{"id":1492,"date":"2022-07-25T10:00:45","date_gmt":"2022-07-25T09:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1492"},"modified":"2022-07-13T06:11:54","modified_gmt":"2022-07-13T05:11:54","slug":"thats-not-what-i-didnt-say-some-thoughts-on-silence-and-deniability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/thats-not-what-i-didnt-say-some-thoughts-on-silence-and-deniability\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThat\u2019s not what I didn\u2019t say\u201d. Some thoughts on silence and deniability"},"content":{"rendered":"

In June 2020, there was a long moment of silence<\/a>, when Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was asked a question about his views on US president Donald Trump\u2019s reaction to Black Lives Matter protesters in a press conference: \u201cYou\u2019ve been reluctant to comment on the words and actions of the US president\u201d, the journalist asked, \u201cbut we do have Donald Trump now calling for military action against protesters, we saw protesters tear gassed yesterday to make way for a presidential photo-op. I\u2019d like to ask you what you think about that. And if you don\u2019t want to comment, what message do you think you\u2019re sending?\u201d As a response, Trudeau remains silent for 21 seconds. He then goes on, giving a fairly general answer, not commenting explicitly, and directing the discussion to the Canadian context.<\/p>\n

There is much to say about this exchange and the context it took place in. But for now let\u2019s think about this: Since Trudeau did<\/em> end up giving at least some kind of answer, it is interesting that a lot of the media attention following this encounter focussed on the silence, the 21 seconds of saying nothing: What can we take from this silence? Should<\/em> we take something from it? Was it carefully planned and with a particular purpose?<\/p>\n

Clearly, in this case, people had different ideas about what that particular silence could mean. But one thing that we might be able to agree upon is that it meant and communicated something<\/em>. So, in the following, I want to use this example to think about how such silences tie in with certain features of political discourse. More specifically, I want to think about how these kinds of silences relate to what is often called \u201cplausible deniability\u201d.<\/p>\n

First, let me say a little bit about what kind<\/em> of silence I have in mind here. When I\u2019m talking about conversational silences<\/em>, I understand them as instances where a.) somebody doesn\u2019t say<\/em> anything explicitly<\/em>, i.e., remains literally<\/em> silent[1]<\/a>, and b.) remains silent in order<\/em> to bring something across. Their silence functions as an active conversational contribution<\/em>. Conversational silences don\u2019t just come up in political \u201chigh-stakes\u201d examples but are part of our everyday conversations. E.g., when a friend I had an argument with recently asks \u201cAre you still upset?\u201d, and I remain silent as a response, we might want to say that this silence communicates something as well.<\/p>\n

Just like other contributions, silences can be part of a conversational flow. Sometimes, what they communicate might be unambiguous, and everybody understands it right away. E.g., in the example where I remain silent to my friend\u2019s question, the silent message might be quite clear. While it does depend a bit on context, what people know about each other, and what happened before the exchange and so forth, it\u2019s likely that silence in response to this question will mean something like \u201cYes, I\u2019m still mad at you.\u201d On the other hand, if there have already been several rounds of apologies that have been explicitly accepted, the silence might communicate \u201cPlease stop talking about it, it’s already fine.\u201d The point is: It can<\/em> be clear what a particular instance of remaining silent is supposed to communicate. But other times, this might be a bit trickier to reliably find out. After all, there is nothing explicit<\/em> that we can pin somebody down on. And I think that it is precisely this feature that can make conversational silences particularly appealing in certain political contexts \u2013 specifically when people might have an interest in maintaining plausible deniability.<\/p>\n

If we relate the concept of plausible deniability to conversational exchanges, usually it means that somebody can tell a (somewhat) plausible story about what they meant with a particular statement or utterance, should it be misunderstood or its meaning be called into question. For example, if somebody gets stopped for speeding, and threatened with having their licence revoked, they might say \u201cis there any other way we could settle this?\u201d, possibly implying a bribe \u2013 but a \u00a0deniable <\/em>one. The implications of this question could (maybe) be explained away by insisting that this was merely an inquiry about whether a warning, or a fine, would be an alternative. Of course, one might claim<\/em> to have plausible deniability, and pretend<\/em> that the story they can tell is very plausible, while it actually seems to be a bit of a stretch. This, however, doesn\u2019t mean that people won\u2019t get away with it. Especially if somebody is very insistent about their story, chances are that an audience will give up at some point, and stop insisting that this is surely not what they could have meant. But, what is common in cases of plausible deniability, is that the conversational contribution called into question is already a bit vague or indirect. This can enable<\/em> the denial.<\/p>\n

