(In)civility (In)validation Bullying.pdf
Transcript
Blended Learning Session 1: (In)Civility, (In)validation, and Bullying. Dr Jamie McKeown [email protected] Outcomes Understand other socio-interactional phenomena that are highly relevant to the analysis of specialised texts (especially in professional & organizational contexts)....
Blended Learning Session 1: (In)Civility, (In)validation, and Bullying. Dr Jamie McKeown [email protected] Outcomes Understand other socio-interactional phenomena that are highly relevant to the analysis of specialised texts (especially in professional & organizational contexts). Specificfocus: (in)civility; (in)validation; bullying. (im)politeness (im)politeness as a field is too broad. (in)civility (in)civility ‘may not ring many bells with linguists’ (Culpeper, 2018: 809)* (in)civility and (im)politeness should be disambiguated (McKeown and Ladegaard, 2020). Latin root of politeness is ‘to smooth/polish’. Latin root of civility is ‘the populus/community’. (in)civility vs (im)politeness >Some researchers treat the two as synonymous (Herbst, 2010; Lane, 2017). McKeown and Ladegaard (2020) ‘We construe questions of (im)politeness as concerned with threats to, and maintenance of, social harmony; we construe (in)civility as concerned with threats to, and maintenance of, the ongoing, open, exchange of ideas’ (in)civility vs (im)politeness >Underlying theoretic assumption of (in)civility research is that we have certain interactional entitlements through virtue of participating in a community. >Not talking about political or legal rights; but basic interactional rights. >Gen Z –willing to be silent like past generations? (in)civility (in)civility provides a critique of politeness as a social practice. Politeness is a mere social technique. Politeness is concerned with superficial manners and the perfection of complex etiquette (Hudson, 2021). (in)civility Politeness can perpetuate disadvantage through the enforcement of social barriers (one ‘enters polite society’). In a social contexts it encourages ‘one to know one’s place’ (e.g., who gets to speak in the staff meeting?). Can be oppressive in that people even change their speech/behavior so as to appear more polite (think, Speech Accommodation Theory). (in)civility Politeness kills* (or being silenced)! Politeness norms contributing to airplane crashes (Enomoto & Geisler, 2017) Real life crime stories (e.g., I didn’t want to appear impolite). The complicating factor of many stories is often caused by an exploitation of the silencing effect of politeness norms. (in)civility Politeness norms can stifle open, authentic communication and thus silence valuable contributions. In an institutional context, politeness can be costly. (in)civility How are people supported; how are they closed down? Civility is a disposition -how we view the world and others in it (Hudson, 2021). Civility views people as worthy of respect just by virtue of their humanity (not a calculation of social distance etc). The study of (in)civility examines ‘the discursive conditions in which the necessary space for all interlocutors to speak and be heard is granted or denied’ (McKeown & Ladegaard, 2020: 1) Discursive Characteristics of (in)civility Civility Incivility Civility involves a willingness to Incivility essentially lies in listen (Meltzer & Hoover, 2014). conversationally shutting another down (Kenski et al, 2018). Individuals listen to understand not simply respond (Adler, 1997). Some incivil behaviours may also be: Participants can change their minds Ad hominem argumentation, (Webb, 2012) lying accusations (Kenski, 2018) Alternative views are not silenced personally targeted vulgarity (Coe et or derogated (Jamieson et al, al, 2014) 2017). Enough decorum is given so as to allow the conversation to continue (Kingwell, 1995) Closing people down Supporting other contributions Characteristics of incivility Behavior that is regarded as (im)polite may not be (in)civil (Papacharissi, 2004). Oz et al (2018): impassioned conversation often involves the co-occurrence of conversational impoliteness markers (e.g., swearing) with civil forms of communication (e.g., deliberative argumentation). Characteristics of incivility McKeown and Ladegaard (2020) qualitatively map out five realisations of (in)civility. Intolerant response. Ideological entrenchment. Low oppositional literacy. The need to win. Change of opinion condemnation. Characteristics of incivility Low oppositional literacy. Oppositional literacy refers to the ability of interlocutors to fairly engage with and represent the arguments of opponents (Hart, 2018). Common speak: not twisting someone’s words. Characteristics of incivility CN: Let me put something else to you from the book (.) you say the introduction of the equal pay for equal work