The Myth of Polite Assertiveness | w4dey

Introduction 

In a world where effective communication is paramount to personal, social, and professional success, pursuing an ideal communication style remains an ongoing endeavour. The myth of polite assertiveness has emerged as an ostensible panacea, purporting to harmonise the expression of one’s needs and desires with the maintenance of civility and respect. The notion of polite assertiveness is, however, fraught with inherent contradictions, and its uncritical acceptance belies a complex interchange of cultural, gender, and power differentials that undergird any negotiation of assertiveness and politeness in interpersonal communication.

The present article examines the myth of polite assertiveness by examining the historical, philosophical, and socio-psychological foundations of assertiveness and politeness, disentangling the intricate tensions between these two constructs. We hope to illuminate the cultural biases or limitations that render the concept of polite assertiveness problematic and interrogate the constraints imposed by gender and power dynamics that hinder the successful implementation of polite assertiveness in various contexts.

Through a study of the impact of the myth of polite assertiveness on interpersonal communication, personal development, and mental health, this article aims to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding the mythology of assertiveness and politeness. Moreover, we will present strategies for fostering a contextually sensitive and flexible approach to communication, embracing the multifaceted nature of human interaction. This article contributes to the understanding of effective communication by dissecting the myth of polite assertiveness and analysing the interplay between assertiveness and politeness.

Defining Polite Assertiveness

Polite assertiveness is a communication style that seeks to navigate the delicate balance between assertiveness and politeness, ensuring that one’s needs and opinions are expressed while maintaining a respectful and considerate demeanour. Various definitions of polite assertiveness have been proposed, reflecting different perspectives on the relationship between these two constructs. Polite assertiveness may be defined as the ability to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and needs clearly and respectfully. This definition emphasises the importance of direct communication and conveying one’s message without compromising respect for the other person’s feelings or opinions (Rakos, 1991).

Another definition of polite assertiveness posits that it is the art of asserting oneself while demonstrating social grace and adhering to the norms and expectations of one’s culture (Lange & Jakubowski, 1976). This definition underscores the role of the cultural context in shaping the boundaries of politeness and the need to adapt one’s communication style accordingly. Polite assertiveness can also be conceptualised as a communication style that balances the individual’s rights with their responsibilities towards others (Alberti & Emmons, 1970). This perspective highlights the importance of acknowledging and respecting the rights of others while asserting one’s own, thus maintaining a harmonious and equitable interpersonal dynamic. Lastly, some definitions of polite assertiveness emphasise the integration of both assertiveness and politeness as essential components of effective communication (Wessler & Avtgis, 1999). This perspective recognises that assertiveness and politeness have their respective merits, and skilfully combining them can lead to more productive and fulfilling interpersonal exchanges.

Definitions of polite assertiveness vary according to the weight given to different aspects of communication, such as respect, cultural context, individual rights, and the integration of assertiveness and politeness. These definitions provide a foundation for understanding the complexities and challenges of implementing polite assertiveness in practice.

Cultural and societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness 

Cultural and societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness are pivotal in shaping how individuals perceive and engage in this communication style. These expectations can vary significantly across different cultures and societies, leading to diverse interpretations and applications of polite assertiveness. In Western cultures, polite assertiveness is often regarded as an ideal communication style that promotes individual autonomy and self-expression while maintaining social harmony. In these societies, individuals are generally encouraged to assert their needs, opinions, and boundaries clearly and respectfully. Western cultures emphasise individualism, and assertiveness is seen as a means to maintain personal integrity and self-respect (Triandis, 1995).

On the other hand, Eastern cultures often prioritise the collective and the maintenance of social harmony over individual assertiveness. In societies influenced by Confucianism, for instance, individuals may be expected to adhere to strict social hierarchies and demonstrate deference to authority figures (Chen, 2011). As a result, polite assertiveness might be seen as less important or even undesirable in some Eastern contexts, as the emphasis is placed on indirect communication and non-confrontational conflict resolution strategies.

Societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness can also differ according to gender. Women are often socialised to be more nurturing and accommodating, which may lead them to struggle with being assertive without appearing aggressive or impolite (Tannen, 1990). In contrast, men may be encouraged to display more assertive and dominant behaviour, which can create tension when attempting to balance assertiveness with politeness. Power dynamics and social hierarchies within a given culture can further influence polite assertiveness expectations. In societies with rigid social stratification, individuals in subordinate positions may be expected to demonstrate greater deference and politeness when communicating with those in positions of authority, potentially limiting the expression of assertiveness.

Cultural and societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness are multifaceted and context dependent. These expectations can be influenced by cultural values, gender norms, and power dynamics, which can create challenges for individuals striving to navigate the delicate balance between assertiveness and politeness in diverse settings.

The paradoxical nature of polite assertiveness

The paradoxical nature of polite assertiveness arises from the inherent tension between the core principles of assertiveness and politeness. While assertiveness focuses on clear self-expression, autonomy, and boundary-setting, politeness emphasises respect, consideration, and adherence to social norms. The paradox of polite assertiveness lies in the challenge of reconciling these seemingly opposing principles and navigating the complexities they entail in interpersonal communication.

Assertiveness and politeness often have conflicting goals, making integration difficult. Assertiveness aims to promote one’s interests and express one’s thoughts, feelings, and needs, potentially leading to disagreement or conflict. In contrast, politeness seeks to maintain social harmony, avoid confrontation, and foster positive relationships, which may necessitate suppressing one’s true thoughts or feelings.

The paradox of polite assertiveness is further complicated by the diversity of cultural norms and expectations surrounding communication. As discussed previously, some cultures emphasise politeness and harmony, while others prioritise individual expression and autonomy. This diversity can make it challenging for individuals to strike a balance between assertiveness and politeness that is both effective and culturally appropriate.

Gender dynamics can also contribute to the paradoxical nature of polite assertiveness. As mentioned, women are often socialised to prioritise politeness and nurturing behaviour, while men are encouraged to display assertiveness and dominance; this can lead to a double bind for women, who may struggle to be assertive without appearing aggressive or impolite, and for men, who may face challenges when attempting to balance assertiveness with politeness and empathy.

The nuances of different communication contexts further compound the paradox of polite assertiveness. In professional settings, individuals may be expected to demonstrate assertiveness to convey competence and authority while maintaining politeness to foster collaboration and respect. In intimate relationships, the balance between assertiveness and politeness may be more fluid and depend on trust, familiarity, and emotional closeness. The paradoxical nature of polite assertiveness stems from the tension between the principles of assertiveness and politeness, which can be challenging to reconcile in practice. This paradox is further complicated by the influence of cultural norms, gender dynamics, and contextual nuances, which can create diverse challenges for individuals seeking to navigate the delicate balance between assertiveness and politeness in their interpersonal communication.

Classical Philosophy: Assertiveness and Politeness in ancient thought 

The concepts of assertiveness and politeness, although not explicitly defined as such, can be traced back to the philosophical discourse of ancient classical thought. Greek and Roman philosophers addressed virtues and communication strategies that reflect elements of both assertiveness and politeness, which can provide valuable insights into their historical underpinnings.

The Socratic Method, attributed to the Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of cooperative dialogical argumentation that encourages critical thinking and honest self-expression. Although the method’s emphasis on questioning and inquiry may be a precursor to modern assertiveness, Socrates also demonstrated a commitment to politeness through his respectful engagement with interlocutors, even when challenging their beliefs (Plato, 1997).

Aristotle’s work on rhetoric provides a framework for effective persuasion, which could be considered an early exploration of assertive communication. He argued that persuasive speech should rely on ethos ἦθος (credibility), pathos πάθος (emotion), and logos λόγος(logic) to achieve its goals. However, Aristotle focused on persuasive communication rather than assertiveness per se; his emphasis on clarity and rationality shares commonalities with the principles of assertiveness (Aristotle, 1991).

Stoic philosophy, originating in ancient Greece and later adopted by Roman thinkers such as Seneca and Epictetus, places significant emphasis on self-control and emotional regulation. While not explicitly addressing assertiveness, Stoic teachings encourage individuals to calmly express their thoughts and accept the natural course of events without succumbing to emotional distress. This rational and measured approach to communication shares similarities with the balanced expression of assertiveness and politeness (Epictetus, 1983; Seneca, 2014).

A Roman statesman and philosopher, Cicero wrote extensively on human duties and responsibilities, including the importance of appropriate communication in his treatise De Officiis (On Duties). Cicero emphasised the significance of adapting one’s speech to suit the context and audience, a principle that resonates with polite assertiveness. He also advocated for using decorum and respect in communication while expressing one’s thoughts and opinions, highlighting the importance of balancing assertiveness with politeness (Cicero, 1991).

