com 502 - classroom communication

The 4 C’s of The Community of Truth: 
Examining Subjectivity in Groups Inspired by Parker Palmer’s “The Courage to Teach”  


 

     People, like diamonds, are unique.  We begin with a clean slate and during the process of development we constantly evolve.  In many ways who we are and what we think at any given moment during that process can be compared to the evolution of a diamond; we each have our own cut, clarity, color, and carat.  As we gain insight to the world around us from our experiences, our four C’s evolve with us.  Palmer introduces the idea of “the community of truth” (p. 101) – a sort of gathering to discuss and interpret the meaning of various subjects or disciplines.  When we engage in the community of truth, we offer our respective diamonds to the discussion, and depending on who joins the group and when each participant contributes, the end result of each community looks very different.  After examining the cut, clarity, color, and carat of each of the thoughts that are offered by participants among these communities, it becomes evident how important each individual contribution becomes to the journey toward the truth. 

     The ideas that are contributed each have a different cut – some are round, others square, and some are still waiting to be released from their rocky exteriors – but in the community of truth, no one thought is more valuable than the others.  Palmer states, “In the community of truth, as in real life, there are no pristine objects of knowledge and no ultimate authorities” (p. 101).  I prefer whole-class discussion to lecture in my classes (those I teach and those I take).  Realizing that everyone in the discussion has something to say, regardless of their cut, the group as a whole (as well as the subject) benefits from a wide variety of ideas.  Those participating in the discussion who are more knowledgeable as well as those who know less gain valuable insight into the discipline (and each other).  As the instructor, I have learned so much about communication from appreciating that each of my students has something to contribute to the dialogue.  As we contribute our own diamond in the moment within the community of truth, the others are affected.  Round diamonds may begin to become more square, square diamonds may begin to become more round, and others may begin to emerge from their dark shells.  Like ideas thrown into the dialogue, there is a constant transformation that occurs as the result of others’ contributions.  As stated before, this community is a process; thus, each diamond is constantly evolving, which in turn assists others to evolve as well.  He continues, “The subject knows itself better than we can ever know it, and it forever evades our grasp by keeping its own secrets” (p. 105).  The end result, then, remains the same – to serve the discipline and move closer to the truth that only the discipline can ever fully understand.

      The clarity of each individual contribution also serves the community of truth.  Some people know more about certain subjects, but that should not negate the contributions of those less knowledgeable in the discipline.  Open discussion among people with a common goal (of serving the subject) facilitates new understanding and a better appreciation of the material for all involved, no matter how experienced or inexperienced each contributor might be.  Palmer asserts, “As we try to understand the subject in the community of truth, we enter into complex patterns of communication – sharing observations and interpretations, correcting and complimenting each other, torn by conflict in this moment and joined by consensus in the next” (p. 103).  One idea originally thought to be clear may become murky because of someone’s contribution, or alternately, clarity might be possible because of a seemingly murky idea.  I have experienced this several times.  I think I have an understanding of a theory until someone contributed to the community of truth – then I question my own understanding and try again to begin to make sense of the theory.  Realizing that our own understanding of a subject is always in transition alleviates some of the burden of having to know everything about the discipline. Clarity in our thoughts and ideas, like the literal clarity of diamonds, depends on our surroundings.

      The world would be a boring place if all diamonds were the same color –  just as it would be boring if everyone thought the same.  The third C, color, can be related to diversity (both mental and physical) among those contributing to communities.  Because contributors to the community of truth are diverse, conflict will inevitably arise.  Palmer sums up conflict and its place in the community of truth with the following:  “Conflict is the dynamic by which we test ideas in the open, in a communal effort to stretch each other and make better sense of the world” (p. 103).  Aided by the myriad of thoughts within the community of truth, our own thoughts and ideas are challenged and we are forced to alter our perceptions if we are to do our subject justice.  He later states, “We cannot know the subject well if we stand only in our own shoes.  We must believe in the subject’s inner life and enter with empathy into it, an empathy unavailable to us when we neither believe in nor cultivate an inner life of our own” (p. 106).  The classes that I teach are fairly diverse – I have students who are black, Hispanic, Asian, and one in a wheelchair.  Some of the communication concepts we have studied this year have meant different things to each of these students (not only because of the physical diversity, but also because we each have had different experiences in life which have shaped how we perceive the world).  An appreciation for diversity of thought from all contributors as well as respect for the diversity of the subject is essential if we propose that we are working for the best interest of the subject. 

