I understand formal patterns exist for a reason in all communications, from everyday speech to “I Do” in a marriage. (In another thread I just asked about how to wake up a sleeping officer.)
And mutually recognizing a conversation is taking a different turn is nothing unusual. But, like the exact words “off the record” between a journalist and a source, a switch is pulled.
What gives, – does anything-- briefly, in the give and take of every single inter-rank conversation that would have such a formal intro/request? Another way to think of it: does it sound kind of camp or Hollywoodish if one officer said it to another? (In those exact words, that is; as I said, conversational language has language about itself always).
Me either, but then I wasn’t exactly privy to everything going on in officer country, and I have no doubts that some Annapolis ring knocker somewhere has used the phrase at some point.
I cannot imaging asking my wife for “permission to speak freely, ma’am”, and not having hit cataloged away neatly for tactical use in the future. I doubt if an officer would see it any differently. Since the relationship between an serviceman and his officer can turn adversial in the future, if it isn’t already.
It’s not the same as “off the record” for a journalist, which means that if the remarks are quoted in a publication, they will be denied, but that the information is given in good faith so that it can be useful to the journalist in other ways. Neither of the parties involved in in a position of superiority.
If it’s ever used, it perhaps makes more sense for it to be used when a lower-ranked person wants to make a comment about a third person – or more realistically, that person’s command – without seeming insubordinate:
US Army Captain: Permission to speak freely, Major?
US Army Major: By all means.
US Army Captain: Colonel Flagg’s orders are going to get a bunch of people killed, and are wholly unnecessary – there is an undefended path to the same airfield.
US Army Major: I understand, Captain. I will ask the Colonel to take your suggestion under advisement.
…
That’s all pretty stilted, too, but I hope the point got across.
I thought it was going to be my own OP you referenced–I’ve asked inter-rank social relations, decision-making, and communications all over the place in GQ.
I’ve never been IN the military, but have frequently worked FOR them in various capacities. And as is often my lot in life, many times it has fallen to me to give a Flag officer information we both knew they didn’t want to hear. I have therefore said this, on several occasions, in the hope of opening an uncomfortable conversation with a bit of levity, but also with a hint of “You promised not to kill the messenger . . .”
I’ve said it before, but then again, I spent a long time as a private. Officers respect one another, regardless of rank. No one respects privates. It has no actual value or anything - its purpose is just as you describe, a recognized pattern that carries a subtext. The people I’ve said it to have no duty to “honor” their “permission.” It just means “If I’m honest, promise to take it easy on me?” and nothing more.
Were I in a command situation, yeah, I might be tempted to snark back “this is not this week’s TV episode”
More often you may end up asking permission to speak on the matter, at all. The commander just may not be in a position to receive the feedback you offer at this particular time and place. It’s the “freely” qualifier that is what’s superfluous IMO: if you can’t be confident to give the commander the whole picture w/o a preemptive dispensation, you’re not helping.
This is likely mentioned in the the previous thread on the subject that I didn’t go through, but the biggest issue with this request is that it essentially serves only a social and not a legal/good order and disciplinary one. There is no UCMJ exception or defense to disrespect/insubordination to a senior NCO/warrant/commissioned officer by using this or any other magical phrase beforehand. It’s basically like starting off an expletive-filled tirade with “Respectfully…” or “With all due respect…” Some magic word, phrase, or permission does not relieve a service member from still complying with the UCMJ, even if the senior service member in question promises to overlook it in advance.
The UCMJ article that deals with disrespecting a superior commissioned officer does not even require that the officer being disrespected even be around when the disrespectful comments are made, though it does state that someone should not be held accountable for what is said in a purely private conversation that implicitly involves two or more people other than the disrespected officer in question.
Good post as to “magic switch,” and also as to normal conversation phrases such as “with all due respect,” which is non-campy/Hollywood English, and is a fixed expression used in many social situations, but is not defined so strictly in a language world where such definitions are stricter all around and have different ramifications. (It probably isn’t against the USMJ code to use double negatives.)
Makes me wonder if the USMJ uses the word “disrespect” as a verb–my guess is no.
[I smell a new OP on the topic in general coming on…]
Permission to speak freely is spoken as a request to speak off the record without consequence with the implication that a truth better left unspoken is about to be spoken. In aircraft maintenance in the Navy, much is spoken that is off the record, but necessary to the task.
My experience, anyway. It is a useful phrase between enlisted-to-officer.
But that’s disrespect and insubordination. Is pointing out the flaws and consequences of an order in polite language actually either of those? “No disrespect Captain, but that guarantees half the squad will die… is that what you really want?”
