Discussing the Undiscussable

Is there an ethical requirement to discuss matters that are not being discussed?

Dan Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence, refers to something he calls the Four Attentional Rules. 'In any group, from the family, to organizations, to entire societies, there are these unstated rules that we learn tacitly about the questions that can't be asked.'

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

The Four Attentional Rules are as follows:

1. Here's what we notice
2. Here's what we call it
3. Here's what can't be noticed
4. We are at a loss to talk about it because we can't admit we see it

There are many things in local government that simply can't be noticed, that no one talks about. In a mostly white community, one example might be racial discrimination. Someone who even mentions red-lining may have no political future, and probably few friends.

But the subject need not be so extreme (although to someone of color, red-lining would hardly seem an extreme subject). It might simply be giving contracts to friends and business associates. Or doing work for city officials on the side. You just don't mention things like that. It's not good manners. It won't win you friends.

Is there an ethical requirement to discuss matters that are not being discussed, that cannot be noticed publicly, that everyone tacitly agrees not to see?

This question goes right to the center of the conflict between personal and public interest. At least if one assumes that it is in the public interest to discuss community matters openly. Everyone agrees, but almost everyone draws lines, but few have the courage to even mention where the lines might be drawn.

In fact, this question itself is one of those questions you're not supposed to bring up. Well, there go my friends.