While the term 'conversational implicature' is Grice's term of art (there
are other types of implicature, allegedly, other than conversational -- vide
Grice on 'conventional implicature'), gossip may still be regarded as some
kind of Griceian keyword. This is especially relevant in his lectures on
conversational implicature that predated his William James lectures. In this
earlier lectures he speaks of desiderata and principles, concerning
candour, self-love and benevolence -- and 'helpfulness' rather than
cooperation.
A Popperian approach (in terms of evolutionary epistemology) may still be
differAnt, as Derrida would put it.
In a message dated 5/16/2015 4:55:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
The emergence of homo sapiens was not 500 000 years ago - 200 000 at most.
Check your wikipedia
And this may be a good occasion to criticise Dunbar. He fails to quote from
Grice!
Grice speaks of conversation of neighbours over the fence. This can be
'gossipy'. Still the maxims of conversation applies, as does the cooperative
principle. But he notes that there may be other maxims in operation: 'moral',
and 'aesthetic', and he gives another example of a maxim that should not
be counted under the cooperative principle: 'be polite'.
This was in 1967, when giving his Harvard lectures ("William James
Memorial Lectures"). Back in Oxford, a year later, he had lectured on
conversation
(and using 'implicature') without caring to stick to the Kantian paradigm
of the four conversational categories of Quality, Quantity, Relation, and
Modus.
Gossip seems to correspond to 'the phatic' dimension, which I think was an
obsession with Ogden and Richards. (The new edition of their Meaning of
Meaning makes a passing reference to Grice in a footnote). The idea of the
phatic Ogden and Richards may have borrowed from Malinowski.
The term "phatic communion" was coined by anthropologist Bronisław
Malinowski in his essay "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages," which
appeared in 1923 in The Meaning of Meaning by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards.
The term comes from the Greek "phatos" (spoken, that may be spoken), and
from "phanai" (to speak, say).
The utterance of a phatic expression is a kind of speech act.
In Roman Jakobson's work, 'Phatic' communication is that which concerns the
channel of communication, for instance when one says "I can't hear you,
you're breaking up" in the middle of a cell phone conversation. This usage
appears, for instance, in research on online communities and micro-blogging.
In speech communication the term means "small talk" (conversation for its
own sake) and has also been called "grooming talking", which is back to
Dunbar.
The phrase "grooming talk" appears in J. Aitchinson's "Teach Yourself
Linguistics."
But not all gossip is phatic.
Gossip is best restricted to idle talk or rumour, especially about the
personal or private affairs of others; the act of gossipping is also known as
dishing or tattling.
Gossip has been researched in terms of its evolutionary psychology origins.
This has found gossip to be an important means by which people can monitor
Griceian-type of cooperative reputations and so maintain widespread
indirect reciprocity.
Indirect reciprocity is defined here as "I help you and somebody else helps
me." (Grice used 'helpfulness' rather than 'cooperation' in his earlier
Oxford lectures on conversation. He found 'cooperation' pedantic).
Gossip has been identified by Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary biologist, as
aiding social bonding in large groups.
With the advent of the internet, gossip is now widespread on an instant
basis, from one place in the world to another what used to take a long time to
filter through is now instant.
The term is sometimes used to specifically refer to the spreading of dirt
and misinformation, as (for example) through excited discussion of scandals.
Some newspapers carry "gossip columns" which detail the social and personal
lives of celebrities or of élite members of certain communities.
As we said, the etymon (the true) has little to do with it: it is from Old
English godsibb, from god and sibb, the term for the godparents of one's
child or the parents of one's godchild, generally very close friends. In the
16th century, the word assumed the meaning of a person, mostly a woman, one
who delights in idle talk, a newsmonger, a tattler.
Now in the early 19th century, the term was extended from the talker to the
conversation of such persons. The verb to gossip, meaning "to be a
gossip", first appears in Shakespeare.
The term originates from the bedroom at the time of childbirth. Giving
birth used to be a social (ladies only) event, in which a pregnant woman's
female relatives and neighbours would gather. As with any social gathering
there was chattering and this is where the term gossip came to mean talk of
others.
Gossip can
reinforce – or punish the lack of – morality and accountability
reveal passive aggression, isolating and harming others
serve as a process of social grooming
build and maintain a sense of community with shared interests,
information, and values[7]
begin a courtship that helps one find their desired mate, by counseling
others
provide a peer-to-peer mechanism for disseminating information
Workplace gossip[edit]
We can identify workplace gossip by factors or "signs":
animated people become silent ("Conversations stop when you enter the
room")
people begin staring at someone
workers indulge in inappropriate topics of conversation.
