Not long ago, there was a dust-up in Washington, D.C., that settled with rapidity and few results, as dust-ups in that city often do. While it lasted, one party cited allegations against a man’s conduct in his marriage, and another party insisted that the (former) wife herself had denied it all. She didn’t, but she probably wanted people to believe that she had.
I am going to examine her statement. Not for the political angle, but because it is a concise and valuable specimen of the art of evasion. It showcases no fewer than six devices of that art.
For context, the allegations were principally that this man’s wife had feared for her safety because of him. When asked by a news organization for comment, the woman responded in writing: “I do not have representatives speaking on my behalf, nor have I ever asked anyone to share or speak about the details of my marriage on my behalf, whether it be a reporter, a committee member, a transition team member, etc. I do not believe your information to be accurate, and I have cc’d my lawyer.” When asked to elucidate what was inaccurate, she answered, “There was no physical abuse in my marriage.”
Before we proceed to parsing, a caveat: None of these devices prove dishonesty or guilt. But they illustrate how carefully you must listen sometimes to know what people have said–and, often more importantly, what they have not said.
Device #1: Rambling. A prime way to evade a question is to go on about other things. If the ramblings carry an air of disagreement, the device can serve a dual purpose of giving the impression, without the fact, of a denial.
This is, in fact, the majority of her response (“I do not have a representative,” etc.). In her case, it was well-spoken. That is when rambling is most effective.
Device #2: Hedging. “I do not believe your information to be accurate.” This is a denial, but with a hedge built around it. It is not definite, and it creates room for the speaker to wriggle out of it. There are many qualifiers: believe, think, guess; maybe, probably; don’t recall, not sure. All can serve as hedges.
Of course, these qualifiers are often used by the timid, the uncertain, and the scrupulously honest. They become telling when they are used in response to questions that people really should be certain about. (“Did you go out after work yesterday?” “I don’t think so.”)
Device #3: Vagueness. “I do not believe your information …”
All right. What information, specifically?
Some vagueness comes naturally while speaking. But you can’t take a denial to the bank when you don’t know what is being denied.
Device #4: Aggression. “I have cc’d my lawyer.” Aggression comes in many forms. Profanity, yelling, insults, threats to call a lawyer or have your job. It is often–not always, but often–the defense of the guilty against the truth.
Device #5: Answering a question that no one asked. “There was no physical abuse in my marriage.” Who said that there was? That was not one of the allegations.
Like rambling, answering a different question than the one asked is a tactic of evasion. Again similar to rambling, this device can create the impression of a denial without being a denial. The unwary may infer that, because there was no physical abuse, she did not fear for her safety. The inference would be unwarranted.
Device #6: The highly specific denial. “There was no physical abuse.” She might have said that there was no abuse, but she did not. She denied specifically, and only, physical abuse.
The highly specific denial is natural and unsuspicious when made in response to a specific question or accusation. But look sharp when it is given in response to a general question (“Were there drugs at the party?” “No one did amphetamines!”) or to a different specific question (“Did you get to your afternoon class?” “I arrived in time for my morning class”).
Leave a Reply