My
earlier post [1] rushed my good friend of more than 25 years to ask for some
clarification.
First,
the context of the post and then the query. It was an answer given in response
to a question posed to an eminent structural engineer whom I admire immensely.
To be honest, when I was introduced to his ideas, in 1992, I did not take an
immediate shine to him. But slowly it dawned on me that the ideas he espoused
formed the foundation of my own conception of my profession, structural engineering.
From that point on, it is pure love and devotion (in a secular sense).
The
question is deeper than it appears at first sight. It asks, “You came up with a
highly original idea for the bridge you built in Calcutta. When you mention
such projects you often use the term social competence. What does the term mean to you? [my emphasis]”
The
interviewer is not interested in the dictionary meaning of the phrase “social
competence”. He is very specific. He asks what the interviewee conveyed through
the use of the phrase. That is the context.
The
query from my friend, not a structural engineer (paraphrased): the interviewee
has not answered the question (The full response is available at [1]); do you
agree?
I
answered no. I gave a cursory explanation of what the interviewee must have meant
(gleaned from a few personal, brief interactions I have had with him over the
intervening two decades). This did not satisfy my friend. He did what all of us
do, google the term. And he sent me a URL and said something like he did not
see the connection between what google said and what was given in response to
the question.
Then,
it was time for me to dig deep and give my friend the way I understood the
term, as used by this idol of mine. The following is the explanation.
The
way I took in the message was that even as one climbs the ladder of her/his
profession (s)he should be aware of the social contributions (s)he is making
and work to enhance such intangibles. Was I interpreting the Vedas? Perhaps
yes, but a secular one and which can be challenged and changed.
This
is what is given implicitly in the reply, “The brief for a bridge that could be
built without imported materials – in order to create work for local people …To
this day [three decades later] I am delighted that we … took up the challenge
willingly…its [the bridge] construction kept thousands of families in work and
food.” So, there was a social context to the troubles of the engineer,
extending over 20 years. True, these could have been avoided if we had had
foreign exchange to splurge, but we did not. Accommodating the demands of the
society, doing justice to one’s profession and contributing widely to
development, including to one’s own profession (virtuous cycle defined) – that is
social competence, going beyond technical competence.
The following, another Q
& A from the same interview may justify my interpretation.
Q. Is social responsibility a
conscious attitude?
A. I find it strange it needs even to be talked about. It goes
without saying that we engineers are not there simply to satisfy ourselves, and
to push some sort of pinnacle of achievement. We are there to make possible a
life fit for human beings for the relatively short period of time we all spend
on earth. Human dignity comes from being needed, having a meaningful task,
whatever it might be. Naturally, people also get enjoyment from their jobs,
from having fun, making things. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as my
actions don’t harm anyone.
I
am technically competent. Perhaps I do not carry much social competence, but I
do know what I should do if I wished to travel down that path. How to do it is
a different question, but let me take the first step. This is the commitment I
mentioned in the title of this post.
Thanks
to my friend I am rededicating myself to it. Hope to take the next step.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
Reference
6 comments:
Doing your work in such a way that benefits the society - isn't that a mere moral obligation rather than social competence?
For me social competence would be the skills required for dealing with the society.
Matheikal,
I would disagree with you.
One, that is the way the interviewee had defined the term and he has the right to do so, until he is proven to be wrong.
Two, acting as per moral obligation is not an automatic and I would militate against adding the qualifier "mere". It needs to be cultivated, it takes effort and hence it is a competence. And, as society is involved, it IS social competence.
By the way, this question was raised by my friend and my response to him was along these lines.
Further, the way you think of social competence is how it is "defined" in many URLs thrown up by Google. Sorry, I do not accept and I am within my rights to do so. If you noticed, the interviewer did not ask "What is social competence". He asked, something like what is the interviewee's take on the phrase.
What you mean goes under "facility in social interactions", in my personal Google!
RE
or "social skills". I can accept that if it is stipulated at first. The term "social competence" was never heard by me until I saw this first post by Ragu about the bridge builder. I, like Matheikal, took my own interpretation of the phrase.
Anon,
It is not social skills. That is more or less the definition you get on Wikipedia.
But, tell me what can be anyone's objection if "social competence" is used in the sense used by the engineer?
Let me pose some sort of a parallel question. Godspeed means "May God bless you with prosperity!" But, lightspeed is no blessing, definitely not by light! (To tell the truth I had used the phrase even before seeing it being used). The phrase is a relatively new one, about 5 years old, but is catching on. Would you accept it? I may say something like that for social competence.
Well, I have not stopped Matheikal from thinking the phrase meaningless in the context it is used, and I would not stop you either.
RE
I am suggesting "social skills" because I have heard that phrase before and because it flows easier than "facility in social interactions". I have no qualms with "social competence" being a different construct and meaning jsut how you use it. afaik there is no accepted term for that concept -- more's the pity. Lacking a word or phrase for something is pretty meaningful in itself. It pretty much signifies that there has been no need for it. In this regard, it would seem that what you call "social competence" or Matheikal calls "Doing your work in such a way that benefits the society" does seem to me a moral obligation. The fact that there is no phrase for it indicates that society has not caught up with us yet -- morally.
I was aware of the phrase "social skills" but deliberately used a much longer phrase, to make the point that an idea can be compressed into a few words but only at the expense of some negatives, like perhaps lack of precision,context-dependency etc. Social competence depends on the context.
RE
Post a Comment