The Ethics of Inexpressibility: Silence, Pain, and the Techniques of Retelling

*This article is approximately 7,500 characters long.

Chapter 1 | The Structure of Knowing and Freedom

── "Narrative" lies beyond information

We "know" before we speak.

But the act of "knowing" is not passive information acquisition.

It is an ethical preparatory act of posing questions, touching the world, and drawing out meaning.

1-1 | To know is to have questions

We watch and listen to the news, receive someone's narrative, and read books.

At first glance, these acts seem like merely receiving information.

However, information is always just a point floating in a "sea of meaning."

Whether or not we can receive it as "information"
depends on whether we have a net of questions on our side.

Without questions, information is just noise.

That is why knowing is not passive, but a stance and a choice.

1-2 | "Freedom of knowing" is the freedom to choose what to know

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, from which the "right to know" is also derived.

But this right does not stop at the institutional requirement that "information should be provided."

It is a subjective freedom of where to direct one's "own interests," and at the same time, an introspective freedom to be aware of "where the blind spots are."
Freedom of knowing includes not only being informed, but also the power to notice what one does not know.

In the modern information space, we can obtain vast amounts of knowledge.
But this is also an era where it becomes invisible "what we are living without knowing."

1-3 | The asymmetry of knowing: Inequality of access and institutional silence

Knowledge is not equally open.

It is structurally distributed, and the following asymmetries exist:

• Disparities in educational opportunities

• Differences in linguistic literacy

• Enclosure by SNS algorithms (echo chambers)

• News bias and reporting voids

Even more serious is that the very "power to decide what is important" is biased.

This power teaches people what "should be known."

And those who hold this power are institutions such as the state, corporations, education, and the media.

In other words, the map of knowledge is drawn by institutions, creating realms of silence.

1-4 | The "right to know" is the premise of narrative

Before you choose to "speak/not speak,"
it is already determined what you know and what you are permitted to know.

Freedom of speech is built upon the freedom of knowing.

Conversely, without the freedom of knowing, freedom of speech becomes a "fantasy" rather than an "option."

That is why, if we are to question the ethics of narrative, we must first question the structure of knowing and its uneven distribution.

Freedom of narrative begins at the stage of knowing, as the "freedom of questioning."

Chapter 2 | The responsibility of response in speaking

── "Freedom of speech" is tested as the "power to respond"

Speaking is free.

However, it is not a "permission" that one may simply talk, but the totality of responsibility regarding "to whom, what, and how to speak now."
Narrative is not merely self-expression, but an act of constructing responsiveness.

2-1 | Narrative has an "object"

The act of speaking is always directed at "someone."

• To whom are you speaking?

• Is the other party prepared to receive that narrative?

• What does that narrative illuminate, and what does it take away from the other party?

Narratives uttered without considering these can fall into the violence of monologue.

Narrative begins not with "what I want to say," but by asking "is a relationship established where it is okay to speak?"

2-2 | Narrative has a "context"

The same words change their meaning if the context is different.

The defense of "I said it because it's a fact" does not constitute the ethics of narrative.

• Speaking of "lack of crisis management" in a land immediately after a disaster

• Responding to a confession with "that is your own responsibility"

• Responding to the sharing of grief with "there are people who are suffering more"

Such narratives, even if stating facts, can become irresponsible violence that ignores context.

Narrative always requires the power to read the "time," "pain," and "silence" of the situation.

2-3 | By speaking, are you silencing someone?

This is one of the most difficult questions in the ethics of narrative.

Speaking sometimes forces the silence of others.

Or, it may unconsciously deprive the other party of room for their own narrative.

• Emphasizing one's own correctness too much, causing the other to stumble over their words

• Clashing emotions turning dialogue into a "win-lose" situation

• Speaking too much, covering up the other's wounds

By speaking, are you sealing off someone's "possibility of speaking?"

Narrative requires a technique that leaves "space" to draw out the narratives of others.

2-4 | To speak is to respond

—And, accepting the response

True storytelling is not about "bringing something out from within oneself," but rather
the act of "responding" to a narrative that has reached the other person.

Furthermore, it asks whether one is prepared to accept the other's response.

• When anger or tears are returned by the other person upon hearing your story, can you stay there without running away?