Using prefacing argument immediately complicates even salary comparison inference to beyond [practicality ] for one simple reason who decides= narrowly JP: [Um hmm ] circumscribe the CN: =what work is equal (.) it’s not possible (.) so the simple answer question is (.) do you believe in equal pay? JP: (2) well I made the argument there it’s like it depends on who [defines it ] CN: [//So you don’t] believe in equal pay Uses an intersubjective JP: (laughs) No I’m not saying that at all mental state predicate to make an inferential leap So what you’re saying is meme… Characteristics of incivility Change of opinion condemnation. Again, excessive persuasion is not the goal of civil discourse, but… Civility ensures participants are granted the space to change their opinion (Webb, 2012). Characteristics of incivility Context: CN AND JP are disscussing a controversy in which JP was embroiled concerning freedom of speech and the right of trans-people to assert the use of preferred pronouns CN: a trans-person in your class has come to your class and said they want to be [called she ] JP: [//that’s never happened] Implicit and I would call them she condemnation of CN: So you would (.) so you’ve kind of changed your change of position tune [on that ] and lying JP: [//no (x2) accusation. Characteristics of incivility The possibility of a meeting of minds is severely reduced in a discourse environment where a change of opinion is treated as contemptible. People have the right to be wrong; and, the right to change their mind accordingly. (in)civility >Key question: >What are the prevailing discursive acts that (a) grant someone the right to speak and be heard or (b) deny those rights. Exercise > See ‘Oral Argument exchange’ on Canvas. > What incivil behaviours do you observe? > If you have time: > Discuss the role of judicial temperament and how it can impact the dynamics of a courtroom. What are the pros and cons of the Justice's approach? > Rewrite the problematic aspects of the transcript with more constructive and collaborative dialogue between the two parties. How could they have had a more productive exchange? Invalidation (im)politeness and (in)civility as concepts do not necessarily cover the intentional injury or boosting of another’s feelings, i.e., invalidation. Intentional invalidation. Invalidation have can profound impact on individual and a group culture. Invalidation Invalidation may contribute to the presence of such psychological symptoms as low self-esteem, mental anguish, and general unhappiness (Carter, 2003). Indeed, unexplained feelings of sadness, unease, depression, lack of confidence, may indicate the presence of invalidation/invalidator. Invalidation Whilst some acts of invalidation are obvious (overt), most acts of are often subtle in nature (covert). Strategies of invalidation Creating uncertainty Projection Unwarranted Judgement Generalisations Strategies of invalidation Creating uncertainty. Keeping others in a constant state of uncertainty, e.g., request for information answered with a vague, uncommitted answer. Supplying crucial information at the last minute. Not keeping relevant parties privy to processes of communication (i.e., not copying people into email). Strategies of invalidation Explain the following scenario in terms of invalidation (i.e., who is the invalidator? Why?) Has anyone had a similar experience? Discussion exercise: Willy is a research student in the department of Engineering. As part of his obligation to the department, he needs to teach a course to MA students on Civil Engineering Ethics. Milly, a Research Assistant Professor, in the department, has taught the course for several years. Milly inherited all of the course materials from another teacher. Willy was told, by the administrative staff, that Milly would share the materials with him. Every time Willy emails Milly a question concerning the course, Milly responds with ‘it’s in the course materials’. Every time Willy asks Milly to share the teaching materials, Milly promises but does not deliver the materials. On the occasions where Willy has pushed for the teaching materials, Milly has sent them to Willy one hour before the lectures. Strategies of invalidation Projection. ‘comments on the other are often comments on aspects of the Self’ (Jungian maxim). Placing responsibility for emotions on another. E.g., ‘I don’t think you like me as a boss’ (recipient is immediately put into a state of inquiry as to their culpability). Strategies of invalidation Judgement. Inescapable reality of professional/organisational contexts involve feedback and evaluation. Sometimes such feedback is negative. However, there are conditions that render a judgement suspect. Strategies of invalidation The judgement was not required by the situation; The judgement could be