Classical thought offers valuable insights into the historical origins of assertiveness and politeness, even though these concepts were not explicitly defined then. The philosophical traditions of the Socratic Method, Aristotelian Rhetoric, Stoicism, and Cicero’s work on human duties all contain elements that resonate with modern understandings of assertiveness and politeness, demonstrating the long-standing relevance of these communication principles.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

Aristotle’s Golden Mean μεσότης, also known as the Doctrine of the Mean, is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics that proposes virtue as the midpoint between excess and deficiency. Although Aristotle does not explicitly discuss assertiveness and politeness in his works, the Golden Mean can be applied to these concepts, providing valuable insights into the balance between them. We will explore the philosophical underpinnings of the Golden Mean, its relevance to assertiveness and politeness, and the challenges and implications of applying this ethical principle to interpersonal communication.

Aristotle’s ethical thought is grounded in his understanding of human nature and the purpose of human life. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle posits that the ultimate goal of human life is eudaimonia εὐδαιμονία, often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing.” According to Aristotle, eudaimonia can be achieved by cultivating virtues, which are excellent dispositions of character that enable individuals to live in harmony with their rational nature and act according to reason (Aristotle, 2000).

The Golden Mean represents Aristotle’s approach to virtue as a matter of balance and moderation. According to this principle, virtues lie at the midpoint between two opposing vices, one characterised by excess and the other by deficiency. For example, the virtue of courage can be understood as the mean between the vices of recklessness (excess) and cowardice (deficiency). By pursuing the Golden Mean, individuals can develop virtuous character traits contributing to their overall eudaimonia and moral development. Although Aristotle does not explicitly discuss assertiveness and politeness in relation to the Golden Mean, these concepts can be situated within this ethical framework by identifying the relevant virtues and corresponding vices.

Assertiveness can be understood as a virtue that enables individuals to express their thoughts, feelings, and needs clearly and honestly while respecting the rights and opinions of others. Regarding the Golden Mean, assertiveness can be conceptualised as the midpoint between the vices of aggressiveness (excess) and passivity (deficiency). Aggressiveness refers to an overly severe communication style, dominating and disrespecting others’ boundaries, while passivity involves a lack of self-expression and an inability to assert one’s needs and rights. Politeness can be considered a virtue that involves respect, consideration, and adherence to social norms in interpersonal communication. In the context of the Golden Mean, politeness can be situated between the vices of obsequiousness (excess) and rudeness (deficiency). Obsequiousness refers to an excessive display of deference or servility, often at the expense of one’s self-respect and integrity, while rudeness involves a lack of consideration for others’ feelings and a disregard for social norms.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean emphasises the importance of practical wisdom (phronesis) in discerning the appropriate balance between virtues such as assertiveness and politeness. Practical wisdom involves the capacity to make sound judgments and apply ethical principles to specific situations in a flexible and context-sensitive manner (Aristotle, 2000).

In the case of assertiveness and politeness, practical wisdom may involve recognising the unique circumstances and interpersonal dynamics that shape each communication context and adjusting one’s behaviour accordingly. For example, in a professional setting, where clear communication and collaboration are crucial, individuals may prioritise assertiveness to ensure that their ideas and concerns are effectively conveyed. In a social setting, where maintaining harmony and fostering positive relationships are more important, the same individual may emphasise politeness to demonstrate respect and consideration for others.

Practical wisdom also involves self-awareness and self-reflection, which can help individuals recognise their tendencies toward excess or deficiency in assertiveness and politeness. Individuals can strive to balance these virtues appropriately in their daily interactions by cultivating self-knowledge and monitoring their communication patterns.

Applying the principle of the Golden Mean to assertiveness and politeness is not without its challenges, as various factors, including cultural norms, gender expectations, and personal dispositions, influence these concepts.

Individuals may have natural inclinations toward assertiveness or politeness based on their personality traits, upbringing, or past experiences. For example, someone naturally introverted or conflict-averse may find it challenging to assert themselves, while someone with a more extroverted or assertive disposition may struggle to demonstrate politeness and restraint. Achieving the Golden Mean between assertiveness and politeness may require individuals to confront and overcome their natural tendencies and strive for personal growth and development.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean offers a valuable framework for understanding and achieving the balance between assertiveness and politeness in interpersonal communication. By conceptualising these virtues as the midpoint between corresponding vices, the Golden Mean highlights the importance of moderation and context-sensitive judgment in pursuing eudaimonia. However, applying the Golden Mean to assertiveness and politeness is challenging, as cultural norms, gender expectations, and personal dispositions influence these concepts. By cultivating self-awareness, practical wisdom, and a commitment to ethical growth, individuals can strive to navigate the complexities of assertiveness and politeness and achieve the balance necessary for effective and harmonious communication.

Confucianism’s emphasis on harmony and social decorum 

Confucianism, an influential philosophical system, and ethical code in ancient China, strongly emphasises harmony and social decorum. Founded by Confucius (551-479 BCE), Confucianism has played a significant role in shaping Chinese culture’s moral, social, and political fabric and has spread to other East Asian countries. In the following discussion, we will explore the fundamental principles of Confucianism that underpin its emphasis on harmony and social decorum and examine the implications of these values for interpersonal relationships and society.

Ren (仁), often translated as “humaneness” or “benevolence,” is a central concept in Confucianism that encompasses a range of virtues, such as compassion, empathy, and kindness. Confucius argued that cultivating ren is essential for achieving moral excellence and maintaining harmonious relationships with others. By practising ren, individuals can demonstrate concern and respect for others’ well-being and contribute to the overall harmony of society (Analects 1.2).

Li (礼) refers to the rituals, customs, and etiquette that govern proper behaviour in various social contexts. Confucius believed that adherence to li is essential for maintaining social order and ensuring that individuals interact with one another respectfully and harmoniously. Li encompasses many practices, from formal ceremonies to everyday courtesies, and serves as a framework for promoting decorum, respect, and harmony in social interactions (Analects 3.3).

Xiao (孝), or filial piety, is another crucial principle in Confucian thought that emphasises respecting and honouring one’s parents and ancestors. Confucius considered filial piety the foundation of all other virtues and argued that individuals who demonstrate xiao in their family relationships are more likely to behave ethically and harmoniously in other social contexts (Analects 1.2).

Confucianism posits the Five Cardinal Relationships (五伦) so that social harmony can be achieved through the proper functioning of five main relationships: ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger siblings, and friends. By understanding and fulfilling their respective roles and responsibilities within these relationships, individuals can contribute to society’s overall harmony and stability (Analects 12.11).

Confucianism’s emphasis on harmony and social decorum can be understood as an extension of its core principles. By cultivating virtues such as ren, adhering to the rules of li, practising filial piety, and fulfilling the responsibilities associated with the Five Cardinal Relationships, individuals can contribute to the creation of a harmonious and well-ordered society.

Confucianism emphasises the importance of maintaining harmonious relationships with others and resolving conflicts respectfully and constructively. By practising ren, individuals can demonstrate empathy and understanding in their interactions with others, which can help prevent misunderstandings and promote mutual respect. By adhering to li, individuals can ensure that their behaviour is guided by social norms and expectations, fostering a sense of decorum and respect in their interactions.

Confucianism posits that social harmony is closely tied to the proper functioning of society’s hierarchical structure. By fulfilling their roles and responsibilities within the Five Cardinal Relationships, individuals can contribute to society’s overall stability and order. This emphasis on social hierarchy and role fulfilment may seem rigid or authoritarian from a modern perspective, but Confucius believed that a well-ordered society is a prerequisite for achieving harmony and social decorum. The Confucian emphasis on social order and stability also promotes a sense of collective responsibility and interdependence, as individuals are encouraged to prioritise the well-being of their families, communities, and society over their desires and interests.

Confucianism views the pursuit of harmony and social decorum as a continuous moral cultivation and self-improvement process. By engaging in self-reflection and striving to align their actions with the principles of ren, li, and xiao, individuals can develop the virtues and moral dispositions necessary for fostering harmonious relationships and contributing to society’s overall well-being. Confucius advocated for moral education and self-cultivation, asserting that individuals can only achieve harmony and social decorum by developing their innate capacity for goodness and virtue (Analects 1.6).

