Do Actions Really Speak Louder Than Words?
Reflections on the popular dichotomy between actions and words, and the problems & opportunities inherent in the cultural bias for action
Hello Dear,
As I sit down to pen down or rather type in these words, I was about to say “hope you are doing well”. But then, this gets me thinking, why do we say precisely these words? Why not “hope you are doing good” or “trust you are doing well” or “hope you are being well” or “hope we are doing well” or “hope you have been doing well”? In fact, we can very well ask, why should one “do well” after all? Is doing the greater goal, or is it being and becoming?
Are we what we do, or are we who we are and become, who we can be and can become? Or are the two - the doing and the being and becoming - inseparable?
Do you think these fine distinctions do not matter? That we are reading too much into what should be dismissed as random utterances? Well, I for one believe that words matter; they are symbols of ideas, guideposts to action, holding immense power to help us see, unsee, build and shape our world. At the same time, they also get shaped by the inner and outer worlds we inhabit. In particular, as a truebred communications professional, I am someone who endorses the following statement in full:
There are clouds of philosophy in drops of grammar - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Read more about the philosopher Wittgenstein here.
If we may stick with this point about the power of words, we must have heard since many years, perhaps even from our childhood, that “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Wow, just this second, a variation of this strikes me😊; sharing it below:
The word is mightier than the sword.
Yes, I am inclined to think that even in this age, where more and more people are said to be drawn towards images and imageries of various kinds, and away from the written or even the spoken words, I would still place my bet on the enduring power of words over not just the sword, but also over images.
I think the relative characteristics of various forms of media is of course something which requires a very detailed exposition. I am happy to tell you that just thinking of all this makes me so so excited; I feel I could just sit and engage in these reflections all my life.
So while we yearn to do that exposition some time in the future, or continuously as we go along, let me quickly share one of the many properties on which I think the word scores over the image (note that image here is meant to encompass something which is both visual and primarily non-verbal, such as photos, videos and the like). What is this one property I am referring to?
I think the word, as a medium, is by nature, more selfless, more self-effacing; in contrast, the image, as a medium, is by nature, more desirous of attention.
What do you say? It is more difficult for the written word to shout. However, images can shout and seek to “grab” our attention in many more myriad and ingenious ways. And whether the written word is simple or complex, it is severely limited in its potentialities for capturing our attention. The word can hope to get our attention only if we slow down, almost willingly, almost as an act of choice. However, the image is something which strikes us almost without the intervention of our consciousness; we just happen to notice it, and we are drawn to it due to some emotions it triggers in us. And more often, we do not even notice that we are looking at an image.
Drawing inspiration from Neil Postman, two of whose books I have already recommended in previous posts (and I happen to be reading another of his books now), the above characterization can be said to form an inquiry into the ecology of the image vs. the ecology of the word. As I said, there is a lot to explore here, and if we keep exploring, we might lose ourselves (which however is good, right? Since we must lose ourselves in order to find ourselves?). For now, let me get back, and point you to just these two sources of inspiration, should you want to really lose yourself in this. One, something on the ecology of the written word, and two, something on the ecology of the image.
Well, before we move on, another contrast between the written word and the image strikes me:
The written word, as a medium, is by nature, slow; while the image, as a medium, is by nature, fast.
How true is this? While I leave you with that thought, let me also point you to the following post, which explores a closely related phenomenon.
Now, if we may come back to where we started, you would recall that we explored the dichotomy between doing on the one hand, and being and becoming on the other. Here is a question in this regard. What is truth? How do we define truth? This is what I understand to be the definition of truth:
Truth is what is.
And I am reminded of something I read maybe around 20 years ago, which talks about who God is. Rather, it is about one of the attributes of God.
God is. In other words, God is who can say “I am”, always, independent of time, in an eternal present where the past, the present and the future dissolve into the present moment.
Now, if we combine these two strands of thought, one potential inference we arrive at is that we are called to be. Maybe, that is why we are called human beings. If this be so, the most fundamental exhortation for us human beings could be simply this:
Be.
