When looking at common repercussions of brutal honesty, such as hurt feelings or damaged relationships, it is easily noted that some remarks are better left unspoken. Occasionally, when a question is proposed, it is socially inappropriate to leave it unanswered as the silent yet extremely noticeable hesitation may be more insulting than giving an honest answer. Honesty is and has always been depicted as a positive attribute but seldom is light shed on the possible detrimental consequences it can have on an individual, a family, a community, or even a nation.
Not even professionals are safe, as ethnographer and author Nancy Scheper-Hughes experienced various penalties of her honesty, recalling the repercussions in her reflective article “The Anthropological Looking Glass”. Throughout this piece, Scheper-Hughes summarizes the controversy and backlash she received after publishing her book Saints, Scholars, and Schizophrenics: Mental Illness in Rural Ireland. Intrigued by the abnormally high amount of mental illness in Ireland at that time, Scheper-Hughes conducted an ethnography in the village she misnomers as “Ballybran”.
Villagers reflected within the ethnography expressed anger and feelings of betrayal to Scheper-Hughes. Despite publishing material she believed as factual, Scheper-Hughes was punished for breaking the silence within that community. Adversely, individuals can also be punished for remaining silent, as revealed in noted author, Maxine Kingston’s article, “No Name Woman”. In this recollection, Kingston tells the story of a woman only referred to as her aunt, who experienced backlash from her community for choosing not to break her silence.
After admitting the truth, revealing a forbidden pregnancy, Kingston’s aunt life became endangered. Yet, by choosing to conceal the identity of the child’s father, the aunt was also endangered. Despite there still being repercussion with silence, had Kingston’s aunt been brutally honest, more conflict would have occurred. In the majority of situations where no ideal options are present, silence is less detrimental than honesty. Whereas it can lessen damage dealt to others, anonymity is silence’s strongest shield. Likewise, lying by omission is a powerful tool to prevent unnecessary conflict within communities.
Both the use of pseudonyms in novels as well as the pixelating of faces in the media exist to hide the identities of individuals. Today, identities are not only hidden to protect reputations but are often hidden to prevent lawsuits. Even though a novelist or a researcher may go to great lengths to conceal the identity of those involved within their project, if enough information is disclosed and characteristics revealed, covers may be blown, an anonymity is lost. Consequently, smaller towns and cities where communities are more tightknit, piecing together the puzzle which is a particular person’s identity is an even easier task.
Despite her attempts to conceal the identities of the individuals within her ethnography, villagers in “Ballybran” recognized one another, which lead a disbelieving Scheper-Hughes to contest and reveal that “[…] that it would be pointless for individuals to try to identify themselves since I carefully constructed composite characters that would defy any attempts at labeling or identification, I was silenced” (580). Even though the average reader of Scheper-Hughes’ ethnography would definitely be unable to recognize those described within the study, she did not account for “Ballybran” being a small, interwoven village.
In a village where everyone knows everybody, these elaborate composites were not constructed as carefully as Scheper-Hughes assumed they would be, as they would on an international scale. For failing to conceal identities well enough, Scheper-Hughes was punished by means of silence. Although only reputations were at stake in “Ballybran”; however, in other situations, withheld identities can save lives, as Kingston reveals her aunt who “[…] kept the man’s name to herself throughout her labor and dying, she did not accuse him that he be punished with her.
To save her inseminator’s name she gave silent birth” (Kingston 330). Although she faced punishment regardless which option she chose, by choosing not to reveal the name of the man who impregnated her, she protected him by means of silence. By omitting his identity, Kingston’s aunt singlehandedly saved not only this man’s reputation and current marriage, but also his life. Had the no named woman revealed enough clues or been honest about her child’s biological father, it definitely would have created more conflict within the community.
Regardless of the community, whenever traditions or informal laws are broken, anonymity is that individual’s way to remain unpunished. Whether or not it directly revealed or accidentally, conflict arises out of the broken silence. Once the shield of anonymity has been destroyed, relationships, reputations, and even lives become endangered. Honesty can be a positive quality but rarely does honesty come without some form of consequence. Brutal honesty is not only unnecessary, but also has a tendency to create additional problems in relationships.
