DR JUN. - 27

 Not all violations of conversational norms denote aggression or pose a threat. In many instances, individuals deviate from these norms for reasons entirely devoid of malice. For instance, those on the autism spectrum may eschew unstructured small talk, preferring instead communication that serves a precise informational purpose. Chris Packham, a renowned British naturalist diagnosed with autism in his forties, exemplified this proclivity during an interview. When asked about socialising, he relayed his bafflement at the suggestion that he visit friends simply because “it would be nice to see them.” His response—“But what for?”—encapsulates a pragmatic utilitarianism, indicating a communicative approach grounded in purposeful interaction rather than social ritual.

While we can only speculate about what diagnosis, if any, might elucidate C.S. Lewis’s characteristic silences, it is apparent that his communicative values diverged from the norm. Lewis preferred substance to banter, and although this communicative austerity can initially unnerve, it may eventually become familiar and even comforting, provided the person maintains courtesy and respect. Much like Packham’s interviewer who described his remarks as tender despite their ostensibly mercenary surface, familiarity often fosters reinterpretation of perceived oddities as idiosyncrasies rather than breaches.

The discomfort induced by silence arises not merely from the void of sound but from the violation of expectations. In a study by Yamada, participants described an almost compulsive urge to fill prolonged silences, illustrating how such moments invoke a peculiar strain—one not as prevalent in other forms of conversational disruption. Indeed, negotiators and interrogators alike exploit this discomfort. Chinese negotiation strategies and UK police protocols recommend strategic silence as a psychological tactic, capitalising on the compulsion others feel to speak and restore normative flow.

This pressure has a social dimension. Silence disrupts the collaborative essence of conversation, akin to a dance interrupted mid-step. In their 2011 study, Koudenburg, Postmes, and Gordijn likened conversation to dancing, where synchronised turn-taking cultivates a sense of belonging. Silence, then, becomes alienating, suggestive of exclusion, triggering our evolutionary sensitivity to social rejection.

What distinguishes silence from other norm infractions is its starkness. Unlike incessant interruptions or narcissistic monologues, which offer stimuli—even if annoying—silence forces acute awareness of the conversational lapse. Ending silence is simple; enduring a bore or an interrupter requires social risk. We often opt for tolerance over confrontation to maintain decorum, hence silence uniquely burdens the responder.

Silence can also function communicatively, intentionally or otherwise. Consider sulking as a passive signal of discontent, or Trudeau’s deliberate pause when questioned on Trump’s inflammatory remarks—silences that reverberate louder than speech. Yet such silence is decipherable only with adequate context. Taylor’s discomfort with Lewis’s silences stemmed from unfamiliarity; in the absence of contextual understanding, silence breeds misinterpretation.

Sometimes, the silence that disturbs us is our own. Whether born of shyness, awe, or emotional overwhelm, our silence risks either misinterpretation—shyness mistaken for dullness—or worse, accurate interpretation. Goffman’s dramaturgical framework illuminates this dilemma: we perform frontstage roles while concealing our backstage selves. Silence can inadvertently expose the latter, revealing nerves or uncertainty when we wish to project poise.

Comfortable silences, conversely, emerge when conversational norms relax. Psychotherapy and Quaker worship both permit extended silences without social penalty. Friendships, too, evolve their own norms, wherein the imperative to speak recedes. In these spaces, silence ceases to signify disconnect, becoming instead a shared serenity, a mutual suspension of the need to perform. Such silences are not absence but presence, not failure but intimacy.

Word Count: 598
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 15

Difficult Word Meanings:

• Eschew: deliberately avoid

• Proclivity: a natural inclination

• Utilitarianism: philosophy valuing practical outcomes

• Austerity: sternness or simplicity

• Mercenary: appearing motivated by gain

• Compulsion: irresistible urge

• Decorum: propriety in conduct

• Dramaturgical: related to theatrical presentation

• Idiosyncrasies: individual peculiarities