/lit/ - Literature

Excerpt from an essay(ish) on the concept of tact

Disclaimer: I'm usually anything but tactful. It would be the vilest hypocrisy for me to praise tactful behavior. 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.

http://pastebin.com/pn1mBdMM