This is what inspired me to tweet this, more than three years ago.
Of course, when we say that the highest goal is to be, what we hope is that everything else such as doing, feeling, thinking, speaking, loving, as well as becoming is encapsulated in and are but various forms of being.
Speaking of being and becoming, I invite you to read the following post, if you have not done so already.
And the question from where we began, of the dichotomy between doing and being, reminds me of another closely related and very interesting dichotomy which is very much a part of our popular discourse. You must have heard this numerous times by now. That actions speak louder than words. Let us explore this now, through a reflection I wrote four months ago.
[Beginning of a reflection I wrote in May 2023]
The Eternal War between Actions and Words
Idea in brief:
0) There is a popular conception that actions speak louder than words. This in turn leads to counsels such as, do your work quietly, don't question orders, don't judge those in authority, and many more...
I find multiple, deep and fundamental problems with these arguments, advice and this narrative. A brief exposition is given below.
1) It is easy to say that actions speak louder than words. But what this statement conveniently forgets and refuses to deliberate on is what constitutes actions and words. The boundary between the two is blurred or even absent when it comes to accomplishing anything complex. Why? For the simple reason that most complex endeavours demand collaboration and cooperation of multiple people and groups. And hence getting them to work together inevitably requires communication and hence words. Action involves words and might even be nothing more than words.
Truth is powerful, and speaking the truth is one of the highest forms of action.
2) This does not mean that one cannot be lost in words. Indeed, we can profess to be something and someone we are not or can ever be, and we might mistake that egomaniacal and self-deceiving cacophony for action and progress. This is indeed objectionable and we should guard ourselves against it.
3) So, I think rather than saying actions speak louder than words, what is required is to differentiate between the right kinds of actions and words and the wrong kinds of actions and words.
In the absence of this distinction, this prescription is likely to lead us astray. It can make us stay mum when we should have spoken up. And it can lead us to act when we should have probably done nothing. This leads us to the next problem.
4) The dictum that actions speak louder than words tends to encourage action, of whatever kind it is. However, I have for long held that:
Thoughtless action is much more harmful than inaction.
In fact, it is almost beyond doubt that this is a principal malady of our times. "Just do It". This becomes more harmful when the actions are irreversible or difficult to reverse, and even if they are reversed, since "actions speak louder than words", the wrong actions would already have conveyed strong messages which might be difficult to undo even if the actions themselves are reversed.
5) A further problem with the prescription is that it is self-contradictory in a sense. Why should we speak louder, to begin with? It is said that what we need to do is to raise the strength of our argument, not our voice. And this has become more important in a disconnected age of hyper connectivity, where we find it difficult to listen to each other, and even and especially we ourselves. Let us not crave to make ourselves heard. Often, it is more important to express ourselves - whether through actions or words - rather than worry about the result of such expressions. Don't we need to remember to express ourselves, rather than impress others? Can we move away from the focus, na morbid obsession, on impressions and the capturing of attention?
6) Coming to the other injunctions noted in point 0, namely "do your work quietly, don't question orders, don't judge those in authority", let me try to be briefer than I want to write... To begin with, this is based on the fundamental wrong presumption on what constitutes work. The underlying dogma in all of this is that the unspoken dogma is right! That "the boss is always right". Well, even this is not an accurate description in fact. Coming to it shortly.
6) So, the underlying dogma is that work is what is assigned to us. According to this definition, questioning is infidelity, disloyalty and insubordination. So, work is defined as static. What uperwala has given, never mind that this uperwala is often just some flesh-and-blood person in the hierarchy, well, often someone who is even unknown and unknowable, since no one often knows who "desires" the particular piece of work to be done. This could hence turn out to be nothing but a system of autocracy and empire, to get "the system" to do what someone wants.
7) This breeds a deep culture where institutional harmony is prized above all else, where it becomes acceptable to plunder and murder if everyone is in agreement, even if that agreement is tacit. So, by corrupting what the notion of work is, work gets corrupted in practice throughout the system.
