Standardized Politeness: Bridging Cultures and Building Respect

Carl Gustav Jung, the brilliant psychologist with profound intuition. Sumber: ChatGPT.

In everyday interactions, one sometimes encounters a peculiar social phenomenon: exaggerated assertiveness or a "tough guy" attitude as a cover for deep sensitivity. Many people initiate social interactions with a confrontational stance – often based on previously made profiling on the other person – seemingly to "test" the sincerity or authenticity of others before opening the door to trust. This behavior is visible at work, among young people, and even on social media. Interestingly, some observers interpret this pattern as a form of complex collective defensiveness: people claim not to care about others' opinions but are deeply hurt by other people’s opinion about them.

Digging deeper, this tendency is rooted in a communitarian cultural structure, where dignity and self-worth are often constructed not individually but through social validation. Emotional reactions to how others perceive us are therefore inevitable in interpersonal dynamics. It is no surprise then that terms like "image-building" (or "pencitraan" in Indonesian) carry immense social weight—used not only to judge someone's authenticity but also as a reflection of our own anxiety about unspoken social expectations.

Upon closer inspection, those accused of image-building are often individuals who understand the need to manage social expectations without betraying personal principles. In this light, image-building may not be deception, but maturity: a nuanced ability to read the room. Like table manners during a formal dinner, it may not reflect one’s true personality, but in professional or multicultural spaces, the ability to follow shared norms is precisely what showcases adaptability.

There is a some contrast between a typical Western communication culture and Indonesian expectations in this regard. In Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, contexts, there exists a kind of standardized politeness in both professional and daily interactions, while many Indonesians expect emotional authenticity upfront: one must be "genuine from the heart" before being trusted. Yet this demand can strain professional relationships, as not everyone is ready or able to open up immediately. A curious paradox emerges: we demand authenticity but are easily offended by tones or expressions that don’t align with the group’s preferences. From a Jungian framework, this reflects a dominant use of introverted feeling (Fi), where personal values become central even in formally neutral settings.

As a side note, Jungian cognitive functions like Fi and Fe (extraverted feeling) are not standard in academic psychology, which currently favours other more “empirically testable” models, such as the Big Five model. Still, these concepts remain intuitively useful in interpreting everyday social dynamics. While the Big Five model associates social sensitivity with high agreeableness and neuroticism—traits marked by conflict avoidance and emotional attunement—this mapping is not entirely consistent across cultures. In the Indonesian context, for instance, individuals may score high on agreeableness but still reject standardized politeness, perceiving it as emotionally distant or insincere. Here, social harmony is pursued not through formalized civility but through intuitive, emotionally resonant interactions.

In fact, one could argue that Indonesians—especially in interpersonal settings—exhibit a high degree of social finesse: the ability to adapt tone, gestures, and expressions depending on who they are speaking to. This interpersonal sensitivity is far from surface-level; it is nuanced, dynamic, and deeply situational. Ironically, this very sophistication can breed skepticism toward standardized politeness. Young professionals, in particular, may feel uncomfortable around those who communicate in highly formal or polished ways—sometimes dismissing them as "perlente," or overly mannered and inauthentic. The challenge, then, is to bridge this intuitive approach with the more systematized modes of communication expected in global or bureaucratic settings.

Interestingly, this dynamic flips at higher professional levels, such as senior bureaucrats or corporate executives. At that stage, awareness of standardized politeness emerges organically. These individuals recognize that professionalism isn't about being the most emotionally raw (“authentic”), but about keeping relationships functional and steady. Years of navigating diverse personalities and agendas make them adept at distinguishing between emotional honesty and strategic communication. Here, Fe becomes a conscious tool: not for show, but as an essential leadership skill.

This is where education plays a vital role. Standardized politeness doesn’t arise spontaneously—it must be taught and practiced. It's time we consider including formal interpersonal communication skills in school curricula: basic etiquette, table manners, professional email writing, or respectful argumentation. Beyond cultivating practical skills, such education serves to familiarize young Indonesians with—rather than provoke aversion to—standardized forms of politeness and formal social rituals, moving beyond region-specific customs to a more universal mode of civility. In doing so, it quietly equips the next generation to engage more fluidly with the realities of globalization—a process that, despite current trends of fragmentation and inwardness, remains an eventual and unavoidable horizon.

Such education equips young people with the understanding that standardized politeness is not mere performative formality, but a practical system of mutual respect—a kind of civic operating system that allows a diverse society to function without descending into constant friction. Crucially, if they later decide to challenge these norms on principle, they do so with full awareness of the context and consequences.

In culturally complex societies like Indonesia, this shared code becomes especially vital. Customized expressions of politeness—rooted in regional norms or traditional etiquette—can backfire when interlocutors project their local expectations onto others who operate with different social cues. A well-meaning gesture from someone raised in a small town might strike a cosmopolitan Jakartan as patronizing or even rude, simply because the frameworks for “respect” differ. In such cases, defaulting to standardized politeness isn’t a loss of cultural authenticity—it’s a form of social clarity, a common ground that minimizes misunderstanding and maximizes mutual respect.

Ultimately, standardized politeness is not the enemy of honesty, nor is it inherently fake. It is a tool. Like a raincoat shielding us from getting drenched without changing who we are, politeness helps convey bold ideas, sharp critiques, or moral disagreements without unnecessary harm. In a fast-moving world prone to misunderstanding, this tool is more valuable than ever.