Yes And Conversations
There is a theatre exercise of improvisation called yes and. The instructions of the exercise are to accept what your drama partner offers and build the next step, alternating roles of actor and receiver until time is called. One participant does and says something, then the other begins “yes, and…”, and back and forth they go. The idea is to create a scene from nothing into something by accepting everything and taking turns contributing.
This exercise is not just common in improvisation, but also in life. This exercise can be observed in social role fulfillment every day: to interact with another, to accept, to match the energy, to take turns, and to construct. It is a conversation, not a dialogue: a casual exchange, not a construction of ideas through critical thinking with alterity. Those who do not engage with others are considered antisocial. Those who do not accept but critique are considered harsh, mean, or weird. Those who do not wait their turn are considered rude and self centered. Those who participate in the rules are normal, social, accepted by the other and by the community.
Everyone learns the roles growing up; the child or the alien quickly learns the parts. It becomes instinctual. It is expected to participate and follow the basic rules; how much one plays or rejects, along with how cool they are in the process, determines how much they belong in the community. The social conditioning is strong, so any rebel must make a conscious effort to reject.
Self Oriented
One who participates may have multiple incentives to play their role. One incentive is affirmation: to be seen, acknowledged, receive attention, to share extrovert energy. They exist as an individual. By engaging with others, the player looks to be taking an interest in the other, making friends or connections, engaging outwardly with the world. Yet it is very easy in the yes and conversation to be self oriented. The nature of the exercise leads the player to focus on what they want to say in their next turn, mentally unobservant to what the other is offering. I just have to wait until they shut up and then I will do and say this, this, and this. The monologue is practiced mentally, forgetting that the interaction was ever a dialogue.
Some advice from communication studies cleverly reveals this natural tendency to be self oriented. People enjoy speaking about themself, so the more an interlocutor leads their conversation partner to do so, the more the individual likes the interlocutor. It is possible to have a long conversation with occasional nods, “hm”s and “oh”s, and brief questions or prompts on one side. The monologist walks away naive of how little the interlocutor existed in the exchange and how much they revealed of themself. This experiment demonstrates how much the self can be stuck on the self.
Socially Oriented
Another incentive is social connection: to feel included, to receive the interest of the other, to share their self and experiences, to belong as part of the community. They belong as part of the whole when they participate. In the social discussion, the participants are being agreeable in a topic where they generally share an interest, so there is no need to be fully present, actively engaged, and critically thinking. The participant can easily focus rather on their next contribution to the interaction. They can be with themself and their position. A back and forth of taking turns like this results in a transcription of offerings where, very easily, no one experienced any growth. Perhaps a little advice that they may try if they are faithful students of conversation. But because everyone was agreeable, participants walk away believing that they constructed something communal just by having shared the moment together.
As social animals, it is rather natural to desire to agree and to stay on common ground to connect with others. Society is an arrangement where it is beneficial to find some compromise, cooperation, and consensus. It is rare that an individual learns how to civilly dissent, respectfully debate, or constructively critique. Rarer still that one receives disagreement or criticism positively, as an opportunity for reflection and growth, appreciating the challenge. And so the yes and conversations tend to remain at a rather superficial level where all of the participants can feel safe. This instinct creates social connection, cohesion, and community, yet without depth it likely does not develop much of consequence for the individual or for the group.
Passive Receiver
The common attitude of a participant in the yes and conversation is passive receiver. The yes serves as acceptance, an acknowledgement of no critique for the other, but most of all a beginning of the next turn. The focus moves to the self and one’s own next contribution. It is possible that one is not with the other consciously, only subconsciously identifying context and buzz words to inform the essential components of the conversation and inspire the next step. The turns are arbitrary, only socially constructed to participate in the rules of engagement. One can imagine there would be little difference in the content if one part were happening in a vacuum, since the passive receiver is available to themself first and only minimally open to the external. Sometimes individuals speak out loud to their dog and benefit the same amount from the exchange. The passive receiver may have many reasons to be self oriented, but chief among them is human nature to self interested. It takes effort and consciousness to be interested in alterity: the other, the world, challenge, growth, compassion, altruism.
Impotent Social
Related to the passive receiver is the impotent social. The passive receiver is too self oriented to be conscious of the other, while the impotent social is not capable of doing otherwise, even if they have a desire to violate the conventions and stop the banality. To follow a social script is what is done, what is expected, the nice thing to do. They fear taking a risk and going deeper. The interlocutor as well follows the social script, and therefore does not indicate that they are open and available to anything else. And so the impotent does not dare. Therefore, the conversation stays superficial, with no challenge, no critical thinking, no revealing, just safety and respect. They do not know how to do anything different. The social role is learned, it has become instinct long ago. The impotent social is incapable to challenge with civility, to critique constructively, to deepen with intellectual curiosity, as they lack an example of how to do it and experience in trying it. And so their connections are social, built on common relations or shared interests and little else, but this is what they know of life—it is normal.
Active Dominator
Another attitude a participant can take is active dominator. This changes the nature of the conversation, where the dominator’s objective is not to build, but to compete. The activity becomes a game of who is smarter, who is more powerful, who is more impressive, or who can coerce the other. The participants in this exchange are competitors and the object is to “win”, even if only one participant takes the attitude of domination. One frequent example is to “one up”, increasing the stakes with each turn, where each story is more dramatic than the last. Each step increases the impressiveness, offering a challenge to the other to match and escalate. Like peacocks showing off, or bulls ramming horns. The intention could be to seek attention, take power, or court admiration. The dominator needs to show; they are actually vulnerable, and pursues the attention to validate theirself, to prove their individuality, or to feel their potency. If an active dominator is in a yes and conversation with a passive receiver, the receiver may be completely unconscious of the dominator’s intentions and attitude, which can result in the receiver being coerced without awareness.
Rebel Critiquer
A rare attitude that rejects the nature of the yes and conversation is the rebel critiquer. The rebel critiquer is one who either not accustomed to the social scripts, or is so experienced in them to be tired of them, to know how to remove themself from obligation to them, to decide consciously to deny them. The rebel rejects the simple, boring, yet faithfully observed moves by not participating. Instead of following the next step, the rebel might ask for an argument, question the assumptions, critique the position, or even just walk away. These moves are all out of place in an exchange that is meant to be socially constructive. An outside observer might suspect that the rebel is the only autonomous critical thinker, the only agent with volition. To unconsciously play the social role of yes and is to live short of being a philosopher.