function (what we believe to be doing with a conscious mind) based on the values that we hold. Bohn claims, that “thought lacks proprioception” and by saying so he is asserting that our activities are guided not by thoughts but by emotional/ bodily mechanisms. I think, he is suggesting that our values and assumptions are formed at the emotional/ bodily level. And that is where the issue of tacit knowledge comes in. Why cannot we explain certain processes consciously even though we can perform them?

Communication happens at the level of conscious thought, and as Bohm says thought lacks proprioception. It may mean that we cannot understand what actually goes on when we communicate with others at the level of thought. I am trying to understand it in relation to argument. At the level of conscious thought we may very much believe that we are doing the right thing/ saying the right thing – we are arguing following the right method. But out assumptions and values are the guiding factors that make us feel that way, and it is possible that our perceptions are very different from those with whom we are arguing.

Is it possible to suspend those values as we act? I like what Bohm very boldly claims: it does not happen unless the changes happen at the level of the body (90). This very much interprets our actions as more a bodily performances than the ones performed by conscious thoughts.

We have been talking about the body and argument for some time. And Bohm gives a perfect theoretical grounding to take the discussion even further.

Synthesizing

Synthesizing 

Well, I have to admit I am not convinced that argument is an umbrella term and that rhetoric falls underneath that; although, I am trying to understand where others are coming from and why they believe so. I guess as of now I just disagree. I am instead convinced that rhetoric is the umbrella term and that argument falls under that, as well as dialectic. 

Rhetoric to me is a speech act, whether performed, in text, or as symbol (or in some other form that I am not thinking of at this moment). It also can be without refutation or response. Rhetoric can be part of linear process of communication or a transactional one, and this is one of the main reasons why it is an umbrella term for me. Argument and dialectic, as I understand them, are transactional processes. They require an exchange of ideas. Rhetoric, even with the audience as part of its components, doesn’t have to have an exchange. It can be in a dominating, disseminating, and linear form. 

As the readings so far suggest, argument is something that has stemmed from “Western” practices. Aristotle and Plato had differing ideas but it seems the more time passes the more scholarship seems to find some common ground between them that can lead to some of the more productive and positive exchanges of ideas that we can call argument. For example, taking components of rhetoric, dialectic, dialogue, and argument as talked about across our readings shapes a communication activity that can be rhetorical, dialogic, dialectic, argumentative, and can have clash, can be mutually inclusive, and can produce fruitful exchanges.

Communication/ Block

Although I feel that David Bohm discusses the same old idea of impossibility of “perfect” communication between individuals, either due to personal biases or linguistic barriers, he rightly points out the need to find a common place between speakers where both the parties can understand each other to a degree that they feel comfortable.

There is no questioning that there can never be a perfect communication between any two individuals. The writer talks about fear and the love of pleasure as contributing to the lack of communication, since they create a block on the part of both the speaker and the listener.  He is right that we are in many situations unable to communicate the way we want due to these personal biases. If we can understand the factors well and pay attention to them it may be possible that we communicate rightly and understand each other. This is an easy and an ideal method the writer talks about in the article. However, communication is a more subtle and much more complex phenomenon. Communication is all about how two people, with their own world-views and perspectives, trying to come to terms about certain worldly or even imagined phenomenon. And they have to that through a signifying system where each components of the system is metaphorical, and each individual understands and interprets it in his or her own ways. Hence, communication is always a hard subject.

Bohn’s suggestion to try to find the reasons that block communication and address them for better communication is, no doubt, practical. Even though we cannot expect to communicate cent percent correctly, we have to try it (and we have been doing it.) Talking in practical terms, this method will certainly help us understand each other and established more harmonious relationship among us. Very simple, straightforward and practical!