Abstract
To regard gossip as “idle chatter” is to underestimate its usefulness. Why do people gossip? In the larger scheme of things, why has gossip survived throughout the centuries in every known society under the most hostile conditions, regardless of the local laws and customs designed to obliterate it?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
As in other forms of communication, there are certain unwritten, informal rules for the expression of gossip that are shared by the members of society. For one thing, gossiping involves an informal agreement among participants— whether friends, neighbors, co-workers, or the like—to exchange information and opinions about people, even if those people happen to be absent. For a conversation to proceed, the situation itself must be defined as congenial for gossiping. This means that those present must get to know one another well enough to realize that gossiping will be tolerated if not approved. They must also establish that the names of the people brought up in the conversation are recognizable to one another. Questions like “Do you know John’s roommate?” must be asked before further information is shared (for example, “Did you hear that John’s roommate is quitting school?”) or before opinions are solicited about targets (for example, “What do you think of John’s mother?”). Most people would agree that the validity of gossip does not have to be justified; indeed, to challenge the authenticity of gossip is usually prohibited. Instead, those who hear gossip may ask the gossipmonger to indicate the source of his or her message: “How did you know? Who told you?” This rule concerning gossip may produce a gossip backlash: the possibility always exists for the target of gossip to find out that others are talking behind her back and even to learn the names of those who are spreading the dirt. One result may be for a target to ask for an apology, especially when the message is without fact, or even to threaten a lawsuit for defamation. Rather than condoning gossip, certain people in certain situations see it as “not the thing to do.” If someone were to gossip under such conditions, he or she might be made to feel awkward by a lack of response from others or by being admonished not to continue. In extreme cases, gossip might be seen as so incorrect as to be considered a form of stigmatized speech that “spoils” the definition of the situation and inhibits further conversation. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, etiquette books have attempted to formalize the rules and regulations for gossiping in order to control and limit it. In the 1929 edition of Good Manners (New York: L. M. Garrity, p. 31), for example, the author claimed that people may be seen as having poor “talking manners” if they are seen as “gossipy.” Gossiping was lumped, in this advice book, with telling off-color stories, saying things that hurt people’s feelings, or chattering so incessently that no one else can get a word in edgewise. Another popular etiquette manual, in its discussion of proper conversation, listed gossip, along with age, money, politics, and religion, as “dangerous topics.” “Certain subjects,” warned the author, “have rightly earned the label ‘dangerous’ because it takes luck as well as diplomacy to deal with them deftly enough to avoid their inherent hazards.” Also according to this author, it is easy for listeners to confuse “genuine interest in other people and their problems with gossip for its own sake.” A gossip who “blabs” everything he or she knows will be thought of as egocentric: “He is playing a subtle, dual game—showing himself superior to his audience by having a juicy piece of inside information, and superior to the subject of the gossip as well, if the item has an edge of malice.” To deflate a gossipmonger, one should challenge the authenticity of the talk by asking, “How do you know?” Finally, the author alerted the reader not to trust the gossiper with any confidences (Llewellyn Miller, The Encyclopedia of Etiquette [New York: Crown, 1967], 23). Eleanor Roosevelt’s Book of Common Sense Etiquette (New York: Macmillan, 1962, 153) has a different concern about gossip. In her discussion of the “Do’s and don’ts of the suburban or village dweller,” she noted that chatting over the back fence can be a fine and satisfying occupation—as long as it is kept within bounds. The gossip can easily become a bore, and people with manners realize that much of what they say is uninteresting to others. Roosevelt wrote, “Do not keep your neighbor, who has perhaps come out to hang the clothes or to do some little chore about the place, standing