Lost and found in translation

As I participate in panel discussions here (as in any international forum) I think about two related issues. First, I wrestle with how to reconcile the demands of courtesy with those of intellectual honesty. It is easy to let politeness win out over contentiousness when the matters being discussed are trivial. But when I am engaged in a public discussion of serious public policy matters, disagreements that goes unexpressed will often be taken for agreement, and there is no point in coming thousands of miles and not expressing my real opinion.

But I am conscious that I am in a peculiar line of work - elective office - which means that several months, every other year someone spends as much time as he or she can telling the people who control my job - the voters - that I am a knave, a fool, and a sloppy dresser unworthy of my job. When I respond vigorously and sometimes acrimoniously, that is just part of the process.

But when I am in fora with others for whom electoral debate is not part of their lives, and in the more elegant settings of Davos, I worry that my responses to things with which I disagree will be too vigorous and seem unmannerly. Trying to think of relatively nice ways to tell someone he or she is talking nonsense is harder than it may look - at least to someone of my temperament and experience. This has exacerbated the dilemma of my consciousness that I often enjoy an unfair advantage over those with whom I am arguing, namely, that we are speaking English, which is my native language, and often a second, third, or fourth language to my interlocutor.

In fact, at intentional meetings, I am forcefully reminded of America's bilingual problem - which is that too few of us are. As a citizen of one of the few (if not the only) countries in the world in which highly educated people speak only one language, I am troubled by the thought that in a heated debate I may be taking unfair advantage of someone who is my superior in linguistic skill in general, but at a disadvantage because he or she has indulged me by speaking the language native to me and foreign to him or her. In the end though,  I'm afraid that on important topics, after the first few minutes all of these concerns melt in the passion of the argument and I am, for better or worse, in full campaign mode.

-- Congressman Barney Frank

Comments

[Kaspar]

"I am troubled by the thought that in a heated debate I may be taking unfair advantage of someone who is my superior in linguistic skill in general, but at a disadvantage because he or she has indulged me by speaking the language native to me and foreign to him or her."

Very kind of you to say that. And the fact that you realize and express this makes you stand out. Hopefully people in the audience also notice and try to concentrate on content and not only on form/rethorical skill. (And I am sure they do notice, because the founder of this forum himself, while being fluent in 4 languages and saying highly intelligent things, has a heavy accent and is not a fantastic speaker.)

On the other hand: IT'S NEVER TOO LATE! - I'm from a country - the one in which this conference is held - where any university graduate is expected to be at least good (if not fluent) in 2 foreign languages. As for myself, I'm fluent in 4 but know quite a few people who are fluent in 5 languages. My parents, finally, started their Italian courses at retirement age.

So I suggest you start with one foreign language, say Spanish (since French seems to be rather a handicap for American politicians), and the next time you're in Davos you write you blog entry in this language.