Communication Ettiquet.

"Hello", the standard conversation starter is inevitably followed by "what course are you in?"- a simple unpresuming question. Yet by the middle of 1st semester I had learnt several aspects about the sociology, socio-demography and presumptions of students 'from' different courses from it. "Arts/Law? you mean 'Law/arts'".

There is a correct way of stating a double degree. I had always thought of it as Law/arts because it is my law degree that I would be completing last. It is my law degree that I will spend most of my five years at univeristy working on. I had always thought of my Arts degree as the essential beautiful wrapping paper of a dressed up standard gift. The essential wrapping paper I was told I could afford and therefore should buy, only three weeks before orientation week.

Answer "Law / arts" and people will think you said it in that order on purpose, that you are arrogant. The assumption that people who do 'law' are arrogant, unscrupulos, brainy liberals with a rating of 0/10 personality (from one of the editions of Farrago) merely because they have the word 'law' attached to their resumes. This is blatent discrimination. However, it is less intimidating if you are doing architecture. A whole conversation could be based upon architecture. Rarely, no never from my personal experience has 'law' had any positive role in making new acquaintances, infact acts as a signal on the part of the non-law student to change the topic.

People find 'art's less intimidating and easier to deal with. It's a very broad and lateral faculty; there's Politics (state elections), Language (travelling and holidays), virtually anything to discuss. Arts is supposed to be more creative and fun and law is grim black letter.

As a first year student I am limited in my experience I acknowledge that I do not speak for everyone. Nonetheless, I would like to present my experience and observations within the two courses.

Far from finding law intimidating or classes full of hot tempered geniuses people were rational and comfortable and Torts (according at least to the response from my class) is funny. This is a law newsletter, so you should know what I mean. I will not elaborate further into my experience with the pleasentness of law classes. Arts however has turned out to be more challenging and engaging than I expected.

Enter the arts class room, there are 16 to 6 students, depending on how popular your subject is. It usually starts of pretty drab with long periods of sleepy silences accompanied by pleading looks by the tutor for someone to say start a verbal discourse from, for example, "The labour party seems doomed." It is a statement which is greatly backed up by the reading materials. Slowly but surely the orchestra tunes up -but there is no music. People interrupt each other constantly, talk in circles and 20 minutes into the hour. Then almost abruptly the sound dies. I start watching the time at 15 to. The class harbours a several opinionated vocal students. The majority of people seem to be socialists, marxists, radicals supportive of Left Focus, except no one can be bothered to join it.

Perhaps we don't mind that so many people are uncomfortable with "law" and think less of our opinions because we, doing law, fall into the 'spoilt ignorant society'. Perhaps we are happy to be isolated by these strangers and really will not mind either, moving onto the new campus away from parkville. We, just as much as 'they', like to categorise and fragmate people into those we value and those we iddentify with and those who fit in neither. Arts students for example are a 'they' whether I, we or you like 'them' or not is another issue. Of course we all have individual friends in other faculties but we still like to collectivise them - admit it. Overseas and local students are among the categories. This newsletter is an example of that.

If you have 'non-anglo' features and don't speak with a distinctive Aussie twang but are an 'English speaker' then, you're likely to hear "Where are you from" followed by " your english is really good!"(they're presuming you're not a 'native English speaker', an 'English Second Language'person). At which point I think, and sometimes say, "thank you, so is yours" or I tell them the truth, "actually, my 'English' has very much declined since coming to Australia" (I've picked up a lot of slang body language and sarcasm instead). Besides what is a 'native English speaker'? I would think that the only 'native english speakers' were English, and then you have to distinguish between the Welsh, Cornish and all the other languages of the English.

There is little to be gained in trying to distinguish people so finitely. Once categorisation starts it extends to all levels and justifies the emenant overarching presumptions and typecasting of people. "What course are you in?" should not be potentially venemous to conversation (and to some, sadly even, to establishing relationships). "What course are you in?" should not be used to try start conversations. Shouldn't it be sufficient enough to know the other person is in Univeristy?- no, that's not right either. Neither would it be right to identify with a person by using their occupation to impose certain characteristics and traits onto people. Perhaps it would be best to be happy just knowing you're communicating with another human being. More emphasis should be taken upon the actual communication rather than the 'list' available from interviewing the person of their iddentity.

"I'm sorry, I've forgot to introduce myself; I'm Elana. It's been nice 'communicating' with you. Ta-ta."

This is an Arts style article for the overseas law student newsletter. Submitted by E.Liew

Back to Inner Works

This homepage and all it's contents (including all the pictures and photographs) are copywright, Elaine Liew ©Elaine Liew