[_borders/disc10_ahdr.htm]

Cluttering Across Nations: Propects and Suggestions

From: Juris G. Draguns, Ph.D.
Date: 02 May 2010
Time: 13:38:12 -0500
Remote Name: 130.203.164.101

Comments

First of all, let me compliment the authors on their systematic, empirical approach to learning about the state of recognition and intervention of cluttering in 10 nations on four continents. The results of their inquiry point to a very early stage of awareness about cluttering, but this should not discourage ICA from pursuing a continuing dialogue across national frontiers, cultural divides, and language barriers. Indeed, the authors have made a start by appending practically useful information about the distinction between cluttering and stuttering to their article. How is cluttering named, recognized, and reacted to at the various points around the world? I suggest trying to answer this question psycholinguistically: What is the term for cluttering in daily speech and in professional communication? How does it translate not only into English, but into as many languages as there are flags at the website of this conference? Perhaps this is an unattainable goal, but one that is worth trying to reach. Terms have a way of experiencing slippage across languages and contexts, and this must be checked. Misconceptions about cluttering, e.g., that there is nothing that can be done about it, must be corrected and nipped in the bud, if at all possible. Over and above answering the excellent questions that the authors have posed, I would suggest gathering information by means of case studies and critical incidents. In culture x, when is cluttering recognized as posing a problem or constituting a challenge? What is then done with and about it? Is there any "folk wisdom" and what, if anything, about it is compatible with or complementary to current formulations and contemporary interventions? To what extent, can local community resources be integrated into treatment programs? What are the obstacles in the form of traditions, attitudes, misconceptions, and prejudices that stand in the way of inaugurating and implementing modern and realistic programs? Are modern technologies a help in bridging the various gaps? And these questions should not be answered abstractly and discretely, but in the context of actual cases. This may be the first step toward collaboration across nations with possibly helpful and practical implications. Finally, a footnote about categorizing and terminology. Of the 10 countries included in the survey, only seven can be considered Non-Western. Lithuania and Poland are part and parcel of Europe and its Judeo-Christian heritage. Brazil's culture is rooted in Portuguese language and Catholic tradition, although its population is culturally and racially diverse. India and Nigeria have not one, but several, major languages, and it would be important to ascertain the languages to which the respondents have referred. Thus, answers to the survey have engendered more questions. This is how it should be so that the chain of questions and answers continues unbroken for years and decades to come.


Last changed: 05/05/10