Five tips are suggestd to handle the situation with aplomb:
1. Rise above the gossip
2. Understand what causes or fuels the gossip
3. Do not participate in workplace gossip
4. Allow for the gossip to go away on its own
5. If it persists, gather facts and seek help.
Gossip has been identified as a form of workplace violence, essentially a
form of attack.
\
Gossip is thought by many to empower one person while disempowering
another.
Accordingly, many companies have formal policies in their employee
handbooks against gossip.
Sometimes there is room for disagreement on exactly what constitutes
unacceptable gossip, since workplace gossip may take the form of offhand
remarks
about someone's tendencies such as "He always takes a long lunch," or "Don’
t worry, that’s just how she is."
TLK Healthcare cites as examples of gossip, "tattletailing to the boss
without intention of furthering a solution or speaking to co-workers about
something someone else has done to upset us."
Corporate email can be a particularly dangerous method of gossip delivery,
as the medium is semi-permanent and messages are easily forwarded to
unintended recipients; accordingly, a Mass High Tech article advised employers
to
instruct employees against using company email networks for gossip.
Low self-esteem and a desire to "fit in" are frequently cited as
motivations for workplace gossip.
There are five essential functions that gossip has in the workplace:
Helps individuals learn social information about other individuals in the
organization (often without even having to meet the other individual)
Builds social networks of individuals by bonding co-workers together and
affiliating people with each other.
Breaks existing bonds by ostracizing individuals within an organization.
Enhances one's social status/power/prestige within the organization.
Inform individuals as to what is considered socially acceptable behavior
within the organization.
Workplace gossip can be very serious depending upon the amount of power
that the gossiper has over the recipient, which will in turn affect how the
gossip is interpreted.
There are four types of power that are influenced by gossip:
coercive: when a gossiper tells negative information about a person, their
recipient might believe that the gossiper will also spread negative
information about them. This causes the gossipers coercive power to increase.
reward: when a gossiper tells positive information about a person, their
recipient might believe that the gossiper will also spread positive
information about them. This causes the gossipers reward power to increase.
expert: when a gossiper seems to have very detailed knowledge of either the
organization's values or about others in the work environment, their
expert power becomes enhanced.
referent: this power can either be reduced OR enhanced to a point. When
people view gossiping as a petty activity done to waste time, a gossipers
referent power can decrease along with their reputation. When a recipient is
thought of as being invited into a social circle by being a recipient, the
gossipers referent power can increase, but only to a high point where then
the recipient begins to resent the gossiper.
Some negative consequences of workplace gossip may include:
Lost productivity and wasted time,
Erosion of trust and morale,
Increased anxiety among employees as rumors circulate without any clear
information as to what is fact and what isn’t,
Growing divisiveness among employees as people “take sides,"
Hurt feelings and reputations,
Jeopardized chances for the gossipers' advancement as they are perceived
as unprofessional, and
Attrition as good employees leave the company due to the unhealthy work
atmosphere.
Among the three main types of responders to workplace conflict are
attackers who cannot keep their feelings to themselves and express their
feelings
by attacking whatever they can.
Attackers are further divided into up-front attackers and behind-the-back
attackers.
The latter are difficult to handle because the target person is not sure of
the source of any criticism, nor even always sure that there is criticism.
It is possible however, that there may be illegal, unethical, or
disobedient behaviour happening at the workplace and this may be a case where
reporting the behaviour may be viewed as gossip.
It is then left up to the Hartian authority in charge to fully investigate
the matter and not simply look past the report and assume it to be
workplace gossip.
Informal networks through which communication occurs in an organization are
sometimes called the grapevine.
Middle managers in several different organizations believed that gathering
information from the grapevine was a much better way of learning
information than through formal communication with their subordinates.
Social media has also provided a much faster way to share gossip. In only a
matter of minutes harmful gossip and rumors can spread online. People
started to create groups on Facebook and Twitter.
Some see gossip as trivial, hurtful and socially and/or intellectually
unproductive.
Some people view gossip as a lighthearted way of spreading information.
A feminist definition of gossip presents it as a way of talking between
women, intimate in style, personal and domestic in scope and setting, a female
cultural event which springs from and perpetuates the restrictions of the
female role, but also gives the comfort of validation.
