Are we abusing the term “Passive-Aggressive”?

For the past ten to fifteen years, the term “Passive-Aggressive” has been used a lot to describe a host of behavior that sometime have little to do with this particular definition. I’ve even been accused, on occasions, of being guilty of that trait. 

It seems like a convenient label to affix when people are a loss to appreciate or identify the response they’re getting to their questions or demeanor. In fact, a passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a pattern of passive hostility and an avoidance of direct communication.

For instance, a mere lack of action where some is socially customary is a typical passive-aggressive strategy (showing up late for functions, staying silent when a response is expected). This, in a certain a way, is a form of hypocrisy. 

Such behavior may be an expression of difficulty in dealing with one's negative emotions. From an occasional act when it’s exceptionally occurs and does not substantially interfere with communication, it can quickly evolve into a habit if it’s used persistently. 

Yet, far too many unusual and strange behaviors are categorized as “Passive-Aggressive” when they’re in fact behaviors can be, for instance, described as catty, that is, when they takes the appearance of deliberately hurtful or spiteful remarks, or even when they originate from people with peculiar personalities that don’t mean at all what’s being attributed to them. 

So like anything in life there’s a gradation or a spectrum of intensity, as well as personality types or specific body-languages which can qualify or disqualify such behavior. 

Just be careful before you fall for the catch-all “Passive-Aggressive” determination and, as usual, remember that in life, nothing is ever totally black or white…