Reclaiming Tact

 Disclaimer: I'm usually anything but tactful. It would be the vilest hypocrisy for me to praise tactful behavior to my readers. I wish simply to advocate the reclaiming of the word and concept of tact. Or perhaps simply a renewed awareness of it.

Sensitivity, considerateness, thoughtfulness, civility, deference, regard, respect (are you nauseous yet?) are all important terms for the enlightened individual of the 21st century. We are constantly reminded of the need to be sensitive, thoughtful, and considerate to avoid offending or even perpetrating microaggression. Civility and deference must rule our interactions, especially with those less privileged, and we must behave with regard and respect for those who are different from us. This is all well and good. I have no quarrel with those who hold the above viewpoints.

What I do have to wonder, though, is this: Where is tact in all of this? It's a perfectly good word that captures many of the above meanings. Like its sole synonym diplomacy (if Merriam-Webster is to be trusted), it means something like an ability to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing or offending others. That's what we're after, right? Why would someone ever want to unnecessarily discomfit and injure another's feelings? Well, it turns out there is a subtle difference between the meaning of tact and the seven associated words above. While tact and diplomacy clearly imply the possibility that the "others" one is trying not to irritate might be misguided or oversensitive, the seven more commonly used terms all suggest that we are obliged by decency to be considerate of the fragile "other". "Respect" is perhaps the most notable example of this, meaning "a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc." or "a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way". Sounds obligatory, no? Tact, on the other hand, is much more morally ambivalent, and seems like something a person is not always obligated to practice: "the ability to do or say things without offending or upsetting other people." Likewise, diplomacy, "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility," strongly suggests that the potential hostility may be irrational or overly sensitive in and of itself. The implication of tact and diplomacy is that sometimes these "other people" you're hoping not to anger will get angry anyways no matter how hard you try. In other words, some conflicts are unavoidable, because they result from more significant things than people being rude to each other.

Take the large proportion of America's population that pays no taxes, for instance. Tact will go a long way to improve negotiations between them and whatever segment of the taxpaying population does not wish to support non-taxpayers. But it will not resolve fundamental issues like taxpayers wishing to avoid paying for other people's bread and circuses, or if you look at it a different way, evil capitalists exploiting the working poor and being stingy with their unjust earnings. That last sentence wasn't tactful on my part, I admit. But the point is that no amount of tact, sensitivity, respect, regard, deference, or any other word for being nice will smooth things over once the conflict has been framed and acknowledged as being over how much money it is appropriate to take from the rich and give to the poor, because the rich and the poor have different motivations and objectives. So why do the opinion makers avoid using tact and diplomacy to characterize mature, productive discourse?

If it's not clear already, it's because those words suggest a self-interested lateral interaction between equivalent (if not equal) entities, whereas the seven wishy-washy related words suggest some sort of obligation of special treatment on our part. "Our part? Who are we?" you ask. We are the people who are informed, literate, and responsible enough to know about, comprehend, and feel obliged by words and ideas in general. Whatever unfortunate group needs to be treated nicely probably doesn't even know what most of these words mean, beyond a general sense that they deserve respectful treatment, and a foolish and unfounded assumption that they are themselves respectful. (See also: Dunning-Kreuger effect.) Tact and diplomacy suggest a level playing field, a metaphor for life that those who wish to impose exogenous levelers (with ambiguous names like equal opportunity and wealth redistribution) on society cannot countenance. To justify their agenda, they firstly must maintain a sense of unevenness, a mentality that assumes things to be deeply unfair under the current system, and that does not expect anyone to utilize their bootstraps. Secondly, they must discredit and disgrace the very notion of competition suggested by the notion of a playing field. If and when they do admit the existence of conflict or tension, it cannot be seen as natural or consensual (much less salutary), but instead must be viewed as exploitation, aggression, oppression, or some other non-lateral interaction with predetermined roles. Because competition is viewed as often productive in economic theory and because it is ubiquitously celebrated in entertainment media (If you doubt the latter, turn on the TV), using the word is avoided by the group I've been awkwardly trying to avoid explicitly naming.

Another concrete example: You can't expect countries vying with each other for (military or economic) supremacy to treat each other with respect and consideration, instead only diplomacy and tact. But countries who are better off ought to treat less successful ones with respect, right? Because, you know, we ought to. After all, they're not as fortunate as we are. To treat them with tact, however, is inhumane, because by treating them as our equals, it ignores the obvious reality that they're less fortunate. I know this is sickening. Have you lost your lunch yet? Yes? Good, there are starving children who didn't even get one, etc.

http://nowfading.blogspot.com/2015/03/reclaiming-tact.html