The Fallacy Of Quietism: Is It True That Who Is Silent Grants?

Is it true that who is silent grants? Is it true that the person who chooses to remain silent agrees with the other? The fallacy of quietism forces us to reflect on this idea. Because not all silences are synonymous with surrender or reluctantly accepting the thesis of who we have in front of us.

To many it will have happened at some time. We start a conversation with someone and soon the discussion arises. Almost without knowing how or why, the other person tries in a bad way to convince us of completely wrong ideas – in our opinion. In these cases, there usually comes a moment when we become aware that there are dialogues that are of no use or significance.

We chose to remain silent so as not to lose our cool. Also because we know that intelligence is also in not debating and wasting time in what gets us nowhere. However, not everyone understands it this way. Because the use of silence is still understood in many cases as the emptiness of someone who does not know what to say and has given up.

What is the fallacy of quietism?

A fallacy refers to a deception hidden under some dimension. In general, they define those argumentation errors that we make when we communicate or when we judge reality. It is always interesting to reflect on these resources because they allow us to gain perspective and awareness of certain aspects.

An example of fallacy is the now classic idea that “since it has not been possible to demonstrate that there is life on other planets, the most accurate thing is to conclude that there is no life beyond planet Earth.” This would be an ad ignorantian fallacy . Very common, no doubt. Now, the fallacy of quietism or reserve contains in itself a situation that is experienced very often.

If you shut up, you consent

Silence is consent; who is silent, consents; those who do not protest accept the reality around them. If we think about it, in our day to day there are many things on which we do not say anything or position ourselves, but on which we do not agree.

Nobody goes out every day to protest against violence, abuse or injustice in any of its forms. But not by not denouncing them publicly at every moment do we agree with them.

Silence is not consent, although many think otherwise. Moreover, sometimes, in bullying situations, not everyone raises their voice at first and does not agree with what happens to them. Factors such as fear, blocking, indecision or “the fear of what they will say” are behind this form of silence.

The fallacy of quietism is that it is a mistake to interpret silence as a concession. Those who do not raise their voices or react are not always agreeing to what is before them.

The silence, that unknown and misinterpreted dimension

We live in a society accustomed to noise, to extroversion, to that form of communication that is often imposing and always bombastic. They attract leaders who are highly effective, resolute and often aggressive in language. Perhaps much of this explains why we continue to misunderstand the silent and less conspicuous figure.

Whoever uses discretion and resorts more to silence, we say of him that he is insecure, shy, weak, fallible and even boring. In the middle of a conversation, if you choose not to say anything at any given moment, it is because you agree with the other. Because whoever is silent grants and loses.

We are not aware of how the fallacy of quietism blurs the understanding of silences and their great significance.

Fallacy of quietism: silence reveals more than we think

Quietism was a mystical movement of the seventeenth century that rejected all forms of violence and that defended the perfection of the soul through contemplation. Silence was a form of virtue and in turn a way of going against repression and evil. Not speaking, not expressing, and even not acting actually reveal multiple meanings that not everyone appreciates and even less understands.

Research works, such as those carried out at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (United States), remind us that a good part of the silences are communicative; that is, they convey a message. However, in this society, used to talking excessively in order to say nothing, those who opt for imperturbability for many show weakness.

Who is silent does not grant or grant, in many cases they know that it is useless to say more to those who do not want to listen. It is true that it is always necessary – and healthy from a psychological point of view – to speak and put out what we feel. However, there are times when knowing when to shut up, says much more than speaking just to offend.

As the great Jorge Luis Borges said, “it is better not to speak unless you can improve the beauty of silence”.