• Can you face misunderstandings or counterarguments without closing yourself off?

Storytelling is an act of "casting a question into the world," and at the same time,
it is also "having the strength to endure the answer to that question."

2-5 | The freedom of storytelling includes the responsibility of "after you have finished telling"

The ethics of storytelling continue not only before you speak, but also after.

• When you are misinterpreted by someone, how far do you go to explain yourself again?

• How do you reopen a dialogue with someone who has been hurt?

• When there is no reaction, how do you accept that?

All of these are part of the act of storytelling,
and it is not just "saying it and being done"; the sustainability of response—the ethics behind storytelling—is being questioned.

Conclusion: Storytelling is an act of building relationships

Does your storytelling open up the other person's storytelling?

Or does it reinforce the other person's silence?

Continuing to ask this is what elevates "freedom of speech" into "responsibility of speech."

Storytelling is creating a relationship that makes someone feel they "can tell their story."

That is the starting point of the ethics of storytelling.

Chapter 3 | The Institutional Structure of Silence and Exclusion

—What is not told is born from a structure that makes it impossible to tell

In an era where freedom of speech appears to be granted to individuals,
there still exist "things that are not told" and "people who cannot tell."

The reason for this is not a lack of ability to speak.

In many cases, it is due toinstitutional conditions that make storytelling impossible = "structured silence".

3-1 | Silence is sometimes not a "choice" but "induced"

For example, in situations like the following, people hesitate to speak:

• I might lower my evaluation by talking about myself

• If I show weakness, I might be thought of as "useless"

• Even if I talk about my suffering, I might be told I am "being spoiled"

These are all structures where speaking is designed as a "risk."

In other words, silence is not born because "I don't want to say it,"
but because of structural pressure that says it is meaningless to speak / you will be harmed / you will not be understood.

3-2 | Institutional Silence: A Network of Forces that Makes Storytelling Invisible

Institutional silence is not just about the state or laws.

It is born from the accumulation of culture, common sense, education, media, and linguistic habits.

Example:

• "Sexual victimization" is considered "shameful" and is difficult to talk about

• "Poverty" is considered "self-responsibility" and is difficult to empathize with

• "Discrimination" is considered "paranoia" and is easily excluded

These are all"situations where the words to speak are taken away",
and a structure that neutralizes the storyteller is quietly spread out.

3-3 | The Invisibility of Institutional Labels: Invisibility as Common Sense

Why is this structure of silence difficult to notice?

It is because the structure is not "labeled."

For example:

• "Regular employee," "university graduate," "able-bodied person" are the "normal" assumed even without being spoken of

• "Non-regular," "middle-school graduate," "person with a disability" are the "abnormal" that are required to explain themselves when speaking

Thisstructural difference of "whether or not one is required to speak"is precisely
the sign that the institution is forcing silence.

Those who do not have to speak possess the "privilege of not having to speak" within the structure.

3-4 | What the "result" of not being told speaks of

Things that were not told

People who were not told

History that was not told—

they are all evidence that it was not that they "did not tell,"
but that a "structure that did not let them tell" existed.

For example:

• Events that were not included in textbooks

• People who could not testify about their victimization

• Citizens who could not have a place for dialogue

Listen closely to what was not told.

That is where the imagination of ethics is tested.

3-5 | Who will scoop up the voices sinking into the structure?

Behind the inability to speak, there is always a structure.

But being conscious of that structure, questioning it, and redesigning the place for storytelling is also our ethical responsibility here and now.

• Create a place to listen

• Translate into words that are easy to speak

• Stand on the side that breaks the silence

• Question the structure that did not let them speak

These are all problems of the "structure that makes them speak" behind the "freedom to speak."

Closing: Silence is dismantled by storytelling that resists the structure

Tell what was not told.

By telling, illuminate the inexpressibility.

It is the "voice of ethics" that resonates in the gaps of the institution.

In the next chapter, we will descend into a deeper "inexpressibility"—

that is, the point where language itself ceases to function due to trauma, taboos, and power.

Chapter 4 | Inexpressibility as Trauma, Taboo, and Power

—Silence is born at the moment language breaks

I cannot speak.

Only silence remains.

