“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
I recently had a serendipitous moment while waiting to give a brief introduction about my office to a faculty department. I happened to look over the books in their library and noticed one that caught my eye – it was simply entitled “Just Words,” Oxford University Press, 2019. I picked it up and, on the back cover, read the following: “… speech constitutes harm when it enacts a norm that prescribes that harm.” It further described the author’s exploration of ways in which the injuries caused by negative speech can be remedied. I thought that this book would be right up the Ombuds alley. As I held it, a faculty member walked in and said, “That’s one of our own faculty member’s books!” Much to my delight, professor and author Mary Kate McGowan walked in at that moment and said that of course I could borrow it. (These are the kind of welcoming, open and inclusive faculty members that make working at Wellesley College enjoyable.) This book, from a philosopher’s perspective, explores a number of interesting theories about the nature and effect of speech. I’ll merely summarize the part that directly resonated with the work of my office and extrapolate by creating my own example.
Dr. McGowan explains that norms that guide our social practices (largely unconsciously) are behavioral expectations with which we expect compliance. Sometimes these norms are benign (i.e., we are on the subway and expected to say ‘good morning’ when so greeted.) Other times, however, they are discriminatory. Again, we are on the subway and a man winks at a woman and says, “you look good in that sweater.” The man may expect the woman to be flattered and say “thank you,” but the effect of the “compliment” created a sexually offensive environment and the woman chose to look down and pretend to ignore the man.
Professor McGowan argues that the law cannot address everything and that “…we should all be more proactive about the climate in our public spaces.” She continues:
If everyone of us is involved in the remedy by being informed about the appropriate standards, inclined to notice violations, and empowered to respond in positive ways, then the climate of our public spaces will be significantly more egalitarian. (pp 182-183).
Using the author’s framework, consider the following scenario where the man on the subway winks at a woman and says, “you look good in that sweater.”
Female subway rider: “Gee, that comment is out of line and offensive.”
Male subway rider: “Yeah, those kinds of catcalls went out of society in the 50’s.”
Another subway rider: “The impact of a statement like that is pretty bad – best not to make it at all.”
The contributions of these bystander subway riders will hopefully have a positive impact on how the winking man acts in the future as well as how other people on the subway interact with one another. Notice that their comments to him were not accusatory, full of expletives, or patronizing towards the woman. They were appropriate to what was actually said and they were substantive. They acted in a way that defined the norms of subway conversation and made it “conversationally inappropriate” for him to continue with the harmful sex-based comments. Also, they acted as if the woman deserved to be treated with respect and that has the effect of causing people to treat her with respect. Hopefully, this will “set in motion a process whereby more egalitarian … norms … come to govern…” (p. 188)
These positive contributions to broader social practices help create and enact new norms.
Note that this conversation could have gone this way instead:
Subway rider: “Hey a-hole. Get a f’ging grip and shut up.”
Man: “Go to hell.”
This approach almost never has a good consequence. It becomes “You are bad and we are good,” as opposed to “We think that the norms demand a different type of social behavior and we would prefer that you conduct yourself appropriately.”
In the example where the speakers speak substantively, I believe that it still might be a good idea for someone to quietly ask the woman if she would like for them to walk with her out of the subway. If there is a chance of danger, it’s better to err on the safe side. I don’t think this is making an assumption about the woman’s ability to protect herself and it allows her to decline.
The old saying about “sticks and stones” certainly is wrong, as pointed out in a much more intellectually rigorous manner by Dr. McGowan in her book. If we are more cognizant about the harmful impact of our words and if we consciously and actively behave in a way to reconstruct social norms, we will have a more respectful and harmonious living environment.
