Liberal Quaker communities aren't usually terribly
representative of the communities in which they are situated. Here in
Britain, we tend to be white, culturally middle class,
English-speaking (particularly noted in Wales), and educated.
There's lots of theories about why this is; I tend to subscribe to
the idea that a non-representative community is more forbidding and
less welcoming to those who do not already fit into it than those who
immediately “fit in”. A black, Asian or other minority ethnic
(the currently most acceptable term in this country, abbreviated to
BAME) person, in a town that is ethnically diverse, will react the
first time they go to a group based on what they see – just as a
white person would, but with very different dynamics of social
history behind it. If they see 40 people in a room, all white, they
will feel that this group is not for them. It may be subconscious,
and it may be counterbalanced by other factors (and we'd better hope
it will be), but it will be there; none of us is “colour-blind”,
however much we might have a misguided aspiration to be so.
Similarly, when a person who is culturally working class finds
themselves in a room full of middle class accents, when they come to
a shared meal and find half the contributions based on couscous and
quinoa, they feel that this is a group that is not for people like
them.
I emphasise
“educated” in this list because it is, in one important way, not
like the others. It is something that each of us can potentially
change about ourselves, and it is seen as a positive by even the most
enlightened social egalitarian. It is not hard to argue that that is
it is a good thing that we are mostly quite educated, provided that
we include those who are educated by less formal means. We might
believe that we are mostly educated because those who join our
community who are less educated become more educated in part because
of their exposure to Quakers and their living out of Quaker values.
If that were the
case, then it would certainly be to the good. However, what we find –
in my experience – is that those who come to our meetings as
newcomers and stay to become part of our community are,
overwhelmingly, largely already educated. As my regular readers will
no doubt have gathered, I consider this a bad thing. Anything that
leads to our community being so homogeneous at point of
entry is a bad thing. We benefit
from a richness of different experience, and a joiner or butcher
brings to our community different experiences than the lawyer,
doctor, teacher and accountant. We were once a Religious Society that
encompassed merchants, artisans and farmers – yeomen and labourers
– equally, with a small smattering of other parts of the emerging
middle classes. Now we are mostly professional, degree educated, and
middle class.
Let us put that
to one side for a moment, and consider the tradition of plain
speaking. Originally, this had many facets for the early Friends,
including the idiosyncratic use of the English t-form of second
person pronouns – thee
and thou – despite
the fact they were already disappearing from many dialects. This was
part of the rejection of the very idea of social superiority and
inferiority. They would not recognise it in custom and social ritual
(such as “hat honour”, the subject of one of my favourite brief
stories from early Quakers), and certainly would not recognise it in
grammar. Thus, when speaking to an individual – or even to a group
composed of individuals when referring to action each would take
separately – they used the singular/familiar t-form, thee/thou,
rather than the plural/respectful v-form, ye/you. This, in somewhat
evolved1
form, is still often referred to as plain speaking by some American
Quakers, but it has essentially fallen entirely out of use in Britain
(barring dialectal forms – you will still hear thee
and tha in parts of
the north of England, for instance, and not only among Quakers). It is not, however, what I am
talking about.
Plain speaking,
at least to British Friends today, seems to me to have two main
strands. One is related to honesty – to the testimony to truth, you
might say – while the other is being straightforward with how
things are said, often seen as related to the testimony to
simplicity. One might also, however, see the latter element as
related to the testimony to equality; unnecessarily complicating
language makes it less accessible, requires that readers or listeners
have a certain level (and type) of education. Use of jargon limits
your audience to those who understand the relevant argot.
As I have
demonstrated in the preceding paragraph, as in my of my other
writing, I am not one who finds it easy to present language simply
and accessibly. I do okay when I put my mind to it, but most of the
time I don't put my mind to it. Thus, a lot of my writing, and my
speaking, and sometimes even my spoken ministry in Meeting for
Worship, uses a certain degree of specialised or academic language. I
freely admit that, but I will leave off elaborating on that point for
a moment.
There is an
argument that I have across, from time to time, that widespread use
of such language among Friends makes our texts, our community, and
thus our practices, inaccessible to many. It might be specific
learning difficulties, such as (to give only the most obvious
example) dyslexia, that make complex writing and esoteric vocabulary
an obstruction. It might simply be a lack of familiarity with such
language – both with vocabulary, making it difficult to understand
what is said and written, or simply a lack of experience dealing with
a certain manner of speaking and writing. Those who have had a full
and successful experience at university will have had opportunity to
get used to such things. Similarly, those who grew up in a culturally
middle class household are more likely to have been exposed to
complex speech from a young age. Thus, those who are culturally
working class, or not university educated, are more likely to be
uncomfortable with such “academic” language, be it structure or
vocabulary, or to struggle to understand it. Of course, this
is not a tight correlation. I
have known people from very much middle class backgrounds, who have
been to university and even done reasonably well, who could not
follow an intellectual conversation, and I have known those who have
never had the benefit of university education and grew up in working
class, thoroughly un-intellectual households, and who were
nevertheless able to engage in dynamic, intellectual debate. I have
also known working class households that were places where such
discussion was common. We generalise when it is useful to do so, as
it is here, but must not mistake such practical generalisation for a
general rule.