for half an hour listening to your sad tale of how unfairly the teacher graded one of your children, or how inconsiderate your husband is, or how your infected sinuses are torturing you. She has other things which she would rather be doing, yet if she is a courteous human being, she will find it difficult to walk away while your chatter is going full tilt.” Esquire’s Guide to Modern Etiquette (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1969, 87–89) covers special gossiping rules for men. It is acknowledged that when women gossip, they are forgiven if not seen as lovable. But when a man gossips, “he throws suspicion on his manhood as well as on his manners.” One who does not want to be known as an “old woman” never volunteers information about other people and is always noncommittal when answering questions about them. Several negative advantages result: “No one will ever misquote you, if you haven’t said anything to quote. No one will ever wonder if perhaps you are betraying a confidence, or put you down as someone it’s best not to confide in. No one will put your little scrap of news to his wider knowledge of the principals to reach a conclusion you hadn’t anticipated. No one will use you as a catalyst in a situation outside your control. And no one (including yourself) will have reason to fear your innocent running-off-at-the-mouth.” Esquire’s Guide also indicates positive advantages to refraining from gossiping: “If you speak no evil, pretty soon you’ll hear no evil; with no tales to carry, you’ll be spared the temptation to gossip. For in this realm, ignorance is bliss.” The question of talk becomes subtler, according to Esquire’s Guide, when one is on the receiving end of gossip. This manual contends that “ideally, you should not even listen to malicious remarks—silence is a form of assent—but practically, you have to decide when a good defense of your absent friend is going to be a bad offense to your gossiping friend.” There is, however, one rule that is unbreakable in Esquire’s book: “Under no circumstances can you talk about a woman.”
John Beard Haviland, Gossip, Reputation, and Knowledge in Zinacantan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).
Ralph Rosnow and Gary Fine, “Inside Rumors,” Human Behavior (1974): 64–68.
Lewis H. Lapham, Liz Smith, Barbara Howar, William F. Buckley, Jr., John Gross, Mark Crispin Miller, and Robert Darnton, “Gossiping About Gossip,” Harper’s 272 (1986): 46.
Gossip about Hitler’s life was taken from Robert G. L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolph Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 1977).
Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke, “An Exploratory Analysis of Sex Differences in Gossip,” Sex Roles 12 (1985): 281–286.
Tomatsu Shibutani, Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).
John M. Roberts, “The Self-Management of Cultures.” In Explorations of Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Mur dock, ed. by Ward H. Goodenough (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).
Bruce A. Cox, “What Is Hopi Gossip about? Information Management and Hopi Factions,” Man 5 (1970): 88–98.
Jan W. Kelly, “Storytelling in High-Tech Organizations: A Medium for Sharing Culture,” journal of Applied Communication Research 13 (1985): 45–58.
Max Gluckman,“Gossip and Scandal,” Current Anthropology 4 (1963): 307–316.
Sally Engle Merry, “Rethinking Gossip and Scandal.” In Toward a General Theory of Social Control, ed. by Donald Black (Orlando: Academic Press, 1984), 277.
Fredrick Koenig, The Tulanian (New Orleans: Tulane University, 1984), 27.
Josephine Lowman, “Some Gossip Actually Could Be Good for You,” Champagne-Urbana News Gazette (June 1983): 4.
Fredrick Koenig, Rumor in the Marketplace: The Social Psychology of Commercial Hearsay (Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1985).
Gossip about Aristotle Onassis and Jackie Kennedy was obtained from Fred Sparks, The $20,000,000 Honeymoon (New York: Bernard Geis, 1970).
Gossip about Howard Hughes was taken from James Phe-lan, Howard Hughes: The Hidden Years (New York: Random House, 1976).
Gossip about Elvis Presley was taken from Albert Goldman, Elvis (New York: Avon, 1981).
Earl Wilson, Sinatra (New York: Signet, 1977).
Jerry M. Suis, “Gossip as Social Comparison,” Journal of Communication 27 (1977): 164–168.
Gossip about J. Paul Getty was obtained from Robina Lund, The Getty I Knew (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews & McMeel, 1977).
Elliot Aronson, Ben Willerman, and Joanne Floyd, “The Effect of a Pratfall on Increasing Interpersonal Attractiveness,” Psychonomic Science 4 (1966): 227–228.
