hi thank you okay so I want to take us
out from the actual world into the ivory
tower maybe it’ll be a little breathing
space but then I want to take us back
out from the ivory tower back into the
real world so I’m gonna talk take the
topic of today’s event very very
seriously I want to talk to you
literally about footnotes but I don’t
want to just stop there
my first thing I want to do is make you
show you help you think that they’re
really actually very interesting but I
don’t want to stop there I want to show
you that footnotes are something they
perform functions in writing that
actually we find being performed all the
time and ordinary speech all over the
place these are things that can be done
for good and also for ill and I want to
show you some techniques for fighting
back for resisting when you think
they’re being used in ways that are bad
okay so first question why use footnotes
right what are footnotes for and the
first thing that comes to mind for most
of us is citation right giving credit
where credit is due is the kind of thing
that summed up in this famous saying if
I have seen further it’s by standing
upon the shoulders of giants just a
little interesting aside this is usually
attributed to Sir Isaac Newton but
actually apparently it was a aphorism
that was in common usage throughout the
17th century and versions of it go back
2,000 years right so we have a case here
of citation which is actually citation
to something that’s kind of common and
so that’s itself interesting so a
citation is a way of handing out credit
right giving credit is where it credit
is due
but it doesn’t just do that footnotes
don’t just do that with with their
citations they also accumulate Authority
they bring authority to the subject to
the author they say hey look at me I
know who decide I know the right people
to pay attention to that means I’m an
authority you should listen to what I
have to say sometimes of course this is
a place where people can get kind of
anxious Law Review articles are famous
for this so the undisputed leader here
is Arthur Jacobs who’s 1987 paper and
analysis of section 16 of Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 contains four
hundred thousand eight hundred
and 24 footnotes so a little bit out of
control once you’ve established that you
are in the cognoscenti right that you
belong that you have the authority to
speak by doing a lot of citation that
then puts you in a position to use that
in interesting kinds of ways right so
one thing that people do is they give a
shout out to somebody who’s not yet in
the intellectual in-crowd but who could
be and deserves to be and also of course
puts you in a position to do less kind
things with footnotes right so you can
snub someone since you know who to be so
being cited here if you haven’t cited
somebody that shows that you don’t think
they’re worth mentioning right not just
that you don’t know about it so this is
one reason that scholars pay such close
attention to footnotes it’s because it’s
actually just a version of the high
school cafeteria who gets to say what so
it’s not just that we’re interested in
you know information okay so citation
one really important thing that happens
in footnotes another thing is
supplementation right so providing
additional information that supports the
main text in certain kinds of ways
sometimes as a matter of giving
definitions sometimes it’s a matter of
providing additional data or evidence
sometimes it’s a matter of providing
just an anecdote maybe something that’s
amusing or amplify something in the main
text so here is an example pea and fir
Bank in his famous biography of
ianforster the officer of Passage to
India and room with a view bunch of
other books the main text says
ianforster took his mother and her
friend Cecilia MA
to Florence in 1903 footnote cilium ah a
friend from Tunbridge days she was an
enormous leap tall woman who published
waltzes and her maiden name is Cecilia
friend her husband Inman struck by
lightning in Australia no real extra
point it’s just cool it’s just
interesting it’s just you know sort of
amusing okay
so sometimes in addition to providing
supplementary information footnotes
provide a kind of commentary or
evaluation that goes beyond what’s in
the main text some kinds this is very
sort of in-your-face right so it’s an
example from philosophy in the main text
that says from bill like and says if my
background epistemology is correct and
then the footnote says it is sometimes
the connection between the footnote and
in texas more subtle so here’s a
footnote from Edward Gibbons decline and
fall of the Roman Empire one of the you
know most famous works of history three
volumes famous for its footnotes and
he’s talking about the term holy war
when something is called a holy war and
how Christians Justin’s applied to
themselves the Crusades and he so he
says then and then he says a footnote
and he says if the reader will turn to
the scene in the first part of Henry the
fourth he will see in the text of
Shakespeare the natural feelings of
enthusiasm and in the notes of dr.
