Storytelling. Truth. Communication.
“The truth is a solid base for a long-lasting relationship. If you don’t build your relationship on the truth, sooner or later it will crumble.” - Thich Nhat Hanh
I suspect most of us like to pride ourselves on being truthful. And when we’re not, I suspect we justify that not telling the truth is somehow the best option for the situation in which we find ourselves.
While the point of this writing is later (after a few notes on the Buddhist view), it’s worth mentioning that not everyone will agree with the Buddhist view of communicating. However, I would argue that some form of loosely following the Buddhist principles of Right Speech will lead a person to be respectfully and effectively truthful.
On the topic of our close relationships, the Buddhist view is to love one another and be honest - this encompasses sharing one’s suffering. One’s suffering doesn’t have to be told elaborately. It may simply be, “I suffer, and I want you to know. I don’t understand why you did or said what you did.” Thich Nhat Hanh states that “we share our happiness with each other, we also need to share our suffering with one another.” This is part of the Art of Communicating. I suspect some of us don’t want to hear how another suffers. And some will simply choose not to acknowledge how another suffers. This damages the act of fully, respectfully and truthfully communicating.
Thich Nhat Hanh describes four elements of Right Speech. “Tell the truth. Don’t exaggerate. Be consistent. Use peaceful language.”
He also explains that the “Buddha and his students came up with four criteria that are helpful today in evaluating whether we and others are using Right Speech and speaking the truth effectively. The four criteria are:
“We have to speak the language of the world. In other words, we have to use the kind of language that people speak and the way they view things.
We may speak differently to different people, in a way that reflects how they think and their ability to receive the teaching. In other words, if someone’s understanding is profound, you speak in a way that takes that into consideration."
We give the right teaching according to person, time, and place, just as a doctor prescribes the right medicine. In other words, you have to know the mind and the background of the person you’re speaking to.
We teach in a way that reflects the absolute truth. In other words, when we need to say something we know will be difficult for others to hear, we have to be humble and try to look more and more deeply to discover in what way we can talk about these things.”
We can all likely find a pattern in the above four criteria to speak the truth effectively, which is to understand your listener, their perspective, their intellect, their background, and the way they are capable of absorbing information or the truth.
Recently, I’ve spent more time as a listener. Few moments of actually speaking. As a listener, one hears many stories. Thich Nhat Hanh explains how storytelling can be used to tell a truth or a difficult truth. The speaker can begin by telling someone a story of another person, so that the listener can get accustomed to the idea, issues, or points of view from the story. From that, the speaker can ask what the listener thinks or if the listener thinks it would be a good idea for the truth to be told. This may cause the listener to come to the conclusion independently and learn from the case of the other person. After Thich Nhat Hanh explains this approach, he states, “It takes a lot of practice to tell the truth in a way that the other person can hear.”
The last statement shared above is key. Building on that statement, suppose a listener hears clearly. So clearly, the listener is surprised that the truth was laid out in a seemingly indirect, elementary, passive manner such as storytelling. If we should be speaking the truth according to someone’s understanding - whether it be elementary or profound - what does it say about the storyteller if, for example, the truth is told in a passive, elementary way to an overly educated listener who values direct communication? Does this approach mean the speaker does not know the listener? Does this approach mean that the storyteller does not trust the listener to respond with an open mind? Does this approach mean that the storyteller does not trust the listener to respond truthfully about themselves or the subject matter? Does this approach mean the speaker does not fully understand how to delivery a truth or words to another in a manner that feels honest or compassionate to the listener? And if this approach of storytelling is unfitting for a listener or situation, then does it result in the speaker’s intended goal of the conversation? And if the listener asks to be spoken to directly and honestly - and not through storytelling - what happens to the relationship when this request is not honored?
Further (and separate but related) is it okay to try and make a point through indirect, unclear, non-verbal communication? This is attempting to communicate a point through action and behavior in which the intention of the actions may not be fully transparent or understood by the listener. Is this truthfulness? Is this effective relationship building or communication? Is this a compassionate way of communicating that could resolve a problem swiftly and peacefully? Could this border on passive-aggressive, unproductive communication? And how should the listener’s response be interpreted if there is not a clear understanding of how the communication was received?
Since when did direct, open, honest communication that addresses the matter at hand become so hard to find in interactions and communication with others? Since when did storytelling or indirect, unclear behavior become the growing approach for dealing with problems, miscommunications and mis-perceptions in human interactions? How can a person who is indirectly attempting to communicate be certain that the message being acted out is one of reality and not mis-perception or preconception? I would argue if the topic were addressed directly, the answer to this last statement would be easily revealed and problems quickly resolved.
I suspect hurt and distrust could be felt by a listener when a speaker knows little about the person and communicates in a manner of storytelling, or indirect, unclear behavior. Does it not take more wasted energy and thought to communicate in this manner than it does in a direct, open and honest approach, and how effective is this method?
I suspect the shock and hurt felt by a listener, after asking a storyteller to instead communicate in a direct method that discusses the point outwardly and directly - and who yet still receives the communication in the form of storytelling, or in the form of an indirect approach - can be detrimental to a relationship. In most cases the outward and direct approach - no matter how difficult the truth - shows respect, peace, and compassion toward the listener and what they are capable of hearing. If it’s our responsibility to build truthful relationships by communicating our needs (presumably reasonable needs), then in order to sustain a healthy relationship, those needs must be acknowledged, respected, and addressed by the other person.
Trust and communication after all are key to a healthy relationship. And as Thich Nhat Hanh explains, truth and how to deliver it effectively are foundational components to communication. When to be direct, and when to tell a story, this is key to effectiveness. It’s worth repeating, “It takes a lot of practice to tell the truth in a way that the other person can hear.” - Thich Nhat Hanh. And I suspect we all have a little practice to do.