The Paradoxical Rationality of Søren Kierkegaard

5. A Critique of Indirect Communication

114 five A Critique of Indirect Communication I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. (Matthew 10:16) By indirections find directions out. (Shakespeare, Hamlet) More matter, with less art. (Hamlet) The track of writing is straight and crooked. (Heraclitus) In many ways Climacus creates a false dichotomy between indirect and direct communication: He gives the false impression that there is a neat and tidy distinction between these two modes of writing, when in fact they shade into one another, interpenetrate one another, and differ from one another as much in degree as they do in kind; he idolizes indirect communication by exaggerating its strengths and ignoring its weak­ nesses, and demonizes direct communication by exaggerating its vices and ignoring its virtues, when it would be more just of him to admit that each mode of writing has both advantages and disadvantages for the communication of subjectivity; and, finally, he employs and recom­ mends a strategy of writing that relies too much on indirect communica­ tion and too little on direct communication, when a wiser policy would be to use both of them in tandem as complements and correctives of one another. A Critique of Indirect Communication · 115 The purpose of this present chapter is to expose and to break down this false dichotomy. More broadly, its function is to criticize Clima­ cean rationality by posing objections to its conception and practice of communication. The criticisms of and objections to indirect communication ex­ pressed in this chapter are aimed primarily at the pseudonym Clima­ cus, not at Kierkegaard himself. Indeed, I learned many of them from Kierkegaard. But since Kierkegaard never explicitly addresses some of the vices or weaknesses of indirect communication that I attempt to expose, it is possible that even he is vulnerable to some of the following criticisms. Since I have already analyzed indirect communication at some length in earlier chapters, a summary of those previous analyses should serve our present purposes. Indirect communication is not plain, simple, clear, or easy, but complicated, obscure, elusive, and difficult. Where di­ rect communication is dogmatic, didactic, and assertive, indirect is ten­ tative, hypothetical, and questioning. Indirect communication is often ironic, that is, it often says something importantly different from what it really means, or it says something serious in the form of a jest. It makes concessions to its intended readers without announcing that what it says is a concession. Alternatively, it says things that are merely provisional as if they were absolute and final. It emphasizes less important points and makes important points in footnotes, parentheses, subordinate clauses, and seeming digressions. It is often shocking, disorienting, and confus­ ing or rude, offensive, and provoking. It exaggerates in one direction in order to correct against one­sided extremes in the opposite direction. It is poetic and makes use of the subtlety, suggestiveness, and elusiveness of poetry. And finally, it employs pseudonymous authors, who do not always speak for Kierkegaard himself, as Polonius does not always speak for Shakespeare. Just as indirect communication takes many forms, so also it has many purposes: to provoke the free self­activity of readers and thus re­ spect their need to discover the truth for themselves; to avoid being an authority for readers or going partners with them so as to encourage them to accept their responsibility for themselves; to remove the delu­ sions of readers by deceiving them into the truth; to avoid implying that results are more important than the way; to renew appreciation for 116 · The Paradoxical Rationality of Søren Kierkegaard ideals to which readers have become jaded; to avoid having one’s mes­ sage conscripted and corrupted by objective systematizers; and to avoid suggesting, or tacitly consenting to, the objective delusion that the most important task of a person is simply to think the truth, and not mainly to appropriate it by willing, living, and even being it. A Continuum of Communication By stressing the differences between indirect and direct communication and downplaying their similarities, Climacus gives the false impression that they are sheer opposites, when in fact they are part of a spectrum or continuum. He does the same thing with subjectivity and objectivity (CUP, 75), which correspond respectively (and roughly) to indirect and to direct communication. Climacus starkly and without qualification claims that “direct com­ munication is a fraud towards God,” oneself as the communicator, and “another human being” who receives the communication (CUP...