In Confucian thought, “Junzi” (君子), often translated as the “gentleman” or “superior person,” serves as the ideal embodiment of harmony and social decorum. The Junzi is characterised by his commitment to moral cultivation, adherence to the principles of ren and li, and dedication to the welfare of his family and society. By emulating the virtues and qualities of the Junzi, individuals can aspire to become moral exemplars and leaders who promote harmony, social decorum, and the overall flourishing of society (Analects 4.16).

Confucianism’s emphasis on harmony and social decorum can be understood as a natural extension of its core principles, which include ren, li, xiao, and the Five Cardinal Relationships. By adhering to these principles and engaging in continuous moral cultivation, individuals can contribute to creating a harmonious and well-ordered society that prioritises the welfare and flourishing of its members.

The Confucian focus on harmony and social decorum has important implications for interpersonal relationships, social stability, and moral development, offering a framework for ethical living that remains influential and relevant in East Asian societies today. Although some aspects of Confucian thought may seem rigid or outdated from a contemporary perspective, the underlying emphasis on respect, empathy, and collective responsibility resonates with individuals seeking to cultivate harmonious and meaningful relationships in an increasingly interconnected world.

Individualism and the Enlightenment 

The emergence of assertiveness as a desirable trait can be traced back to the cultural and intellectual transformations that took place during the Enlightenment, a period of intellectual and philosophical development in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries. The Enlightenment gave rise to individualism, which emphasised the importance of the Cartesian Cogito, personal autonomy, self-expression, and the pursuit of individual rights and freedoms. We will sketch the historical context of the Enlightenment, its connection to the development of individualism, and how these intellectual currents contributed to the valorisation of assertiveness as a desirable trait. The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a period of intellectual and philosophical ferment that emerged in response to the time’s religious, political, and social upheavals. Notable historical developments that contributed to the rise of the Enlightenment included the Scientific Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of political absolutism. The Scientific Revolution, which occurred between the 16th and 17th centuries, marked a significant shift in how people understood the natural world. The development of new scientific methods and discoveries, such as the heliocentric model of the universe and the laws of motion, challenged the traditional authority of religious institutions and paved the way for the secular, rationalist worldview that characterised the Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in the early 16th century, led to a radical reformation of Christianity and a questioning of the authority of the Catholic Church. The Reformation promoted the idea of individual interpretation of scripture and the importance of personal faith, which contributed to the development of the individualist ethos that underpinned the Enlightenment. The rise of political absolutism in Europe, characterised by the centralisation of power in the hands of monarchs and the suppression of individual liberties, generated resistance and calls for political reform. The Enlightenment thinkers sought to challenge the authority of absolute monarchs by promoting the importance of individual rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

During the Enlightenment, several vital principles emerged that would shape the development of individualism and contribute to the emergence of assertiveness as a desirable trait. These principles included rationality, empiricism, and scepticism. Enlightenment thinkers emphasised the importance of reason and the capacity for individuals to think critically and independently. By prioritising rationality, they sought to challenge the authority of religious institutions and traditional sources of knowledge and promote the idea that individuals could arrive at truth through their powers of reason. A commitment to empiricism characterised the Enlightenment, the belief that knowledge is derived from observation and experience. This emphasis on empirical evidence encouraged individuals to question received wisdom and rely on their observations and experiences to make judgments and decisions. The Enlightenment thinkers promoted scepticism, a critical approach to knowledge that questions the validity of claims and beliefs. This spirit of scepticism encouraged individuals to question authority and challenge established norms, fostering a climate of intellectual freedom and individual autonomy. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationality, empiricism, and scepticism laid the groundwork for the emergence of individualism, an intellectual and cultural movement that prioritised personal autonomy, self-expression, and the pursuit of individual rights and freedoms.

Individualism emphasises the importance of personal autonomy, the idea that individuals have the moral right to make life decisions without undue interference from external authorities. This emphasis on autonomy can be traced back to the Enlightenment’s promotion of reason and scepticism, which encouraged individuals to question traditional sources of authority and forge their paths. Individualism also values self-expression, the notion that individuals should be free to express their thoughts, beliefs, and emotions without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationality and scepticism fostered a climate of intellectual freedom and open debate, encouraging individuals to articulate their ideas and engage in critical dialogue.

The Enlightenment thinkers championed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and freedoms, such as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The concept of individual rights served as a foundation for developing modern democracies and legal systems, which sought to protect individual liberties and promote social justice. The emergence of assertiveness as a desirable trait can be understood in the Enlightenment’s emphasis on individualism, personal autonomy, and self-expression. Assertiveness, the ability to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and desires openly and confidently while respecting the rights and opinions of others, aligns closely with the values and principles underpinning the Enlightenment and the development of individualism. Assertiveness enables individuals to exercise autonomy by making their needs, preferences, and opinions known to others. In the context of the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason and scepticism, assertiveness allows individuals to engage in critical dialogue, challenge established norms, and advocate for their interests and beliefs. The value of self-expression in individualism is closely connected to developing assertiveness as a desirable trait. By being assertive, individuals can communicate their thoughts, emotions, and ideas openly and honestly, contributing to the intellectual freedom and open debate that characterised the Enlightenment. Promoting individual rights and freedoms during the Enlightenment provided a context in which assertiveness could emerge as a desirable trait. Assertiveness allows individuals to advocate for their rights and interests while respecting the rights of others, fostering a climate of mutual respect and cooperation.

The emergence of assertiveness as a desirable trait can be traced back to the cultural and intellectual transformations during the Enlightenment, a period that gave rise to individualism and emphasised the importance of personal autonomy, self-expression, and the pursuit of individual rights and freedoms. The Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationality, empiricism, and scepticism contributed to developing an intellectual climate that valued critical dialogue, open debate, and the questioning of established norms and authorities. In this context, assertiveness emerged as a desirable trait that aligned closely with the values and principles of the Enlightenment and individualism. Assertiveness allows individuals to exercise their autonomy, engage in self-expression, and advocate for their rights and interests while respecting the rights and opinions of others. As such, the valorisation of assertiveness can be understood as an extension of the broader cultural and intellectual currents that characterised the Enlightenment and the emergence of individualism.

Assertiveness training and humanistic psychology

In this discussion, we will explore assertiveness training, a therapeutic intervention that aims to enhance individuals’ ability to communicate their thoughts, feelings, and needs effectively while respecting the rights of others. We will also examine the principles of humanistic psychology, a psychological approach that emphasises personal growth, self-actualisation, and the importance of empathy and compassion in human relationships. By comparing these two approaches, we can better understand their underlying theoretical assumptions, goals, and techniques.

Assertiveness training emerged in the mid-20th century as a therapeutic intervention designed to help individuals improve their interpersonal communication skills and foster healthier, more satisfying relationships. The goal of assertiveness training is to enhance individuals’ ability to express their thoughts, feelings and needs clearly and confidently while respecting the rights and opinions of others. Such training has its roots in the work of psychologists such as Andrew Salter, Joseph Wolpe, and Arnold Lazarus, who developed the technique as a component of behaviour therapy. These psychologists recognised the importance of effective communication in maintaining healthy relationships and sought to develop strategies to help individuals overcome passivity, aggression, and other maladaptive communication patterns. The primary goal of assertiveness training is to help individuals develop a balanced, assertive communication style that enables them to express their thoughts, feelings, and needs openly and honestly while respecting the rights and opinions of others. By learning to be more assertive, individuals can improve their interpersonal relationships, boost their self-esteem, and reduce feelings of anger, frustration, and resentment. Assertiveness training typically involves a combination of psychoeducation, role-playing exercises, and behavioural rehearsal. Through these techniques, individuals learn to recognise the difference between passive, aggressive, and assertive communication styles; practice expressing their thoughts, feelings, and needs assertively, and develop strategies for constructively managing interpersonal conflicts.

Humanistic psychology emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the perceived limitations of behaviourism and psychoanalysis. Founded by psychologists such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Rollo May, humanistic psychology emphasises the importance of personal growth, self-actualisation, and the development of empathic, authentic relationships. Humanistic psychology emerged in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the prevailing psychological paradigms of the time: behaviourism and psychoanalysis. The founders of humanistic psychology sought to develop a more holistic, person-centred approach to understanding human behaviour and promoting psychological well-being. Several fundamental principles, including the emphasis on personal growth, self-actualisation, and the development of empathic, authentic relationships, characterise humanistic psychology. Humanistic psychologists believe that individuals possess an innate drive towards self-actualisation, the process of realising and fulfilling their unique potential and that the role of the therapist is to facilitate this process by providing a supportive, non-judgmental environment in which individuals can explore their feelings and experiences. The primary goal of humanistic psychology is to promote personal growth, self-actualisation, and the development of healthy, authentic relationships. Humanistic psychologists seek to help individuals cultivate self-awareness, self-acceptance, and empathy, enabling them to form more satisfying, meaningful connections with others and lead more authentic, fulfilling lives.