Johnson the workings of a bigoted though
vigorous mind greedy of every pretense
to hate and persecute those who dissent
from his creed if you’re looking at this
looking at the main text looking at the
foot Knight you should be doing what
Shakespeare doctor what’s going on here
right now how does that connect to know
what’s going on here you have to know
that in his own footnotes to Henry the
fourth Samuel Johnson commented that
Christians had a right and indeed an
obligation to wage war upon Muslims
because Muslims were committed by their
own principles to eliminate other
religions so what’s happening here is a
kind of battle of the footnotes right
Gibbon is fighting against something
that’s unstated he’s fighting in an
unstained away against something that
Johnson is saying but without putting it
explicitly so that’s a case where a sort
of many people enjoy Gibbon because I
think it’s really interesting because of
the footnotes and especially because
he’s an ironic commentaries there are
other places where the footnote sort of
takes on a life of its own
becomes the main you know it goes beyond
what’s in the main text here’s the case
from physics so Max Born won the Nobel
Prize in 1954 for it was a large part
for what’s known as the born rule turns
out that born rule was first a prose in
1926 paper but the rule itself occurs in
a footnote right so the main the rule
that’s enunciated in the main text is
inaccurate the footnote says a more
precise consideration shows that the
probabilities this other thing is the
square of the rule proposed in the main
text but he still got the Nobel Prize
right he got the prize for something
appeared in a footnote here’s a similar
kind of case from law so
it’s a United States versus Carolyn
products is a 1938 decision upholding
the right of Congress to regulate
interstate commerce as so long as
there’s some kind of rational basis to
the to the to the regulation and so but
then there’s this footnote footnote 4
when it comes it becomes known as the
famous footnote 4 so there the justices
say well basically Congress gets to
regulate as long as there’s some reason
for it but there might be room for
stricter scrutiny in some cases what
kind of cases cases where a group cannot
actually participate in the political
process themselves to make laws that
would that where they have a voice in
making the laws themselves but they say
there might be room for narrower
protections in some cases and we don’t
have to look at that right now it’s not
necessary for us to inquire about that
right now
right so they note a kind of notation
about something that could be considered
other justices for this and other kinds
of cases frequently say ah but you don’t
come on footnotes are just footnotes
they’re not there marginalia they don’t
really count just quoting a footnote
can’t convert it into law don’t consider
footnotes as an authority but in fact
footnote 4 of Carolyn products became
the basis for a wide range of some of
the most important decisions of the 20th
century including desegregation with
Brown versus Board of Education and
same-sex marriage was over Chevelle vs.
Hodges so here’s a case where the
justices were putting a kind of trial
balloon a kind of speculative extension
in the footnote in case somebody wanted
to take it up later which they
definitely did okay so that was a little
tour through footnotes right I said
there are four kinds of things that
footnotes do it’s interesting and
important things they cite they
supplement the material they evaluate
material and sometimes they speculate or
extend the material and the next thing
the next big point I want to make is
this is not just something that happens
in footnotes this is something happens
all over ordinary discourse right
conversations aren’t just pilings up of
pieces of information of you know lots
of big piles of information they
structure that information in important
ways so some information is right at the
core and some of its more peripheral and
language has ways of manipulating and
indicating that kind of structure so we
find in particular the same kinds of
functions as we saw before displayed in
footnotes now in ordinary speech we have
what are called evidential so these are
cases where there’s a kind of citation
to other people either as a way of
giving credit or as a ways of taking
authority and sometimes the credit is
the the citation is specific as Alex
said and sometimes it’s very vague as in
many people are saying another kind of
way in which language provides
additional information at the margins is
with what’s called a positive so these
are supplemental this provides these are
clauses like parenthetical remarks that
provide supplemental information
sometimes this clarifies the main
inference that mean information the text
and sometimes it’s just sort of
interesting right it’s sort of
interesting aside like we saw with
footnotes sometimes we also have
expressions ways of using language that
serve to evaluate the main information
in the text so if I say you know she’s a
philosophy major and therefore
intelligence right I’m commenting on a
kind of connection between those two
clauses or if I say I’ll take care of it
immediately sir right I’m indicating
something about my social relation to
the speaker or to the hearer or if I say
I’ll take care of for you honey
similarly a different kind of social
relation between me and here now as you
might be noticing in a bunch of these
cases the stuff that’s at the margins is
interesting important appropriate but
