It occurred to me recently (as in, ten minutes ago) that
people very often describe themselves as “direct,” but in reality…they are not.
Alas, I have found myself in that category on many an occasion. But, I posit,
this happens most often not because I do not want to be a direct person, but
because social norms and individual situations dictate that I must not be a direct person. By ‘social
norms’ I mean that it is typically considered rude or insensitive when you are
too direct (of course varying based on context and culture), and by ‘individual
situations’ I mean situations with
individuals, where most of the people I interact with do not want me to be
direct (e.g., they will take it too personally). Therefore, as a rough
estimation I would say that 98% of the time I am not direct because I believe I
can’t be, and 11% of the time I am not direct because I am at heart a nice guy
who doesn’t want to hurt people’s feelings. (Yes, that is more than 100%, but
I’m allowing for some overlap of the two reasons. I can count, thank you.) But
this is outside the purview of my point.
Back to those who describe themselves as “direct,” but who
are not. Yes, I believe there are others who might describe their own
indirectness in the same fashion I did my own, but this is largely irrelevant.
I am speaking specifically about those who engage in interaction with an
explicit ‘other,’ and describe themselves as “direct,” possibly with a sentence
such as “I am a very direct person: I prefer to just tell it like it is, and
I’d rather you do the same with me. There’s no reason to ever beat around the
bush, just be straight up.” Many people who engage in this sort of self-imposed
attribution are probably not aware that they are lying. (Ok, that might
be a bit too direct and harsh: they are not telling the truth.) What they are
really saying is, “I prefer to be mostly
direct with you, most of the time.
But you should be completely direct with me. Mostly.” Very different statement.
And the reason I say people who really feel this way are not “direct” is
because if you are not completely
direct, then by definition you are indirect,
which is NOT DIRECT.
I’ll make my case in a couple quick ways. If you think about
“directness” on a moving scale, then at the far right you have “Direct” and the
far left you have “Indirect.” “But wait,” you say. “There are degrees of
directness – I can be somewhat direct
or very direct.” False. You cannot. There are varying degrees of indirectness only. Look at the
definition for the word “direct,” in its adverb form in which we use it in this
context: “proceeding in a straight line or by the shortest course; straight;
undeviating; not oblique;”1 “stemming
immediately from a source;” 2 “having no
compromising or impairing element.” 2 You will
see there is no room for being less than direct. Therefore, anything less than
or not completely direct is some
varying degree of indirect. To put it
another way, using a spatial analogy, if you said you were going to go directly
to the store, you only went directly there if you did not go or stop anywhere
else on the way. For those naysayers who would attempt to debunk this example
by saying that one could go directly
to the store using a circuitous route (i.e. take a longer route, but not make
any stops), I say again that this is indirect,
as it stands in direct opposition to the definition of direct. Direct is “by the shortest course,” or it is not direct.
Sorry.
I posit that those who claim they are “direct” people but
make relational “stops” or use “circuitous routes” with those to whom they
assert their directness are in actuality being some degree of “indirect.”
Possibly a low level, but still indirect at base. And therefore, not direct. Now, this isn’t a judgmental
thrashing of those to whom this applies. More of a call to thought: possibly
you should consider what you are really
saying, what you want to say, and how
you should classify/express yourself to others (particularly those who, like
me, would expect someone who told us they were going to be direct to actually be direct).
I believe “directness” gets a bad rap. Most people tend to
see being “direct” as being somehow insensitive, or thoughtless. I postulate
that it can be the exact opposite (although admittedly, not always; it depends
on the individual’s personality). Being direct typically requires some level of
forethought – how else would you know what the most direct route was? I think
indirect communication can sometimes be one of the greatest flaws of human
interaction. How can we expect others to know exactly what we mean or think if
we won’t tell them explicitly? Many a relationship (platonic, romantic,
familial, whatever) has probably been ruined, or in the least greatly strained,
unnecessarily, because people won’t talk to others with direction and purpose.
Don’t get me wrong, indirectness certainly has its place, but I think we should
use it like salt or alcohol – in moderation.
-JMC-