While assertiveness training and humanistic psychology share some similarities, such as their emphasis on personal growth and the importance of effective communication in fostering healthy relationships, there are also several key differences between these approaches. Assertiveness training is rooted in behaviour therapy and is grounded in the belief that specific techniques and strategies can change maladaptive communication patterns. On the other hand, humanistic psychology is rooted in existential and phenomenological philosophy and emphasises the importance of personal growth, self-actualisation, and the development of empathic, authentic relationships. While both assertiveness training and humanistic psychology aim to promote personal growth and improve interpersonal relationships, they differ in their specific goals and areas of focus. Assertiveness training primarily targets developing practical communication skills, aiming to help individuals express their thoughts, feelings, and needs openly and honestly while respecting the rights and opinions of others. Humanistic psychology fosters personal growth, self-acceptance, and cultivating empathic, authentic relationships. Assertiveness training utilises a combination of psychoeducation, role-playing exercises, and behavioural rehearsal to help individuals develop assertive communication skills and strategies for managing interpersonal conflicts. Humanistic psychology, in contrast, employs a more person-centred approach that prioritises the therapeutic relationship and creates a supportive, non-judgmental environment where individuals can explore their feelings and experiences. Techniques commonly used in humanistic therapy include active listening, empathy, unconditional positive regard, and genuineness. Assertiveness training primarily focuses on the individual and developing practical communication skills, intending to improve interpersonal relationships as a secondary outcome. Humanistic psychology, conversely, emphasises developing healthy, authentic relationships as a central aspect of personal growth and self-actualisation.

Assertiveness training and humanistic psychology offer valuable insights and techniques for promoting personal growth and fostering healthy interpersonal relationships. While assertiveness training focuses primarily on developing practical communication skills, humanistic psychology takes a broader, more holistic approach that emphasises self-actualisation, self-acceptance, and cultivating empathic, authentic relationships. By understanding the similarities and differences between these two approaches, individuals and therapists can make more informed choices about the most appropriate and effective methods for promoting psychological well-being and interpersonal satisfaction.

Positive and negative politeness strategies

The concepts of positive and negative politeness strategies as proposed by Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson in their influential work, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (1987). During communicative interactions, individuals use these strategies to mitigate the potential threat to another person’s face or social identity. Brown and Levinson argue that communication often involves face-threatening acts (FTAs), utterances or actions that might challenge or threaten an individual’s sense of self-worth, identity, or autonomy. To minimize the potential negative impact of FTAs, speakers employ politeness strategies, which can be classified into two main categories: positive and negative politeness strategies.

These strategies aim to protect the hearer’s positive face, which is their desire to be liked, appreciated, and respected by others. Positive politeness strategies involve language and communicative acts that express warmth, solidarity, and a sense of shared identity between the speaker and the hearer. These strategies aim to protect the hearer’s negative face, which is their desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. Negative politeness strategies involve language and communicative acts that minimize the speaker’s imposition on the hearer and emphasize their respect for the hearer’s autonomy and personal space.

Speakers can use positive politeness strategies to agree with the hearer’s opinions or ideas, thereby validating their positive face by respecting their thoughts and perspectives. Complimenting the hearer or praising their achievements can enhance their positive face by recognizing their qualities, skills, or accomplishments. Establishing shared experiences, interests, or beliefs can foster a sense of camaraderie and mutual understanding, thereby supporting the hearer’s positive face. Using terms like /we/ or /us,/ speakers can create a sense of inclusiveness and solidarity, bolstering the hearer’s positive face by emphasizing a shared identity or connection.

Speakers can demonstrate their respect for the hearer’s autonomy and negative face by apologising for imposition or regret for an inconvenience. Indirect language, such as hints or suggestions, can soften the impact of potentially face-threatening acts by allowing the hearer to infer the speaker’s intentions or desires without explicit imposition. Speakers can employ negative politeness strategies to minimize the imposition on the hearer, such as by emphasizing the triviality of a request or stating that it is not urgent. Using formal language or addressing the hearer by their title can signal respect for their status and autonomy, thereby protecting their negative face.

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of positive and negative politeness strategies offer valuable insights into how speakers navigate the potentially face-threatening aspects of communication. By employing these strategies, individuals can maintain and enhance interpersonal relationships by respecting the hearer’s positive face (their desire to be liked, appreciated, and respected) and negative face (their desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition). Understanding the nuances of positive and negative politeness strategies can enable more effective, harmonious communication and contribute to the development of successful, mutually satisfying social interactions.

Potential clashes between assertiveness and politeness 

By understanding the implications of assertiveness as an FTA (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and its relationship with politeness, we can gain valuable insights into the complexities of interpersonal communication and the challenges individuals face in striking a balance between expressing their needs and maintaining harmonious relationships.

Assertiveness is a communication style that involves expressing one’s thoughts, feelings and needs openly and confidently while respecting the rights and opinions of others. As a form of direct communication, assertiveness can be considered an FTA, as it has the potential to challenge or threaten the hearer’s positive or negative face. Assertiveness can threaten the hearer’s positive face, which is their desire to be liked, appreciated, and respected by others. By expressing disagreement, criticism, or dissatisfaction, assertive communication may challenge the hearer’s sense of self-worth or social identity, potentially threatening their positive face. Assertiveness can also threaten the hearer’s negative face, desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. Assertive communication often involves making requests, expressing preferences, or asserting one’s rights, which may be perceived by the hearer as an imposition or infringement on their autonomy, thus posing a threat to their negative face.

The potential conflict between assertiveness and politeness arises from the inherent tension between the goals of effective communication and the maintenance of harmonious interpersonal relationships. While assertiveness seeks to promote open, honest communication and the expression of individual needs, politeness strategies aim to minimize the potential face-threatening impact of communication by showing respect for the hearer’s positive and negative face. The challenge of balancing assertiveness with positive politeness lies in finding ways to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and needs while demonstrating respect for the hearer’s positive face. This may involve using positive politeness strategies, such as seeking common ground, offering praise or compliments, or expressing agreement, alongside assertive communication, to mitigate the potential threat to the hearer’s positive face. The tension between assertiveness and negative politeness arises from asserting one’s rights or preferences without infringing on the hearer’s autonomy or freedom from imposition. Balancing these concerns may require using negative politeness strategies, such as apologizing, indirect language, or minimizing imposition, in conjunction with assertive communication to protect the hearer’s negative face.

The potential clash between assertiveness and politeness reflects the complex dynamics of interpersonal communication and the challenges individuals face in navigating the competing goals of effective communication and maintaining harmonious relationships. As a face-threatening act, assertiveness poses potential threats to both the hearer’s positive and negative face, necessitating the careful use of politeness strategies to mitigate these threats while still allowing for the expression of individual needs and preferences. By understanding the nuances of this relationship, individuals can develop more effective communication strategies that balance assertiveness with politeness, fostering successful, mutually satisfying social interactions.

Western-centric notions of politeness and assertiveness

Western-centric notions of politeness and assertiveness shed light on the cultural underpinnings that shape these concepts and their implications in interpersonal communication. We will analyse the historical and philosophical foundations of Western politeness and assertiveness, the role of individualism, and the potential limitations of applying these concepts universally. The foundations of Western notions of politeness and assertiveness can be traced back to the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome. Rhetoric and the art of persuasion played a central role in these societies, emphasizing the importance of effective communication in achieving personal and political goals. Aristotle’s concept of the Golden Mean, which sought a balance between extremes, can be seen as an early attempt to reconcile assertiveness and politeness. The emergence of assertiveness as a desirable trait can be linked to the intellectual and cultural movement of the Enlightenment, which strongly emphasised reason, critical thinking, and individual autonomy. The rise of individualism during this period contributed to the valorisation of self-expression and the pursuit of personal interests, shaping modern Western notions of assertiveness. Western societies tend to prioritize individual autonomy, self-expression, and the pursuit of personal goals. This cultural emphasis on individualism contributes to the perception of assertiveness as a positive and necessary trait for personal and professional success. Assertiveness is often seen as expressing individuality and advocating for one’s needs and desires, reflecting the cultural value of personal autonomy and self-determination.

