“Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defence.” — Steve Landesberg
There’s an old adage, much beloved by lawyers, that goes something like, “Never ask the witness a question to which you don’t already know the answer.”
Honesty is a noble trait, but at what point should we fudge the truth a little?
“Does this dress make me look fat?”
“Um …”
One might guess someone asking this fashion question may already have some inkling of the honest answer, and therefore should either refrain from asking it or be very careful in their choice of the person or persons of whom she (or he or they) might ask it.
If discretion is the better part of valour, then “yes” is probably not an acceptable response, even if it’s true.
And no matter how well intentioned, an even less acceptable answer would be the kindly suggestion she might consider a new weight-loss regimen.
So, what constitutes an appropriate time to be brutally honest? And when should we tell those little white lies?
Every time we open our mouths, we must first engage in an instantaneous list of pros and cons that determines the degree of our mental censorship, taking into account our audience — their relationship to us and our relative ages and social status — their background, our background and the impact we want our words to have on them.
What’s our motivation? Do we want to impress them? Persuade them? Amuse them? Do we want to deepen a relationship or put them off?
What’s our time frame? Are we pressed for time, so we tell a little white lie designed to keep them from impeding us, or do we tell them exactly what we think, risking an emotional rift that may never heal?
What if an Olympic-level chatterbox corners us after a long day when we’re on the way home and happily anticipating a well-deserved cup of tea and a quiet evening of Friends reruns? Do we give them the cut direct or do we offer a slight prevarication to put them off?
Or maybe someone asks us a question about something we don’t want to talk about. “None of your business” is a bit too abrupt and only fuels their curiosity and resentment. But a semi-believable red herring may be enough to give us time to escape. “No, my husband didn’t run off with an exotic dancer. He’s tutoring her in Jungian philosophy 101. Gotta run. Have a nice day.”
On more than one occasion, I’ve been accused of being more blunt than said occasion calls for. If I’ve offended anyone, I apologize, but honestly, how you respond is on you, not on me. The extent of my responsibility lies in my attempt to guess your reaction ahead of time.
And, my friends, that ain’t easy.
Oh, we do try. We try to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, or we try to preserve a small, happy secret like a surprise party, and most often, we try to avoid conflict. But sometimes, a little white lie just doesn’t cut it.
Sometimes, brutal honesty is exactly what’s called for, but it must be approached with a degree of caution. Conversations, even relationships, can go south in a hurry if one participant is unwilling to accept the reality of the situation.
Especially in situations where time is at a premium, brutal honesty can keep conversations concise. This particularly applies to children and those of — shall we say — lesser intellectual capacity or experience.
In the case of impending danger, for example, telling someone, “Darling, I question whether this is the best idea for you to walk just there. I know it’s fun to practise your dance steps on the rail, but this is a train track and, you know, trains go really fast, and they take a really long time to slow down, and they’re really big and heavy. And look, darling; here comes … Oops.”
No, this doesn’t really convey the appropriate urgency. It would be much more effective to say, “Get off the tracks right now, you idiot! That train’s gonna splatter you like an egg.”
So, where do we draw the line? And what determines our choice?
Our choice of strict honesty or benevolent discretion depends on so many factors: the participant(s) and our relationship to them, the situation, even the presence of other people. How do circumstances alter the impact of our comments?
Our choice also depends on our motivations. Are we trying to keep from hurting someone’s feelings or are we making a joke? Are we deliberately trying to hurt them or have we merely misjudged their reaction? If our motivation to fudge the truth is outright deceit for personal gain, this kind of dishonesty is generally deemed to be socially unacceptable.
Currently, with the number of scams and fraudulent ‘businesses’ growing daily, this type of alteration of the truth is rampant, but the small untruths we use in everyday life can smooth the way for a deeper relationship or to avoid conflict — the little white lie we all learn to employ in social situations when we want to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. It’s common to use white lies to maintain politeness and avoid awkwardness. Still, too many of them, too often, can erode trust in the relationship. It’s best to be honest and use white lies as little as possible. (Plus, it’s a whole lot easier to remember the truth.)
If we want to remain in integrity with ourselves and our core values, we cannot and should not alter our honest opinion merely to cater to the fears and limitations of others, though we can alter our presentation of that opinion. We cannot ever know the extent of emotional baggage others are carrying and we cannot know for sure how our words and deeds will affect them.
All we can do is our best.
Bev Hanna is a writer and published author. A recovering portrait artist, she now teaches senior writers how to craft compelling stories and memoirs through workshops and online courses. Learn more at ScribblersGuild.com.
