miriam heddy & stoneself on silence and listening

[cimorene]

miriam_heddy has made a post about silence and listening called Linking to Listen: Some thoughts on listening while white.

How do we know when people are shutting up? Well, we can tell by their silence.

But how do we know that they're listening? Ah, well that second part is trickier.
In person, we can tell someone is listening by their expression and body language, even when they don't say a word.

Online, listening is invisible unless we speak and say, "Thank you" or "I heard that" or "This!"

So we have hit upon a conundrum.

This articulated a lot of the thoughts I've been having as I've seen more and more public and protected posts in the last few days about silence vs speaking out, from several angles. Some posts about this that I am not free to link to publically have really stirred me emotionally; there will always be silence, and silence is not inherently bad, but it's increasingly clear that speaking out in defense of silence can easily get ugly, even unintentionally.

I've seen stoneself quoted a few places now saying

it isn't that silence equals consent. that's a really stupid stance.
silence has an effect.
the inertia of things is in one direction.
silence maintains the course of inertia.

stoneself has here articulated clearly the intent of "silence equals consent" as a slogan. It means that those who are silent appear to be one with the group of all others who are silent - and there is no way to measure who out of that group isn't happy with where we are. Only people who speak out can be identified and heard and counted. An institution, such as racism, is always the status quo; the point of "silence equals consent" to my mind is simply that, to remind us that the status quo is the default, and that trying to change an institution is a big undertaking, and that problematising the institution is an important step that requires many voices. (Thus "Three people spoke out for the way things are, and three people spoke out against them" can easily appear to be "Only three people spoke out against the s.q.", particularly if the reporter is s.q.-positive.)

(Edited slightly to rewrite last paragraph in an attempt to clarify my point.)

Comments

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Which is precisely why they see it as "online quarreling": essentially because they want to. People who have refused to educate themselves have refused to even find out about all the positive steps that have come from this debate, they've just dismissed it in advance as incapable of having any real effect. But educating people, forcing these discussions out into the public eye - those are the unavoidable first steps in any sort of social change.