A few years ago
U.S. News and World Report ran an
article on what America can learn from other countries. (I'm definitely moving to
Taiwan.) And of course the ever-fabulous
French were spotlighted as masters in the art of conversation. Their superiority is attributed to several factors, some of which are easily adopted (avoiding discussing one's vacation/paycheck/recent big purchase, and leaving the weather out of it) and others that are not (a 300-year-old tradition of courtly banter and a public education system that lauds the study of philosophy, for starters). However, despite our lack of
vous form, there are apparently some ground rules we can follow:
Rule 1: "A conversation is an end in itself, with no purpose."
Rule 2: "Rhapsodies of brilliance are to be avoided at all costs for fear of disengaging one of the participants, who may feel excluded or humiliated." (Can we please extend this to one-uping?)
Rule 3: "[Good-natured] disagreement is permitted and even encouraged."
In a
New York Times op-ed, Dan Ariely of
Freakenomics applied behavioral economics to awkward first-date conversation. He suggests that just as some restricted marketplaces can yield more desirable outcomes than completely open ones, conversations get better when the options of discussion are limited to items of actual interest; whereas, when left alone, people will naturally gravitate to a safe—albeit boring—exchange.
So the hostess's challenge becomes finding interesting topics of conversation she can corral her guests into; topics that can be disagreed upon and yet are not so lofty that no one will have a background in it or anything informed to contribute. (And no matter what the French say, I refuse to allow politics at the table: otherwise-rational people get too angry, too quickly.) Maybe a refresher course in philosophy would do us all some good. I'll see what I can find.
