There IS a link between silence and politics
There is something to say about silence in politics that goes beyond both the psychoanalytic repression theory -- we’re silent because we’ve pushed the troublesome content out of our consciousness -- and the critical claim that we’re silent because of convenience -- speaking up about injustice might prove too costly for our career. The politics of silence goes beyond simple expedience to something more profound: we hold our tongue because it is our calling.
The critical inflexion of this would amount to something like “for you to hold this post, or achieve this kind of recognition (Bourdieu) you must at least appear to subscribe to our dogma”, and thus repress or stay silent about any objections you might have. A case in point, much discussed in Norway these days, is how successive Foreign Ministers have stayed silent on the imprisonment and possible extradition to the US of Julian Assange. The American legal order has promised to prosecute Assange outside the civilian system -- in Military Courts that practice significant silencing of relevant details -- and within the bounds of a system that practices capital punishment. How come these FMs use such evasive language when Assange’s case comes up? One explanation is that it is not because they simply repress any objections, or that they take a chance on not saying anything so as not to impede their career (although a former FM was elevated to the post of Norway’s Ambassador to Washington just the other day), but that they wouldn’t have been named FM were they likely to speak up on the issue. Their silence is a part of their post, so to speak.
In other words, the situation is worse than the individualising critique implicit in the theories of repression and expedience.
More, and to join our conference on silence and politics: 2024 Ereignis Conference.
Posted 28 Mar, 2024. Modified 7 Mar, 2025.