sometimes it’s objectionable or
problematic right you might not agree
with me yet there’s an important
connection between being a philosophy
major and being intelligent you might
not not everybody should get to call
everybody honey right sometimes in the
wrong case that can be patronizing or it
can be even a case of harassment so we
have these kind of objectionable
assumptions those objectionable
assumptions can be especially tricky
when there come in not just in ways that
are stated explicitly right so they come
in there unstated so sometimes
particular words do this
like even or managed so even George
could solve the problem George managed
to solve a problem both of those sort of
suggests there’s something surprising
about George solving the problem right
and that’s but that’s not something
that’s actually stated another way this
can come in is by just sort of revealing
a kind of assumption on the speakers
part I love the Muslims they’re great
people
describes Muslims as a group as a whole
just in it’s sort of mode of description
and sometimes the assumption is not
necessarily problematic but it’s
something about the way it’s put into
the conversation right so if I said you
oh sorry I can’t come to dinner this
there’s naked I’m having dinner with my
girlfriend’s family I’m presenting is
already common knowledge that I got a
girlfriend and that you might say whoa
hey wait a minute I didn’t know that
right so it might be that you’re
sneaking into the conversation has
already supposed something that’s
actually new information um
the other way in which unstated
information can kind of get into the
conversation is not by as presenting
something is already assumed but by
inviting here or to draw a conclusion
from what the speaker said so the
classic case here is these are called
insinuation the classic case here is a
letter of recommendation which in states
in its entirety John is always punctual
and his handwriting is excellent now if
you’ve got that as a letter of
recommendation say for a job you know in
the teaching philosophy which is the
example we usually use you’re gonna
conclude that John is not a very good
philosopher is not a good candidate for
the job but that’s not what the letter
says right it’s something that’s snuck
in by implication sometimes people avoid
saying something explicitly because it’s
unpleasant as in that case sometimes
it’s because they’re trying to negotiate
something they’re trying to be polite
right they don’t want to hurt the hero’s
feelings so you might say I’m trying to
ask you for some money but I say this
very indirect way right I know it’s a
lot to ask but you know I was wondering
if you happen to have any extra cash
sometimes a third kind of reason why
people don’t come out and say what they
really would the thing that they’re most
interested in communicating is because
they want to communicate only with a
subset of their audience right so if
somebody says we need more alone or in
the inner cities which are suffering
terribly
might be a code to speak to a certain
part of the audience without speaking
explicitly to a broader range of the
audience and in politics as they’re
called dog whistles so I’ve now surveyed
a range of things that you know we find
in peripheral speech in ordinary
discourse they’re doing the same kind of
thing that we saw in footnotes we had
evident we had a sort of citation we had
supplementation we had evaluation and we
had this sort of sneaky extension more
or less sneaky extension so how can we
what can we say about how these kinds of
speech work in a more general level one
thing is precisely because they’re
marginal they fall outside of direct
response so if I say that’s not true or
I disagree right to even Gorge solve the
problem that challenge is I reject the
claim that Gorge solves the problem
right I leave standing I don’t leave
untouched that assumption that there’s
something surprising about George being
able to do that right so that stays out
of the margins but at the same time if I
don’t find a way to challenge and reject
that assumption then it ends up entering
the conversation and becoming
established as something that’s accepted
in the conversation and that can be used
going forward the last thing is that
because these kinds of things are when
they’re unstated and especially when
they’re sort of mushy involving things
about attitudes and perspectives and
ways of thinking and social relations
and stuff they can be hard to pin down
right they’re not specific commitments
and that gives them this kind of
plausible deniability if you say I don’t
you know I don’t know what you mean I
wasn’t suggesting anything by saying the
Muslims I’m telling you I think Muslims
are great people right so there’s kind
of deniability about them what the
speaker really meant it’s not available
when speech is fully explicit so you
might think if this speech is so sneaky
if it’s so tricky when it would it ever
be legitimate to use marginal speech
right why not just stand up come out and
say what you mean the first thing is
that as we saw there are really
important not all information can be at
the center some things deserve to be at
the margins right and some
really are supplemental or explanatory
and some you have to present the basic
information before you can comment on it
right the other thing is sometimes we
really do have good reason to speak to
multiple audiences and sometimes we
really do have good reason to protect
one or both parties I might not it might
be risky for me to come out and say