That silence is sometimes the depth of a wound,
sometimes the chains of culture,
or perhaps the victory of power.

There is a reason for inexpressibility.

It is not merely "being bad at talking."

There certainly exists a point where language ceases to function even if one tries to speak.

4-1 | Trauma: When you try to speak, language breaks

Trauma is a phenomenon where, due to the intensity of the experience,
the very circuit of linguistic processing is blocked.

The moment you try to speak about the experience of victimization:

• Words get stuck

• Your mind goes blank

• Only emotions overflow first

• Your body stiffens

This is not that "words are insufficient," but that words are broken.

Trauma is not "cannot speak."

It is the suffering of "being silenced every time you try to speak."

To speak, time, a place, and the way the listener is present become necessary.

4-2 | Taboo: The act of speaking itself becomes a "boundary that must not be crossed"

A taboo is not explicitly stated as "do not speak."

Rather, it is internalized as an atmosphere where one cannot even think of speaking.

For example:

• A culture that avoids the topic of death within the family

• A society where topics of religion or sexual orientation are avoided

• An atmosphere where attempting to speak about the history of war crimes is met with resentment

Here, "speaking" is regarded as the "destruction of relationships."

Therefore, people choose "coexistence" without speaking. But that is merely a disconnection disguised as coexistence.

A taboo is also a mechanism that maintains the "silence of relationships" by not speaking.

4-3 | Power: The structure where even if you speak, it "becomes meaningless"

The cruelest form of inexpressibility is the point where "speaking becomes meaningless."

This is not merely repression or censorship, but a structural violence where the words themselves are "not received/are transformed."

Example:

• A plea is dismissed as "emotional"

• Legitimate criticism is labeled as "paranoia"

• Experience is consumed as a "social nuisance"

Here, the narrative is returned as "the speaker's own problem".

Power is not about preventing speech.

It is also a technique of allowing speech, only to invalidate it.

4-4 | Inexpressibility is the "deep structure" that destroys narrative

These three—

■ Three types of inexpressibility

• Trauma

• Pain is regenerated by attempting to speak

• Mind and body reject verbalization as a defense mechanism

• Taboo

• The very will to speak is suppressed

• Narrative does not start due to tacit understanding and cultural pressure

• Power

• Words do not reach and meanings are diverted even if spoken

• Narrative is invalidated/minimized, and the power to speak is taken away

These are "inexpressibilities" of different dimensions,
and what they all have in common is:

The fact that narrative is established based on "relationships."

To speak, one needs a "body that can endure pain," "listening relationships," and a "society where meaning reaches."

Inexpressibility is a state where the foundation of all these has collapsed.

Conclusion: Speaking about inexpressibility is an ethic and a prayer

Do not blame those who cannot speak.

Do not blame yourself for not being able to speak.

Inexpressibility is not a limitation of language, but a breakdown of relationships,
and facing it means "re-weaving" the space that makes narrative possible.

Speaking about inexpressibility—

It is an endeavor born at the intersection of ethics, poetry, and prayer.

Chapter 5 | 5 Techniques of Ethical Narrative

—To speak is to edit pain and re-weave relationships

Narrative can also be violence.

Yet, what is necessary to keep from stopping the act of speaking is the technique of narrative = ingenuity in ethical speaking.

The five techniques shown below do not guarantee the "correctness of the narrative."

Rather, they are techniques of relationship design to "make speaking possible again."

■ Technique 1 | Gradation: Adjusting the depth of speech according to the listener's readiness

Narrative has depth.

Instead of entering the core or the story of wounds suddenly, adjust the stages of the narrative according to the other person's receptivity, relationship, and situation.

• Start speaking from small episodes

• Add a question like "Is it okay to talk about this?"

• Deepen it gradually while watching the other person's reaction

It is more ethical to "secure room to speak" than to speak deeply.

■ Technique 2 | Translation: The effort to convert one's own words into a common language

The words of the parties involved are sometimes sharp and too strong.

But because of that, there are times when they do not reach.

At that time, what is important is the effort to convert words into a form that the other person can understand = translation.

• Change emotional words into conceptual words / replace with metaphors

• Abstract concrete experiences into a form that can be shared

• Do not say it in anger, but give it meaning within the relationship

Ethical narrative aims not to "convey" but to "make it reach."

