Rather remain silent than risk seeing one's word misunderstood, badly received, misinterpreted and then suffering reprisals. This is the general definition that could be given to self-censorship.
However, the notion comes up in contexts as different as the great citizen debates on freedom of opinion and expression or political correctness ; reflection and conversation on inclusion ; the analysis of the obstacles to ambition and audacity ; the literature on the quality of life at work and the conditions of cooperation in a collective ; the pages of personal development books dedicated to self-confidence...
The editorial staff of the EVE webmagazine wanted to see a little more clearly and, as always in its " concept under the magnifying glass " section, went back to the history of the notion, the debates it generates, the theoretical writings it inspires and of course its reality on the ground and the means to deal with it.
Before self-censorship, censorship
The word " self-censorship ", which is now so common in our daily lexicon, is rather recent. It was in the 1960s that it appeared, not under the pen of a designated author who would have theorized the concept, but in common language, relayed by the media. Nevertheless, what self-censorship describes did not begin in the middle of the twentieth century...
To trace it, we must look at the history of its cousin, " censorship ". This appeared around the fifth century BC. At that time, censors were appointed to examine the morality of citizens in order to classify them in so-called " censitaires " classes: depending on which one you belonged to, you benefited from a more or less wide range of rights and freedoms. Let us already remember this double point : censorship is of a moral order and it has the power to exclude.
The religious power then seized on it to verify the conformity with Orthodox doctrine of writings evoking God.
A job that took on an extravagant scale with the appearance of the printing press, which brought in its wake the multiplication of the number of authors. Overwhelmed, the Church put the mission in the hands of the State from the middle of the Middle Ages. The political authorities reserve the right to preemptively prohibit the publication of certain texts or to withdraw them from circulation after publication.
It was around this time that self-censorship developed : authors understood the risk of being censored and those who refused to refrain from expressing the substance of their thoughts used tricks to avoid having their books banned. It even became a genre in its own right in the eighteenth century : Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot or Swift made the falsely naïve tale, possibly sprinkled with exoticism, a hide-and-seek playground with the authorities.
But their audacity has its limits, especially when, despite their clever figures of speech, they have to experience detention ? To escape this, they sometimes publish under a pseudonym and probably not publish at all, giving up on writing as it can be so difficult if you have to watch yourself with each word and/or pay dearly for what you express if you don't like it.
Self-censorship : a dynamic of speech felt to be prevented and avoidance strategies
This detour through the history of literature, which we could complete with that of the press from the nineteenth century onwards or that of private correspondence in dictatorial regimes or in times of war, allows us to understand what the dynamics of self-censorship are: the anticipation of seeing one's speech prevented which produces various forms of avoidance.
Among these forms of avoidance : being and remaining with one's mouth shut, taking roundabout ways to address subjects (at the risk of a blurred, unheard, misunderstood message), dissociating one's voice from one's identity (by taking a pseudonym, by sheltering behind an uncertain " one " of which one would become the spokesperson by asking that one not shoot at the messenger), Tighten up on a group that you consider to be in line with your values, in accordance with your thinking, sharing the same humor , etc.
As we can see, self-censorship is an obstacle to the relationship, which by definition makes it incompatible with inclusion. But before using the big words, let us remember that auoccensorship is not without consequences on the socio-professional trajectory of individuals who hold back their words, out of internalized fear (even if this fear is not necessarily justified) of not being listened to, of not being understood, or even of being stigmatized, excluded or punished if they do not go in the direction that seems to them to be the " party line".
We keep our idea to ourselves: it's already frustrating when we see that those who express themselves around the table are not necessarily smarter, but if, in addition, at the time of the interview with Éval', it makes us look like a passive mussel who has nothing to say in a meeting, It's downright infuriating. We refrain from asking for a promotion or a raise, which is not the best strategy to evolve and it is actually quite annoying to see that less shy but no more competent people are paving the way without seeming to be only crossed by imposter syndrome.
There is no need to multiply the illustrations : you get the point, self-censorship in the world of work slows down professional development at the same time as it affects self-esteem and a sense of confidence. And this does not only concern the individual who prevents himself from asserting the extent of his talents, but also the entire collective deprived of a potential buried under the reverence submitted to authority...
Who censors themselves and why ?
One question remains unanswered. Is self-censorship a matter of temperament (more or less shy, self-conscious, prudential, wavering in self-confidence) or are there categories of the population that censor themselves more than others ? In other words : do gender, age, real or supposed origin, sexual orientation or position in the hierarchy, among other variables, encourage or disarm the reflexes of self-censorship ?
A large inquest conducted by the firm AlterNego, among more than 1500 employees in 4 different sectors of activity, sheds some light: if in general, 38% of employees postpone self-censorship at work,women, overall, self-censor more than men... But before gender, it is age that is the first vector of self-censorship : the youngest and the oldest dare to express themselves less.
Even more interesting is the link between self-censorship and the culture of hierarchy in an organization : the more the company is attached to grades and statuses with all that they imply in terms of assumed or more informal privileges, the more employees with low decision-making latency keep their opinion to themselves, put a handkerchief on their needs, silence their frustrations...
Until it cracks ! The hashtivist movements for freedom of speech on social networks, i.e. outside of institutional and/or process frameworks, show that self-censorship has its limits... A bit like the pressure cooker explodes when the safety valve fails, when the joints that make up the social link deteriorate and especially when the pressure is too high. Companies that have gone through the bad buzz of a liberation of speech outside their walls testify to the trauma that it was for work collectives and the painful direct or indirect consequences on their employer brand, on their relationships with their customers, etc.
Put an end to self-censorship (without disarming all the superegos !)
So how can we put an end to self-censorship, or at the very least, roll it back ? What is at stake is an approach that simultaneously sets the individual, the collective, the organization and the system in motion.
Concerning the individual, we can give good advice to overcome the fear of speaking, of not being heard or of being " punished " for having been impertinent enough to have expressed himself. Learning to say no, negotiating conditions when you say yes, building up your self-confidence and assertiveness, surrounding yourself with allies (avoiding the trap of the dramatic triangle)...
… But all this is only possible in an environment that inspires trust. This calls on management to put in place the conditions for free speech... Nor does it allow the work group to become a zone of disinhibition of the various and varied superegos. It is therefore a question of establishing and guaranteeing the framework of a right to express what is going well and what is not going so well, of the creative idea and the spirit of initiative, of the balance between desire (to evolve, to conquer other fields of expertise within the team or the company, to be able to " be oneself "...) and feasibility (business needs, performance objectives, relevance of proposals, compliance with the rules of living together).
This mission of management can obviously only be part of an inclusive corporate culture, i.e. one that respects singularities, guarantees fairness and assumes cooperation as a fundamental value at the heart of its HR strategy as well as in its relations with its external stakeholders.
So, this company, which may seem to us today an ideal, if not a utopia, has the power to spread a global culture in the world of work where sterile verticalities would be undone in favor of managerial structures that boost the soft-skills of all ; where we would make spaces for free speech, places of creativity, innovation ; where it would be perfectly accepted and banal for everyone to know in which space and when it is allowed to address both manifestations of optimism and subjects that cause anger.