      The final C, carat, is the weight that each thought carries (or seems to carry at any given time).  Rightfully so, theories about our respective disciplines that have been tested and proven to explain (fragments of) the discipline carry more weight than fleeting thoughts, but without the minute details we can never advance our understanding of any subject.  Palmer admits,

“We need to know the current conclusions in order to get in on the conversation.  But it is not our knowledge of conclusions that keeps us in the truth.  It is our commitment to the conversation itself, our willingness to put forth our observations and interpretations for testing by the community and to return the favor to others.  To be in the truth, we must know how to observe and reflect and speak and listen, with passion and with discipline, in the circle gathered around a given subject” (p. 104).

Each discipline would be very different if each contributor within the community of truth decided that his or her thought was too minute to share or too simple to discuss.  While only the subject knows the complete truth; it is the responsibility of the community of truth to try every key available in the quest to unravel that truth little by little.

      Each participant of a community of truth embarks on a valiant mission –  a mission that each knows will never come to complete fruition.  It is a labor of love for the discipline and a mutual respect for those who share our passion.  Unlike diamonds, many thoughts will never be sold and a relative few are even worth a second look.  Like diamonds depend on their surroundings, however, thoughts need a community to harbor and expand ideas.  Communities of truth provide such a space – a space in which, regardless of cut, clarity, color, or carat, each individual idea plays an important role in serving not themselves or even each other, but the discipline itself. 
 
Reference

Palmer, P. (1998).  The courage to teach:  Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.





Leadership and Self-Deception: 

Staying out of the Box by Realizing Students are Individuals 

 

      While reading Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting out of the Box, one chapter in particular stuck out to me – Chapter 7, “People or Objects” (2002).  In the hustle and bustle of our lives, it is far too easy to stop seeing people as individuals with their own priorities and obligations outside of the realm in which we find ourselves collaborating.  It is important to remember that those around us are not mere objects sent from an undisclosed location to make our lives easier, rather individuals with not only their own complex sets of hopes, fears, and values, but with the capacity to make mistakes – something that people do that we never expect of objects.  While teaching COM 114 (and indeed in every aspect of my life, but for the sake of this analysis I will focus on this one), I have a choice – I can choose to stay out of the box by treating each of my students as individuals or I can retreat into a box, therefore causing my students to retreat into their own boxes as well, by treating them as objects.  After examining two instances of treating my students as individuals instead of objects from my first semester of teaching and how those examples have impacted me, my choice of how to treat my students in subsequent semesters becomes an easy one.

      Early in the semester, I had one student who seemed resistant to me, and I almost fell into the trap of resisting him.  I thought of him as that “too cool for school, just out of high school” type who was here for all of the wrong reasons.  He seemed like the classic case – leaning as far back in his desk as humanly possible, his arms crossed in front of him throughout class, and his book and his mouth both remaining closed during class discussion.  It was only when I remembered Emily talking about how students react to fear that I decided not to turn what I saw as disrespectful behavior into something more – in essence I refrained from the temptation of stepping into the box.  As the semester progressed, the student began talking more in class and at one point sat with me during my office hours and talked about how he was considering changing his major to communication – a conversation that was only cut short because we had to go to class.  By choosing to see this student as an individual rather than an object, I was able to get to know him on a deeper level, and that gave the student a deeper respect for the study of communication and it gave me a deeper respect for the individuality of all of my students; that most likely would not have happened if I had confined each of us to a box throughout the semester.

      Three-fourths of the way through the semester, I had another student who seemingly gave up on the class (and himself).  He abruptly stopped coming to class and missed some assignments.  Though his first exam grade was poor and he was missing those assignments, he still had a chance of passing the course.  I could have seen this student as an object and given up on him myself, but I chose to stay out of the box and extend encouragement to finish the semester by sending him and email since he had not been in class to discuss the situation with him face to face.  The student was receptive and attended every class after that point and finished the course with a solid C.  By seeing this student as an individual and not as an object, I stayed out of the box by not taking his behavior personally.  While it might have been easier to let the student fall through the figurative cracks, it was definitely more rewarding to have been there with him as he finished the course.

      We can take objects and place them on a shelf indefinitely – objects do not care.  With individuals, though, we need to be aware of how our actions affect them.  People, with all of our complexities, do make mistakes; it is how we deal with those mistakes that ultimately determine the relationships we have with others and our ability to remain out of the box (no matter how much more work it might seem to take).  Appreciating these complexities will surely help me stay out of the box as much as possible not only while teaching COM 114, but throughout my life. 

Reference

Arbinger Institute (2002).  Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting out of the Box.  San Francisco, CA:  Barrett-Koehler.