I ended my last entry with the homework about arguments. And that's how I want to continue here. The homework was evaluated at the beginning of the course. I found it remarkable that somebody said an argument is the expression of “suppressed” conflicts. This seems to be quite logical. I mean, I can carry a conflict with me around but don’t feel like expressing my disagreement. But it is also meant that those suppressed conflicts can “explode” and the argument is not about the actual conflict but only deals with something on the surface. Of course then a solution can not be achieved. Ms Müller threw the words “conflict culture” in which she contrasted to “arguments as fights without consensus”. The former can for example be watched on TV when politicians meet in a talk show. Those arguments are not spontaneous and finding a consensus is likely or (at least) possible. “Arguments as fights” are more spontaneous and thus the participants are rather unprepared. It is doubtful that an agreement is found which satisfies both sides.

But what now about changing one’s perspective? Of course in the last categorization changes of perspective are not so frequently. They need preparation and hence are found more in the “conflict culture”. But another observation can be made. Janine added that changing the perspective is more likely to occur afterwards. Of course, afterwards one is always smarter. –Probably everyone can confirm this. One suddenly has the best arguments but it is too late. When having time for preparation it is easier to think of possible arguments and also a prepared conflict tends to be more productive for both sides because the issues can be taken by their roots.

The next exercise was to make a brainstorming about “mediating”. I only remember that I contributed the explanation: “searching and creating commonness.” Tutor Christine drew a circle on the blackboard and in its center she wrote “Mediator.” The students could add their associations which she also wrote on the blackboard: depersonalizing conflicts; formulating questions; empathy; moderate; filter emotions; even-handed; instructing; giving the feeling of sympathy and competence.
After the theoretical aspect was (more or less) clear, we were allowed to test it practically. Volunteers were needed but (once again) everybody hesitated. I had mercy and went into the middle of the classroom. Two girls joined me in consequence. Well, before I went on the “stage” I had already an assumption what would follow: Two of us would argue and the mediator shall calm us down. Every one of us three got their instructions. I should be the boyfriend who is late at his appointment with his girl. She blames him for that and I should argue with her. But I think I had not really a basis for my arguments. The situation was for me difficult. What should I blame her for, it was definitely the boyfriends fault to come late, actually I agreed with her. Plus, I am not really someone who knows and tries to argue. So it all started. “Why are you late; we wanted to go to the cinema!” she said. How should I react? I tried to find excuses. The mediator approached. My conflict partner and I were not really allowed to listen to the others accuses and so we had to maintain our standpoint. Because it was so difficult for me and I ran out of serious arguments (which she didn’t seem to listen too), it became ridiculous for me and I admit… I exaggerated. “I met another girl and she was so beautiful, I just couldn’t pass her.” Of course nobody would admit this even if it was the case. Well, I got seriously stuck. She blamed me for not calling her for my delay. I tried to blame her for not worrying about me. (- An argument which I thought of really late!) Much later that afternoon, when I was out with my dog, I had the idea that actually the boyfriend could have been late because he tried to arrange a dinner with her as surprise in a restaurant. He wanted to make it very special and because of the pressure he forgot the time. But yea… afterwards one is always smarter like I said.

The second and third discussion was led by different people. The second was a scene in a living community about washing up. They played it really well and credible as if they would play themselves. But also the mediator did a good job. It was interesting to watch. The third situation was a group discussion with the class divided into supporters and opponents of study fees. But the topic is too big as that it could be solved first within the limited time and second by the mediator. Out of the two groups not more than two or three people were leading the discussion and the others seemed to agree in silence. I think the group discussion (25 vs. 25 people) was the hardest job for the mediator.