Questioning it becomes an act of militancy, to be punished in the severest manner possible, beginning with a pang of guilt which arises even before one questions, since we fear we may be doing the wrong thing by not being loyal to the organizational norm and culture…while the right thing may be nothing other than questioning the work, not necessarily to disobey, but to come to a shared understanding of the essential purpose, essence, ethical value and correctness of the work to be done.
8) And lest we forget, such an exploration can happen only through words, through discussion. Not "action", of obeying the instructions mindlessly.
9) Another problem with the above line of argument is that it has a wrong conception of authority. Authority is to be exercised in the service of service, in a manner consistent with certain principles and values. In civil service, these are the constitutional values. Authority is shared, in its origin as well as its practice. It comes with responsibility and accountability. Well, it should. The failure to recall this, or rather the selfishness and convenience of ignoring this, leads us to ask people to subject themselves to authority, come what may, without questioning, and moreover, it makes us spread and believe in the dogma that it is wrong to question authority. However, as I have said in the past:
What we need I believe is enlightened irreverence. Not unthinking deferrence to authority.
10) And on the boss being always right, I think this is one of the most pernicious and insidious statements being used in the bureaucracy.
My primary objection to this is not the belief that the boss can very well be wrong. Well, not just this. The boss can very well be wrong. But the more important issue I see here is the underlying presumption that the boss is who we think him or her to be. My boss is not my “reporting authority”, is it? This is why I try to avoid referring to my reporting authority as my boss, even in casual conversations.
I think our boss, our real boss, is the citizenry, the people, "we the people".
Otherwise, how else can it be "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"? Well, it is not yet this ideal at all, but if we don't adopt this principle, would we even be trying to realize this ideal?
11) Or maybe it is not even the people. It is not. Even the people can be wrong, can't they? Especially given human fallibilities and "god-like technologies" which can lead us astray. Our real boss is nothing short of the constitution, what say?
12) Cutting this short now abruptly.
Closing brief idea:
I was just now thinking that the real hypocrisy might just be to do "one's job" sincerely.
[End of the reflection I wrote in May 2023]
You know what makes this more interesting? After writing this, I happen to have shared this with a few friends. And one of them got back to me saying she had just finished reading a short story and saw my message, only to find that the message of the story is the very same message given in the closing idea I have given above! She told me: “maybe, the universe is trying to tell me something”. 😊
Here’s another example which is reflective of the dangers of thoughtless action, of the potential dangers and hypocrisy of doing “one’s job” “sincerely”.
“The morality of the organization is the morality of segmented acts....encouraging indifference and evasion of responsibility. A benefit of membership in such an organization is insurance against the smell of burning flesh." - Warren Bennis
The above is an excerpt from an essay written by late leadership researcher Warren Bennis, more than 50 years ago, in 1972. The essay is titled “When to Resign” and you can read it here.
Speaking of resignation, if you have been reading this #NotJust newsletter, you may remember reading the following post where I have shared a part of #NotJust my journey of hope and despair in the civil service, in the hope that this would or could kindle some lanterns of hope for you and others too.
In the end of this post, I say that there are some reasons for my continuation in the civil service, which I could not / did not yet mention. Interestingly enough, to put it very very briefly and incompletely, one such reason happens to be my desire to maintain my Skin in The Game. Which in a way - but not quite - contradicts my reflections above where I questioned the dichotomy between action and words in popular culture. Yes, I do concede that actions are different from words in certain senses, in certain contexts. Which is core to the idea of skin in the game. Which in turn brings us to the book recommendation for today: Skin in the Game, a 2018 book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb [I have read parts of this book, yet to read it in full; of course, I do have to, I am sure it is a great book.]
So, let us stop here for today, on this yet another incomplete note? I must tell you, I get scarcely any comments or responses to my posts; which makes me wonder whether anyone (except me) is reading what I write, and / or whether anyone who is reading it is finding it valuable. 😊Please do let me know! You can write to me at newdheep@gmail.com or in the comments section. And please do spread the word about this #NotJust newsletter as well, if you find it helpful or interesting. Thank you! - Dheep.