616
PARTISAN REVLEW
"victim" who wishes she had made a different decision about sexual in–
timacy the previous night.
When the effective meaning of some expression is contingent on
both the speaker and the audience, the rules of permissible expression in
"mixed company" will generally differ from those applicable to homo–
geneous gatherings. Men talking among themselves have rules concerning
what can decently be said about women, but these are generally less re–
strictive rules than the ones governing a mixed conversation. Moreover,
in such environments prudent speakers must be sure to remember to
whom they are speaking at any moment. And they must also worry
about how an expression made in one context will " sound" in another.
Indeed, a common source of the political gaffe is the rendering in public
by the news media of a remark made privately, in a setting where differ–
ent rules applied.
Sometimes it is the insiders, not the outsiders, who are specifically
forbidden
to
voice certain opinions or address certain issues in "mixed
company. " "Washing dirty linen in public" refers to injudicious speech
by an insider which is taboo in mixed company, but which would be
appropriate if no outsiders were present. This can be speech - criticism of
one's group, especially - in which outsiders routinely engage. The taboo
may derive from a concern that outsiders will misinterpret the informa–
tion, a fear that the insider's words will be exploited by outsiders against
the group's interest, or a worry that outsiders will feci legitimized in
their own criticism of the group, once an insider has confirmed it. For
these reasons, groups often try to discourage insider criticism by punish–
ing the members who engage in it - a tendency which has important
implications for the ethics and efficacy of public discourse.
I am often struck by the intensity of critical debate among black
Americans over such issues as the social problems of the "underclass" -
when that debate takes place out of the hearing of whites. The same
theme being explored by a black speaker in mixed company causes other
blacks to severely sanction the deviant. If, for example, a white gives
voice in mixed company to his fear of criminal victimization, he may be
perceived as criticizing blacks. (And that may be his intent.) This percep–
tion will be enough to keep some, but not all, whites from expressing
their fear. But if a black in that audience supports or confirms the
white's fecling, when everyone knows that complaint over the "criminal
element" has racial connotations, he courts serious trouble with other
blacks. So does the black who worries publicly about the fairness of af–
firmative action.
Both are expressing themselves in ways that cause their fellows to
question their basic commitments. By departing from the 'convention of
restrained expression they are seen as violating a cardinal principle of