Charles Higham, Bette (New York: Dell, 1981).
Rosemary Clooney with Raymond Strait, This for Remembrance: The Autobiography of Rosemary Clooney (Chicago: Playboy Press Book, 1977).
Christina Crawford, Mommie Dearest (New York: Berkley Books, 1978).
Bill Adler, Elizabeth Taylor: Triumphs and Tragedies (New York: Ace Books, 1982).
Gossip about Marilyn Monroe was taken from Lena Pepitone and William Stadiem, Marilyn Monroe: Confidential (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979).
Jack D. Douglas, Deviance and Respectability (New York: Basic Books, 1970).
Linden L. Nelson and Spencer Kagan, “Competition: The Star-Spangled Scramble,” Psychology Today (1972): 53–56, 90–91.
Goldman.
H. Roy Kaplan, Lottery Winners: How They Won and How Winning Changed Their Lives (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1978).
Gossip about Elizabeth Taylor was taken from Bill Adler.
David Niven, Bring on the Empty Horses (New York: Dell, 1975).
George Gerbner and Larry Gross, “The Scary World of TV’s Heavy Viewer,” Psychology Today (April 1976): 41–45;
Nancy Buerkel-Rothfuss, “Soap Opera Viewing,” Journal of Communication (Summer 1981): 108–116.
Muriel Cantor and Susanne Pingree, The Soap Opera (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983).
Gary A. Fine, “Social Components of Children’s Gossip,” Journal of Communication 27 (1977): 181–185.
Merry.
Gluckman.
Lapham, Smith, Howar, Buckley, Jr., Gross, Miller, and Darnton, 44.
Gordon Allport and Leo Postman, The Psychology of Rumor (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1947).
Koenig, Rumor in the Marketplace: The Social Psychology of Commercial Hearsay.
H. I. Buckner, “A Theory of Rumor Transmission,” Public Opinion Quarterly 29 (1965): 54–70.
Edgar Morin, Rumour in Orleans (New York: Random House, 1971).
Rather than beginning with innocent fantasies, gossip can originate in a deliberate scheme to discredit the members of a particular group. This is precisely what occurred in the aftermath of the brutal murder of the New Orleans police chief in 1890. Chief David Hennessey was cut down by five men who opened fire with shotguns and pistols. By the next morning, millions of people throughout the nation read in their newspapers that the prominent police chief had been shot down by the “Mafia,” based only on the word of a captain in the New Orleans Police Department, who claimed that his dying friend had whispered that his assailants were “dagos.” This charge fed directly into a widespread fear among local residents about the Mafia in New Orleans. Without a shred of evidence, the mayor made public a list of “ninety-four Mafia murders” in New Orleans. He forgot to mention that these murders had taken place over a twenty-five year period and that the list had been compiled by including every homicide in the city with an Italian-sounding name. He also failed to indicate that ninety-one of the murders were still unsolved. Indeed, the mayor’s assumption that the killers were Italian and Mafiosi was strictly speculation. The events which followed the murder of Chief Hennessey were carefully orchestrated by forces in local politics and business who resented and despised the Italians’ growing economic and political power. Plantation owners were alarmed that these Italians, who had originally worked the sugar fields for slave wages, were suddenly buying up cheap land. Moreover, Sicilian fishermen and peddlers, shortly off the boat from the old country, were seen by the business leaders of New Orleans as monopolizing the fruit, oyster, and fish industries of the city. After the murder of Hennessey, nineteen Italians were arrested. The trial of the first nine defendants ended in a mistrial for three men and a verdict of “not guilty” for the other six. Even before the second round of trials could begin, an angry mob took matters into its own hands. The ensuing riot was anything but spontaneous. The morning after the jury’s verdict was given to the court, local newspapers carried an advertisement inviting the citizens of New Orleans to attend a mass meeting “to remedy the failure of justice in the Hennessey case.” Among the sponsors of the ad and leaders of the meeting were wealthy landowners, political leaders, and a political boss with a long history of violence. These were the men who led some twelve thousand New Orleanians to storm Parish Prison, where the defendants were being held. After being stirred up to a frenzy by these community leaders, the angry mob slaughtered eleven Italians, three of whom had been previously acquitted, three whose court appearance had ended in a mistrial, and five more who had never even been tried. Another eight men escaped by hiding themselves in closets or under mattresses in their cells. The cause of the largest mass lynching in American history cannot be attributed to sheer crowd madness. There was, instead, a deliberate plan on the part of those who stood to gain to eliminate the competition from Italians in local agriculture and industry. Gossip was employed in order to convince the citizens of New Orleans of the righteousness of taking the law into their own hands. What began as a well-planned conspiracy became mass hysteria and trial by vicious gossip.