explicitly something I’m trying to
communicate or I might be trying to
protect your feelings those all can be
legitimate reasons to avoid speaking
explicitly on the other hand as we’ve
also seen they can be objectionable
right there can be these are ways of
speaking that are right for manipulation
and abuse and so sometimes there really
are going to be objectionable
assumptions things that you disagree
with that are going to enter into the
conversation in these kinds of
peripheral ways the question is when
that happens what should you do about it
and as we’ve seen already the usual
techniques of response aren’t available
to you right you can’t say if you say
that’s not true or I disagree you’re not
going to get at that thing that’s at the
margin which is exactly what’s so
troubling right so here I think three
main options for you the first is to
just derail the conversations stop and
say hey wait a minute what do you mean
even George right what are you
suggesting are you saying there’s a
problem with George the second thing is
to take that unarticulated assumption
and punch back at that reject that
explicitly say something like Muslims
come in all kinds just like other people
right you can’t it doesn’t make sense to
talk about Muslims as a group in this
way the third but sometimes both of
those first two moves are going to be
too aggressive they’re going to be too
in-your-face maybe you don’t have the
social status to do that or maybe you do
need to and want to protect the hearers
feelings so in that case one another
option is to sort of you know use the
very kind of indirection that the
speaker used in response to them right
so instead directly responding to that
objectionable thing sort of come around
at it indirectly so what are the morals
of the story what do I want you to take
away the first thing is you respect the
footnote right actually there’s a lot of
interesting stuff going on down there in
the
the fine print you should pay attention
to it be on the lookout for what’s
happening the second thing is that same
point applies to ordinary speech things
happen at the margins that need to be
paid attention to and the third thing is
it’s not enough to just be an attentive
hearer and reader you need to get in
there in conversation and do something
yourself right so if whatever your
assumptions are if somebody says
something that you find objectionable
don’t just let it slide right if you let
it slide you acquiesce you let it have
authority in the conversation going
forward and it can be built on so you
need it might not you however you under
spawned whether that’s by directly
counterpunching or by indirectly you
know sort of finding some way to
dislodge it you need to take
responsibility for blocking and
resisting those kinds of objectionable
consumptions when they occur in
conversation all right thank you
out from the actual world into the ivory
tower maybe it’ll be a little breathing
space but then I want to take us back
out from the ivory tower back into the
real world so I’m gonna talk take the
topic of today’s event very very
seriously I want to talk to you
literally about footnotes but I don’t
want to just stop there
my first thing I want to do is make you
show you help you think that they’re
really actually very interesting but I
don’t want to stop there I want to show
you that footnotes are something they
perform functions in writing that
actually we find being performed all the
time and ordinary speech all over the
place these are things that can be done
for good and also for ill and I want to
show you some techniques for fighting
back for resisting when you think
they’re being used in ways that are bad
okay so first question why use footnotes
right what are footnotes for and the
first thing that comes to mind for most
of us is citation right giving credit
where credit is due is the kind of thing
that summed up in this famous saying if
I have seen further it’s by standing
upon the shoulders of giants just a
little interesting aside this is usually
attributed to Sir Isaac Newton but
actually apparently it was a aphorism
that was in common usage throughout the
17th century and versions of it go back
2,000 years right so we have a case here
of citation which is actually citation
to something that’s kind of common and
so that’s itself interesting so a
citation is a way of handing out credit
right giving credit is where it credit
is due
but it doesn’t just do that footnotes
don’t just do that with with their
citations they also accumulate Authority
they bring authority to the subject to
the author they say hey look at me I
know who decide I know the right people
to pay attention to that means I’m an
authority you should listen to what I
have to say sometimes of course this is
a place where people can get kind of
anxious Law Review articles are famous
for this so the undisputed leader here
is Arthur Jacobs who’s 1987 paper and
analysis of section 16 of Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 contains four
hundred thousand eight hundred
and 24 footnotes so a little bit out of
control once you’ve established that you
are in the cognoscenti right that you
belong that you have the authority to
speak by doing a lot of citation that
then puts you in a position to use that
in interesting kinds of ways right so
one thing that people do is they give a
shout out to somebody who’s not yet in
the intellectual in-crowd but who could
be and deserves to be and also of course
puts you in a position to do less kind
