Know Your Rights With The Police

[Igel]

27. No, it's more like "play the game," as linguists would say.

You construct a conversation. There are something very much like rules.

If you break them, you're indicating ill will and hostility. Thing is, the other person may not even be fully aware of this and but will react in kind. Once he's reacting in kind, you perceive the hostility, may think you intend none so where did *that* come from, and react with greater hostility.

Wonderful. You've now taken what amounts to a neutral business transaction and moved it into a situation in which both people are working on the assumption that the other person is not just potentially hostile, but actually hostile. What could possibly go wrong? As soon as you assume hostility, the rules of the conversation game change.

Not helping matters are slightly different cultural assumptions about what, exactly the rules of the game are and how to play them--with some of the rules not allowed for both parties, a fact one side takes advantage of.

Take Bland and Encinia. I've seen that kind of interaction. I've been *in* that kind of interaction. One side is resisting; that's part of the game, resistance which, if challenged, is entirely non-resistance. You pretend to play by the rules but don't. And you have to know exactly how the rules are being violated to deal with it all consciously.

If you want to see a good example of hostile conversation, look at any deposition or cross-examination in court. The conversation's very hostile. It's assumed the witness is not held to tell the truth, what's relevant, or abide by the usual rules. No chance is given for "repair," for fixing misunderstandings. If something can be misconstrued, it will be.

Most traffic stops aren't like that. Usually listening to the cop's intonation tells you when the conversation's shifted. Same with listening to a motorist's or a student's intonation.

Take a classic example of ill-will in conversation. You go to a fast food place with a coworker. You're short $2. "Do you have $2?" The guy answers no. Five minutes later he pays for his $8 meal with a $20 bill. "I thought you didn't have $2?" "I didn't. I had a single $20."

Did he lie? The immediate reaction is to think he lied. He didn't, and proudly accuses you of slandering him.But he ignored the purpose of your question. Bam: He's tricked you and tried to make a fool out of you. A lot of people think that's funny--and then, the intellectual midgets they aren't, can't figure out why you don't trust them. He had relevant information and decided to not share it. It corrodes social trust. Conversation is built cooperatively.

Another dodge is to answer a question with a question or a request. "What are you doing?" "What am I supposed to be doing? That's your job, telling me what I'm supposed to be doing." That can work if the guy's not doing what you said, or if he's doing something he knows is inappropriate. Again, a lot of people think it's funny. Then they're shocked when you think they're hostile. They're passively uncooperative in a context where cooperation is expected. That makes for frustration; it gums up the works--often the goal--and makes them feel superior while they try to humiliate you. It's power and manipulation through conversation. Again, it corrodes social trust. (And then, in the classroom, some researchers wonder why people from different groups get treated differently. Unaware of how conversation works, they're oblivious to crucial data--but what they don't know doesn't exist. That's arrogant. It's not, however, uppity.)