seen as inappropriate for the nature of the relationship between the interlocutors; The communicator assumes the power to project negative attributes onto the recipient. Strategies of invalidation >Generalisation. >Exaggeration of a small/one event into a larger truth. >Often targets the victim’s self-esteem as opposed to the problem. Strategies of invalidation Context: Mary and Tammy are in a taxi on their way to an important meeting. Mary: Terry called he hasn’t printed the reference page? Tammy: What page is that? Mary: the last page, the last page of the handout, has he printed it? Tammy: no Mary: cant rely on him for anything, he is so dumb and irresponsible, sorry but not sorry, he is irresponsible Strategies of invalidation Mary: cant rely on him for anything, he is so dumb and irresponsible, sorry but not sorry, he is irresponsible Negative evaluative lexis (and repetition) Sorry but not Intensifiers sorry… Inverted phatic sorry? Mary takes a small mistake and turns it into an invalidating generalisation about Terry’s intelligence. Is there any relationship between Terry’s intelligence and printing the document? Strategies of invalidation Example Invalidation (Yes/No, why?) Doctor to patient: ‘you’re overweight and far too unhealthy’…(made during consultation) Colleague to colleague: ‘you’re not at all sexually attractive’ (spontaneous comment in corridor)… Boss to subordinate: ‘letters to the editor do not count as research articles –your output is just not competitive’ (made during an appraisal exercise)… Boss to subordinate: ‘you’re just not competitive enough to be an AP’ (spontaneous comment in corridor) Teacher to student: ‘your work is lacking in substance, I doubt you’ll go far in life’ (expressed as part of assessment feedback)… Workplace Bullying When behavior like incivility, invalidation, or microagressions are repeated a threshold may be crossed. Definition: repeated and unwelcome behaviour that poses a risk to a worker’s health or wellbeing (Tuckey, 2014). Unlike categories of harassment and micro-aggressions, anyone can be subject to bullying practices. Workplace Bullying Bullying is not just violence and intimidation. It can include psychological harassment such as excluding/isolating, assigning meaningless work, undermining performance, character assassination. Often perpetrated through communication. Types of bullies The Four Workplace Bully Types – YouTube Play from 1:03 Write down one thing that catches your attention. Types of bullies Screaming Mimi Constant Critic The Two-Headed Snake Gatekeeper Workplace Bullying Bullying undermines an individual’s basic psychological needs (e.g., security, belonging) It has long terms deleterious effects, such as long-term physical and mental health problems, work performance, and self-esteem (Park & Masakatsu, 2017). It also impacts bystanders (apprehension fear). Workplace Bullying Bullying can be ambiguous: targets are often competent, skilled and successful (Etienne, 2014). Retaliating targets may themselves become involved in bullying activities. It can be multi-directional. Workplace Bullying Downwards: Boss to subordinate (e.g., Boss refuses co- publication). Sideways: peer-to-peer (e.g., threatens co-worker). Upwards: Subordinate to boss (e.g., shares personal details in public). Discussion exercise Gigi, an Assistant Professor, has complained about Simone (a postdoc of a colleague). Simone has been telling other colleagues that Gigi is unvaccinated. Simone has also been telling colleagues that ‘students say Gigi has a terrible temper’. On a WeChat group, Simone has also claimed (without proof) that Gigi doesn’t have the correct ethics approval for her latest project but says to colleagues ‘Princess Gigi is allowed because she’s special’. Teddy, the acting Associate Head, frequently refuses Jenny (AP) admission to a prestigious department committee. Recently he appointed another faculty member, with significantly less experience than Jenny, to the desired post. In meetings, when Jenny speaks, Teddy coughs over Jenny’s voice and/or rolls his eyes. Recently, a student appealed a grade given by Jenny. A parity marker upheld Jenny’s grade. The student protested. Teddy ordered a second appeal and an investigation into Jenny’s grading practice. Twice this year, Teddy has spontaneously forced Jenny to report her research output ‘including everything under review and in preparation’. Jenny has complained to the head of the department about this treatment. The head said ‘you can always leave Jenny’. Workplace Bullying Tuckey (2014) claims bullying is an organizational hazard. She identifies three risk organisational factors that enable bullying Fertile soil; trigger event; motivation. Workplace Bullying Fertile Soil (for bullying to fester): Power imbalances (causing a culture