After writing the last post (on Appiah’s essay on condescension), I started thinking about a peculiarity of (U.S.) American economic and social life: many decisions and judgments get made behind the scenes, with no public disclosure of the discussion and reasoning behind them. People get rejected from colleges, turned down for jobs or publication, or even excluded from parties without ever learning why. The rejection letter (or equivalent) epitomizes the vague: “Thank you for your interest in the position. We received an unforeseen number of exceptional applications and ultimately chose finalists whose qualifications most closely matched our criteria. We have therefore decided not to consider your application further. We wish you the best in your job search,” etc.
In such situations (which abound), the only way a person learns of the specific reasons is through a personal connection. That is part of the reason for the American emphasis on “networking”; without it, you may be consigned to the realm of the perplexed.
In some countries (not all), the situation is more clear-cut, though not better. Either you are not considered at all (because of your class, educational background, demographic group, or some other known factor), or you fail to meet explicit criteria (such as a test score). The drawback in such cultures is that some people never get considered in the first place. The advantage is that they often know the reasons.
Vague rejections are such a part of American life that people don’t question them outright. They might suspect and contest a particular rationale for a rejection (for instance, in the case of Asian-American applicants to Harvard and other colleges) but take for granted that they will receive a vague letter, if any at all.
Even peer groups and individuals exclude others without telling them why. People are bombarded with advice to cut “toxic” people from their lives or distance themselves from “negative” people, but sometimes these individuals never learn that anyone considered them toxic in the first place. Instead, they just see their peers drifting away, evading invitations, having parties and conversations without them. They are left to guess what’s going on. Even if they aren’t deemed toxic, they may be ostracized without explanation. It could be because of their habits, the company they keep, their background, something they said, or or something that has been said about them.
Carina Chocano’s terrific piece on the word “inappropriate” appears in The New York Times Magazine’s First Words column (like Appiah’s). “The word’s vagueness has always been a handy way to remind people of their relatively low status,” she writes; If they can’t already tell what’s wrong about their behavior, perhaps they are beyond help.” By calling others “inappropriate,” people excuse themselves from dealing with them. The vagueness is an exit ticket for the elite.
But there is a benevolent, humble side to this American tendency. People genuinely don’t want others to feel bad or to take their judgments as the final word. If they stick to vague verbiage, perhaps the rejected one will stay hopeful. Timothy might not be a “good fit” for Harvard, but who knows about Swarthmore or Vanderbilt? The New Yorker rejected my poem “despite its evident merit”; maybe it will get snatched up by the next witting editor. Karla doesn’t want to go out with Jamal, but he can still believe that he’s a wonderful person and that someone will appreciate him for what he has to offer.
The problem is that the vagueness can leave a person in worse doubt than clarity would–because the words themselves lose meaning. Does “inappropriate” mean “really bad” or just “mildly out of place”? Why did Harvard turn Timothy down? Did Jamal do anything that put Karla off? Does my poem pass muster?
I recognize the bureaucratic mess that specific, reason-filled acceptances and rejections could cause. They would be inordinately time-consuming, error-prone, subject to lawsuits, sometimes misleading, maybe algorithm-driven, open to interpretation, and possibly more trouble than they are worth. But at the other extreme, the vagueness has become a way of life, a way of making judgments while pretending not to judge.
There are ways to break through some of the vagueness, individually or together. We* can strive for clarity (without cruelty) in thought, action, and word. We can work to lift taboos surrounding criticism. We can protect an institution’s decisions (provided they are lawful) while laying bare the reasons. But first and foremost, we can recognize that the vagueness does not have to be accepted as is; even if we cannot change it entirely, we can question it, look at what it does, and seek out other ways.
*”We” in this context is as far-reaching as it wants to be. It can involve a few individuals or more.
I took the photo yesterday afternoon outside my school here in Szolnok (after a day of faculty meetings). That’s my bike parked on the right.
I made some edits to this piece after posting it. Also, I am considering “American vagueness” as the topic for my next book. There is much more to say on this subject.
Take Away the Takeaway 
Bob Shepherd
/ August 31, 2018As is so common in your writing, you are insightful in your observation that the vague rejection is ubiquitous in the U.S. Here’s one reason: people here are really lawyered up. Employers, schools, and others have learned that vagueness is a protection against lawsuits. Until the laws change and we develop a less litigious culture, this isn’t likely to change. Plato has Socrates saying in one of the “Socrates’s death” dialogues–I don’t remember which one–that a sure sign that a culture is failing is a proliferation of lawyers and lawsuits. If that’s true. . . . Here in Florida, all the billboards along the roads are for a. churches, b. strip clubs, c. gun shows, and d. tort lawyers.
Bob Shepherd
/ August 31, 2018An edit: As is so common in your writing, you make an insightful observation. In this case, that the vague rejection is ubiquitous in the U.S.
Diana Senechal
/ September 2, 2018Thank you, Bob. Yes, we are indeed lawyered up. Not that the vagueness ultimately protects anyone from lawsuits (people who want to sue and have the means to do so will sue anyway), nor would clarity necessarily increase a person’s or institution’s liability. But the fear of getting sued shapes both policy and language. Those billboards are telling, so to speak.
I have seen some arguments that we aren’t as litigious in the U.S. as we think: that most injury victims, for instance, choose not to sue. Whether or not this is true, institutions still perceive a need to guard against lawsuits at all times.
I don’t know where Plato discusses lawsuits as a sign of a failing culture–but in Book 5 of the Republic, he has Socrates posit that in the kallipolis, where all property except for one’s body is held in common, there will be no need for lawsuits.
Eirenaios
/ September 3, 2018There were no lawyers, as we know them, in Athens at the time of Socrates and Plato, since citizens had to go to the bar themselves, as Socrates did.
But there were speech writers (logographoi) and there was a proliferation of suits, since Greeks were (and are) very litigious:
http://www.ehsan.com/blog/2014/3/7/what-we-can-learn-from-the-ancient-greek-system-of-justice
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3688&context=ndlr
Shakespeare would have said something similar, and much worse:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/quotes/shakespearelawyers.html
Many more people would have undersigned that sentence:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lawyers