In contrast, politeness in Western societies is often framed in terms of respecting the individual autonomy of others. Politeness strategies, such as those described by Brown and Levinson (1987), mitigate face-threatening acts, and maintain harmonious relationships by showing respect for the hearer’s positive and negative face. In this context, politeness is understood as a means of preserving the dignity and autonomy of others, reflecting the cultural emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. As mentioned earlier, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of positive and negative politeness strategies provide a framework for understanding politeness within a Western context. Positive politeness strategies aim to protect the hearer’s positive face, while negative politeness strategies focus on protecting their negative face. However, it is crucial to recognize that these strategies are grounded in Western cultural values and may not align with the norms and expectations of other cultures.

The notion of polite assertiveness, which seeks to balance expressing one’s needs and maintaining harmonious relationships, can be seen as a Westernised attempt to reconcile the competing demands of individualism and social cohesion. While polite assertiveness may be a valued communication style in Western societies, it is important to recognise that this concept may not hold the same meaning or relevance in other cultural contexts, where different norms and expectations may shape the understanding of politeness and assertiveness.

Western-centric notions of politeness and assertiveness may be limited by cultural bias and ethnocentrism, which can lead to the imposition of Western norms and values on other cultures. This can fail to recognize or appreciate the diverse ways in which politeness and assertiveness are understood and enacted in different cultural contexts, potentially leading to miscommunication and misunderstandings. Recognizing the limitations of Western-centric notions of politeness and assertiveness underscores the importance of adopting a culturally relativistic approach to understanding interpersonal communication. Cultural relativism encourages the examination of politeness and assertiveness from the perspective of the specific cultural context in which they are situated, acknowledging the diversity of norms, values, and expectations that shape these concepts across different societies. Acknowledging the cultural specificity of politeness and assertiveness is crucial for fostering effective cross-cultural communication. By developing an awareness of the cultural underpinnings of these concepts and how they are enacted in different societies, individuals can better navigate the complexities of interpersonal communication in diverse cultural settings, avoiding miscommunication and fostering mutual understanding.

Western-centric notions of politeness and assertiveness have deep historical and philosophical roots, shaped by cultural values such as individualism and autonomy. While these concepts provide valuable insights into the dynamics of interpersonal communication within a Western context, it is crucial to recognize their cultural specificity and the potential limitations of applying them universally. Individuals can develop a more nuanced understanding of interpersonal communication and its complexities by adopting cosmopolitanism and recognizing the diversity of norms, values, and expectations that shape politeness and assertiveness across different societies. This awareness is vital for fostering effective cross-cultural communication, enabling individuals to navigate the challenges of diverse cultural settings, and promoting mutual understanding and harmonious relationships.

Gender expectations and the double bind for women

The concept of polite assertiveness in the context of gender expectations draws focus towards the double bind women face. By examining the cultural and social norms that shape expectations surrounding gender, assertiveness, and politeness, we can better understand the unique challenges women face in balancing these conflicting demands and the implications for their interpersonal communication. Cultural and societal norms play a significant role in shaping expectations regarding gender, assertiveness, and politeness. In many societies, women are stereotyped into nurturing, empathetic, and supportive, while men are stereotyped as assertive, decisive, and self-assured. 

These gendered expectations often place women in a difficult position when navigating the demands of polite assertiveness, as they may be seen as violating traditional feminine norms if they adopt an assertive communication style. The so-called double bind for women refers to the conflicting expectations placed on women in relation to polite assertiveness. Assertive women may be perceived as overly aggressive or unfeminine, while polite women may be seen as passive or submissive. This double bind can create a challenging situation for women, as they may struggle to balance assertiveness and politeness that satisfies both societal expectations and their personal needs and goals. The double bind can lead to self-silencing and disempowerment for women, as they may feel compelled to prioritize politeness over assertiveness to avoid violating gender norms. This can result in women downplaying their needs, opinions, and desires, potentially losing personal agency and a diminished sense of self-worth. Women who adopt an assertive communication style may face stereotyping and discrimination, as they may be perceived as violating traditional gender norms. This can manifest in various forms, such as being labelled aggressive, bossy, or unfeminine, and may negatively impact women’s personal and professional opportunities. 

Women may also experience increased emotional labour due to the double bind, as they must navigate the complex demands of polite assertiveness while managing the expectations of others. This emotional labour can be taxing and may contribute to stress, burnout, and diminished well-being. Challenging traditional gender norms and encouraging polite assertiveness can help dismantle the double bind women face. By promoting a culture that values and respects assertive communication, regardless of gender, women may feel more empowered to express their needs, opinions, and desires without fear of negative consequences. Raising awareness of the double bind and its impact on women’s communication can help foster greater understanding and empathy. By recognizing women’s unique challenges in navigating the demands of polite assertiveness, individuals can work together to challenge gender norms and promote more equitable communication styles. Addressing the double bind is essential to promoting gender equality in interpersonal communication. By dismantling traditional gender norms and fostering a culture that values and respects the diverse communication styles of all individuals, we can move towards greater equality and inclusivity in our interpersonal relationships.

The concept of polite assertiveness is deeply intertwined with gender expectations and the double bind women face. The conflicting demands on women to navigate assertiveness and politeness can result in self-silencing, disempowerment, and increased emotional labour. Recognizing and challenging these gendered expectations is essential in addressing the double bind and promoting more equitable communication styles. By encouraging polite assertiveness for all individuals, regardless of gender, and raising awareness of the unique challenges women face in navigating the demands of polite assertiveness, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable interpersonal communication landscape. Ultimately, dismantling the double bind and challenging traditional gender norms is vital in promoting gender equality and creating a society where all individuals feel empowered to express their needs, opinions, and desires without fear of negative consequences or discrimination.

Power differentials and the challenge of communication

By examining the role of power dynamics in interpersonal relationships and how they can influence the delicate balance between assertiveness and politeness, we can better understand the complexities surrounding polite assertiveness and the implications for effective communication. Power differentials exist in various forms of interpersonal communication, such as those based on social status, professional hierarchies, or cultural norms. These power imbalances can shape how individuals navigate the demands of polite assertiveness, as they may influence the perceived appropriateness or effectiveness of assertive communication. Power differentials can pose significant challenges to maintaining politeness in assertive communication. Individuals in lower power positions may feel compelled to prioritize politeness over assertiveness to avoid potential negative consequences, such as social disapproval or professional repercussions. Conversely, individuals in positions of power may feel entitled to assert their needs and desires without regard for politeness, potentially exacerbating existing power imbalances and contributing to inequality in interpersonal communication.

Power differentials can lead to self-censorship and inequality in interpersonal communication, as individuals in lower power positions may feel compelled to prioritize politeness over assertiveness. This self-censorship can result in a loss of personal agency and a diminished sense of self-worth, contributing to a cycle of disempowerment and power imbalances.

Assertiveness can be perceived as a face-threatening act, particularly in power differentials. When individuals in a lower power position assert their needs or desires, they may inadvertently challenge the existing power dynamic, leading to potential conflict or negative consequences. This perceived threat can create a barrier to effective communication, as individuals may feel compelled to prioritize politeness over assertiveness to maintain social harmony. As discussed earlier, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) concepts of positive and negative politeness strategies can provide a valuable framework for navigating power differentials and maintaining politeness in assertive communication. By employing these strategies, individuals can mitigate potential face-threatening acts and maintain harmonious relationships while advocating for their needs and desires.

Emotional intelligence, which encompasses recognising, understanding, and managing one’s emotions and those of others, can play a critical role in navigating power differentials and maintaining politeness in assertive communication. By developing emotional intelligence, individuals can better gauge the appropriate balance between politeness and assertiveness, considering the power dynamics in a given interpersonal interaction.

The concept of polite assertiveness is deeply intertwined with power differentials and the challenge of maintaining politeness in assertive communication. Power imbalances can significantly impact how individuals navigate the delicate balance between assertiveness and politeness, leading to potential self-censorship, inequality, and face-threatening acts. By adopting positive and negative politeness strategies and developing emotional intelligence, individuals can more effectively navigate power differentials and maintain politeness in assertive communication. Fostering greater awareness of the role of power differentials in interpersonal relationships and promoting equitable communication styles can contribute to a more inclusive and harmonious interpersonal communication landscape.

The Impact of the Myth: Confusion and misunderstanding in communication 

The myth of polite assertiveness particularly impacts confusion and misunderstanding. By examining the expectations and assumptions surrounding polite assertiveness, we can better understand the challenges in interpersonal communication and develop strategies for mitigating potential misunderstandings.

The myth of polite assertiveness stems from the belief that individuals can seamlessly balance the seemingly contradictory demands of politeness and assertiveness in interpersonal communication. However, this ideal often fails to account for the complex social, cultural, and personal factors that influence communication, leading to conflicting expectations and potential misunderstandings.