In a sense, the
generalisation might be seen as immaterial. There are some who are
excluded by use of “advanced” language and vocabulary, and it is
not a good thing to exclude anyone. Yet the correlation, however
loose it might be, demonstrates that this is a bigger problem than
the exclusion of some individuals. It becomes the exclusion, in large
part, of whole categories of people – letting down these people by
denying them access to our spiritual path, and letting down our
community by denying us the benefit of their lived experience and the
different ways light will shine through such different experience.
The answer seems
simple. Apart from historical quotations, which should be adequately
annotated to resolve the problem, we abandon all such “high level”
language, all obscure vocabulary. You could restrict us to the N most
commonly used words in English in the country in question, as in
Randall Munroe's Thing
Explainer, a book that
explains complex (generally technological) things using only the 1000
most commonly used words in English (I assume American English). It's
usually possible to explain most things, if you are roundabout
enough. However, that doesn't actually always make it easy to
understand. People will often know and understand more than you
expect them to, once you set about trying to be understandable. Of
course, when you don't try to be understandable, you will tend to
assume, tacitly, that people understand more
than it turns out they do. Looked at that way, it seems you can't
win. No, that solution can only take us so far – and it doesn't
turn out to be very far.
We also
inherently deal with some very complicated concepts. We do not have a
catechism that people are expected to learn and understand, no
normative theology that we insist Quakers get their head around. The
essentials, if such they can be considered, are quite simple: there
is something of God (or what-you-will) in each of us, we can be
guided by it, and we can apply practices in groups to better be
guided by it. However, only the basics can be summarised that simply.
The fact of our theological diversity requires the exchange of
complex ideas if we are to benefit from it (rather than ignore it).
Must we then
throw up our hands, and say “it cannot be done”? Must we choose,
and either say “c'est la vie” to the exclusion of those who are
not comfortable with academic/intellectual discourse, or decide it's
not worth talking about our complex ideas and concepts?
No. The Spirit
calls us to explore it, and also calls us to share it, and we can and
will do both.
We are on a
hiding to nothing if we simply try to simplify things enough that
anyone can understand them. Things that are inherently complex cannot
be simplified; if you try, you instead have a simplified version of
the thing – concept, idea, principle – that you began with. That
is a stepping stone, but people are prone to being satisfied with
what they understand, and do not readily take the step to understand
the more complex thing it is substituting for. People need to
understand the simple things that lead
to the more complex things, rather than simple things in place of
complex things. It is a knotty problem.
There are two
things required to resolve the problem. Neither of them are easy to
most Quakers in Britain, in my experience. One is to take the time to
explain things in as accessible a manner as practically appropriate,
and not using complex language simply because that is what we are
used to. Make things as simple or straightforward as they can be
without actually losing any of their essence. It will take some of us
– including myself, as I noted earlier – a considerable,
concerted effort. We will have to think about our audience for each
time we write or speak (even in conversation) and pitch it
appropriately. It won't be easy, which is why I'm not doing it
immediately with this blog. While I try to work out how it applies to
me, how I differentiate writing for different audiences, what my
audience really is, I will carry on largely as I have been – though
I commit myself now to trying to keep this idea in mind.
Audience is
important. If you are planning a course on theology, and you have
made it clear the sort of level you will be working at, you can
prepare materials based on the appropriate audience. If you are
running a programme for enquirers, it will be different – and you
will want to know more about the enquirers, or try to narrow the
intended audience, before you can be confident as to what knowledge
you can assume, and how comfortable the audience will be with
different sorts and styles of discourse.
An audience at
any one moment is static, and can be planned for, but the audience
that is the Religious Society of Friends, or a single Meeting, is
always changing. This bring me to the second thing required to
resolve the problem. This will not simply be a challenge for
individuals, but for all of us as a community. It comes back to
education. Not that we
should be ensuring that our members and attenders all have
degree-level or equivalent academic experience; that would be
counter-productive, and not everyone is suited to every style of
learning.
Everyone (barring
infrequent edge cases) can, however, learn almost any concept, or at
least this is what my experience suggests to me. It simply requires
the support for knowledge construction – also known as education.
Indeed, Britain Yearly Meeting's Quaker faith &
practice actually calls for
Meetings to provide ongoing religious education, to people
of all ages and at all
stages of their Quaker journey.
What would this
look like? I'm not sure, but I think we need to talk about it. I know
that some claim that our (from a national perspective) Meetings for
Learning satisfy this requirement, but I'm not sure they do. I think
it's likely that we would, in fact, benefit from a much more
systematic scheme. It would not require any sort of compulsion; we
would simply, in each area or locality, make available a rolling
programme of development. If it is well-designed – interesting,
entertaining and compelling as well as informative and
development-provoking – then people will choose to come.
Indeed, we may
take a model, in terms of things that have worked well and not so
well, from the Reading Quaker faith & practice
programme that has been occupying some in our Yearly Meeting in
recent years. This was done for a specific purpose, but it has
certainly had the effect of providing religious education to those
who have taken part.
In this way, we
might ensure that, although we are mindful of our audience and do not
complicate our discourse for no reason, we enable everyone in our
community to better understand the concepts that we may which to talk
or write about. We get people used to the idea of thoughtful
discourse about religious matters. And we do it in a way that people
actually enjoy, that people will seek out, that people will talk
about with pleasure and excitement.
I feel that this
is where the Spirit may be leading us, I am sure that success in such
an attempt will bring us incalculable benefits – and I cannot
believe that it is beyond our capability.
So why not try?
1: Any
disagreement as to whether “evolved” is an appropriate term
should be taken out on a dictionary. ^
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.