In how far this lesson will influence my further conflicts remains to be seen. So far I have not had the chance to practice it myself under real conditions. But in the next conflicts I will definitely try to become more aware of mediating. There is only one problem. The mediator has to be accepted. For example most of the conflicts are in family. Much before this lesson I used to try mediating within my family. But of course I had no success. Even if I tried to depersonalize certain arguments my parents did not listen and continued their way. The same problem might occur among deeper friends too. Therefore I am not really sure yet in how far “mediating” can be used in everyday situations because most conflicts occur in everyday life. On the other hand, when I see an argument between two strangers I would not in all cases intervene. Maybe it is because I think I should acquire more competence before I can become a professional mediator. And of course, the only way to do so is learning by doing. And if all this doesn’t help, we have in Germany a saying: “When two guys argue/fight, the bystander has a smile on its face. (Wenn zwei sich streiten, freut sich der dritte).” [sorry, don’t know if it is translated well :)]

After two weeks break we met again for another class. Unfortunately I had forgotten to bring my material with me. I asked someone to lend me a sheet of paper on which I could make some notes. But now, in this very moment when I am writing this and I am sitting in the library, I have forgotten to bring my notes with me again. What is going on with my head? But yesterday I was at the doctor’s and there was a poster that an Alzheimer Truck is coming to Halle’s market place in June. You can get a free check there and maybe I should take this chance.

The first thing I should do – especially because I am sitting in a library – is to look the word empathy up. Yes, dear reader, I am not sure about its meaning. BeiBei asked me yesterday what it means and I gave her an explanation but I was not sure if it was right. The Oxford English Dictionary 5th Volume (out of 20!) explains it with a German word! (This of course lets me easier understand.)

empathy. Psychol. and Esthetics. [tr. G. Einfühlung (see EINFÜHLUNG) [...] The power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.

Hmm, okay I don’t know if I was right… but I will inform her later about the “real” meaning.

But before we actually started with this topic we compared the homework from last time which was to think about a different interpretation of the black-guy-white-couple-scene (see previous entry). The most common thing was that in those new interpretations the racial aspect was completely excluded. We spoke about why in those earlier interpretations we all saw a situation with racial background. As far as I understood it was because nobody is unbiased. We supposed that even the audience of our play has certain expectations and that the exercise has a certain purpose. Why would we get a drawing with a black person and two shivering white people in a black-and-white copy in a seminar about stereotypes if it is not intended that we interpret it as a racial conflict.

But the stereotypes are rooted deep into our society as we found out. In Germany people do not speak of Germans and Foreigners but about White people and Black people. Everybody who does not look like a German is automatically characterized as a “Foreigner”. And this is what we also find in politics. Unfortunately there has been an attack on a “colored” (how some would call it) German of Ethiopian origin in Germany recently. Immediately the press and politics spoke about assaults against “foreigners”. It seems that it is impossible to integrate into our society with a different appearance. You might be grown up here, went to school here, might have job and family but still people would call you a “foreigner”! Another girl said that also at the opposite side, the attackers, are put into a scheme. Everybody spoke immediately of neo-nazis. She concluded that actually for the public it is normal that people of a different skin color are beaten up by neo-nazis. What a terrible thought. But maybe she is right.

Another question was if prejudices can as well be positive. Ms Müller asked that. Actually I always thought that prejudices must have also a positive aspect, or else why did nature provide us with them? But in this moment I couldn’t answer. Indeed in our German culture (-how is it in others?) “prejudices” is a negatively connoted word. Nobody is proud of having prejudices; everybody would probably claim to have none or to fight them. But our prof meant the “charity” aspect, when for example native people help foreign looking people on the street. Yes, indeed I agree to her. “One cannot not communicate” (P. Watzlawick’s first Axiom) jumps into my mind. Here it means that even for example the skin color is a message: “I am a stranger here.” And people would either try to assimilate the stranger (as guest e.g.) or to drive the person out (as enemy e.g.). But what we also know from the communication sciences is that messages can cause misunderstandings or misinterpretations. A foreign looking person must not necessarily be a foreigner but if offered help in for example finding the way might even better know about it than those who try to help.

The second part of the lesson was connected to homework too. Everybody should think about or collect arguments about certain statements given in the lesson before. In this lesson now the students were divided (also by space) into pro or against and should argue.

The first statement was “Female teachers in Germany should not be allowed to wear head scarves”. (Another option was “Children under the age of 3 should go to the kindergarten”. But I -as somebody who has not even thought about getting children yet- found it impossible to have a clear opinion about that.) It was almost an equal number of supporters and detractors. So a girl should present her opinion and the discussion started. (The content of the discussion is not so important here that’s why I omit it.) We did the same with another topic but the question was with which. The children-topic was rejected and we could make own proposals. Nobody had an idea and I suggested arguing about smoking prohibition in bars. –A quite accepted proposal. But the share was not really equal. The majority was pro and maybe only one third against. Despite we took the topic. After some hot discussion we ought to stop and to change the role, which means to change the point of view. Hence, I suddenly found myself supporting smoking in bars! The same we did with the head-scarf topic and evaluated afterwards.