Koenig, The Tulanian 27.
Shibutani
Buckner.
Ralph L. Rosnow and Gary A. Fine, Rumor and Gossip: The Social Psychology of Hearsay (New York: Elsevier, 1976);
Ralph L. Rosnow and Marianthi Georgoudi, “Killed by Idle Gossip: The Psychology of Small Talk.” In When Information Counts, ed. by Bernard Rubin (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1985), 59–73.
Lorna Marshall, “Sharing, Talking, and Giving,” Africa 31 (1961): 231–249.
Elizabeth Colson, The Makah Indians: A Study of an Indian Tribe in Modern American Society (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953).
Clyde Kluckhohn, Navaho Witchcraft (Boston: Beacon Press, 1944).
Ralph L. Rosnow and Allan Kimmel, “Lives of a Rumor,” Psychology Today (1979): 88–92.
Gary Lee, “Soviets Blame Human Error,” Boston Globe (May 3, 1986): 1.
John M. Goshko, “US Forgery Specialist Is Subject of His Latest Probe,” Boston Globe (August 20, 1986): 65.
“Deadly Meltdown,” Time (May 12, 1986): 39.
“Brezhnev Reported Mildly Ill,” New York Times (August 1, 1968): 1.
James F. Clarity, “Brezhnev Reported Sick, Cancels Trip to Rumania,” New York Times (July 5, 1970): 1.
“Rumors on Red Square,” New York Times (November 12, 1972): 1.
Flora Lewis,“Soviet and France Press for a 35-Nation Summit,” New York Times (December 8, 1974): 1.
Christopher S. Wren, “Brezhnev Calls for Accord against 1Terrifying’ Arms,” New York Times (June 14, 1975): 1.
“Brezhnev Leaves Early Second Straight Day,” New York Times (August 1, 1975): 56.
David Shipler, “Brezhnev-Giscard Talks Feed Moscow Rumor Mill,” New York Times (October 17, 1975): 1;
Malcolm W. Browne, “Brezhnev Asserts Slander in West Poisons Detente,” New York Times (December 10, 1975): 1.
Bernard Gwertzman, “US-Soviet Arms Accord Tied to Brezhnev’s Health,” New York Times (January 25, 1976): 1.
“Health Problems of Brezhnev Given,” New York Times (June 17, 1977): A8.
“Notes on People,” New York Times (December 27, 1977): 2.
“Brezhnev-Schmidt Talks Indicate No Gains on Arms,” New York Times (May 6, 1978): 1.
“Brezhnev Said to Have Bad Case of Influenza,” New York Times (March 29, 1979): 2.
John F. Burns, “Soviet Leaders’ Clinic Remains under Close Guard,” New York Times (April 4, 1982): 14.
John F. Burns, “Brezhnev Is Dead in Soviet at Age 75,” New York Times (November 11, 1982): A1.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Jack Levin and Arnold Arluke
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Levin, J., Arluke, A. (1987). The Psychology of Gossip. In: Gossip. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6112-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6112-9_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-306-42533-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-6112-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive