Is it getting harder to hear the quiet voices among us?

Quiet By Susan Cain Crown Publishers 333 pp

Emily and Greg are a lovely young couple who enjoy life as a twosome – most of the week. But not on Friday nights.

Come Friday night, the gregarious Greg wants to throw a party – the livelier the better. It’s how he unwinds. But Emily, a private person, would find dinner and a movie with her husband more relaxing. Who is right?

More and more, contemporary society imagines that it’s Greg, worries writer Susan Cain in her new book, Quiet. From the halls of Harvard Business School to the pews of today’s megachurches to the places where our smallest children play, Cain suggests, extroverts are viewed as the winners. To be confident, outgoing, and assertive has become a mark of success, while quiet, deliberate people who think before they speak are too often relegated to life’s B-list. 

“[T]oday we make room for a remarkably narrow range of personality styles,” writes Cain. “We’re told that to be great is to be bold, to be happy is to be sociable. We see ourselves as a nation of extroverts – which means we’ve lost sight of who we really are.”

It wasn’t always this way, says Cain. Coinciding with the rise of Dale Carnegie and his focus on winning friends and influencing people, she posits, America shifted from a “Culture of Character” to a “Culture of Personality.” As fewer people lived and worked in small towns and on farms, and more worked in offices and interacted with people they didn’t grow up with, gregariousness became a more valued trait.

And yet, estimates Cain, as many as a third to half of Americans are actually what she calls “introverts.”

To understand Cain’s argument, it is important not to confuse introversion with timidity. Although Cain’s definitions remain a bit loose, you could shorthand her message by saying that she defines as extroverts those who find strength from without and introverts as those who draw strength from within.

Introverts are not necessarily shy and not always sensitive (although a goodly number are one or the other and some are both.) An easier way to recognize them is to know that they tend to dislike small talk, have high powers of concentration, and are less likely to be status-obsessed than their more gregarious peers. Their ranks include innovators like Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, revered leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, and courageous heroes like Rosa Parks.

And it’s exactly because remarkable individuals like these have so much to offer the world that Cain worries that society today may be undervaluing them. (Cain, by the way, calls herself a classic introvert – which is why she ultimately decided that her first career as a Wall Street attorney was a mismatch. She insists, however, that she loves and values many extroverts – her husband included.)

Throughout the course of “Quiet” Cain considers the various ways in which society today is unkind to introverts. These include contemporary office plans that afford little or no privacy, a focus on group learning in schools (which often simply means that the loudest voices prevail), and drug companies that encourage the notion that individuals – children included – who are shy or uncomfortable in large-group settings need help from pharmaceuticals.

Cain broadly canvasses psychological and sociological research on her subject. This means she sometimes detours into fields like neurophysiology and not all more-general readers will necessarily be interested in following her there.

But it requires no deep dive into social science of any kind to recognize that the 24/7 media blitz with which we live today is probably least nurturing to those who require the most quiet. And what a shame it would be, Cain suggests, to silence some of the most thoughtful voices among us by requiring them to adjust to a world where outward stimulus and group activities are the new nonstop norm.

In many ways, “Quiet” is a simple plea for individuality. To some degree, Cain indicates, there is an introvert inside each of us. And it would be a mistake for any of us to drown out the promptings of that gentle yet extremely valuable voice.
Marjorie Kehe is the Monitor’s books editor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.