It was quite difficult to present a different point of view than one’s own. The participation rate was less than in the previous debates. But something really interesting turned out: In the vice-versa-conversations many people agreed that it is difficult to find a compromise. Instead it was made easy to the other side to counter the own arguments so that the “actual” viewpoint wins. I was not excluded from making fun of my new viewpoint and actually sarcastically tried to tear it down. For lack of personal and “real” arguments more general arguments like those from “experts” in the media were used. In the vice-versa head-scarf discussion I spoke for example of the German “Leading Culture” – a term often used in the public debate. Another result was that those who at the beginning of the debates had actually no clear point of view but had to decide for one group got completely caught up in their group’s opinion. –A group phenomenon, but interesting to see it in action. People integrate into groups they want (or have?) to belong to and maybe even give up their personal viewpoints.

After our evaluation the question came up if it would be better to have tool (like for instance a ball) in the discussions would be better to control the talk. It means that only the person who has the ball is allowed to talk and when he/she has finished the ball is thrown to another person who wants to speak. Another method would be to have a presenter/moderator. He or she could lead the conversation and give it structure. I found that in our discussions we only scratched some arguments but did not deepen them. The other side for example had no chance to counter them because another argument or aspect was already brought up.

A moderator is good but not always the best solution. In my experience it always depends on the participants of the discussion. Sometimes the moderator is not constructive or authority enough and the participants are better to control with a “toy”, something to touch. Once we tried to work out a constitution with participants of different nations. Some of them just could not be quite and let nobody finish their statements. The moderator was not accepted. So we used a tool. (There was no ball, so it was a “talking spoon”.) This worked quite well after some difficulties at the beginning.

The homework for the next lesson is the last thing I like to discuss here short.
What is an argument?

An argument is a clash of different viewpoints among at least two parties. Its purpose can be either to find a consensus or to deepen differences.

Does a solution belong to an argument?

It is probably not possible to find always a solution. But before saying so maybe one should think about what a solution is. If we understand “solution” as positive outcome (I put the Oxford English Dictionary away again, but a solution is probably always positive?) then I have experienced enough conflicts which had no solution. But one thing for sure, every solution has a result, if positive or negative.

Is there a change of perspective? If yes, which role does it play?

There is not always a change of perspectives in conflicts or else why would we have those strongly polarized arguments for certain issues. But it is a useful tool. It depends on the intention of the debate if you want to find a consensus or want to persuade somebody. But in both ways it is helpful to think about the other side’s points of view, either for understanding them or for attacking them.

The next topic will be about empathy and changing one’s perspective too. I hope that by then my poor memory won’t have made more progress and that I remember to discuss the homework further.

Sorry... I can neither comment nor blog at the moment. My computer needs a repair. It should be fixed by the end of next week I hope. (Incredible how expansive the customer's support is!)

What comes into your mind when you think about the USA? An association game. (President) Bush, Microsoft, English, Everywhere, Mixed Ethnicities was my answer. The other members of the class made also notes about their imaginations. The same we did for France (Baguette, blue-white-striped shirts, black moustache [this was indeed a picture which I have seen somewhere and which suddenly came into my mind!], (President) Chirac, Nuclear Tests, Vine Farmers, Cheese [foot in general]) and Germany (Wurst, Bright People [from the outside at least], Airport, Life, Order, Better Climate, Culture: Literature, Classical Music, Love Parade). We compared the answers of the course members and it was quite significant that the first notes of the participants to each country) except for Germany) were almost the same. For America the President played a big role, for France it was more the food. When it came to the question which country was easier to describe, it turned out tobe the most far away country USA (from us here in Germany), followed by the neighbour France. The home-country Germany turned out to be the most difficult to find stereotypes. And therefore the answers were pretty specific while in the USA-description everything was more general.

