January 18, 2014

January 18, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

SVB posits that “speaking well by not speaking” is nonsense. The fact that historically many of those who had wished to speak were silenced by those who didn’t want them to, doesn’t mean that there is any value to not speaking. When nothing is said then nothing is said. Something can only be said if it is said. The issue of silence is highly overrated. It is mostly related to those who dominate instead of engage in the conversation. Their unwillingness to communicate is part of NVB. 

Although SVB communicators try to avoid NVB, they are never against communication. SVB is communication and NVB is not. If “speaking well by not speaking at all” was a euphemism dating back to ancient days then “holy” silence represents a lot of “not speaking well.” Blasphemism is supposedly always the opposite of euphemism, but if this “not speaking at all” is the highly regarded euphemism that prevents the blasphemism called speaking, then we find ourselves in a confusing, but no longer deniable world, in which “evil-speaking” may represent the solution to many of our problems. 

The notion that saying nothing is better than saying something and is labelled as “speaking well” indicates that a lot of things in human interaction are upside down. When those who stop the interaction are praised for their great wisdom, disengagement becomes a virtue. Those in power feel they don’t have to engage. They communicate only when they feel like it and with those with whom it is necessary. Most people are never listened to, because they are unnecessary. 

Encouraging speech, enabled by modern technology, is only a fairly recent event. When one wants to say something that goes against the verbal community to which one belongs, one usually maintains one’s peace of mind by not saying what isn’t accepted. Other more tolerant verbal communities may be found that acknowledge these expressions. If one can, one usually becomes part of another verbal community, which reinforces these expressions. However, this transition from one verbal community to another will be a frustrating matter as long the issue at hand is not properly understood. Most people don’t realize that in spite of changing communities (political, religious, national, language, etc) they have continued to engage in NVB.

The use of euphemisms is much less likely in SVB than in NVB. In SVB we laugh without restraint and we don’t take offense when someone is talking out of his ass and reverting to NVB. Because we can say it as it is and call a spade a spade, rather than using euphemisms, we are more likely to use blasphemisms. The use of euphemistic language to cover up the ugly reality of our human interaction prevents us from investigating and understanding of what these behaviors are actually a function. The anonymous verbal community seems to decide the proper language to be used, but again and again we repeat words that are put into our mouths without realizing how these words shape our behavior.

Rhetorical devices, such as euphemisms, once such a characteristic part of the interaction among human beings as living organisms, are now becoming obsolete. They may still appear from time to time, but they are out of date and out of use, like rusty old tools that were replaced by better ones. The incentive to use the new tool, which is called SVB, is a function of its comparison to our old NVB machinery.