■ Technique 3 | First-person perspective: Speaking as "I" without blaming the other

Narrative often tends to ride on a context of blaming someone.

At that time, by changing your experience into a first-person narrative of "I felt/thought/was hurt by ~", you can lower the aggressiveness and open up room for empathy.

• "You are bad" → "I was scared at that time"

• "Society is rotten" → "I feel anxious about this system"

First-person perspective is a device that converts narrative from "blame" to "sharing."

■ Technique 4 | Imaginative Silence: Daring not to speak and leaving margins

Speaking is not justice.

Silence has the power of silence.

The silence left without speaking everything gives the other person's inner self room to think, a place for resonance, and time for introspection.

• The courage not to talk too much and end with "...that is all"

• Believing that by daring not to say it, something beyond words is conveyed

• Placing silence as a question

Not only "speaking" but also "not speaking" is part of the narrative.

■ Technique 5 | Suturing: Connecting the past, present, and future to reconstruct relationships

Narrative does not end with "venting."

Ethical narrative requires the work of re-stitching the time axis.

• Scooping up the meaning of the present from the wounds of the past

• Questioning how future relationships should be from the pain of the present

• Re-narrating one's own story

In order for relationships not to break by speaking, but for relationships to be "reorganized" by speaking, narrative must be suturing.

Conclusion: Narrative is not a technique to overcome silence, but a technique to be with silence

Narrative can also be violence.

But not speaking can also be violence.

That is why what is necessary is not the binary opposition of "should I speak / should I not speak,"
but to continue choosing words while swaying between narrative and silence.

The technique of speaking is the practice of ethics and a form of response to pain.

Chapter 6 | The Courage to Speak, the Hope of Not Speaking

—Narrative is not a decision, but a response

Up to this point, we have seen how the "freedom to speak" and the "freedom not to speak" are swayed by systems, structures, pain, and relationships.
Narrative is not just "saying" something.

Narrative is the choice of an ethical response: "Can I speak now?"

6-1 | To speak is an act of courage

-- The act of sharing words while enduring pain

To speak is to reopen a wound.

It means summoning the past, exposing oneself, and carrying the anxiety that one might be misunderstood or rejected, yet still transforming those feelings into words to share.

This is not strength.

It is the courage to open one's mouth while still afraid.

• It is okay to be misunderstood

• It is okay if it does not reach the other

• Still, believing that it 'might reach' someone

This hope is the ethical fuel for the one who speaks.

6-2 | Not speaking is also a form of hope

-- Silence is not resignation, but the 'suspension of future possibilities'

On the other hand, the choice not to speak can also be ethical.

• It is too early to speak

• If I speak, the relationship will break

• I feel that for now, we should just be together quietly

Such silence is not an escape, but an extension of time to allow the relationship to mature.

Not speaking is the name of the time spent 'searching for words that can be spoken.'

That silence contains the hope that 'perhaps one day, I will be able to speak.'

6-3 | Speaking and not speaking, and what lies between them

Speaking and not speaking are not a binary opposition.

Between them lies a realm of fluctuation, such as:

• Reaching out, but not stating everything

• Speaking through ambiguous metaphors

• Speaking not as oneself, but through stories or poetry

• Opening the act of speaking itself as a question

This 'ambiguous way of speaking' is a technique to avoid violence, respect the other's silence, and maintain the relationship.

To speak is, more than 'what was conveyed,' a form of response regarding 'how one wanted to exist.'

Conclusion: Speaking is a prayer for relationship

Speaking is not merely the transmission of information, but the reweaving of a relationship.

Not speaking is also an intellectual reservation to keep the relationship from breaking.

What is needed for speaking is not just 'truth.'

It is imagination toward the other, respect for the relationship, and kindness toward silence.

And above all--

The belief that by speaking, the world becomes a little kinder
This power of belief supports the ethics of speaking.

If you are tired of speaking, it is okay to be silent.

Hope dwells within silence as well.

It is precisely because we know this that we embrace silence, in order to speak once more.

✦ Afterword

This text was not written to blame you for 'what you could not speak.'

Rather, it is a sketch of a quiet structure for believing in 'speaking' once again.

Perhaps speaking is not an act, but a form of being together.