Is It Wrong to Remain Silent After Hearing a Slur?

Potentially awkward, but potentially necessary?

Source: StockSnap/Pixabay

Many of us have been in a situation where we hear somebody use a slur when talking about a member of a minority group. Such a slur can take many forms, such as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or transphobic, but it is generally agreed that all such slurs are harmful, whether or not they are heard by a member of the targeted group.

Assuming we disagree with the slur and the sentiment behind it, what should we do after hearing one—specifically in the context of a conversation? Must we object, which can be very uncomfortable depending on the setting, or even gesture in a way that signals disagreement, such as shaking our head or rolling our eyes? Or is it enough to say nothing, refusing to assent to the offensive statement (while not directly refuting it)?

In a new paper in the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, philosopher A.G. Holdier argues that, if we remain silent, not only are we complicit in the harm done to the targeted group, but we are directly doing harm (albeit less than the person who said the slur) by performing what he calls a “slurring silence.”¹

The Sound of Silence

Silence can be very suggestive. Just think of being in a romantic relationship and asking your partner if you look good in what you’re wearing—or saying “I love you” for the first time—only to receive nothing back in return. The reason that silence is so meaningful in these situations is that a verbal response is expected, so the silence that fills the gap ends up taking on a life of its own.

If you hear someone make an offensive slur, remaining silent may be taken to signal that you’re in agreement with the sentiment expressed. Of course, this depends on the context of the situation: if you’re one member of a large group, all of whom hear the slur and remain silent, it may not be reasonable to conclude that everyone in attendance agreed with it. However, they could easily shake their heads or roll their eyes, which is not “silent” in the sense that it is a response, even if a nonverbal one, so their refusal to do even that must be suggestive of their feeling toward the slur.

If you’re in a direct conversation with the person uttering the slur, though, the normal back-and-forth flow of the conversation may demand some sort of response—and like the hurt romantic partner above, giving no response to an offensive slur when one is expected, especially given its controversial nature, may send the message that you agree with the slur.

The Slurring Perspective

Even if no one from the targeted group hears the slur, by remaining silent in response you have confirmed the beliefs of the person who made it, which philosopher Elisabeth Camp has called the “slurring perspective.” To Camp, the slurring perspective indicates that the person using it believes the targeted group is of lower social status and unworthy of the respect and consideration enjoyed by the members of the speaker’s own group.²

While the slur itself is most directly harmful when heard by a member of the targeted group, the slurring perspective is harmful itself in a more pernicious way. It motivates not only using slurs, in private and public, but also can encourage physical violence against targeted groups, as well as political movements to limit their rights or otherwise exclude them from civil society. This position is similar to what philosopher Jennifer Lackey calls the “duty to object” to false or offensive statements, not only to prevent harm to vulnerable persons but also to keep such ideas from the popular conversation and stop them from spreading.³

Slurring Silences

By staying silent after hearing a slur, especially in a social setting when there is an expectation of a response, you engage in what Holdier calls a slurring silence, which “signals allegiance to a slurring perspective.” Even though you didn’t agree with the slur out loud (or even nod in agreement), your silence, especially in response to a provocative statement, can speak volumes: it not only assures the speaker that you share their beliefs, but also tells anyone else listening that you share them as well.

Ethics and Morality Essential Reads

Historical Abuses and Community-Based Participatory Research

A Nazi-Era Crisis of Conscience

Whereas many philosophers maintain that silence in response to slurs harms the targeted group indirectly, Holdier goes further in arguing that it directly harms the targeted group by affirming the slurring perspective in the conversation itself—entering your agreement in the record, so to speak, even if it’s not true, and helping the offensive beliefs to spread.

Next time you’re with someone who makes a racist comment, a sexist joke, or any other slur against a maligned community, say or do something. It may be uncomfortable, and it may even be scary, but consider what the other person thinks about you if you don’t—and what your silent assent says (and does) to the people they’re demeaning.