Clergyman Charlie: On saying what you mean
May 6th, 2007 by Charles Lamb
I was sitting in my doctor’s office the other day, waiting for my turn, when I noticed a sign posted over the receptionist’s window. It said something like this: “A $25.00 fee will be charged for any appointment not cancelled 24 hours in advance.”
I thought, “Well, I’m not canceling my appointment. I’m keeping it. I don’t have to pay $25.00, do I? There’s something wrong with that sign.” I realized it should have said, “A $25.00 fee will be charged for any missed appointment not cancelled 24 hours in advance. It couldn’t mean I had to cancel my appointment or be fined! There is no fee charged for kept appointments!”
So I walked over to the window and explained to the receptionist that her sign was wrong. She could not understand what I was saying! She became defensive, and launched into a lengthy explanation of why they had to do this. There were people waiting to see the doctor who could be given appointments if time opened up, etc.
“No, no,” I said. “I’m not objecting to the policy! I’m just saying that the wording doesn’t say what you intend.” She still couldn’t understand me. I wished I’d never brought it up.
But when she stepped away to get my file, I wrote “missed” before the word “appointment.” I fixed it.
When I returned home, I told my wife about this incident. She said, “Didn’t you understand what the sign meant?”
“Of course I understood what it meant! But that wasn’t what it said!” I think she thought I was being “picky.”
All of this set me to thinking about how often we don’t express ourselves clearly, and people misunderstand what we mean. Sometimes we think we know what another person is saying but we haven’t really listened to that person. Sometimes we are so eager to make our own point known that we are just waiting for the other person to stop talking so we can say what we have prepared to say ourselves.
I see this happen a lot. To take just one controversial issue, do people who are pro-life really understand that many pro-choice people are not pro-abortion? They are pro-choice, pro- the right of a mother, not a legislature, to choose. And they are in favor of protecting the health and welfare of a woman. Especially in cases of rape or incest, to force the person to go through 9 months of pregnancy can be compared to raping her again.
And do pro-choice people understand that pro-life folks don’t see their position as anti-woman, but pro-child? They know there are thousands of abortions in cases where the mother was not raped, no incest is involved, no health issues are raised. They want to offer adoption as an alternative, and they feel there are many people eager to adopt. They are people of good will.
How do we reach the point in which we can listen to each other, and speak clearly, stating the other person’s viewpoint in words that person finds to be accurate?
And is there common ground? There has been a common ground movement suggesting that all parties concerned can agree on urging teenagers and unwed persons to avoid becoming pregnant, to educate people to abstain from sexual intercourse until they are married or at least to use methods of birth control.
The pro choice and pro life dispute is just one example that could be used. People who want us to leave Iraq quickly are not un-American, or unpatriotic. They feel we never should have gone there and that we are accomplishing nothing by staying. People who are afraid to leave think that is more dangerous for us to do so than it is for us to stay longer. I’m one who thinks we need to bring our troops home, but I hope I can hear what those on the other side are saying, and not accuse them of being “warmongers.” And I hope they don’t accuse me of being a “traitor.” They think we give terrorists a secure base if we leave. I think we breed more terrorists every day that we stay.
I’m getting a lot of thought out of that little sign in my doctor’s office. I hope this column helps you do some personal meditating too. Don’t be like the Rush Limbaugh types who just shout slogans and try to drown out any other viewpoint. Listen thoughtfully to what others say. State your own position clearly and courteously. It is a lot more effective, a lot more civilized, and a lot more likely to help us all reach some beneficial conclusions.
Share This
Add this to your favorites















sjc Says
In politics these days there is a race to “frame” the debate with language. For instance, who could argue against a tax on death? Hence the coining of the “Death Tax.” Of course, the “Death Tax” is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate tax, but with such a title, a proponent of it starts the debate on the defensive and at a disadvantage. That’s why the proponents of the “Death Tax” have coined the phrase “Estate Tax”. Who could argue against a tax on an estate? That’s the point, arguments are won and lost from the first two words. “Pro-Life”/”Pro-Choice” is an obvious second example. (Incidentally many Pro-Choicers now call “Pro-Life” “Anti-Choice”.) There are political think-tanks that think up phrases like this in favor of their agenda. For more on this topic, see George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant!”
May 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pm