Stemming from the lexicon of freedom of expression, and in particular freedom of the press, the notion of self-censorship refers to everything that is forbidden to say or do, without any explicit prohibition being imposed. The term has invested in the reflection and discussion of the professional career and is found as an antiphon in the argument on the causes of the glass ceiling.

 

Is it true that women censor themselves more than men ? If so, why ? And is it really one of the Gordian knots of professional inequalities? And so, how do you decide it? The editorial staff of the EVE web magazine investigated.

 

 

 

Women are more likely than men to self-censor

The idea that women censor themselves more than men is very widespread... But it is not very objective: few studies have been able to provide a complete scientific demonstration of this. However, we do have some data based on declarative data at the moment.

 

The PWN 2018 study indicates that 88% of women have ambition but that 77% perceive it as a " taboo " : they ardently want something (in this case, progress) but feel uncomfortable at the prospect of expressing it and positioning themselves to obtain it.

 

The 2017 Hays report on gender diversity indicates that 58% of women compared to 63% of men say they make the most of their skills and express their desire to evolve. This reinforces the idea that women censor themselves more than men, but it undermines the perception of a great gap in self-censorship between the sexes... And could also lead to women being more willing to talk about their tendency to self-censor than men (especially since they are more often asked about self-censorship than their male peers on this point).

 

 

 

And the men ? Would they self-censor their self-censorship ?

Other research undermines the idea that self-censorship is a women's issue. Such as the Carnegie Mellon University study on the mechanisms of self-censorship of users of the social network Facebook, conducted on the basis of data on last-minute renunciation of content and on the immediate deletion of published content... Surprise ! Men are nearly 3 times more likely (33% vs. 13%) than women to self-censor on the social network ...

 

And their self-censorship reflex is even stronger when they have a large community, and even stronger if this community is made up of a majority of men !

 

Men therefore also censor themselves... And perhaps even more so when it comes to acknowledging that they don't dare to speak or act. Not conforming to the stereotypes associated with masculinity of self-censorship... And to admit it? Self-censorship in close interaction with the norm

 

 

What the Carnegie Mellon study confirms is that self-censorship is not a psychological flaw  resulting from a lack of self-confidence, but that it is fundamentally interactional.

 

This has been highlighted by numerous psychosociological studies for more than half a century. In 1951, the researcher Solomon Asch wanted to study the circumstances in which individuals force themselves to say something other than what they think, to the point of agreeing with the obvious.

 

So he gathers a group of " naïve " subjects into which "complicit " subjects slip in who will authoritatively and speak first a false answer to an extremely simple question. The rest of the group will then follow their opinion, despite common sense.

 

After Asch, one of his former students, Stanley Milgram launched an experiment that would leave his mark on memories: individuals encouraged by a representative of scientific authority would behave like torturers ! Two mechanisms push them to do so: submission to the authority of the knowing and the group effect. Although they disagree with the principle of sadistically electrocuting another human being and are tested by the fact of engaging in such cruelty, individuals do not dare to make their disapproval known or act autonomously, differently from what they are told to do.

 

And that, Milgram's experiment tells us that it has no gender : in his experiment, women were no more or less cruel than men. There is therefore no feminine or masculine essence of self-censorship or free will : when the norm is imposed, everyone is grappling with the fear of derogating from it and the envisaged consequences of its subversion.

 

 

 

The Weight of Gender Norms on Self-Censorship Mechanisms

Once we understand that self-censorship is closely linked to the weight of the norm, let us ask ourselves what the effects on the freedom to speak/act of social expectations of women and men are. As we saw with the Carnegie Mellon study, men censor themselves more when they are surrounded by men.

 

Fan & Quian's work on the feeling of safety and well-being at work according to the level of gender diversity has also shown that women have more self-censorship reflexes and a feeling of having to prove themselves when they are in masculinized environments. On the other hand, environments that are predominantly feminized are more conducive to a feeling of confidence, speaking out and initiative, for both women and men.

 

These are the points of the finger at the norms of " traditional " masculinity (which can be embodied in the behaviour of men but also of women, as the repulsive figure of the " queen bee " testifies). The " ideology of virility ", as the philosopher Olivia Gazalé refers to the set of beliefs about the masculine ideal that infuse social organization and cultural values, favored self-censorship reflexes in everyone. 

 

 

 

What effects does self-censorship have on the lives and careers of women and men ?

If self-censorship has no gender, does this mean that it has the same effects on the career and life course for women and men ?

 

The fact that it clashes with social norms and in particular with the imprint left on them by a set of stereotypes of masculinity obviously suggests that women pay a heavier socio-professional price for self-censorship.

 

In any case, this is a very widely shared hypothesis to explain the glass ceiling: it would be because they do not ask (for positions of responsibility, raises, promotions, mobility, etc.) that women do not get; it would be because they silence their ambitions, are reluctant to let people know what they are worth (even though several studies, from the one conducted by Patrick Scharnitzky (editor's note : speaker at EVE) and Inès Dauvergne for the IMS in 2012 to the Financi'Elles 2017 consultation and the PWN 2018 study have shown that they are confident in their skills) that they are not spotted...

 

But also because faced with paradoxical injunctions (giving guarantees of classic leadership while guaranteeing a renewal of leadership codes, for example), they would avoid exposing themselves and would prefer to play number 2 in the shadows, etc.

 

At the same time as women's self-censorship thus contributes to slowing down their professional progress, men's self-censorship would play more on the ground of reconciling life times. The 2016 UNAF survey on fatherhood in the twenty-first century indicates that 53% of fathers would like to spend more time with their children and three-quarters of them cite an excessive workload. between attendance obligations, commuting (which the ONS 2018 study on commuting gap showed is longer on average for men than for women), " mental load" related to professional responsibilities (which are indeed statistically more numerous, representing more than 75% of senior management and nearly 90% of managers)...

 

But do men dare to address to their employer all that investing in family life concretely implies, reputed to be trivial, from tiny tasks (daily but imperative) to rigid time constraints and other poorly recognized social demands of ordinary " care "?

 

 

For the sociologist Alban Jacquemart, who devoted his thesis to men's commitment to equality, there is a certain ambiguity in this case : if it has become easier for men to express their desire to be a good father as well as a good manager, the lack of concretization of this desire is partly due to a culture that prohibits men from going into the fields classically attributed to femininity. but could also be the result of a form of avoidance economy that does not say its name.

 

Are men a little too quick to accuse stereotypes, social norms and the resulting self-censorship of preventing them from participating equally in domestic chores?

 

However, the changes in family models, and with them in the representation of parenthood, concomitant with a better professional assumption of women's professional responsibility, could however change the situation : would they soon no longer have the choice to address to the employer the need for balance at the same time as that of professional fulfilment ?

 

 

 

The culture of inclusion, a way out of the culture of self-censorship ?

This prognosis of a rapprochement between the status of women and men both in the private sphere and in the professional environment suggests good prospects for the culture of inclusion.

 

This movement, which sets diversity in motion, by allowing everyone to express their uniqueness and dare to act to bring the best of themselves to the collective, is undeniably fostered by empathy, the sharing of experiences and concerns, the pooling of ideas and energies to change the rules of the game (putting an end to presenteeism once and for all, rethinking career paths so that everyone finds their place in the world of work at every moment of their lives, giving everyone real opportunities to showcase and develop their talents).

 

In this respect, the fight against self-censorship can be seen as a driver of inclusion (amplifying the voice of those who are not heard) but also its fuel (multiplying the scope of proposals to transform organizations). 

 

 

 

How to fight against self-censorship : (oneself) the power to say and act, to be heard and accepted

Self-censorship is at the crossroads of three internalized and interacting fears, each of which calls for responses relating to the development of the individual and the transformation of the environment :

 

• The fear of not being able to say/do (feeling of lacking space to speak, fear of not knowing how to express oneself, anticipation of formal or symbolic sanctions in the event of a " misstep "...)

 

Faced with this fear of not being able to say/do, it is relevant to train individuals to precisely identify their needs and aspirations and to speak in public... But also to work on the " rules of the game " of the spaces for speaking (interviews, meetings, etc.) so that everyone's expression is really possible.

 

 

• The fear of not being heard or of being misheard (anticipated discouragement of speaking up if listening does not seem to be there or of taking initiatives if the manager is not agile enough to welcome them, fear of " disturbing ", creating arguments, or even causing damage, etc.)

 

Faced with this, it seems necessary to train everyone in empathy, active listening, healthy conflictuality... But also to create and maintain environments of trust where the right to make mistakes is guaranteed.

 

 

• The fear of not being accepted (feeling of being expected at the turn, fear of being caricatured, disqualified, stigmatized, etc.)

 

Here, individuals have their card to play to learn to assert themselves with the right assertiveness... But organizations and society as a whole must also better tolerate the expression of identities deemed to be non-conforming to the norm and be more open to new ideas.