Constructs of Silence

Finding your narrative to suit multiple people at the same time can sometimes jam you! What do I mean  by this?

Most of the times, when we try to be diplomatic, when talking around people having different opinions about a particular thing at hand, we search a way to speak so as to keep the interests of all parties engaged and involved with the "thing at hand". Constructing this narrative of diplomacy (or the diplomatic narrative) is a skill. In this construction - essentially a forced process - where you are constantly telling your mind what NOT to say, rather than what to say, dialogue delivery is an act of elimination. After leaving the words that you have to avoid, your speech is a piece of script that assumes a meaning that is meaningless for what you originally intended to convey. In other cases, the immense openness of this disfigured speech is back interpreted in ways that are not known to you, and become evident only when they result into something tangible - an output of an action that manifests into the physical world. 

I suck at diplomacy. And when I am direct, I am too harsh - to the extent that I may sound extremely proudy, or ignorant of others' choices. I snap quickly when I try to be too diplomatic. That is the reason why I keep my ideas to myself, and bring it out on this blog. Writing helps me to release my inner frustration. I talk more here, because I am turned to silence far too many times because of the realization that I am constantly being labelled as a conceited person, that often comes out through my strong opinions. This blog absorbs my ego, it sucks my frustration. I dont know what people make of what is being written here.

To some extent, I had become comfortable with being diplomatic in the US. I thought I would be able to carry it forward in my practice here. However, being diplomatic in India is much more difficult. This is so, because at any given time, you are necessarily dealing with far too many people, all with different streams of unorganized thought. The "unorganized" part is very important, because while talking, people dont stick to a single topic here. Instead, they talk more like Bollywood masala films - those that have a free reeling combination of drama, emotion, laughter, seriousness and such stuff, in essence a clubbing of contents from varied fields. Most people fail to realize the gravity of a topic of discussion, and stretch and smudge it into different directions. For example if someone is talking about the connectivity of places within the city through transport, several subsidiary and unimportant issues like pollution, sound, smoke, garbage and so on will find place in the narrative. And one would not know when and how a side topic becomes the centre stage of the conversation. In such a situation, one never knows how even one's diplomatic statement will unfold. The vulnerability that comes with this insecurity of how your statements will be construed and perceived crumbles me.

I am always worried about my how I am being perceived here - because more often than not, I fear that I am being misinterpreted in my actions, thoughts and words. And thus I bring it out in this space. I wonder if I am incomprehensible or people just assert their opinions onto others? In the race of being assertive, which I am told to be consistently by many by far, I start becoming defensive - because there is far too much to explain about my logic and therefore my way of looking at things. People are not interested in listening to it.

Finally, isn't much of what we are, actually what we talk? We constantly construct ourselves through our talk, the way we speak and say things in different situations. What when we are not able to talk out things? And what personality does silence construct?