The myth of polite assertiveness may contribute to an oversimplification of communication dynamics, as it suggests that individuals can easily navigate the intricacies of politeness and assertiveness without considering the impact of factors such as power differentials, cultural norms, and gender expectations. This oversimplification can lead to unrealistic expectations and potential miscommunication, as individuals may struggle to balance politeness and assertiveness in various contexts. The myth of polite assertiveness can contribute to confusion and misunderstanding in interpersonal communication, as individuals may struggle to interpret the intentions and motivations of others accurately. For example, an individual who prioritizes politeness over assertiveness may be perceived as passive or disinterested, while another who prioritizes assertiveness over politeness may be seen as aggressive or insensitive. These misperceptions can lead to confusion and misunderstanding, as individuals may inadvertently offend or alienate others due to their communication style. The role of cultural context further complicates the impact of the myth of polite assertiveness on interpersonal communication. As discussed earlier, cultural norms and expectations can significantly influence how politeness and assertiveness are enacted and interpreted. Misunderstandings may arise when individuals from different cultural backgrounds attempt to navigate the delicate balance between politeness and assertiveness, as their respective cultural norms may be at odds with one another.

Developing self-awareness and mindfulness can help individuals recognize the influence of the myth of polite assertiveness on their interpersonal communication and adjust their communication style accordingly. By reflecting on their assumptions and expectations surrounding politeness and assertiveness, individuals can develop a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of interpersonal communication and work to mitigate potential misunderstandings. Active listening and empathy can be critical in addressing the myth of polite assertiveness and mitigating misunderstandings in interpersonal communication. By actively listening to others and striving to understand their perspectives and emotions, individuals can better interpret the intentions and motivations behind their communication, helping to reduce confusion and promote mutual understanding.

The myth of polite assertiveness can have significant implications for interpersonal communication, particularly regarding confusion and misunderstanding. The oversimplification of communication dynamics and conflicting expectations surrounding politeness and assertiveness can contribute to miscommunication and potential misunderstandings between individuals. By fostering self-awareness, mindfulness, active listening, and empathy, individuals can work to address the influence of the myth of polite assertiveness on their interpersonal communication and mitigate potential misunderstandings. Recognizing and challenging the assumptions and expectations surrounding polite assertiveness can ultimately contribute to more effective and harmonious interpersonal communication.

The Impact of the Myth: Societal expectations 

The myth of polite assertiveness and its implications for interpersonal communication particularly centre on the pressure to adhere to societal expectations. By exploring how the myth of polite assertiveness shapes communication behaviours and influences individuals’ perceived obligations to conform to social norms, we can better understand the challenges associated with navigating the complex demands of politeness and assertiveness. The myth of polite assertiveness is rooted in societal expectations that individuals should be able to balance politeness and assertiveness in interpersonal communication skilfully. These expectations can manifest in various forms, such as cultural norms, professional etiquette, and gender roles, which may shape how individuals engage in polite assertiveness. The myth of polite assertiveness can create significant pressure for individuals to conform to societal expectations, as they may feel compelled to prioritize politeness over assertiveness or vice versa to avoid negative social consequences, such as disapproval or alienation. This pressure to conform can lead to communication behaviours that may not be authentic or representative of an individual’s true needs, desires, and beliefs. The pressure to adhere to societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness can result in the suppression of authentic communication. Individuals may feel compelled to modify their communication style to meet external expectations, potentially stifling their ability to express their true thoughts and feelings. This suppression can lead to strained interpersonal relationships and hinder the development of genuine connections with others. The pressure to conform to the myth of polite assertiveness can have emotional and psychological consequences for individuals, as they may experience feelings of guilt, shame, or inadequacy if they perceive themselves as failing to meet societal expectations. This internal conflict can contribute to stress, anxiety, and decreased self-esteem, ultimately impacting an individual’s overall well-being and quality of life.

One way to address the pressure to adhere to societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness is by promoting and encouraging authentic communication. By fostering an environment that values genuine self-expression and supports individuals in navigating the complexities of politeness and assertiveness, we can work to mitigate the pressure to conform and create more open and honest interpersonal interactions.

Challenging societal expectations and norms surrounding polite assertiveness can help to alleviate the pressure individuals may feel to conform. By promoting a more nuanced understanding of the intricacies of politeness and assertiveness and recognizing the diverse range of communication styles, we can work towards dismantling rigid expectations and creating a more inclusive and accepting interpersonal communication landscape.

The myth of polite assertiveness can have significant implications for interpersonal communication, particularly regarding the pressure to adhere to societal expectations. This pressure can result in the suppression of authentic communication, emotional and psychological consequences, and strained interpersonal relationships. Through encouraging authentic communication and challenging societal expectations surrounding polite assertiveness, we can work to address the pressure to conform and promote a more inclusive and equitable interpersonal communication environment. Recognizing and supporting the diverse communication styles of individuals can ultimately contribute to healthier, more genuine, and satisfying interpersonal connections.

The Impact of the Myth: Internalisation of unattainable standards

The impact of the myth of polite assertiveness on personal development and mental health, specifically focusing on internalising unattainable standards. By examining how the myth of polite assertiveness may contribute to unrealistic expectations and the potential consequences for individuals’ mental health and personal growth, we can better understand the challenges associated with striving for an idealized balance between politeness and assertiveness. The myth of polite assertiveness can lead individuals to internalize unrealistic expectations for their communication style, as they may strive to achieve a perfect balance between politeness and assertiveness in all interpersonal interactions. This internalization can be particularly detrimental when individuals perceive these idealized standards as unattainable or feel incapable of meeting them consistently. Pursuing the myth of polite assertiveness may contribute to perfectionism and self-criticism, as individuals may constantly scrutinize their communication behaviours and harshly judge themselves for perceived failures to meet the idealized standard of polite assertiveness. This self-critical mindset can hinder personal development and negatively affect mental health outcomes.

The internalization of unattainable standards associated with the myth of polite assertiveness can significantly affect personal development. By constantly striving for an unrealistic ideal, individuals may struggle to develop a genuine and authentic communication style that aligns with their true needs, desires, and values. A disconnection between one’s internal self and external presentation can hinder personal growth and limit one’s ability to form meaningful interpersonal connections.

The pressure to adhere to unattainable standards of polite assertiveness can negatively affect mental health. Chronic self-criticism, feelings of inadequacy, and perfectionism may contribute to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. These negative emotional states can further exacerbate difficulties in interpersonal communication and perpetuate a cycle of self-doubt and dissatisfaction.

One approach to addressing the internalization of unattainable standards surrounding polite assertiveness is to cultivate self-compassion and self-acceptance. By acknowledging and accepting one’s limitations and imperfections, individuals can learn to treat themselves with kindness and understanding, mitigating the negative effects of self-criticism, and promoting a healthier mindset towards personal development.

Challenging and reframing unrealistic expectations surrounding polite assertiveness can help individuals develop more attainable and flexible standards for their communication style. Recognizing the complexities of interpersonal communication and the influence of cultural norms, power dynamics, and personal experiences can foster a more nuanced understanding of politeness and assertiveness, allowing individuals to develop more realistic and adaptive communication strategies.

The myth of polite assertiveness can have significant implications for personal development and mental health, particularly in internalizing unattainable standards. The pressure to achieve an idealized balance between politeness and assertiveness can contribute to perfectionism, self-criticism, and negative mental health outcomes. By fostering self-compassion, self-acceptance, and realistic expectations, individuals can work to address the internalisation of unattainable standards and promote healthier attitudes towards personal development and interpersonal communication. Developing a more flexible and adaptive communication style can improve mental health and more satisfying interpersonal relationships.

The Impact of the Myth: Self-esteem and self-efficacy

By examining how self-esteem and self-efficacy can influence individuals’ ability to engage in assertive communication and the potential consequences for mental health and personal growth, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges associated with striving for the ideal balance between politeness and assertiveness. Self-esteem, or an individual’s overall sense of self-worth, can significantly influence one’s ability to engage in assertive communication. Individuals with high self-esteem may be more likely to express their needs, desires, and opinions confidently and assertively, while those with low self-esteem may struggle to communicate their needs effectively, potentially leading to passive or aggressive communication styles. Self-efficacy, or an individual’s belief in their ability to successfully execute specific tasks or behaviours, also plays a crucial role in assertive communication. Individuals with high self-efficacy in communication may feel more capable of navigating the complexities of politeness and assertiveness. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy may doubt their ability to effectively balance these seemingly contradictory demands, leading to communication difficulties and potential misunderstandings.

