The Silencing of In Situ Counterspeech

The ArgLab Open Seminar heartily invites everyone to a talk by Mary Kate McGowan (Wellesley College).

Abstract

There has been considerable discussion recently about the potential harmfulness of ordinary speech. Although it is well recognized that authoritative speakers can do real harm with their words, recent work explores ways that ordinary (that is, non-authoritative) speech can do the same. This paper contributes to this discussion but shifts focus away from characteristics of the speaker and onto the broader social context in which the speaker is speaking. It is here argued that, primarily because of features of the social context, ordinary speech actions can enact harmful norms and thus constitute harm. Elsewhere, I have stressed that some speech harms are difficult to undo; I have also expressed skepticism about the justice and efficacy of in situ counter-speech as the sole remedy for harmful speech. Here, I say more. In situ counter-speech is tricky. And, it’s risky. And, it’s risky in a variety of ways. In particular, I here argue that, precisely because of the role of the norms operative in the broader culture, there is a very real danger that in situ counter-speech will backfire and do the opposite of what the speaker aims to do. Finally, if a speaker is unable to do with their words what that speaker aims to do with their words, then there might be something called silencing, a distinct speech-related harm. The third and final aim of this paper then is to explore ways that various instances of in situ counter-speech might be silenced.

Everybody is welcome!

This seminar series is organised by Pedro Abreu. It gives researchers a platform to discuss work in progress and current problems in philosophy. For administrative inquiries, please contact pedroabreu@fcsh.unl.pt.