Kennis Ross 300160381 Essay 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

essay 1...

Description

Kennis Ross Dr. Erma Petrova ENG1100 February 22nd 2021 Communication, Connection, and Consequence: An Exploration of The Importance of Communication as Seen in the Article “What I Learned in Avalanche School” by Heidi Julavits “Nature doesn't kill people with avalanches, people kill people with avalanches” (Julavits, 2) is what the avalanche course instructor Ryan says to his class on their first day of training according to author Heidi Julavits in her article “What I Learned in Avalanche School”. The problem with avalanches is almost never nature, but rather the frailty and the mistakes of humans. Potentially fatal situations, such as an avalanche, require women to speak up in a group and for men to listen because ignorance, feigned expertise, and a lack of communication can have deadly consequences. In quotidian life, subtleties such as an ignored comment by a male coworker or friend seems platitudinal for women. However, in the case of avalanche survival, every word must be heard and understood. Judgement calls must be made with extreme care and knowledge of the situation when life itself hangs in the balance. Author Julavits describes her avalanche course as being a “referendum on masculinity” (Julavits, 3). So far in her article, Julavits recounts the qualities listed by her instructors that escalate the likelihood of triggering an avalanche as being; “prideful, bullheaded, egotistic, dumbstruck, and lazy” (Julavits, 2). To survive an avalanche, let alone prevent one from happening, groups must be in communication with each other and avoid these inherently human errors. Throughout the article, these traits are commonly perpetrated by men, such as skier 7 from the Microdot party who believed “caution equals cowardice” (Julavits, 4), or the instructor Mike, whose pride was large enough to take the students over

Ross 2 an unsafe slope even when Julavits professed her concerns. Therefore, the ignorance of the traits that cause avalanches are seen through these men in the article and less in the women, which is why Julavits calls for the referendum to vote against typically male qualities that result in the trigger of avalanches. Similarly, in the anecdote about the skiing party of Microdot who ignored the signals of danger and triggered an avalanche, Julavits explains the psychological state of each skier, skier 4 being of particular interest. Skier 4 had “learned over the years that she could gain the respect of her male co-workers by behaving in a cavalier manner” (Julavits, 4). Because skier 4 had not spoken up in hopes to receive respect from her male compatriots, she added to the ignorance of the group, letting masculinity control the actions of the group. In addition, it is said by the avalanche instructor Ryan that in order to make an effective group decision, “constant communication and the regular practice of emotional vulnerability” (Julavits, 3) is necessary. This statement poses a dichotomy with an earlier statement made by Julavits in which she describes the atmosphere of the avalanche survival course as “misanthropic” (Julavits, 1). She also says that the course was “ten men and three women” (Julavits, 1). Likewise, the misanthropic mood is seen through the two 20 year old men Julavits drives with to get to the avalanche training. She tries to further the emotional communication by asking personal questions, but the men are more interested in speaking on the “sobering avalanche advisory” (Julavits, 5). In both cases of the “misanthropic mood” (Julavits, 1), it is created by the men of the group. This suggests that men are less open to emotional vulnerability and communication than the women are, which is why it is important for the males to listen to the women of the group because women are able to communicate more openly. This relates to instructor Ryan’s statistic that “all-female groups...make better

Ross 3 decisions in risky situations than all-male groups or mixed-gender groups” (Julavits, 3). When men refuse to communicate with each other, and refuse to listen to women who are communicating with each other, the consequences could result in death. Moreover, an overarching paradox found throughout the article is that in preparing for the worst, the more likely one wouldn't survive the worst. Julavits’s instructor Ryan even says that upon taking the avalanche training course “[the students] had statistically increased their chances of being killed in an avalanche” (Julavits, 2). In the safe environment created for the students of the avalanche course, they are learning how to prepare themselves for a worst-case scenario of an avalanche. However, on a mountain, mistakes cannot be afforded in a life-or-death situation. This paradox is also seen through the instructor Mike. During their avalanche training, Mike continuously disregards the in-class instruction given to the students. Julavits describes how upon being asked if a slope is safe, she replied that “you should not go over it” and Mike replied with “well, I’m about to” (Julavits, 8). Being an instructor, Mike should be adding to the education of the group. The paradoxical nature of his teaching style gives a sense of insincere expertise which Julavits recognizes. Mike also fails to listen to Julavits when she explains her lack of expertise on skis. She communicated her emotions to him, but he “reassured [her] that [she’d] be fine on skis” (Julavits, 8). Since Mike goes against what they learned in class on the first day of avalanche training, his credibility as an expert is diminished as he conflates with the paradox of how preparing for the danger can make the danger worse. Similarly to Mike, Julavits also recounts her experience with trying to rent a four-wheel-drive car. She explains that she never lets anyone tell her that “Persistent and inexplicable irregularities should be ignored, just because they say it should” (Julavits,

Ross 4 4). Through avoiding the foolhardy trust of people in positions of authority, she remains safe from the paradox of preparedness. Ultimately, when life is on the line, there is no room for mistakes. Everything must be meticulously thought out and planned, and everyone has to be in agreement. In a group, women must make their voices heard and men must listen to them if survival is to be ensured. Communication, understanding, and a rigorous knowledge of the situation are paramount in the lethal circumstances of an avalanche. Nature does not make mistakes, it is only under the influence of the errors of humans.

Works Cited Julavits, H. (2019, December 31). “What I learned in avalanche school”. Retrieved February 22, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/magazine/avalanche-school-heidi-julavits.html...