NOTE: I have noticed for some time now that Silence: A Virtue or a Vice? is the most popular post on this blog and also ranks very highly for a search engine query. Given its popularity and its implied importance I thought of revisiting it after six years. My punditry is as disputable as ever.
First, semantics. I won't address whether silence is a virtue or a vice. Verbs are less confusing than nouns. To be, or not to be silent, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to ...
"Being silent" is an action (or sometimes an inaction). For convenience, I will classify actions into two types: context-free and context-sensitive. I can't think of good examples of context-free actions: eating chocolate, parents admonishing, managers complaining. Examples of context-sensitive actions: compiling source code, wiping mouth or nose against the sleeve, getting married. For the second category, the what (the actions) can be related to how, when, where, who(m), why.
"Being silent" is highly context-sensitive and its virtuousness or viciousness "depends". A few examples of its context-sensitivity:
How: indifferently, angrily, empathically
When: while watching a movie, after a fight
Where: in a party, in a meeting, in private
Who(m): who I am, who you are (to me)
Why: to hurt, to tolerate, to support
The complexity and subjectivity is evident.
The resolution is known in many ordinary contexts: answering a phone, being silent in the library, being yourself at home. I guess we do what we know. The resolution seems undecidable in some contexts: meeting a grieving friend, greeting a stranger daily seen in the elevator, getting caught while making fun of a colleague. Without a strong reason to do the opposite, I would stick to doing what I am, lest I should further lose balance in an awkward situation. There are some other contexts when there is a clear conflict, between the resolution that we think is more appropriate and the one we tend to choose because that is what we are. The conflict leads to this unpleasant dilemma, whether it is right or wrong, virtuous or vicious.
There is a part of this dilemma that is not rational (I think) but central to it: personality. It is difficult to choose, much less accept, a resolution that goes against one's personality. e.g. I have been described in various psychological profilings to be introverted, reserved, private, etc. along with their qualifiers like strong, primary, very clear. It is fair to say that I have a predilection for silence.
There is however one distinction I realized recently -- this is starting to read like an infomercial -- that diminished to me the magnitude of this conflict (and others of this kind). It is the distinction between personality and behavior. The former is about who a person is; the latter is about how a person is.
Predilection for silence may be part of my personality, but to be or not to be silent is behavioral. Today, as an introvert who speaks up in group meetings far more often than I ever did, I don't think my personality has changed so much (in this aspect), but my behavior has (to a certain extent).
I know it is easier said than done. That is the reason why I'm saying it.
You have definitely grown wiser from that post to this. I can sense it. Somehow this post seemed calmer to me.
ReplyDelete