of entitlement) Perceived cost of (being caught) bullying General dissatisfaction/frustration Pressure in the system Workplace Bullying Fertile Soil (risk factors in academia): Centralized command and control structures; grant funding; lab access Often ambiguous/no policy on bullying Overworked, highly stressed workforce Fierce competition, ego driven Workplace Bullying Triggering events (to initiate bullying): Downsizing Promotions Geopolitical events Workplace Bullying Triggering events (to initiate bullying): Declining humanities? Constant competition for promotion, external/internal funding, prestigious work. Workplace Bullying Motivation >Winning in a zero-sum situation >Bending the rules >Psychological redress Workplace Bullying Tuckey (2014) claims academia has high risk factors for bullying. Should academia come with a warning? References Scollon, S., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Kenski, K. Filer, C.R. Conway Silva, B..2018. Lying, Liars, and Lies: Incivility in 2016 Presidential Candidate and Campaign Tweets During the Invisible Primary. American Behavioral Scientist 62 (3), 286-299. McKeown, J. Ladegaard, H.J. 2020. Exploring the metadiscursive realization of incivility in TV news discourse. Discourse, Context & Media 33, 1-9. McKeown, J., Zhang, K., 2015. Socio-Pragmatic Influence on Opening Salutation and Closing Valediction of British Workplace Email. Journal of Pragmatics 85, 92-107. McKeown, J. Li, L. 2021. Opening salutation and closing valediction as a product of socio-pragmatic factors in the workplace email of a group of Chinese professionals. Studies in Business English 6 (3), 3-27. Meltzer, K. Hoover, J.D. 2014. Civility in News Discourse: The case of PBS’ Books and Shields. Electronic News 8 (3), 216-235. Oz M, Zheng P, Chen GM (2018) Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society 20 (9): 3400-3419. Papacharissi Z (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6: 259-283. Pierce, C. 1974. Psychiatric problems of the Black minority. In S. Arieti (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books. Park, J.H. Masakatsu, O. 2017. Effects of workplace bullying on engagement and health: the mediating role of job insecurity. International Journal of Human Resource Management 28 (22), 3202-3225. Rini, R. 2020. The Ethics of Microaggression. Routledge. Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. (2000) Rapport management: A framework for analusis. In Helen D. M. Spencer-Oatey (ed) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures. London and New York: Continuum. References Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5): 529-545. Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. (2005). (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and intrrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behviour, Culture 1(1): 95-119. Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. (2008). Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (2ne edn). London and New York: Continuum. Spencer-Oatey, H.D.M. (2011). Conceptualising ‘the relational’ in pragmatics, insights from metapragmatic emotion and (im)politeness comments. Journal of pragmatics, 43: 3565-3578. Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W.P. Robinson (eds), Hand-book of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley. Tuckey, M. 2014. A Methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 87 (2), 225-257. Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webb, D. 2012. The Original Meaning of Civility. South Carolina Law Review 63, 189-219. References Adler, M. 1997. How to Speak; How to Listen. New York; Touchstone. Carter, J. 2003. Nasty People. New York: Contemporary Books. Coe K, Kenski K, Wang D (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication 64: 658-679. Culpeper, J. 2018. Book review: Understanding Everyday Incivility: why are they so rude? Discourse Studies 20 (6), 809-811. Enomoto, C.E. Geisler, K. 2017. Culture and Plane Crashes: A Cross-Country Test of the Gladwell Thesis. Interdisciplinary Approach to Economics and Sociology 10 (3), 281-293. Etienne, E. 2014. Exploring Workplace Bullying in Nursing. Workplace Health & Safety 62 (1), 6-11. Herbst S (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hudson, A. 2021. Against Politeness: why politeness failed America and how we can fix it. St Martin’s Press. Lane S (2017) Understanding Everyday Incivility: Why Are They So Rude? London: Rowman & Littlefield. Jamieson, K.H., Volinsky, A., Weitz, I., Kenski, K., 2017. The political uses and abuses of civility and incivility. In: Kenski, K., Jamieson, J.H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 205–217. Kingwell, M. 1995. A Civil Toungue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism. Pennsylvania University Press.