Although, in the majority of situations, telling the truth is better than giving a false testimony, but too much honesty can also be damaging. More afraid of fabricating the truth, Scheper-Hughes wrote a brutally honest ethnography, and she justifies it as “Any ethnography […] should ring true, strike a familiar (even if occasionally painful) chord. It should not leave the “native” reader cold and confused. Angry and hurt, perhaps, but not confused or perplexed” (578).
By wanting to have the most factual ethnography over “Ballybran”, Scheper-Hughes was willing to risk hurt feelings between not only herself and the villagers but also amongst villagers within the community. Scheper-Hughes believed it was better to be brutally honest throughout her ethnography as opposed to omitting more sensitive information and letting ignorance be bliss. Nonetheless, backlash from “Ballybran” villagers could have been minimalized or avoided altogether had Scheper-Hughes been more selective with the sensitive material she published within her book.
Consequently, when too much is said, not only are relationships put at risk, but lives can also be jeopardized, as Kingston recalled her aunt’s experience “She told the man, ‘I think I’m pregnant. ’ He organized the raid against her” (326). Short on options, the no name woman admitted she believed she was with child and her honesty nearly lead to her murder. Although none of the options for that particularly situations were ideal, by breaking her silence, Kingston’s aunt faced repercussions not only ruining her reputation in her community and endangering her life and the life of her child.
In small amounts it is valued; however, honesty may not always be the greatest option. Ultimately, when lying by omission or remaining silent is an option, it may be the best option at avoiding unnecessary repercussions. Even though honesty is sometimes necessary, some things are better left unsaid. Whether sensitive mistakes from the past are rehashed, it is not unusually for involved individuals to feel embarrassed, distraught, or infuriated. After painful or humiliating events, letting time pass by may be the only affective healing method.
Granted, time can only heal wounds if the wounds are left to heal. By revisiting the past, salt is rubbed into tender wounds. By all means, Scheper-Hughes was not dishonest as she wrote down what she honestly believed to be true, for her intentions were pure, yet she admits her sin as “There is quite a difference between whispering something beside a fire or across a counter and seeing it printed for the world to see. It becomes a public shame” (579). Over time, incidents are suppressed, details are forgotten, and they seemingly become less significant to not only the individual but to the community.
When history is mentioned again, it becomes the highlight focus of the community, exposing the individual to both the initial and additional suffering. Regardless under what outlet it is published under, black and white has the power to solidify these rumors that were once only viewed as unspoken truths, into fact. To prevent facing unnecessary repercussions caused by revisited controversy, ignoring the situation is an option as Kingston describes “But there is more to this silence: [my family] wants me to participate in her punishment. And I have” (333).
To avoid conflict between her and her family, Kingston does not bring up the story of her anonymous aunt. Fearful she may damage the relationships within the family or their reputation in the community, Kingston disregards her aunt’s life story. After all, the damage has been done, persistent mentioning would only spark more conflict. Granted ignoring the truth may not an ethical thing to do, it may come with the least amount of consequences. While it may appear apathetic, remaining silent may be the most efficient treatment to heal painful wounds within communities.
Falsely associated with absolutely nothing productive, the power and importance of silence is incredibly underrated. All things considered, it is more damaging to say too much as opposed to saying too little. Throughout all communities in the United States as well as a universal truth, preventing something from happening is much easier than repairing damage done. In terms of silence versus honesty, holding a tongue is often easier than recalling words previously spoken.
Whether it is a tribe of indigenous people in the Congo or the Amish community in Nappanee, Indiana, no case of silence and honesty is typical. Given a negative connotation, individuals fear the term ‘lying by omission’ yet it is something commonly done, both consciously and unconsciously, throughout their lifetimes. By using silence as both a weapon for peace and a shield of anonymity, persons breaking tradition have the power to utilize these tools to their advantage. With the tools of silence being in their grasp, all which is left is for them to keep their mouths closed.