Dragaera

Concerning Tact

Davdi Silverrock davdisil at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 23:46:57 PST 2005

The link to the Miss Manner's interview reminded me that there was
another quote from /Darkest England/, by Idries Shah, which I thought
was particularly appropriate, given some of what was discussed in
/Issola/.



[Begin Cite]

   Now­adays foreigners tend to call English directness by softer
names, such as `tactlessness'. Their brusqueness, or tactless­ness,
call it what you will, is deliberate; paradoxically, it is engendered
by the operation of careful purpose.

   It is this very word which gave me an early breakthrough in
understanding the English, through the wisdom of an Afghan sage, Sufi
Abdul-Hamid Khan.

   The old Sufi and I were in London. As Master of the Royal Mint in
Kabul and a considerable calligrapher, he had the task of supervising
the production here of a new issue of high-denomination Afghan
banknotes.

   We were received with courtesy by the meaning director of a large
security-printing firm, who asked me to translate for Abdul-Hamid
something which, though a pleasantry in English, would have been
considered rather coarse in our language.

   As I hesitated, the Sufi picked up my thoughts, and said, `He's
being tactless, I suppose?'

   I said, `Well, he hasn't got your /saliqa/' - the word we use to
mean intuition, including a sense of delicacy.

   After the meeting, at Abdul-Hamid's hotel, the old man asked me
what the English word for `tact' was, and I told him. `And what,
exactly, does it mean?'

   'It means,' I said, `being sensitive to how people are feeling, to
things that might hurt or affront, and acting accordingly.' `Aga',
said the sage, `although I don't know these people's tongue, and you
are a master of it, experiences such as ours today indicates that you
cannot be quite right.'

   `Friend Sufi', I said, `far be it from me to question any of your
perceptions, but everyone in this country knows full well exactly what
this very common word means, and is thoroughly sensible to its
nuances. I admit to including myself in their number.'

   He was a very gentle kind of man, and he just smiled kindly and
asked me to find a good English dictionary. I went out and bought one,
the current edition of Chambers's.

   `Now please, if you will, look up that word.' He pointed to his
note, in perfect Nastaliq phonetics: `TAKT'.

   I riffled through the book, to page 1122:

   `Here you are: "/tact/ [pronounced] /takt/, noun. Adroitness in
managing the feelings of persons dealt with. . ."' I put it down and
smiled.

   He nodded. `Now please see what else it may say under that heading.'

   Reluctantly, I opened the book again, and read the rest of the sentence:

   "'Nice perception in seeing and doing exactly what is best in the
circumstances."'

   The Sufi bowed. `Thank you. Now perhaps you see what I mean?'

   'Not entirely. I think that man at the printers did lack nice perception.'

   `Ah', said Abdul-Hamid, `there you have it. I am quite sure that he
did not lack it. He had the perception of what kind of effect any
words of his might have on us. What he was doing was a consequence of
what he thought was best - for him - under the circumstances.'

   Best /for him/.  That was the clue. So, when an Englishman says or
does something you don't like, ask yourself whether he really is
acting against his own interests. He may only be using his assessment
to handle the situation. How do you know, for instance, that he
doesn't want to ruffle or confuse you?  It could be in your own
interests to know.

[End Cite]