In the psychology of communication, this phenomenon can be illuminated by a fundamental principle put forward by the Palo Alto school:

In other words, even when someone avoids answering clearly, they are still communicating something. Vagueness, avoidance, silence, contradiction, confusion: all of it is part of the message.

There is no opting out of communication

In a relationship, communication is always happening. Speaking conveys a message, obviously, but so does staying silent. Looking away, answering beside the point, sighing, dodging a question, arriving late, forgetting to call back: all of it communicates something about the relationship and about where each person stands.

The trouble is that there are many situations in which a person would dearly like not to have to communicate. They would like to withdraw from the exchange, not answer, not take a position, avoid the confrontation or the consequences of a clear reply.

But since it is impossible not to communicate, they have to find another way.

This is where certain avoidance strategies come in. Some are entirely conscious. Others are largely unconscious. And in some cases they can even take a symptomatic turn.

When talking serves to avoid saying

The most visible case is political doublespeak. We often spot it in certain politicians, but not only there. You ask a precise question and receive in return a long speech that is vague, peripheral, off-centre, and never really answers it.

The person produces language, but that language’s function is to steer around the sensitive point. They fill the space, shift the attention, pile up imprecise formulations, hoping the other person will eventually give up or move on to something else.

But this logic is not confined to power games or public speech. We also find it in personal life, at work, in couples, in families, and sometimes in people who are not trying to manipulate anyone at all.

Mental fog: a relational protection

Some people have a communication style that seems perpetually hesitant, contradictory or blurred. They begin a sentence, then immediately qualify it. They state something, then add its opposite. They open up an idea, then close it again. They give an answer while leaving the other person free to choose a different one.

From the outside, this can give the impression that they do not know what they think, that they lack clarity, or that they are beating around the bush. But it is often more accurate to see it as an attempt at protection.

Why? Because in certain relational histories, answering clearly may have become dangerous.

Saying no may have set off a conflict. Saying yes may have been a trap. Saying what you think may have exposed you to criticism, humiliation, punishment or rejection.

The double bind: when no answer is right

To understand this, it helps to bring in another central concept: the double bind.

The double bind describes a situation in which a person receives contradictory messages on several levels, with no realistic way of responding correctly. Someone may, for instance, verbally ask for one thing while their non-verbal attitude implies the opposite. Or they may demand spontaneity, sincerity or autonomy while punishing precisely those moves whenever they appear.

It is this kind of context that can manufacture paradoxical forms of communication. To avoid being trapped, the subject becomes vague. They anticipate several possible readings. They try to satisfy every expectation at once. They speak in such a way as never to be completely cornered in a single position. The result is often exhausting, for them and for the other person alike.

Three main strategies for avoiding communication

When communication becomes too risky, three main strategies frequently appear.

The real issue: not judging too quickly

When we can make no sense of what the other person is saying, the temptation is strong to conclude that they are incompetent, manipulative or dishonest. Sometimes it is indeed a deliberate strategy. But sometimes that vague discourse mostly tells the story of a person who never learned that they could answer clearly without danger.

This is where a systemic outlook becomes precious. The point is not to excuse everyone, nor to deny power dynamics. The point is to understand the function of a behaviour.

• What is the person trying to avoid?
• What are they protecting?
• What threat do they associate, for themselves, with speaking clearly?
• In what kind of relationship did they learn that taking a position could be dangerous?

These questions profoundly change the way we look.