How Individuals Participate in Constructing the Order and Meaning of Conversation

Humans possess the privilege of using language, and the order of the world is negotiated through conversation. Conversations unfold incessantly, ranging from ordering a coffee at a Cafe to diplomatic negotiations between leaders of state. When we join or listen to such conversations, what theoretical framework can we use to perceive the internal patterns that conversations universally possess? That is, how are the order and meaning of conversation constructed simultaneously at the macro-social level and the micro-individual level? This question matters because it helps us judge and decide how we should initiate a conversation, how we should sustain it, and how we should guide it toward constructing new meanings. In the field of education, cultivating this " conversation awareness," or "conversational sensitivity," as part of children's holistic competencies is undoubtedly important.

Erving Goffman established a theoretical framework for analyzing conversation through three concepts: ritualization, participation framework, and embedding. I will first seek to understand the meaning of the theory itself, but I will also go on to elaborate how this framework inspires the concrete actions that I, as an individual, can take to participate in the collective practice of constructing the order and meaning of conversation.

First, Goffman holds that understanding conversation from the perspective of ritualization means becoming aware of a set of shared gestural conventions exhibited by people in conversation. The facial expressions, movements, and sounds that accompany speech gradually become "ritualized," acquire a certain public meaning, and turn into a signal system (alignment) used to express stances and attitudes. My most intuitive understanding of this theory is the collective conversations that British people conduct after work, standing outside the pub with glasses in hand. Although I have never joined such a conversation, nor heard what exactly they are discussing so passionately, they do share highly similar gestural conventions. However, I think the interpretation of conversational ritualization should not stop at bodily posture. One should also see that they choose to attend this conversation at relatively fixed times, places, and frequencies, which is likewise an embodiment of a sense of ritual, namely that we create for ourselves specific conversational spaces and forms. In this digital age of social interaction, actively constructing such an offline conversational order is all the more precious.

Second, Goffman uses the concept of participation framework to direct our attention to the radiating range of a conversation and its possible audiences. That is, all those who can perceive an utterance, whether or not they are participating in the conversation, are drawn into some participation relationship, and society has norms regarding these relationships and the corresponding behaviors. When we analyze interpersonal interaction, we must know what participation position each person present occupies and how society expects them to behave. Therefore, one of the preconditions for a meaningful conversation is to identify one's audience. Of course, in literary and artistic creation, one may, through creativity, willfully expand the range of the audience as far as possible. On particular occasions, however, being aware of who our audience is makes our expression and conversation more targeted and more efficient. It is just like any academic writing: in one article we can only answer one specific question rather than all questions, and if we choose to do the latter, the consequence is that not a single question is answered clearly. Meanwhile, as listeners, we also need to establish for ourselves an order of "going to hear" , that is, through what means we mainly hear certain conversations and participate in certain conversations, or how we should avoid joining meaningless ones.

Finally, the concept of "embedding" guides us to observe the content of our conversation: the words that come out of our mouths are often not "our own" words. We may be quoting others, relaying others' views, or applying ready-made formulations. Although "who is speaking" is always clear, "in whose name, or on whose behalf, these words are spoken" requires further judgment. For example, what people say in the workplace is often not said from a personal standpoint, but in accordance with the requirements of the position they occupy. This, however, often implies a certain conflict. In one conversation with a parent, for instance, I inadvertently mentioned the fact that most of the children had not eaten their sandwich because it was too dry today. The parent thereupon concluded that the children had not eaten because the meals provided by the school did not meet standards, and complained to the management about it. I was subsequently reprimanded by the manager. I could only accept this, because I knew that in that position I "should have glossed over the facts," whatever my personal moral choice might be. When scholars engage in academic writing, they likewise need to cite others' views extensively in order to speak for themselves; in discussions with friends, we also heavily cite the concepts and views we have read. Thus conversation often revolves around the views of others. Another phenomenon is that when we engage in internet content creation, to a large extent we are also disseminating, and joining discussions of, already existing knowledge and views. This has given rise to a discussion of a new ethics of speaking: if a person relays and re-disseminates others' views and thereby obtains actual benefits and reputation, does this violate intellectual ethics? My view is that if people, when relaying and disseminating, clearly state the source of the views and can add their own views, then although originality is somewhat diminished, this does not amount to a breach of intellectual ethics. But if one deliberately conceals the source and claims the views as one's own original ones, it violates intellectual integrity.

I also realize that the writing I am doing now is itself a way of joining the theoretical conversational spaces constructed by scholars. This is the "ritual" I have constructed for myself for carrying out conversation: writing. Of course, my writing also has a relatively fixed range of audience, namely those who care about the development of education. Finally, I also know that the content of my conversation is based on my reading and reflection and is not entirely "my own words." Often, I see clearly that the position I currently occupy is this: hearing what others have already said, and how their analyses of these questions are applied to educational practice, that is, how these thoughts are used to shape children's character and cognition. I wish to inject more disciplinary perspectives into the development of education, and I am curious about how scholars, intellectuals, artists, and others from different fields understand education. Although in most cases they do not directly address educational issues, the perspectives through which they deconstruct the world are undoubtedly worth drawing on flexibly.