Can you hear me?

In the conference and meeting rooms at UNHQ, seats at the table have microphones; ideally when a meeting is taking place the speaker turns on their microphone and is thus more easily heard by others (while simultaneously keeping others quieter, as their mics are not turned on). This also provides the option for chairs to maintain time limits of speakers.

Throughout the rooms, all other seats are equipped with ear pieces. They’re not classy, nor are they particularly comfortable. But they are ubiquitous; and highly functional! When sessions include interpretation (real-time conversion of the speech), attendees can listen to the presentation in the language of their choosing (as it is available – not every session provides interpretation into all 6 UN languages)

These small pieces seem simple, but highlight some of the realities of attending global sessions. What is said and what is heard is incredibly important; and ensuring consistency between those two aspects is critical to comprehension.

In my experiences this CSW, some of the speakers have been rather quiet or there is background noise, and I have used the ear pieces to hear the English – without interpretation. My middle-aged ears appreciate the option of increasing the volume during sessions.

I am also challenged to listen carefully to the speakers; even in my native language, if I am taking notes or distracted by something else, I recognise that my listening skills may not be as honed as they might be; my notebook has abundant half-quotes as I was not sufficiently swift to transcribe or make my written commentary before my attention is struck elsewhere.

The interpretation is itself amazing; in larger sessions the ability to click a button and receive the same speech in multiple languages is impressive. It allows delegates and speakers to communicate clearly in their most fluent UN language, while ensuring that the essence of their message is communicated in a timely manner for the deliberation. (Formal statements are translated – the conversion of the written word – often before they are delivered).

Yet sometimes, things seem “lost in translation” – the interpreters are human, and as good as they are, sometimes words are minimised or nuance is lost. Speakers aim to avoid idioms, but they inevitably creep in. Regional dialects, accents, and speedy speakers can also add to the challenge of comprehension. At times I rely on the interpretation as my linguistic skills are inadequate to the level of discourse. (For example, I can follow some Spanish dialects, others are entirely beyond my scope!)

Then comes the discernment. The movement beyond just audibly and logically receiving the words, and understanding and responding to the message. Some of the debates and discussions have come from contexts that are very different from my understanding; the language spoken by one presenter was not the problem in my comprehension, as he described a society without homelessness (though it is widely known to have nearly half a million displaced persons); another person’s speech of the equal access to justice fell flat until I realised that they did not count those stranded in a refugee camp within their borders as citizens worthy of that access.

And beyond the discernment comes the perception of context… but that’s a blog for another day.

These processes are merely a glimpse into the context and nuance of the discussions that we are able to witness and participate in. And they are applicable to our witness and participation in CSW and other such forum, and beyond them. As part of the Anglican delegation, in this context, we are careful to always be mindful – after all, the Anglican Communion is comprised of 85 million people in 165 countries.

But even in our daily interactions, as people of faith, we can all do our best to be intentional about our conversations. We can consider if we are properly hearing and actively listening; if we need interpretation or if things have been lost in translation; and of course if we are framing the conversation in the same way as those who are on other sides of the story – the discernment of facts is so crucial in our lives, our churches, our world.

Our prayers are also active communication, and we can challenge ourselves to put this practice under the same scrutiny. Are we hearing God’s voice, and are we listening? Are we seeking to understand, and discern a faithful response? How is God inviting us to act for justice?