I was in an interesting discussion at home, last night. We were debating what assertiveness is. These debates are useful. Sometimes, articulation of these abstract notions, brings a clarity in thoughts which I would otherwise just leave in the realms of subconscious. Anyways, so here is what I thought.
One, is that need for whatever we call as assertion is always relative. It is with respect to an environment, people or a condition. If these do not exist, the assertion looses it's meaning.
Second, assertion intends to bring about change. This is either in the environment, or in our personal approach with respect to environment.
Third, since the assertion comes from the fact that it would bring about a change, it has to start from an empathy with the current, and an understanding of why it is the way it is. Without this realization, it is not assertion. It is something else.
Fourth, assertion comes from a sense of righteousness. It is not a selfish righteousness. There is an inherent feeling in one who asserts that the net common good would increase if the objective of assertion was met. Sometimes, it may just help me improve my relative self esteem, vis a vis, the rest, but again the objective is that it is important to do this, because it ultimately helps the situation.
If I can consolidate the above in some simple way, it is a statement of a position, derived from an empathy towards a current situation and feeling a sincere need to change it for common good. If the objective of assertion are met, it typically should lead to a satisfaction at a spiritual level. If it is not giving inner happiness, but ends up appeasing a personal ego, it is not assertion but probably, if I may say bully or a win in simplest terms.