There are two broad themes that strike one: the freedom of using language in a way that is authentic and expressive, on the one hand, and the mindfulness towards those for whom the impact is strongly negative on the other. With regard to the first issue, if one approaches it from a moralistic perspective, that it is wrong in itself, one is in danger of alienating the group that speaks with a certain freedom of expression, uninhibited by any need to be politically correct. The point is that this kind of free expression does not land well on everyone. Democracy implies that all points of view matter. Not dealt with properly and you can easily have a polarisation of one against the other and the beginnings of nascent sub-groups: a miniature left wing and a right wing.
Coming down too heavily on authenticity can end up throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. The way that adolescents speak to each other away from a watchful parental eye could result in big trouble for some, if found out. Usually, however, the ‘twain do not meet’ and all’s well that ends well. However, key to this is the separation of two worlds. It would perhaps be too idealistic to assume that the free expression group will ‘come around’ to better speech or that the offended group will accept the free expression group even if the language is inappropriate.
The awareness of subcultures and what is ‘kosher’ for one vs what is not is a key aspect. In a larger context, one sees this in the space of intercultural work: a hierarchical, tough-speaking ethnic group may not sit well at all with a group that is more egalitarian and soft spoken. The forcing of one in a given direction, brought on by the needs of the other, is fatal over time. I cannot help feeling that the polarisation between the Islamic world and the Western world, very broadly, has its roots in this kind of disregard of cultural sensibilities.
Ashok Shukla has handled the situation well. Here is a matter with very strong points of view, both for and against. The ‘sides’ define a thick line between those who are supporters of the free use of expletives at the workplace and those troubled by it. The former group seems to almost feel a sense of being sorry for the latter. What a bunch of ‘wusses’, they appear to be suggesting.
The latter, in the minority, badly impacted through no fault of their own. The dominant and the dominated. This kind of thing can very easily contribute to becoming part of the culture of the organisation. This is the new ‘cool’ and it begins to pressure people to belong or be marginalised. It would have been really easy for Ashok to just get irritated and either come down strongly on those who use expletives or denounce the offended women (and some men) as being out of synch with reality. Instead, what he did is create a space — a crucible. A crucible is a container that can withstand very high temperatures. Here, it is meant as a container that can withstand strong emotions. One can see the polarity of views. Gradually, in the conversation shades begin appearing: men themselves are divided, as are the women. This is an important step, one which brings the two groups towards a mindfulness of impact.
Chimananda Adichie, a Nigerian writer, spoke on TEDTalks about how the ‘single story’ is a deceptive thing. In reality, there are many shades and we need to pull out those shades. Allow for the variety of perspective. This process sets the ground for the decision that follows. In the absence of discussion, the decision would have created further polarisation combined with bitterness.
The central lesson here is: how can those, in positions of responsibility, be both aware of these views as well as create a space for reflecting. One which would then become the basis for action. If this ‘holding space’, this ‘crucible’ is missing, then we leave the forces to manage themselves. The result?
The women who feel disturbed by the language would, over time, slough off or become disconnected. One loses valuable people.
There is one danger, however, where there can be a shading into a type of permissiveness that brings with it a deep disrespect and dominance into play with absolutely no care for the consequences. It is this type of perversion that may have got seeded in everyday life and is a cause of huge concern.
Kaushik Gopal is based in Singapore and looks after the coaching practice for the Center for Creative Leadership in the Asia Pacific region
(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 04-05-2015)
