I remember being a kid around grown up conversations. The curiosity of wanting to know what was so important, the feeling of magnitude that what adults talk about is so much more important than what my friends and I would talk about, and the desire to be a part of those talks.
I was fortunate that my parents didn’t shoo me away or try to distract me with something else. When I was curious they let me listen, though I was often distracted and would find something else to entertain myself. But as I grew up, I became more and more interested in being a part of the conversation. Gaining entrance seemed simple enough. The first thing is to listen.
Anytime I managed to embarrass myself it was usually due to speaking up before I really understood what was being said. Countless times I have stuck my foot in my mouth and was forced out of the conversation, either by my own bruised pride or those annoyed by my outburst. The best solution to my ignorance was not only to listen but, if I was going to attempt joining a conversation, I had to start by asking questions: “What specifically are you talking about?”; “What do you mean when you say…?”; and so forth. The natural step from passive listening to active engagement was inquiry. Asking as many questions as necessary to get a feel for the discussion at hand.
The final step, I noticed, to feel fully engaged and perhaps even leading the conversation was to make declarations. Producing a statement, or several statements, that would both pick up what others have said but also lead the discussion into a new, perhaps just a slightly different, direction was a definite sign that I had truly become a part of the conversation.
I don’t recall the specific moment when I felt I had moved from kid listening by the table to adult leading the discussion, but I can see the progression in several moments throughout my life. However, that is with dinner conversations and social gatherings. It took me some time longer to realize the same dynamic within the academic and intellectual conversations.
To be honest, I was in college before it even occurred to me that all human knowledge and understanding is essentially a giant conversation. From the oldest writings to blog posts to coffee shop debates anytime we talk about history or science or politics or any of the other broad range of possible topics, whether we know it or not, we are engaging in a long and incredibly diverse conversation. I spent most of my young academic life resisting the boring task of memorizing and regurgitating seemingly arbitrary information. At home I aspired to be in on the discussion while at school I didn’t even know there was a conversation to be had.
I suspect that a problem, whether perceived or real, is the notion of a gatekeeper. What I mean is that there seems to be an idea at least implied that one must prove worthiness to enter the conversation. It can take the form of jargon, specialized words and phrases specifically designed by and for the initiated. There are other forms it can take but mostly the gatekeeper seems to produce the same effect: “Only those deemed worthy may enter…”
Science and Math can be especially guilty of this. Particularly because what is known today relies so heavily on the developments of the past. So, despite the cries that we need better education in those areas, there is still pervading myths about natural genius and “Math/Science-people vs. Non-Math/Science-people”.
My vision, my hope, for what Scientisms could be is a conversation like those I remember from my childhood. Not off-limits or demanding qualifications but inviting and even enticing us to listen, ask questions and join in.
-John
Scientisms 