Aggressive Friendliness Disrespects Introverts
New York Times columnist David Brooks advocates riding roughshod over the rights and preferences of introverts.
For the last several years, in articles and interviews, New York Times columnist David Brooks has spoken out many times in favor of so-called “aggressive friendliness.” The idea goes like this: To counteract our society’s supposed epidemic of loneliness and disconnection, we should all help create moments of authentic, pleasurable interchange through outreach to strangers. Riding the train, sitting at a lunch counter or strolling along a beach, we should start conversations with anyone who is on their own. Both parties will have a lovelier day for our having made the first move.
While this may sound benign, such a campaign contains assumptions that reflect disdain for introverts. Let me explain.
Embedded in Brooks’ campaign is the belief that apartness is both psychologically and socially harmful. In his book How to Know a Person, he wrote, “Social disconnection warps the mind.” Therefore, engaging strangers in conversation benefits them the way you would do good by handing out free vitamins or steering others away from a polluted swimming hole.
Now a fundamental truth about personality differences is that introverts have a greater need for quiet and solitude than extroverts. We reserved folks need time and space apart to recharge our energy. Someone sitting alone on a train, in a restaurant or at the beach may indeed be feeling lonely, but it’s also quite likely that they’re feeling relief by being alone with their thoughts, their meal, the scenery or their book. Brooks never mentions the importance of getting a feel for the particular situation and respecting indications that contact is unwanted. As implied by the word “aggressive” in “aggressive friendliness,” he recommends barreling in and talking to temporary loners, no matter what.
To an introvert, such intrusion can feel unpleasant, even invasive, especially if the approach overrides one’s verbal or nonverbal signals of a preference for remaining alone.
Of course, sometimes an unexpected encounter with a stranger does leave behind a glow of contentment or represent the start of a long, mutual friendship. But assuming universal receptivity to overtures is arrogant rather than beneficent. Personal boundaries are legitimate and deserving of respect. Not everyone off by themselves at a particular moment is clinically isolated, sad, needy or forlorn. Assuming across the board that one’s conversation will brighten their day is presumptuous and overbearing.
Brooks readily admits that he took up this cause as a remedy for his own habitual detachment. From boyhood, he took on the role of observer, with repressed feelings. As an adult, he decided he was too withdrawn, estranged from others and from himself. Becoming more outgoing and openhearted would fix this deficiency, he believed.
Well, good for him! I mean that sincerely. But imagine his self-repair project being taken up as a mission by many others: Introverts finding times and places to recharge would become even more difficult. For introverts, that’s a headache scenario, not a nicer or more comfortable society. Human dignity requires meeting others on grounds of mutual respect, not treating them as a means in one’s personal quest.