So, back to silence. If statements that allow for plausible deniability are often somewhat implicit and vague, it seems that silence is an especially attractive kind of contribution to be used in this way. Even though I\u2019d say that conversational silence can, sometimes, be very unambiguous, often it is<\/em> a bit difficult to pin down \u2013 especially if it comes up in moments of possible contention. And the deniability features of silence are useful here because they leave room for interpretational leeway, allow responses to potential criticism and can help people avoid accountability. That is, silence might be used in an exchange in such a way that avoids explicit commitment, but yet leaves room for interpretation of what the silence could<\/em> communicate. The example with Trudeau lends itself well for exploring this \u2013 not because I know for sure that this is what happened here, but because his silence has the potential<\/em> to be used in deniable ways.<\/p>\n

So, somebody very charitably minded might interpret Trudeau\u2019s 21 seconds of silence like this: He is trying to communicate something like \u201cI think what Trump is doing is awful.\u201d Some news reports mentioned that Trudeau\u2019s criticism of Trump in the past has led the US president to cut off important trade relationships, and speculate that Trudeau doesn\u2019t want to risk something like this again (e.g. see here<\/a>). Not saying explicitly what he is thinking about Trump\u2019s actions could be a way of maintaining deniability: if it comes to it, he could claim \u201cI never said anything<\/em>.\u201d But of course, there are different interpretations available. Despite what he says after the silence, Trudeau might be taken to communicate something like \u201cI will not get involved in this discussion\u201d or even \u201cI agree with what Trump is doing\u201d. And of course, there are plenty of criticisms to be raised about either one of these messages. In times of injustice, we need to make our rejection of it explicit<\/em>, especially from a position of privilege. Remaining neutral in such circumstances is precisely part of the problem. But the deniability features of silence might also enable a response in this case: Imagine somebody of influence was to challenge Trudeau on why he isn\u2019t speaking out against Trump. And imagine he is invested in this person thinking he is against Trump\u2019s practices. What his silence allows now is the claim that \u201cWith my silence I wanted to make it very clear that I disagree\u201d \u2013 even if<\/em> he wanted to communicate agreement with, or neutrality towards Trump\u2019s practices at first. But again, on the other hand, if in a different situation somebody was to say to him \u201cYou cannot criticise the president of the United States!\u201d, he could easily claim \u201cBut I didn\u2019t say anything of the sort.\u201d<\/p>\n

In both of these cases, the possibility for a (more or less) plausible denial might be quite calculated and planned. Trudeau might have expected that such a question could come, and thought that \u201cmeaningful\u201d silence might allow various ways of interpretation and responses that could get him a way out of a difficult situation or discussion. But maybe the silence wasn\u2019t calculated at all. Maybe Trudeau really just did not know what to say: He was simply stumped by the question. But even then<\/em>, the deniability features of silence can come in useful. Because even in this case, Trudeau could claim that his silence was supposed to mean this or that \u2013 depending on what conversational partner he is trying to please.<\/p>\n

Similar things can happen in other cases: it doesn\u2019t need to be such a high-stakes situation. The point is \u2013 if deniability is something desirable in a politically charged context, silence can sometimes serve this purpose and help avoid conversational liability<\/em> or accountability<\/em> about the things we do, or don\u2019t, say. Silences that are used in this way can be a political tool that help people to avoid being held to a specific message that could be \u201cpolitically risky\u201d. The more they actually put out there, the more they say<\/em>, the more can be challenged. And this is avoided in at least some cases of conversational silences.<\/p>\n

So, a final question: How could we challenge<\/em> the denial of a silent message? This means: If a person\u2019s denial doesn\u2019t convince us, that is, it seems very implausible we don\u2019t want to go ahead and accept it, how could we react to challenge the interpretation they put forward? Responding to denials can be quite tricky, even when there is<\/em> an explicit statement. If we challenge what somebody communicated with their silence, and they deny the message we understood, the fact that the message was silent gives them even more of a chance to say \u201cThat\u2019s not what I said.\u201d Or rather \u201cThat\u2019s not what I didn\u2019t say.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, we might point the following: Sometimes, it simply doesn\u2019t matter what the intention of their silent message was, especially<\/em> if it ended communicating something harmful, like agreement with the injustice, or indifference to it. If somebody is swearing at a gay couple, or shouting racist abuse at people, a bystanders\u2019 dismissive silence will simply not do it (even if<\/em> dismissive silence can sometimes do interesting work in other contexts). When people remain silent in an immediate context of injustice where they should have spoken up or been explicit in their rejection, we could say that even if<\/em> it were true that the harmful thing wasn\u2019t their intention<\/em> \u2013 they didn\u2019t do enough to make their commitments clear. Or, we just keep insisting<\/em>: \u201cTell me exactly<\/em> how I should have come to this conclusion from your silence\u201d, we might say.<\/p>\n

Both of these things could lead to long discussions, however, and there is a chance that, if somebody just sticks with their denial, at some point people will drop it, even if they are not convinced.<\/p>\n

Conversational silences, of course, aren\u2019t always<\/em> deceitful or problematic. They can be positive, even, e.g. when we remain silent to allow others to speak (\u201cit\u2019s your turn, you should be heard\u201d). Silences are common elements in our conversations, and, just like other conversational elements, they have the potential<\/em> to be sneaky and misleading. And, as I\u2019ve discussed here, I think that using silences to maintain plausible deniability is just one<\/em> way in which this can happen.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> It\u2019s important to qualify that using sign language does not count as a form of conversational silence here. Sign language is a form of speech, even if the person signing does not say any words \u201cout loud\u201d.<\/p>\n

Picture: Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In June 2020, there was a long moment of silence, when Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was asked a question about his views on US president Donald Trump\u2019s reaction to […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1494,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Anna Kleiber (@a_nonamename )'\u201cThat\u2019s not what I didn\u2019t say\u201d. Some thoughts on silence and deniability' on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"custom_author":[350],"class_list":["post-1492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","custom_author-kleiber-anna"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-o4","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":0},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1051,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ii-bodily-threats\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":1},"title":"II: Bodily threats","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"It is the bodily difference between males and females that explains most of the other differences in the roles of men and women in any given society\u2014both in Homeric society and in ours. The social and ceremonial differences in their roles are ritualisations and \u2019containments\u2019 of the difference and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/11\/SGCski54400042_2197279517254787_2521261440451477504_n.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/implicit-bias-in-public-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Implicit Bias\u2019 in public discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The news has been awash with discussion of implicit bias, and the role it seems to have played in the discriminatory treatment of two black men in a Philadelphia branch of Starbucks in the US. Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson were waiting to meet a friend when they were asked\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":284,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-is-closed-mindedness\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":3},"title":"What is Closed-Mindedness?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On March 7 2017, Jason Chaffetz who was then a member of the US House of Representatives (R-Utah) told a CNN anchor: \u201cAmericans have choices\u2026.rather than\u00a0getting that new iPhone\u2026they should invest\u2026in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions for themselves.\u201d[1] Later the same day, in a discussion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1665,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/questions-are-a-form-of-power-and-who-gets-to-ask-them-matters\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":4},"title":"Questions are a form of power (and who gets to ask them matters)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Questions are a form of power. Given how ubiquitous they are in our everyday lives, this truth about questions is easy to miss but not, I think, hard to appreciate. Questions bond us, inform us, and invite us to participate. They direct our attention to one thing and away from\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/03\/White-men-asking-questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/03\/White-men-asking-questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/03\/White-men-asking-questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/03\/White-men-asking-questions.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":426,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/trust-and-trump-investigating-sincerity-and-accuracy-in-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1492,"position":5},"title":"TRUST and Trump: investigating sincerity and accuracy in discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"When exploring discursive untruthfulness, modern American politics is an obvious example. Donald Trump\u2019s presidency has been continuously criticised for his use of falsity, with the aim of promoting his own biased views. However, untruthfulness is irrefutably underpinned by the notion of \u2018lying\u2019, an act that is near impossible to identify:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1492"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1495,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1492\/revisions\/1495"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1492"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}