Conversation may presently be said to be in a state of crisis due to technological advancement. What may be construed as increased communication and rapidity and volume of exchange, may not be indicative of quality in the exchange itself. Does conversation require rescuing, or regression to a previous state?

‘Rescuing conversation may be a quixotic enterprise for other reasons… Many people do not think conversation is important. “The image of human activity and intercourse as a conversation,” Oakshott says, “will perhaps, appear both frivolous and unduly sceptical.” In the view of many people the world needs more activists, not more good conversationalists.’ (Emphasis added). Miller, S., 2006, Conversation: A History of a Declining Art, Yale University Press, p.304.

This quote relates not only to conversational ubiquity in society, but also to an undervaluing of conversation due to that very reason. Within this lies the assumption that all conversation/human activity and intercourse is of the same quality, content and intention: such a generic, reductive sentence does a disservice to the artists amongst the masses who take conversation and its possibility into realms of thought, life and language.

No responses yet (You must be logged in to respond to this post)