Perhaps there's some truth in the etymon.
In Early Modern England the word "gossip" referred to companions in
childbirth, not limited to the midwife. It also became a term for women-friends
generally, with no necessary derogatory connotations. (OED n. definition 2.
a. "A familiar acquaintance, friend, chum", supported by references from
1361 to 1873). It commonly referred to an informal local sorority or social
group, who could enforce socially acceptable behaviour through private
censure or through public rituals, such as "rough music", the cucking stool
and
the skimmington ride.
In Thomas Harman’s Caveat for Common Cursitors 1566 a ‘walking mort’
relates how she was forced to agree to meet a man in his barn, but informed his
wife. The wife arrived with her “five furious, sturdy, muffled gossips”
who catch the errant husband with “his hosen about his legs” and give him a
sound beating. The story clearly functions as a morality tale in which the
gossips uphold the social order.
In Sir Herbert Maxwell,Bart's The Chevalier of the Splendid Crest [1900] at
the end of chapter three the king is noted as referring to his loyal
knight "Sir Thomas de Roos" in kindly terms as "my old gossip". Whilst a
historical novel of that time the reference implies a continued use of the
term
"Gossip" as childhood friend as late as 1900.
Judaism considers gossip spoken without a constructive purpose (known in
Hebrew as an evil tongue, lashon hara) as a sin. Speaking negatively about
people, even if retelling true facts, counts as sinful, as it demeans the
dignity of man — both the utterer and the subject of the gossip.
According to Proverbs 18:8:
"The words of a gossip are like choice morsels: they go down to a man's
innermost parts."
Islam considers backbiting the equivalent of eating the flesh of one's dead
brother.
According to Muslims, backbiting harms its victims without offering them
any chance of defense, just as dead people cannot defend against their flesh
being eaten. Muslims are expected to treat each other like brothers,
deriving from Islam's concept of brotherhood amongst its believers.
The Christian perspective on gossip is typically based on modern cultural
assumptions of the phenomenon, especially the assumption that generally
speaking, gossip is negative speech.
However, due to the complexity of the phenomenon, biblical scholars have
more precisely identified the form and function of gossip, even identifying a
socially positive role for the social process as it is described in the
New Testament.
Of course, this does not mean that there are not numerous texts in the New
Testament that see gossip as dangerous negative speech.
Thus, for example, the Epistle to the Romans associates gossips
("backbiters") with a list of sins including sexual immorality and with murder:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors
of
evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers,
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32: Who knowing the
judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)
According to Matthew 18, Jesus also taught that conflict resolution among
church members ought to begin with the aggrieved party attempting to
resolve their dispute with the offending party alone.
Only if this did not work would the process escalate to the next step, in
which another church member would become involved.
After that if the person at fault still would not "hear", the matter was to
be fully investigated by the church elders, and if not resolved to be then
exposed publicly.
Based on texts like these portraying gossip negatively, many Christian
authors generalize on the phenomenon.
So, in order to gossip we must harden our heart towards the 'out' person.
We draw a line between ourselves and them; define them as being outside the
rules of charity.
We create a gap between ourselves and Love.
As we harden our heart towards more people and groups, this negativity and
feeling of separateness will grow and permeate our world, and we'll find it
more difficult to access love in any aspect of our lives.
Alternatively, and ironically, biblical scholars have noticed that many of
the heroes of the Christian Bible engage in gossip about those who are
portrayed as opponents" in some way.
In Matthew 21-23, Jesus engages in peculiarly vitriolic gossip about the
Pharisees and Scribes:
"Scribes, Pharisees. Hypocrites!"
Another example of gossip by a biblical hero is Paul's attack on Peter in a
letter he wrote to the churches in Galatia (Galatians 2:11-14) where Paul
describes Peter to the Galatians as a fearful hypocrite.
Opponents of biblical heroes gossip, too.
So, in John's gospel, for example, the Judeans gossip among themselves
negatively about Jesus by asking, "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
(John 6:52).
Thus, it should be recognized that although the Bible is, generally
speaking, against Gossip (Proverbs 18:8; Romans 1:29; 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Tim 5:13;
3
John 1:10, et al.), it also describes the social process being utilized
effectively by some of its main characters, including Jesus and Paul.[28]
The New Testament is also in favor of Group Accountability (Ephesians 5:11;
1st Tim 5:20; James 5:16; Gal 6:1-2; 1 Cor 12:26) as this may be
associated with gossip.
