“Never enter dispute with a fool, will drag you at your level and win you from experience,” a phrase attributed to the American writer Mark Twain. In this way, this type of maxim has reinforced the idea that avoiding conflict is a sample of wisdom or self -control. Popular culture, family environments and even some educational speeches have promoted silence as a way of preserving harmony. However, what happens when to shut up ceases to be a specific strategy and becomes a life standard? Is it really mature who avoids the confrontation at all costs, or simply fears the consequences of raising the voice?
When shutting up becomes a habit. “Shutting up does not make one mature, but submissive,” writes the psychologist Luis Miguel Real Kotbani In a column published in Ethic. There he states that the silence sustained in uncomfortable situations, far from guaranteeing harmony, can end up becoming a silent conviction: a strategy that begins with the intention of preserving peace, but ends up nullifying voice and personal needs.
This pattern is not limited to relationships. It is replicated in work, family and friendship environments, where many people choose not to express their disagreement to avoid tensions. “Every time you choose silence so as not to bother, you give them the message that your needs are worth less,” says Real, who links this practice with a progressive loss of self -esteem and agency.
Deeper roots. From the clinical look, the habit of shutting up has multiple causes. Psychologist Mario Arzuza, cited in the chroniclerHe points out that many people who avoid the conflict have been educated in environments that prioritize tranquility over authenticity. “This behavior is usually linked to low self -esteem, need for approval or fear of rejection,” he explains.
Other individuals have grown in contexts where the conflict was associated with danger: screams, violence, abandonment. In these cases, any confrontation, however minimal, can activate disproportionate emotional responses. According to the chroniclerthis dynamic is frequent in people with deep insecurities or history of emotional trauma.
Psychopedagogue Sylvie Pérez, In an article from the Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) University (UOC)warns that the avoidance of the conflict is usually learned in childhood, when adults use silence as a form of punishment. This practice, known as “Ice Law”, generates in children feelings of guilt, rejection and misunderstanding, and can install patterns of emotional submission that are dragged to adulthood.
The drift of silence. In his article the real psychologist Also alert about the cumulative impact of silence: “Today you shut up in a small discussion, tomorrow swallows something bigger, and in the end you have been in a relationship where the only way of not generating conflicts has been to disappear yourself.” This prolonged silence affects not only the relationship with others, but also with oneself: the person ceases to wonder what he wants or needs, and lives automatically, disconnected from his own voice.
In addition, systematic silence can erode links. Sheila Heen, conflict management specialist of the Harvard negotiation project, holds in Harvard Gazette than avoiding difficult conversations at all costs weakens relationships. “It’s not about discussing all the time, but either of never talking about what hurts. That chronic avoidance destroys the quality of the link,” he says.
The limit: Does this relate to the ice law? Silence as a strategy to avoid conflicts should not be confused with the ice law. While the first is a form of self -preservation (although harmful), the ice law implies an intentional behavior, which seeks to punish the other with silence. This is the New York Timesin an article where this practice is described as an “emotionally punitive form” that can produce both damage and direct aggression.
“Answering silently is a punishment, you recognize it or not,” says psychiatrist Gail Saltz, cited in the same medium. The damage is tangible: research by Professor Kipling Williams (University of Purdue) shows that being ignored in the brain the same areas that are activated before physical pain. In family contexts, As the UOC points outthe ice of ice applied to children can have lasting effects on their self -esteem and emotional development.
In that sense, although shutting up for fear does not equal to manipulate with silence, both practices share a common substrate: the lack of genuine dialogue as a means to solve tensions. The difference lies in the objective and the direction of the damage: in one case, who is silent; in the other, who is withdrawn the word.
Breaking with years of silences is not easy. But possible. The key is to develop assertive communication skills, which allow to express what one thinks and feels without aggression, but also without renunciation. The psychologist, Luis Miguel Real, proposes to start with the small: say in a conversation, say what you want to do in a plan, mark a subtle limit.
From psychology, it is also recommended to work the tolerance to discomfort, practice emotional regulation exercises and, in more entrenched cases, resort to professional help. From the chronicler They suggest Identify irrational thoughts that feed the fear of conflict, while Harvard Gazette They underline The importance of reflective silences (not punitive), as a tool to think before speaking and not to evade the important.
Avoiding conflict is not always wise. Sometimes it is a form of surrender. And the price of that surrender can be the loss of one’s voice. As real summarize: “Talking, putting limits, saying what you think, is not to create problems: it is respecting you. And who cannot deal with your voice, may not deserve your presence.”
Shutting up does not guarantee peace. Just postpone the conflict or internalize it. The real challenge is not to avoid it, but to learn to face it without fear, with honesty and respect. Because, in the end, what is not said, does not disappear: it rots inside.
Image | Pexels
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings