Gossip: Pernicious Evil or Essential to Survival - Essay Example

?Gossip: Pernicious Evil or Essential to Survival? Gossip. The very word brings back feelings of high school, where cliquish groups whispered and disparaged others who were not in the group. The word also brings connotations of workplaces, where disgruntled employees disparage their higher ups with insults about competence. The very idea of gossip is negative, for it implies a kind of destructive communication where rumor and innuendo rule, and reputations get tattered as a result. That said, there are numerous scholars that state that gossip actually has a function. For Wert & Salovey (2004), gossip’s function is in making social comparisons. For Dunbar (2004), gossip’s function is to weed out unscrupulous individuals which, in turn, helps the species to propagate. These two theories are examined in depth below. The first theory that will be examined is one put forth by Wert and Salovey in their article “A Social Comparison Account of Gossip” (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Wert & Salovey state that gossip has a function in social comparison theory, which states that we, as human beings, have a need to compare ourselves to others, because, by doing this, we are evaluating ourselves by actual, objective criteria (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 123). Wert & Salovey’s theory is helpful to understand why people gossip in a negative way, despite the fact that such gossip may backfire on the gossiper because the people hearing the gossip may feel threatened because the gossiper probably negatively talks about the hearer in the same way (Kurland & Pelled, 2000, p. 429). The six types of this kind of social comparison, and how gossip functions in each, are defined below. The first kind of comparison examined is the comparison with similar others. Gossip serves a function is this kind of comparison, because individuals are trying to figure out how to behave and act, and how not to behave and act, by comparing themselves to these similar peers. By listening to their peers gossip disparagingly about other peers, one learns what behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable, and these become social norms that are learned by this gossiping (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 124). The second type of social comparison in which gossip plays a role is the downward social comparison. This kind of comparison is sought to make people feel better about themselves – as in thinking “my life isn’t great, but look at that person – my life certainly could get worse” (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 125). Gossiping serves a purpose in this kind of comparison, because it provides a way to indirectly compare oneself to others who are less fortunate or less skilled then oneself, and this bolster’s one’s self-esteem (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 125). The third type of social comparison is the upward social comparison, in which one compares oneself to others higher on the proverbial totem pole. One of the functions of this kind of gossip is to tear down the wealthy person if one does not have a chance to attain the wealth for oneself, and this can result from a feeling of injustice, in that the person does not “deserve” his or her wealth(Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 127). The fourth type is in-group and out-group comparisons. This is a classic “them v. us” comparison. In this case, gossip serves the purpose of making the out-group seem negative, in order to bolster the in-group, and the individuals’ sense of identity that comes from belonging to the in-group (Wert & Salovey, 2004, pp. 127-128). It also establishes who is and who is not a part of the group, as well as establishing the norms for the in-group (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 128). Baumeister et al., (2004) refers to this as gossip as cultural learning, in that people in a given culture may learn more about their own culture by relating the successes and failures of others, both within and without that culture (Baumeister et al, 2004, p. 120). Related to in-group and out-group comparisons is the fifth type of social comparison, which is constructed social comparisons, in which an imaginary person with the imagined characteristics of the outgroup is held up to be representative of that group, and, by gossiping about this imaginary person, one feels reassured about one’s own group (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 130). The next theory is put forth by Dunbar (2004). Dunbar looks at the evolutionary aspect of gossiping, and the role that gossiping plays in maintaining groups. While Dunbar explains the function of gossip by examining the role it has in maintaining a group by bonding the group together, the bulk of their theory exists to explain gossip in the context of free riders. According to Dunbar, human societies have a problem with free riders. A free rider is one who wants the benefits of group membership, but not the costs (Dunbar, 2004, p. 106). The free rider exploits individuals to his or her own advantage when the opportunity arises, while not giving of him or herself. The free rider is harmful to the group, and proliferates when groups get large, because it gives the free rider more naive individuals to exploit. Gossip thus plays a part in exposing these free riders to other members of the group, which, in turn, cautions the group members to be careful of this free rider (Dunbar, 2004, p. 16). Exposing the free rider often has the desired effect of neutralizing the free rider’s acts, while encouraging the free rider to go elsewhere to find individuals to exploit. In this way, gossiping serves a valuable function in keeping the group cohesive, which is evolutionary, in that a strong group is essential for the survival of the species. Therefore, gossiping aids in human’s survival. Further, gossiping about the free rider aids in the survival of the species in that it curtails the free rider’s ability to procreate with as many people as possible. According to a study cited by Dunbar, Enquist and Leimar (1993) found that dishonest individuals outproduce honest ones (Dunbar, 2004, 107). While an honest man can only have a finite amount of children because he is having his children with only one woman, the unscrupulous man can have 20 children or more because he is spreading his genes over a larger area of population than the scrupulous man. Over a period of generations, if the free riders are allowed to reproduce without censure, the free riders will drive the honest citizens into extinction (Dunbar, 2004, p. 107). Since this would obviously be destructive to society, in that the society would be made entirely of unscrupulous free riders after a period of time, gossiping about these free riders further serves to preserve the human race. Dunbar’s theory is provocative and makes a lot of sense. Moreover, it has a much more positive sheen to it than the theory put forth by Wert & Salovey. While Wert & Salovey basically state that a major function of gossip is to make one feel better about oneself by tearing down others, Dunbar states that the function of gossip is much more benign and is essential to species propagation. The importance of neutralizing free riders really cannot be underestimated, because of the destructive influence that these individuals have on a social network. If gossip serves the purpose of warning others about these unscrupulous individuals, which, in turn, blunts the impact that these individuals have, then this is a positive function of gossip. And, in contrast to Wert & Salovey’s theory, gossiping for Dunbar is reserved for those who “have it coming,” whereas in Wert & Salolvey’s theory, gossiping can be about anybody, whether they have it coming or not. With Wert & Salovey, the function of gossip is much more individualistic – how does gossip help the individual, not necessarily the group and certainly not the species. In this way, the function of gossip, according to Wert & Salovey, is much more pernicious and selfish, and there does not seem to be much real gain to the individual under Wert & Salovey’s theory, aside from the self-esteem enhancement that comes from tearing down others. Since this boost in self-esteem comes at others’ expense, this is more destructive than helpful, more negative than positive. Of course, there is some positive aspects to Wert & Salovey’s theory, in that gossip teaches one how not to act. However, on balance, Wert & Salovey’s theory has a much darker view of the human race and the individual’s motivation for gossip than does Dunbar. Conclusion Gossip has many negative aspects to it, and the main function for gossip is to tear others down, which serves the function of enhancing identity and self-esteem in the individual as well as pride in one’s group. However, it is still overwhelmingly negative as the victims are often individuals who do not deserve it. That said, if Dunbar’s theory is true, gossiping is vital to maintain the survival of the species. However, Dunbar’s theory seems to be overly optimistic, as gossip is certainly not exclusively used to warn people about bad people, but is, more often than not, a way to tear down good ones. If gossip was strictly used in Dunbar’s terms, than gossip would be a positive thing. Since it is more likely to be used in Wert & Salovey’s terms, however, gossip is mostly negative. Sources Used Baumeister, R., Zhang, L. & Vohs, K. (2004) “Gossip as Cultural Learning,” Review of General Psychology 8(7): 111-121. Dunbar, R.I. (2004) “Gossip In Evolutionary Perspective, ” Review of General Psychology 8(7): 100-110. Kurland, N. & Pelled, L. (2000) “Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace,” Academy of Management Review 25(2): 428-438. Wert, S. & Salovey, P. (2004) “A Social Comparison Account of Gossip,” Review of General Psychology 8(7): 122-137. Read More