This is a very interesting article, which, as a layperson, has prompted me to reflect on a few things, especially at a historic moment like the present, when there is a need to develop a clear and up-to-date “space law” to protect the interests of all mankind, not just those of a few.
Observation 1. Recalling McLuhan’s ideas, I thought that the speech by a high-level speaker at the COPUOS meeting is best described by the Canadian philosopher and sociologist’s phrase, “the medium is the message.” The paper and the words being read are of lesser importance than the person reading them: he is simultaneously the medium and the message. And not the speaker as an individual—however skilled and brilliant he or she may be—but solely as a representative of the space agency he or she represents. At that moment, he or she represents the international organization that sent him or her there, and his or her presence is more important than the speech itself.
Observation 2. In this case as well, it is not so much the speakers’ skill and preparation that matter, but rather the influence of the organizations that sent them there. The interaction between people becomes political, and as it drifts away from technical matters, the listeners’ interest also wanes.
And as people get older, I don’t believe their oratory skills improve: what increases is only the desire to maintain their role and responsibilities within the framework established by their organization, avoiding dangerous deviations from corporate procedures—in the style of a “yes man.”
Observation 3. I don’t know, but I can’t help thinking that perhaps “speaking sincerely” rather than “merely acting” at a meeting is not only risky but perhaps not even conceivable. Behind a written speech, there are many people who have crafted it and perfected it for a specific purpose: to represent the position of an organization, not that of a single individual, no matter how brilliant.
Observation 4. An assessment of the costs and complex logistical organization of international conferences can suggest two ideas, each with a different meaning. On the one hand, these opportunities for professionals to meet are (and should always be) ways to exchange ideas and different points of view on the topics at hand—a cultural exchange, in other words.
In the other view, they are merely mechanisms for reaffirming political concepts and interpretations of the issues. A power struggle, where, once again, the medium is the message.
Another great piece, Yulia! A longstanding problem with institutions like the UN, in my opinion, is weak cohesion around connective communication throughputs and assets. While they kind of intuitively understand the power of standing ten toes down on storytelling, research and evidence, neuromarketing, and powerful narrative arcs—only some agencies (e.g., UNICEF) put the money and effort in these areas. And even then they have limits; once people get in the room or role they think the job is done.
The organization and many of its personnel, as a whole, remind me of some of the people I’ve come across in STEM academia: Brilliant, hungry, committed and determined, but also risk adverse, myopic and full of expectations that their unique brand of genius will be understood and supported…without having to communicate or negotiate around it. Both those things require passionate vulnerability, and there’s a real stubbornness in many rooms to deliver from such a place.
You nailed it. This is a mini-piece in a comment, I appreciate you! I read it several times and I enjoy all the details and examples. Especially about the expectation of being supported in STEM for the unique brand of genius- that’s spot on!
Such a sharp piece, Yulia. What really lands here is the distinction between formal accuracy and actual communication. Institutions often mistake control for impact, when in practice the more tightly managed the language becomes, the less alive the room is to it. “Reading feels safe” is exactly the trap. And the cost, as you say, is not only rhetorical but institutional: time, attention, and the possibility of genuine exchange. Thanks, Coach😎
This is a very interesting article, which, as a layperson, has prompted me to reflect on a few things, especially at a historic moment like the present, when there is a need to develop a clear and up-to-date “space law” to protect the interests of all mankind, not just those of a few.
Observation 1. Recalling McLuhan’s ideas, I thought that the speech by a high-level speaker at the COPUOS meeting is best described by the Canadian philosopher and sociologist’s phrase, “the medium is the message.” The paper and the words being read are of lesser importance than the person reading them: he is simultaneously the medium and the message. And not the speaker as an individual—however skilled and brilliant he or she may be—but solely as a representative of the space agency he or she represents. At that moment, he or she represents the international organization that sent him or her there, and his or her presence is more important than the speech itself.
Observation 2. In this case as well, it is not so much the speakers’ skill and preparation that matter, but rather the influence of the organizations that sent them there. The interaction between people becomes political, and as it drifts away from technical matters, the listeners’ interest also wanes.
And as people get older, I don’t believe their oratory skills improve: what increases is only the desire to maintain their role and responsibilities within the framework established by their organization, avoiding dangerous deviations from corporate procedures—in the style of a “yes man.”
Observation 3. I don’t know, but I can’t help thinking that perhaps “speaking sincerely” rather than “merely acting” at a meeting is not only risky but perhaps not even conceivable. Behind a written speech, there are many people who have crafted it and perfected it for a specific purpose: to represent the position of an organization, not that of a single individual, no matter how brilliant.
Observation 4. An assessment of the costs and complex logistical organization of international conferences can suggest two ideas, each with a different meaning. On the one hand, these opportunities for professionals to meet are (and should always be) ways to exchange ideas and different points of view on the topics at hand—a cultural exchange, in other words.
In the other view, they are merely mechanisms for reaffirming political concepts and interpretations of the issues. A power struggle, where, once again, the medium is the message.
Thank you for such a generous read! This is more than a comment, I appreciate your thoughts.
I think it’s spot on how you highlight the importance of the organisations that send the people, and their influence.
Another great piece, Yulia! A longstanding problem with institutions like the UN, in my opinion, is weak cohesion around connective communication throughputs and assets. While they kind of intuitively understand the power of standing ten toes down on storytelling, research and evidence, neuromarketing, and powerful narrative arcs—only some agencies (e.g., UNICEF) put the money and effort in these areas. And even then they have limits; once people get in the room or role they think the job is done.
The organization and many of its personnel, as a whole, remind me of some of the people I’ve come across in STEM academia: Brilliant, hungry, committed and determined, but also risk adverse, myopic and full of expectations that their unique brand of genius will be understood and supported…without having to communicate or negotiate around it. Both those things require passionate vulnerability, and there’s a real stubbornness in many rooms to deliver from such a place.
You nailed it. This is a mini-piece in a comment, I appreciate you! I read it several times and I enjoy all the details and examples. Especially about the expectation of being supported in STEM for the unique brand of genius- that’s spot on!
Such a sharp piece, Yulia. What really lands here is the distinction between formal accuracy and actual communication. Institutions often mistake control for impact, when in practice the more tightly managed the language becomes, the less alive the room is to it. “Reading feels safe” is exactly the trap. And the cost, as you say, is not only rhetorical but institutional: time, attention, and the possibility of genuine exchange. Thanks, Coach😎
Thanks so much!