In 2012, Amanda Todd committed suicide after a long string of gossiping and
bullying.
"Slut shaming" is a type of gossip when one person's perceived sexual
behaviors go against group social mores.
In Todd's case, the gossip about her continued at all the schools she
attended.
This type of gossip is inherent in girl bullying.
Such attacks can start online, in school or in person.
Gossip and bullying are almost always linked, leading to great emotional
harm to the victim. We know about Todd from a video she put online in social
media telling her story, shortly before she committed suicide.
Still, from Dunbar's "evolutionary" theories, gossip originated to help
bond the groups that were constantly growing in size.
To survive, individuals need alliances; but as these alliances grew larger,
it was difficult if not impossible to physically connect with everyone.
Conversation and language was able to bridge this gap.
Gossip became a social interaction that helped the group gain information
about other individuals without personally speaking to them.
It enabled people to keep up with what was going on in their social
network. It also creates a bond between the teller and the hearer, as they
share
information of mutual interest and spend time together.
It also helps the hearer learn about another individual’s behavior and
helps them have a more effective approach to their relationship. Dunbar (2004)
found that 65% of conversations consist of social topics.[29]
Dunbar argues that gossip is the equivalent of social grooming, as we
said, often observed in other primate species.
Anthropological investigations indicate that gossip is a cross-cultural
phenomenon, providing evidence for evolutionary accounts of gossip.
There is very little evidence to suggest meaningful sex differences in the
proportion of conversational time spent gossiping, and when there is a
difference, women are only very slightly more likely to gossip compared with
men.
Further support for the evolutionary significance of gossip comes from a
recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal, Science that found that
faces paired with negative social information dominate visual consciousness
to a greater extent than positive and neutral social information during a
binocular rivalry task.
Binocular rivalry occurs when two different stimuli are presented to each
eye simultaneously and the two percepts compete for dominance in visual
consciousness.
While this occurs, an individual will consciously perceive one of the
percepts while the other is suppressed. After a time, the other percept will
become dominant and an individual will become aware of the second percept.
Finally, the two percepts will alternate back and forth in terms of visual
awareness.
This study indicates that higher order cognitive processes, like evaluative
information processing, can influence early visual processing.
That only negative social information differentially affected the dominance
of the faces during the task alludes to the unique importance of knowing
information about an individual that should be avoided.
Since the positive social information did not produce greater perceptual
dominance of the matched face indicates that negative information about an
individual may be more salient to our behaviour than positive.
Gossip also gives information about social norms and guidelines for
behavior.
Gossip usually comments on how appropriate a behavior was, and the mere act
of repeating it signifies its importance.
In this sense, gossip is effective regardless of whether it is positive or
negative.
Some theorists have proposed that gossip is actually a pro-social behavior
intended to allow an individual to correct their socially prohibitive
behavior without direct confrontation of the individual. By gossiping about an
individual’s acts, other individuals can subtly indicate that said acts are
inappropriate and allow the individual to correct their behaviour.
Individuals who are perceived to engage in gossiping regularly are seen as
having less social power and being less liked.
The type of gossip being exchanged also affects likeability whereby those
who engage in negative gossip are less liked than those who engage in
positive gossip.
Having a prior relationship with a gossiper is not found to protect the
gossiper from less favorable personality ratings after gossip was exchanged.
Two individuals were brought in to the research lab to participate.
Either the two individuals were friends prior to the study or they were
strangers scheduled to participate at the same time.
One of the individuals was a confederate of the study and they engaged in
gossiping about the research assistant after she left the room.
The gossip exchanged was either positive or negative.
Regardless of gossip type (positive versus negative) or relationship type
(friend versus stranger) the gossipers were rated as less trustworthy after
sharing the gossip.
While gossip and blackmail both involve the disclosure of unflattering
information, the blackmailer is arguably ethically superior to the gossip.
In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the
blackmailer has given the blackmailed a chance to silence him.
The gossip exposes the secret without warning.
The victim of a blackmailer is thus offered choices denied to the subject
of gossip, such as deciding if the exposure of his or her secret is worth
the cost the blackmailer demands.
Moreover, in refusing a blackmailer's offer one is in no worse a position
than with the gossip.
It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by
the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed
with slight contempt and smugness.
But Grice knew that!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