The myth of polite assertiveness can hinder personal development by perpetuating the belief that one must always strike the perfect balance between politeness and assertiveness. This idealized standard may exacerbate low self-esteem and self-efficacy in individuals who struggle with assertive communication, limiting their ability to develop authentic and effective communication styles. The pressure to adhere to the myth of polite assertiveness can negatively affect mental health. Failing to meet idealized standards of politeness and assertiveness can contribute to feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt, and decreased self-esteem. Additionally, low communication self-efficacy can exacerbate anxiety and stress, further impacting mental health and well-being.

To address the impact of the myth of polite assertiveness on self-esteem and self-efficacy, individuals can engage in activities that promote a positive self-concept and enhance their confidence in their communication abilities. For example, practising assertive communication skills, seeking constructive feedback, and engaging in self-reflection can help individuals develop a more positive self-image and increase their self-efficacy in communication.

Another approach to addressing the impact of the myth of polite assertiveness on self-esteem and self-efficacy is to challenge the idealized standard itself. By recognizing the complexities of interpersonal communication and acknowledging the diverse range of communication styles, individuals can work towards dismantling rigid expectations surrounding politeness and assertiveness, ultimately promoting a more inclusive and accepting interpersonal communication landscape.

The myth of polite assertiveness can have significant implications for personal development and mental health, particularly regarding the role of self-esteem and self-efficacy in assertive communication. The pressure to achieve an idealized balance between politeness and assertiveness can contribute to low self-esteem and self-efficacy, hindering personal growth and negatively impacting mental health. By enhancing self-esteem and self-efficacy and challenging the myth of polite assertiveness, individuals can work to address the impact of this idealized standard on their personal development and mental health. Developing a more flexible and adaptive communication style that embraces the complexities of interpersonal communication and respects diverse communication styles can ultimately contribute to improved mental health, personal growth, and more satisfying interpersonal relationships.

Beyond the Myth: Rethinking assertiveness and politeness as a continuum 

By rethinking these concepts as a continuum and considering the role of context in determining appropriate communication styles, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of effective interpersonal communication. Assertiveness can be better understood as a continuum, with passive and aggressive behaviours at either end, and assertive behaviours in the middle (Ames & Flynn, 2007). By acknowledging the diverse range of communication styles and their fluidity, we can develop a more inclusive and accurate understanding of assertiveness. Research has shown that psychological flexibility plays a significant role in assertive communication (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Developing psychological flexibility can allow individuals to adapt their communication style based on the situation, leading to more effective interpersonal interactions.

Like assertiveness, politeness can also be understood as a continuum, with impoliteness and overly polite behaviours at either end (Culpeper, 2011). Viewing politeness and assertiveness as continua allows a more comprehensive understanding of their interplay in interpersonal communication. Cultural norms play a crucial role in determining appropriate levels of politeness and assertiveness (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). By considering the influence of culture on communication styles, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of the appropriate balance between politeness and assertiveness in various contexts.

The context in which interpersonal communication occurs can significantly impact the appropriateness of various communication styles (Dillard, 1997). Factors such as power dynamics, relationship closeness, and the nature of the interaction can all influence the optimal balance between politeness and assertiveness. Developing adaptability and contextual sensitivity can help individuals better navigate the complexities of interpersonal communication (Zhang, 2015). By recognizing the importance of contextual force in determining appropriate communication styles, individuals can learn to adjust their behaviours accordingly, leading to more effective interpersonal interactions.

Rethinking assertiveness and politeness as continua and acknowledging the critical role of contextual force and cultural norms in determining appropriate communication styles can help individuals develop more adaptive and effective interpersonal communication strategies. By considering the influence of situational factors, relationship dynamics, and cultural expectations, individuals can better navigate the complexities of interpersonal interactions and work towards more satisfying communication outcomes. Recognizing the limitations of the myth of polite assertiveness and embracing a more nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness might contribute to improved interpersonal communication and personal growth.

Beyond the Myth: Flexibility and adaptability in communication 

The importance of flexibility and adaptability in communication to rethink the myth of polite assertiveness presents significant challenges. By acknowledging that rigid adherence to politeness may not always be conducive to effective communication, we can begin to recognize the value of adapting our communication styles to suit various contexts and interpersonal dynamics better. The myth of polite assertiveness implies that there is a universally applicable balance between politeness and assertiveness that should be maintained in all interactions. However, this rigid adherence to politeness may not always be effective or appropriate, depending on the context and the specific interpersonal dynamics. Adhering to the myth of polite assertiveness can lead to inflexible communication styles that fail to account for the nuances of different situations and may result in misunderstandings or communication breakdowns (Arundale, 2006). Developing flexibility in communication allows individuals to adjust their politeness and assertiveness based on the specific context, relationship dynamics, and cultural norms. This adaptability can result in more effective and satisfying communication outcomes (Zhang, 2015). Recognizing the importance of context in determining appropriate communication styles can help individuals become more attuned to situational factors and better equipped to adapt their communication behaviours accordingly (Dillard, 1997).

By practising assertive communication skills in various contexts, individuals can develop the ability to adjust their level of assertiveness and politeness as needed, ultimately enhancing their overall communication flexibility and effectiveness (Galassi & Galassi, 1977). Actively seeking feedback from others and engaging in self-reflection can help individuals recognize areas where they may need to develop greater flexibility and adaptability in their communication styles (Clark, 2008). Encouraging open-mindedness and a willingness to learn from diverse communication styles can help individuals better appreciate the importance of flexibility and adaptability in interpersonal interactions (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Rethinking the myth of polite assertiveness involves recognizing the importance of flexibility and adaptability in communication. By developing the ability to adjust communication styles based on context, relationship dynamics, and cultural norms, individuals can move beyond the limitations of the myth and work towards more effective and satisfying communication outcomes. Cultivating flexibility and adaptability in communication is crucial for navigating the complexities of interpersonal interactions and achieving personal growth.

Beyond the Myth: Developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness 

The importance of developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness centres on acknowledging and respecting cultural differences. By considering the influence of culture on communication styles and expectations, we can foster a more inclusive and effective approach to interpersonal interactions. Different cultures have unique norms and values that shape expectations regarding appropriate levels of politeness and assertiveness in communication (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Understanding these cultural variations is crucial for fostering effective communication across diverse contexts. Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, such as individualism-collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance, can help us understand how cultural factors influence communication styles, including assertiveness and politeness. Developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness requires respecting cultural differences and acknowledging that communication styles may vary across contexts (Ting-Toomey, 1999). A culturally sensitive approach involves adapting one’s communication style to align with the expectations and norms of the specific cultural context (Kim, 2001). This adaptation can lead to more effective and satisfying communication outcomes.

Building cultural awareness and engaging in self-reflection can help individuals recognize their cultural biases and assumptions, which may influence their communication styles (Bennett, 1993). Developing cultural intelligence, or the ability to function effectively in diverse cultural contexts, can enhance individuals’ capacity to adapt their communication styles to better align with the expectations of various cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003). Practising active listening and empathy can help individuals better understand the perspectives of others from different cultural backgrounds, ultimately fostering more respectful and effective communication (Riggio, 2017). Seeking opportunities for exposure to diverse cultures, such as through travel, cultural events, or interpersonal relationships, can help individuals develop a greater appreciation for and understanding of cultural differences in communication styles (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003).

To effectively navigate the complexities of interpersonal communication across diverse cultural contexts, developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness is essential. Individuals can foster more inclusive and effective communication by acknowledging and respecting cultural differences. Cultivating cultural awareness, cultural intelligence, empathy, and seeking exposure to diverse cultures are vital strategies for enhancing one’s ability to adapt communication styles to align with the expectations of various cultural contexts. Ultimately, this culturally sensitive approach can improve communication outcomes and a greater understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.

Beyond the Myth: Fostering intercultural competence in communication

By considering the influence of culture on communication styles and expectations, we can promote more effective and inclusive interpersonal interactions across diverse contexts. Intercultural competence refers to the ability to effectively communicate and interact with individuals from different cultural backgrounds, considering the unique cultural norms, values, and expectations that shape their communication styles (Deardorff, 2006). Developing intercultural competence is crucial for navigating the complexities of an increasingly interconnected world, where cross-cultural communication is becoming more prevalent in personal, professional, and societal contexts (Chen & Starosta, 1996).

A culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness acknowledges the influence of cultural norms and values on communication styles, recognizing that expectations surrounding politeness and assertiveness may vary across different cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Embracing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness requires individuals to adapt and adjust their communication styles based on the specific cultural context, promoting more effective and inclusive communication (Ting-Toomey, 1999).