things with footnotes right so you can
snub someone since you know who to be so
being cited here if you haven’t cited
somebody that shows that you don’t think
they’re worth mentioning right not just
that you don’t know about it so this is
one reason that scholars pay such close
attention to footnotes it’s because it’s
actually just a version of the high
school cafeteria who gets to say what so
it’s not just that we’re interested in
you know information okay so citation
one really important thing that happens
in footnotes another thing is
supplementation right so providing
additional information that supports the
main text in certain kinds of ways
sometimes as a matter of giving
definitions sometimes it’s a matter of
providing additional data or evidence
sometimes it’s a matter of providing
just an anecdote maybe something that’s
amusing or amplify something in the main
text so here is an example pea and fir
Bank in his famous biography of
ianforster the officer of Passage to
India and room with a view bunch of
other books the main text says
ianforster took his mother and her
friend Cecilia MA
to Florence in 1903 footnote cilium ah a
friend from Tunbridge days she was an
enormous leap tall woman who published
waltzes and her maiden name is Cecilia
friend her husband Inman struck by
lightning in Australia no real extra
point it’s just cool it’s just
interesting it’s just you know sort of
amusing okay
so sometimes in addition to providing
supplementary information footnotes
provide a kind of commentary or
evaluation that goes beyond what’s in
the main text some kinds this is very
sort of in-your-face right so it’s an
example from philosophy in the main text
that says from bill like and says if my
background epistemology is correct and
then the footnote says it is sometimes
the connection between the footnote and
in texas more subtle so here’s a
footnote from Edward Gibbons decline and
fall of the Roman Empire one of the you
know most famous works of history three
volumes famous for its footnotes and
he’s talking about the term holy war
when something is called a holy war and
how Christians Justin’s applied to
themselves the Crusades and he so he
says then and then he says a footnote
and he says if the reader will turn to
the scene in the first part of Henry the
fourth he will see in the text of
Shakespeare the natural feelings of
enthusiasm and in the notes of dr.
Johnson the workings of a bigoted though
vigorous mind greedy of every pretense
to hate and persecute those who dissent
from his creed if you’re looking at this
looking at the main text looking at the
foot Knight you should be doing what
Shakespeare doctor what’s going on here
right now how does that connect to know
what’s going on here you have to know
that in his own footnotes to Henry the
fourth Samuel Johnson commented that
Christians had a right and indeed an
obligation to wage war upon Muslims
because Muslims were committed by their
own principles to eliminate other
religions so what’s happening here is a
kind of battle of the footnotes right
Gibbon is fighting against something
that’s unstated he’s fighting in an
unstained away against something that
Johnson is saying but without putting it
explicitly so that’s a case where a sort
of many people enjoy Gibbon because I
think it’s really interesting because of
the footnotes and especially because
he’s an ironic commentaries there are
other places where the footnote sort of
takes on a life of its own
becomes the main you know it goes beyond
what’s in the main text here’s the case
from physics so Max Born won the Nobel
Prize in 1954 for it was a large part
for what’s known as the born rule turns
out that born rule was first a prose in
1926 paper but the rule itself occurs in
a footnote right so the main the rule
that’s enunciated in the main text is
inaccurate the footnote says a more
precise consideration shows that the
probabilities this other thing is the
square of the rule proposed in the main
text but he still got the Nobel Prize
right he got the prize for something
appeared in a footnote here’s a similar
kind of case from law so
it’s a United States versus Carolyn
products is a 1938 decision upholding
the right of Congress to regulate
interstate commerce as so long as
there’s some kind of rational basis to
the to the to the regulation and so but
then there’s this footnote footnote 4
when it comes it becomes known as the
famous footnote 4 so there the justices
say well basically Congress gets to
regulate as long as there’s some reason
for it but there might be room for
stricter scrutiny in some cases what
kind of cases cases where a group cannot
actually participate in the political
process themselves to make laws that
would that where they have a voice in
making the laws themselves but they say
there might be room for narrower
protections in some cases and we don’t
have to look at that right now it’s not
necessary for us to inquire about that
right now
right so they note a kind of notation
about something that could be considered
other justices for this and other kinds
of cases frequently say ah but you don’t
come on footnotes are just footnotes
they’re not there marginalia they don’t
really count just quoting a footnote
can’t convert it into law don’t consider
footnotes as an authority but in fact
footnote 4 of Carolyn products became
the basis for a wide range of some of
the most important decisions of the 20th
century including desegregation with
Brown versus Board of Education and
same-sex marriage was over Chevelle vs.
