Some topics feel too big to converse about

I recall a comment somewhere once, pre-Geldorf, to the effect that pop stars sing incessantly about lurve, but never about the human condition. Well, now we have been urged to Feed the World, with all the complexities of context and motivation in that musical message. But do we even some while later have real dialogue about what human compassion of a global kind might mean?

Is knowledge also power?

In his review of Knowledge Power (Alan Wilson, Routledge, 2010), Jon Nixon says that this book is ‘based on the questionable but unquestioned assumption that “we live at the centre of a knowledge explosion” and that “knowledge is now the key capital resource”: hence, the conjunction of “knowledge” and “power” in the book’s title.‘

Etiquette: exclusion or level playing field?

UK Education Secretary Michael Gove’s proposal for free schools has not thus far been met entirely with enthusiasm; but 16 groups which presented propositions are nonetheless intending to open academies in September 2011.

The rationales offered by those behind the ‘free schools’ are varied, but, The Guardian reports, include

…. the King’s Science Academy, a free school due to open in Bradford, [which] is driven by a vision of liberating inner city children from “ghettoisation”. Sajid Hussain, a science teacher and assistant head who hopes to lead the new secondary school, said: “We hope to teach good manners. We’re looking at a sense of responsibility, social conduct, sitting down and dining. Independent schools are quite good at this kind of stuff.”

What are good manners?
But what are ‘good manners’? What messages do good manners of the sort described here send?

It’s laudable – and virtually universal – that, as Sajid Hussain says, teachers (and parents) should want to provide young people with a sense of responsibility and the social skills to conduct their future lives effectively and decently; but where does positive social competence end and behaviour which excludes others begin?

‘Good manners’ comprise both verbal and non-verbal behaviour. The fundamentals in either instance are however the same. The idea is surely to achieve mutual respect and make communication easier and more comfortable.

Guidelines and principles, or rules?
If ‘good manners’ migrate from general principles of consideration, towards the ‘rules’ of etiquette – a mode which can arise quite easily when applied to activities such as dining (does it actually matter which way peas are attached to your fork?) and which we might infer from the quote above is emphasised by independent schools – things can become rather complex.

At that point ‘social responsibility’ can be lost and the rules of ‘good manners’ can also become ways to exclude those who are not adequately primed.

Are good manners / etiquette sometimes modes of communication intended to create an elite, rather than a way to ensure that everyone can participate equally?
How can the latter be distinguished in learning from the former?

Are generic skills a 'threat' to professional status?

Do professional training courses avoid teaching generic skills overtly (insofar as these can be taught) because these skills blur the edges between different, perhaps competing, fields of expertise?

Is there is a sense of identity within almost every profession which is about claiming the centre ground and most prominence / influence for the specialist skills of that particular group of practitioners? … about power and control when all is said and done?

And does this almost inevitably result in fuzzy, generic skills being put aside or simply going unnoticed by those who prescribe what is to be studied for admittance to their profession?

Duration of discussions in context

Sometimes a quick chat by the coffee machine is enough, sometimes it’s a two hour board or team meeting, and sometimes a whole away day is deemed to be the only option.

So what are the optimal determinants when choosing different durations of discussions?

Would the factors influencing chosen duration for leaders and senior decision-makers vary from those considered most helpful by people with less power and influence? And if so, how and why?