Another result was that the USA got a pretty negative stereotyped assessment. Foreign Politics (Iraq) and global market domination played in my eyes a big role. But Germany was assessed even worse in general. My ideas were more positive but the thoughts of others included for example Unemployment, which is a big issue here. We have two students from foreign countries in the course. The girl from China - although she is living here - thought as stereotype of Germany of Hitler which surprised me a lot although I have encountered it often that foreign people in foreign countries associate Germany with Hitler. I suppose this sympathizing with Germanys past regime occurs especially incountries with a strong leader. I once had an experience in Egypt on a vegetable market. The people there were really friendly and lots of them wanted to talk with us (although the language was a barrier). Asked where we come from we answered Germany and were friendly greeted with Hitler, Hitler!which made us shiver because actually in the national and international context it is something embarrassing and nothing to be proud of. But those guys meant it friendly and probably because of missing education expressed their pride on Germanys ex-dictatorship. But speaking about friendly, the girl from Armenia mentioned the unfriendliness of German people. I dont know if I share this opinion. Indeed Germans look unfriendly. But as US researchers have found out it is because of the German language. Due to the pronunciation of German people have always their mouths bent down (so opposite to when you are smiling). But when as a foreigner you dont talk to old women in the tram, you can find a lot of friendly and funny people here. [Bus drivers are in fact a special crowd: I go every day by bus and since they never greet me when I greet them, I had to improve my pronunciation into a loud and clear GUTEN TACH!]

But back to the course: Was it already difficult to describe the auto-stereotypes of Germany, it should become even harder to describe what actually means being German. I have thought about it earlier how to distinct us from other cultures. Yes, I think this is what you dowhen you prepare intercultural evenings in exchange programs. So forme being German is belonging to an association (or more), having lots of art (and artists) but it also means complaining although we dont have to. The biggest agreement in the course was the language which distinct us from others.

But the most exciting thing of the course still had to follow. The members were divided into groups of three (or sometimes four like in my group). We got a drawing showing a bench. At one end there were two people sitting, shivering with crossed legs and making themselves very small. At the other side there was black person sitting, turning into their direction and saying something (the mouth was drawn open?). Each group should interpret the situation, what do we see in the picture, and finally turn it into a small play which shall be acted in front of the class. In my group we discussed relatively long how the situation shall be. I thought the sense in the picture should be to interpret it as racial discrimination that the two white people move to the very end of the bench whenthey see the black guy sitting down. Finally the other three members convinced me that the white couple is not scared by the blacks skin colour but only because he behaves strange. Okay, so we invented the situation. The black guy comes out of the foreigners department angrily because he was not accepted to live in Germany. Because he or she makes such a noise the others are scared and move to the other end of the bench.

Almost in the same moment we had come to an agreement, Mrs Müller called our group to be the first one which performs. So we went to the middle. I could play the angry black man or woman. Afterward we saw some interpretations of the others who did it similar to my suggestion and put racial bias in the foreground.
I liked the scenes a lot. They were really funny and well acted sometimes. And to be honest, I am looking forward to the next acting exercises.

But the lesson had finished and we got some homework. How can the situation on the bench be interpreted completely different? I thought that maybe the white couple - they were only slightly dressed - could have made a trip to Mallorca or some other holiday paradise. They thought it would be always warm there and didnt take enough clothes with them. So they went to the beach but it is so cold that they are shivering. Another guest - the black guy - sees them and offers some clothes to them (in the picture he wore a jacket).
Another possibility could be that the white couple, they are very clean, were desperately looking for somewhere tosit down. They want to wait for an appointment with the black guy. They see the bench with a forth person sitting on it who is spilling all the coke over one half of it and the bench becomes terribly sticky. But because there is no other bench they take the clean corner to sit down. The forth person leaves. The black guy doesnt know about the cola there and takes a seat and wants to greet the white couple. But the white couple who knows about the previous accident there shivers of disgust that he took that place in the dried but sticky cola.

Well...stereotypes. We always expect things which probably mostly occur (or else we wouldnt have them) but in exceptional cases when they do not occur surprise us a lot. We sometimes insist on our ways of thinking, our patterns and previous experiences that when something new happens we wouldnt understand the world anymore. We can try to prepare ourselves for new situations but I wonder if successfully. The word unexpected actually already says that they are not expected and therefore impossible to prepare for. The only thing to learn is how to cope with unexpected things, how to react, how to avoid embarrassment but see it as a new aspect which enriches our view of the world.