Hodges so here’s a case where the
justices were putting a kind of trial
balloon a kind of speculative extension
in the footnote in case somebody wanted
to take it up later which they
definitely did okay so that was a little
tour through footnotes right I said
there are four kinds of things that
footnotes do it’s interesting and
important things they cite they
supplement the material they evaluate
material and sometimes they speculate or
extend the material and the next thing
the next big point I want to make is
this is not just something that happens
in footnotes this is something happens
all over ordinary discourse right
conversations aren’t just pilings up of
pieces of information of you know lots
of big piles of information they
structure that information in important
ways so some information is right at the
core and some of its more peripheral and
language has ways of manipulating and
indicating that kind of structure so we
find in particular the same kinds of
functions as we saw before displayed in
footnotes now in ordinary speech we have
what are called evidential so these are
cases where there’s a kind of citation
to other people either as a way of
giving credit or as a ways of taking
authority and sometimes the credit is
the the citation is specific as Alex
said and sometimes it’s very vague as in
many people are saying another kind of
way in which language provides
additional information at the margins is
with what’s called a positive so these
are supplemental this provides these are
clauses like parenthetical remarks that
provide supplemental information
sometimes this clarifies the main
inference that mean information the text
and sometimes it’s just sort of
interesting right it’s sort of
interesting aside like we saw with
footnotes sometimes we also have
expressions ways of using language that
serve to evaluate the main information
in the text so if I say you know she’s a
philosophy major and therefore
intelligence right I’m commenting on a
kind of connection between those two
clauses or if I say I’ll take care of it
immediately sir right I’m indicating
something about my social relation to
the speaker or to the hearer or if I say
I’ll take care of for you honey
similarly a different kind of social
relation between me and here now as you
might be noticing in a bunch of these
cases the stuff that’s at the margins is
interesting important appropriate but
sometimes it’s objectionable or
problematic right you might not agree
with me yet there’s an important
connection between being a philosophy
major and being intelligent you might
not not everybody should get to call
everybody honey right sometimes in the
wrong case that can be patronizing or it
can be even a case of harassment so we
have these kind of objectionable
assumptions those objectionable
assumptions can be especially tricky
when there come in not just in ways that
are stated explicitly right so they come
in there unstated so sometimes
particular words do this
like even or managed so even George
could solve the problem George managed
to solve a problem both of those sort of
suggests there’s something surprising
about George solving the problem right
and that’s but that’s not something
that’s actually stated another way this
can come in is by just sort of revealing
a kind of assumption on the speakers
part I love the Muslims they’re great
people
describes Muslims as a group as a whole
just in it’s sort of mode of description
and sometimes the assumption is not
necessarily problematic but it’s
something about the way it’s put into
the conversation right so if I said you
oh sorry I can’t come to dinner this
there’s naked I’m having dinner with my
girlfriend’s family I’m presenting is
already common knowledge that I got a
girlfriend and that you might say whoa
hey wait a minute I didn’t know that
right so it might be that you’re
sneaking into the conversation has
already supposed something that’s
actually new information um
the other way in which unstated
information can kind of get into the
conversation is not by as presenting
something is already assumed but by
inviting here or to draw a conclusion
from what the speaker said so the
classic case here is these are called
insinuation the classic case here is a
letter of recommendation which in states
in its entirety John is always punctual
and his handwriting is excellent now if
you’ve got that as a letter of
recommendation say for a job you know in
the teaching philosophy which is the
example we usually use you’re gonna
conclude that John is not a very good
philosopher is not a good candidate for
the job but that’s not what the letter
says right it’s something that’s snuck
in by implication sometimes people avoid
saying something explicitly because it’s
unpleasant as in that case sometimes
it’s because they’re trying to negotiate
something they’re trying to be polite
right they don’t want to hurt the hero’s
feelings so you might say I’m trying to
ask you for some money but I say this
very indirect way right I know it’s a
lot to ask but you know I was wondering
if you happen to have any extra cash
sometimes a third kind of reason why
people don’t come out and say what they
really would the thing that they’re most
interested in communicating is because
they want to communicate only with a
subset of their audience right so if
somebody says we need more alone or in
the inner cities which are suffering
terribly