Building cultural awareness and engaging in self-reflection can help individuals recognize their cultural biases and assumptions, which may influence their communication styles (Bennett, 1993). Cultivating cultural intelligence, or the ability to function effectively in diverse cultural contexts, can enhance individuals’ capacity to adapt their communication styles to better align with the expectations of various cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003). Practising active listening and empathy can help individuals better understand the perspectives of others from different cultural backgrounds, ultimately fostering more respectful and effective communication (Riggio, 2017). Seeking opportunities for exposure to diverse cultures, such as through travel, cultural events, or interpersonal relationships, can help individuals develop a greater appreciation for and understanding of cultural differences in communication styles (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003).

Fostering intercultural competence in communication is essential for effectively navigating the complexities of an increasingly interconnected world. Individuals can promote more effective and inclusive interpersonal interactions across diverse cultural contexts by developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness. This approach involves recognizing and respecting cultural differences in communication styles and expectations, cultivating cultural awareness, cultural intelligence, and empathy, and seeking exposure to diverse cultures.

Reflections in conclusion 

The myth of polite assertiveness refers to a belief that assertiveness and politeness coexist seamlessly in interpersonal communication without creating tensions or contradictions. This seductive myth significantly impacts our understanding of communication styles, cultural expectations, gender norms, and personal development. Polite assertiveness is an inherently paradoxical concept, as assertiveness often involves clarifying one’s needs and opinions, while politeness may require downplaying or moderating these expressions to avoid offending others. The myth of polite assertiveness is shaped by cultural and societal expectations, which dictate what is acceptable or appropriate regarding assertiveness and politeness. These expectations can vary significantly across cultural contexts, leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations. 

Aristotle’s Golden Mean and Confucianism emphasised the importance of balancing assertiveness and politeness, suggesting that these concepts are not inherently incompatible but require careful negotiation. Polite assertiveness can be challenging in situations with power differentials, as assertive communication may be perceived as threatening or inappropriate depending on the context. The myth of polite assertiveness is influenced by Western-centric ideas about assertiveness and politeness, which may not accurately reflect other cultures’ communication norms and expectations. The myth of polite assertiveness can contribute to confusion and misunderstanding in communication, as individuals may struggle to balance assertiveness and politeness while adhering to societal expectations. The internalisation of unattainable standards for polite assertiveness can have negative consequences for self-esteem, self-efficacy, and overall mental health. Rethinking assertiveness and politeness as a continuum, and considering the role of context in determining appropriate communication styles, can help to dispel the myth of polite assertiveness and promote more effective and nuanced communication. Developing a culturally sensitive approach to assertiveness and politeness, which acknowledges and respects cultural differences, is essential for fostering intercultural competence in communication and promoting more effective and inclusive interpersonal interactions across diverse contexts.

The myth of polite assertiveness, while deeply ingrained in many cultural and societal norms, might also be detrimental to effective communication, personal development, and mental health. By recognizing the paradoxical nature of this concept and embracing a more nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness, individuals are asked to cultivate more effective communication strategies and foster greater understanding and respect for diverse perspectives.

Cultivating a nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness is crucial for effective and inclusive interpersonal communication, personal development, and mental health. A nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness can help individuals navigate the diverse cultural expectations and norms that shape communication styles. Recognizing that expectations surrounding assertiveness and politeness can vary significantly across different cultural contexts can promote more effective and inclusive interactions. By appreciating the complexities of assertiveness and politeness, individuals can better anticipate potential sources of confusion and misunderstanding in communication, thereby promoting more effective and accurate exchanges of information and ideas. A nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness enables individuals to find a balance between these two concepts, allowing them to express their needs, opinions, and emotions effectively while maintaining positive and respectful interpersonal relationships. A nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness can help challenge and deconstruct rigid gender norms and expectations, fostering more equitable communication and empowering individuals to express themselves authentically and effectively, regardless of gender. Recognizing the impact of power dynamics on assertiveness and politeness can help individuals navigate power imbalances in interpersonal relationships, ensuring that they can communicate assertively without jeopardising the harmony of the interaction or the well-being of the other.

Individuals can develop healthier communication styles by cultivating a more nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness, enhancing self-esteem, self-efficacy, and overall mental health. This approach can reduce the internalisation of unattainable standards and facilitate more effective communication. Acknowledging the importance of context in determining appropriate communication styles can help individuals adapt their assertiveness and politeness levels to the specific situation, promoting more effective and situationally appropriate interactions. A nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness fosters flexibility and adaptability in communication, allowing individuals to modify their communication styles to align with the expectations and preferences of their conversation partners, ultimately leading to more effective and inclusive interactions. Cultivating a nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness is essential to developing intercultural competence in communication, which can enhance individuals’ ability to communicate effectively across diverse cultural contexts.

Developing a more nuanced understanding of assertiveness and politeness is essential for navigating the complexities of interpersonal communication, fostering personal development, and promoting mental health. By recognizing the influence of cultural norms, gender expectations, power dynamics, and context on communication styles, individuals can cultivate more effective, flexible, and inclusive communication strategies, ultimately contributing to more successful and harmonious interpersonal relationships.

Challenging the myth of polite assertiveness can help individuals deconstruct the rigid norms and expectations surrounding communication, allowing for more flexible and adaptive communication styles that better align with diverse interpersonal contexts. By acknowledging the inherent tensions between assertiveness and politeness, individuals can develop more effective strategies for expressing their needs, emotions, and opinions while maintaining respectful and harmonious relationships. A critical examination of the myth of polite assertiveness can foster greater empathy and perspective-taking by encouraging individuals to carefully consider the diverse cultural, gender, and contextual factors that shape communication styles and expectations. By recognizing the limitations of the myth of polite assertiveness, individuals can cultivate more authentic, adaptive, and effective communication strategies, leading to stronger and more satisfying interpersonal relationships. Challenging the myth of polite assertiveness can catalyse personal growth and development as individuals explore new communication styles, develop greater self-awareness, and work to overcome the limitations imposed by rigid societal expectations. By critically examining the myth of polite assertiveness, individuals can reduce the internalization of unattainable communication standards and foster greater self-compassion, ultimately contributing to improved mental health and well-being. A critical examination of the myth of polite assertiveness can promote the development of intercultural competence as individuals learn to navigate diverse cultural expectations surrounding assertiveness and politeness, enhancing their ability to communicate effectively across cultural boundaries. By challenging societal expectations, exploring diverse perspectives, and developing adaptive communication strategies, individuals can enhance their interpersonal relationships, promote personal growth, and contribute to greater intercultural understanding and respect.

References

Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1970). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive living. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.

Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 307-324.

Aristotle. (Trans. Kennedy, G.A., 1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. (Trans. Crisp, R., 2000). Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 2(2), 193-216.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis. Communication Yearbook, 19, 353-383.

Chen, X. (2011). Culture, peer interaction, and socio-emotional development. In X. Chen & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Socioemotional development in cultural context (pp. 131-166). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cicero. (Trans. Eds. Griffin, M.T., & Atkins, E.M., 1991). De Officiis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, R. A. (2008). Asserting yourself: A practical guide for positive change. Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Confucius. (Trans. Lau, D.C., 1997). The Analects (Lun Yu). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to offend. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266.

Dillard, J. P. (1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for the analysis of interpersonal communication. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press.

Epictetus. (Trans. White, N.P., 1983). The handbook (The Encheiridion). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

Galassi, J. P., & Galassi, M. D. (1977). Assertiveness: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 24(3)

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865-878.

Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lange, A. J., & Jakubowski, P. (1976). Responsible, assertive behaviour. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Plato. (Ed. Cooper, J.M., 1997). Plato: Complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

Rakos, R. F. (1991). Assertive behaviour: Theory, research, and training. London: Routledge.

Riggio, R. E. (2017). Listening and empathy in multicultural communication. In R. E. Riggio & S. J. Tan (Eds.), Leader interpersonal and influence skills: The soft skills of leadership (pp. 95-112). Routledge.

Seneca. (Trans. Campbell, R., 2014). Letters from a Stoic. London: Penguin Classics.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow and Company.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. Guilford Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wessler, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1999). Psychoeducational foundations of the Assertiveness Training movement. Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 21(3), 204-217.

Zhang, S. (2015). The importance of adaptability and contextual sensitivity in interpersonal communication: A dynamic systems approach. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Prochaska (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: Competence and contexts (pp. 133-151). London & NY: Routledge.

Copyright Paul Wadey M.Res M.Sc MBACP (Accred.)

The moral right of the author has been asserted