I have been told by many people that silence means consent. Consider the following example: Imagine you are listening to a complex conversation. The person rattles off facts and figures, and you vaguely listen as you think about what you are going to cook for dinner than evening. The next day the person posts on Facebook that she is so happy she has finally found someone who agrees with her, and she names you. Huh! You don't even remember any of the conversation! Or, should you have been paying closer attention to make sure you disagree when you do, and was the onus on you to make sure to correct any incorrect facts too?
Consider another example: You work with someone, who you don't particularly like, yet who is your senior, and who you suspect is a bully. He sidles up to you unexpectedly one day and says he does not like the new manager. You stare at him, somewhat shocked that he thinks this and would openly admit it to you, yet you dare not say anything as he is your boss. The next day you overhear someone talking about you, saying she has heard you do not like the new manager. You cannot believe what you are hearing. This cannot be because of the comment your boss made to you yesterday--surely not?!
I am one who tends to keep quiet when someone mentions something they believe is a fact and especially if I am not sure of its veracity myself. I tend to correct facts which I believe are not truth and which apply to me, but I may miss some points which pass me by. The only way to really know what I believe is to ask me directly. What do you tend to do?
Consider another example: You work with someone, who you don't particularly like, yet who is your senior, and who you suspect is a bully. He sidles up to you unexpectedly one day and says he does not like the new manager. You stare at him, somewhat shocked that he thinks this and would openly admit it to you, yet you dare not say anything as he is your boss. The next day you overhear someone talking about you, saying she has heard you do not like the new manager. You cannot believe what you are hearing. This cannot be because of the comment your boss made to you yesterday--surely not?!
I am one who tends to keep quiet when someone mentions something they believe is a fact and especially if I am not sure of its veracity myself. I tend to correct facts which I believe are not truth and which apply to me, but I may miss some points which pass me by. The only way to really know what I believe is to ask me directly. What do you tend to do?
If you are silent when a topic is discussed, does this mean you are complicit and you agree? I suppose this is what we normally assume, especially if we are happily chatting away, enmeshed in our own reality, not paying much heed to the fact that the other person wants to disappear and is not paying attention. Another example is that I have friends who I invite over for a meal, but I have learnt I must not say, "Come over on Saturday and I'll make a meal", because they smile but do not arrive, and I now know to ask, "Would you like to come over on Saturday for a meal?", and if they then say yes then I know it is a fixed date.
As another example, there may be situations when you walk away from a meeting thinking you all agreed to an outcome that was discussed, but did you go around the table and make sure each person openly stated their agreement or disagreement? This is a key point in collaboration, to make sure each person states that they agree, or else further discussion is needed, and this way you know for sure you have everyone's backing on a point and that there will be no surprise comebacks later.
I do believe that if I disagree about something, it is best to say so, but there may be times when there are other reasons for silence, for example, what if you are on the witness stand, stunned as fact after fact is hurled at you, and you are not adept enough to keep track of what is truth and what not, and you are barely able to whisper out a few sentences, never mind ensure you refute all errors. What if your natural inclination is to be silent when accusations are openly made against you, and this is because you are frozen, unable to think, and not because you are guilty of what is being suggested? Is this why people who are accused of a crime in court have accusations stated as if they were fact, like, "Isn't it true that you went to the house that night and killed him in cold blood?", and the judge then says, "Leading the witness!" and the lawyer has to backtrack, but might the damage be done? What if the defendant keeps quiet when the scene is portrayed, even if this might not be at all true?! Would you think the innocent defendant is guilty if, at this point, he sank deeper into his chair and grimaced and shook his head, as tears started falling, when in reality he cannot believe this nightmare is happening to him and wishes this could all be over?
As another example, there may be situations when you walk away from a meeting thinking you all agreed to an outcome that was discussed, but did you go around the table and make sure each person openly stated their agreement or disagreement? This is a key point in collaboration, to make sure each person states that they agree, or else further discussion is needed, and this way you know for sure you have everyone's backing on a point and that there will be no surprise comebacks later.
I do believe that if I disagree about something, it is best to say so, but there may be times when there are other reasons for silence, for example, what if you are on the witness stand, stunned as fact after fact is hurled at you, and you are not adept enough to keep track of what is truth and what not, and you are barely able to whisper out a few sentences, never mind ensure you refute all errors. What if your natural inclination is to be silent when accusations are openly made against you, and this is because you are frozen, unable to think, and not because you are guilty of what is being suggested? Is this why people who are accused of a crime in court have accusations stated as if they were fact, like, "Isn't it true that you went to the house that night and killed him in cold blood?", and the judge then says, "Leading the witness!" and the lawyer has to backtrack, but might the damage be done? What if the defendant keeps quiet when the scene is portrayed, even if this might not be at all true?! Would you think the innocent defendant is guilty if, at this point, he sank deeper into his chair and grimaced and shook his head, as tears started falling, when in reality he cannot believe this nightmare is happening to him and wishes this could all be over?
Why do we assume silence means consent? Search for truth, as sometimes an alternate explanation might be the real truth.
Jesus was questioned by Pilot before His crucifixion, and He knew He had been found guilty even though He was innocent, yet He remained silent knowing He was accused falsely: "And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled." Mark 15:2-5 (KJV)
(Note:
This blog article is based on the oft noted assumption that silence
does mean consent, which came up in a conversation I had with someone
recently)
No comments:
Post a Comment