might be a code to speak to a certain
part of the audience without speaking
explicitly to a broader range of the
audience and in politics as they’re
called dog whistles so I’ve now surveyed
a range of things that you know we find
in peripheral speech in ordinary
discourse they’re doing the same kind of
thing that we saw in footnotes we had
evident we had a sort of citation we had
supplementation we had evaluation and we
had this sort of sneaky extension more
or less sneaky extension so how can we
what can we say about how these kinds of
speech work in a more general level one
thing is precisely because they’re
marginal they fall outside of direct
response so if I say that’s not true or
I disagree right to even Gorge solve the
problem that challenge is I reject the
claim that Gorge solves the problem
right I leave standing I don’t leave
untouched that assumption that there’s
something surprising about George being
able to do that right so that stays out
of the margins but at the same time if I
don’t find a way to challenge and reject
that assumption then it ends up entering
the conversation and becoming
established as something that’s accepted
in the conversation and that can be used
going forward the last thing is that
because these kinds of things are when
they’re unstated and especially when
they’re sort of mushy involving things
about attitudes and perspectives and
ways of thinking and social relations
and stuff they can be hard to pin down
right they’re not specific commitments
and that gives them this kind of
plausible deniability if you say I don’t
you know I don’t know what you mean I
wasn’t suggesting anything by saying the
Muslims I’m telling you I think Muslims
are great people right so there’s kind
of deniability about them what the
speaker really meant it’s not available
when speech is fully explicit so you
might think if this speech is so sneaky
if it’s so tricky when it would it ever
be legitimate to use marginal speech
right why not just stand up come out and
say what you mean the first thing is
that as we saw there are really
important not all information can be at
the center some things deserve to be at
the margins right and some
really are supplemental or explanatory
and some you have to present the basic
information before you can comment on it
right the other thing is sometimes we
really do have good reason to speak to
multiple audiences and sometimes we
really do have good reason to protect
one or both parties I might not it might
be risky for me to come out and say
explicitly something I’m trying to
communicate or I might be trying to
protect your feelings those all can be
legitimate reasons to avoid speaking
explicitly on the other hand as we’ve
also seen they can be objectionable
right there can be these are ways of
speaking that are right for manipulation
and abuse and so sometimes there really
are going to be objectionable
assumptions things that you disagree
with that are going to enter into the
conversation in these kinds of
peripheral ways the question is when
that happens what should you do about it
and as we’ve seen already the usual
techniques of response aren’t available
to you right you can’t say if you say
that’s not true or I disagree you’re not
going to get at that thing that’s at the
margin which is exactly what’s so
troubling right so here I think three
main options for you the first is to
just derail the conversations stop and
say hey wait a minute what do you mean
even George right what are you
suggesting are you saying there’s a
problem with George the second thing is
to take that unarticulated assumption
and punch back at that reject that
explicitly say something like Muslims
come in all kinds just like other people
right you can’t it doesn’t make sense to
talk about Muslims as a group in this
way the third but sometimes both of
those first two moves are going to be
too aggressive they’re going to be too
in-your-face maybe you don’t have the
social status to do that or maybe you do
need to and want to protect the hearers
feelings so in that case one another
option is to sort of you know use the
very kind of indirection that the
speaker used in response to them right
so instead directly responding to that
objectionable thing sort of come around
at it indirectly so what are the morals
of the story what do I want you to take
away the first thing is you respect the
footnote right actually there’s a lot of
interesting stuff going on down there in
the
the fine print you should pay attention
to it be on the lookout for what’s
happening the second thing is that same
point applies to ordinary speech things
happen at the margins that need to be
paid attention to and the third thing is
it’s not enough to just be an attentive
hearer and reader you need to get in
there in conversation and do something
yourself right so if whatever your
assumptions are if somebody says
something that you find objectionable
don’t just let it slide right if you let
it slide you acquiesce you let it have
authority in the conversation going
forward and it can be built on so you
need it might not you however you under
spawned whether that’s by directly
counterpunching or by indirectly you
know sort of finding some way to
dislodge it you need to take
responsibility for blocking and
resisting those kinds of objectionable
consumptions when they occur in
conversation all right thank you
Please follow and like us: