BROKEN TELEPHONE? THE GAP IN UNDERSTANDING
If you are familiar with Mukibi’s Educational Institute for the Sons of African Gentlemen, then you are familiar with the Moses series of stories by Barbara Kimenye. In brief, these were the tales of a cheeky young African boy (Moses) and his schoolmates and the adventures they went through in their pursuit of education, truthfully however, this pursuit was like a cat’s dance with rain.
But why bring up the tales of mischievous students? The stories relate to what Madiba once said “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart”. Perhaps the classic interpretation of the statement to mean a person’s native tongue may have been too narrow, by extension language here can refer to the context that one is familiar with. The Moses series was entertaining as it was insightful because it was in a context that African children could relate to, in their studies and social activities. So, how does one reach a person at their point of understanding?
Hadley Cantril, a key psychologist of the 20th century, stated that the way we look at things and the attitudes and opinions we form are grounded on assumptions we have learned from our experience in life. Thomas Gilovich spoke of a false consensus effect where there is the tendency for people’s own beliefs, values, and habits to bias their estimates of how widely such views and habits are shared by others. It follows therefore that one should be conscious of the experiences the persons we wish to understand have had. What are the building blocs of the thoughts and inclinations they have? And from what point does this person interact with me? Am I imagining that we share beliefs? The answers to these questions can also guide how we respond to our own actions and those of others. This knowledge must however be built on a conscious and correct understanding of a person’s experiences.
Inclusive in understanding is that sometimes people don’t know what they are for, they often know what they are against. How do we test this? Ask a person what they like to do, what makes them happy, or their goals in life. The answer is often vague at best, or if one is more aware it may narrow down to a specific interest. The vague answers go something like,
“I’d like to be successful. Have this or that…”
“I’d like to impact people’s lives in a meaningful way”
If, however, you ask what the person doesn’t like, or what they cannot stand, the answer would be more precise. Give it a try.
Political ideology is very much aware of this and attaches a friend versus enemy concept that frequently drives the common speech of the political outfit. Thus, after a movement has achieved its goal it is often the case that the aggressor has been disposed of, but the people have remained with no clear direction, because the opposite of the aggression was assumed to be the desired outcome. But no real effort was made in building it. Thus, Africa post-independence was riddled with disappointment. Here, faced with the pressure to create the states the people had desired, the people often adopted jingoistic beliefs by rejecting anything that was non-African, while failing to create the mature African concept itself.
There is hope of creating an understanding from a mutual point, aware of past experiences, inclinations and drivers while consciously building towards a meaningful future.
A final note by Andre Gide, “Each of us really understands in others only those feelings he is capable of producing himself”.