Ostracism: The Power of Silence

Book Review (Kipling D. Williams)

Honestly, I hadn’t expected to write a book review this week at all. And I have another one that I am working on. But a news article popped up on ostracism, aka the silent treatment, social exclusion, ignoring people, etc. etc., and I read it and followed the paper trail a little to Kipling Williams’ work on the topic. Williams is a psychology researcher, currently in Indiana I believe, but he was based in Australia and worked at UNSW and Macquarie. So, I read his book, Ostracism: The Power of Silence, and started taking a few notes, and they grew enough that here’s a post.

The book was published in 2001, so I presume there’s a decent body of more recent work on this topic, but this book summarises a bunch of research up to that time. You can also listen to a more up-to-date interview/podcast (or read the transcript) here.

This is a psychology book, not necessarily written for the popular market, so it's not the easiest read. What are the effects of social exclusion, or 'the silent treatment', in groups or dyads, for short or long times, on both the recipient and the source? This book contains both personal anecdotes (including one women subjected to silence by her husband for 40 years until his death!!) and plenty of actual research. This research includes studies on participants, narrative analysis, an experiment where the writer and 4 of his colleagues agreed to ostracise one person in their team each day of the week(!), some roleplay studies, blind participant studies, and so on.

Note that Williams uses the language of ‘source’ for the person giving the silent treatment, and ‘target’ for the person experiencing it.

Overall, I found this book a fascinating read, albeit difficult. Instead of a chapter by chapter summary, here’s just a a few take-aways:

1. Ostracism is incredibly damaging, relationally, psychologically, even physiologically.

2. It's very hard to stop if it's long-term or a pattern. Ch 10 has some data from interviewees with long-term targets and sources, and the way the sources talk, it's like the temptation to use the dark arts, or the one ring from LOTR. At first it feels powerful. But it gets easier to do, you feel less bothered by it, and it's harder and harder to stop. You feel in control but then you feel that the ostracism you dish out to others controls you.

3. It's also very hard to repair relationships damaged by significant silent-treatment.

4. Social ostracism (ignoring a person who is present) symbolizes death. It says, "this is how I would act if you didn't exist". It really does say, as the saying goes, "you are dead to me".

5. Ostracism threatens four basic human needs: belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. It attacks all four of these together, which is part of why it’s so hurtful.

6. Ostracism is worse when you aren't sure of the cause of it. And by its nature, the cause is often ambiguous (because the source is ignoring you and not telling you).

7. Ostracism is way worse than arguing (on almost every scale they measured). Because at least if you’re arguing, you’re being acknowledged as a person worth treating with.

8. People who are the source of silent treatment also generally have detrimental outcomes. It's bad for source and target.

9. People who ostracise others punitively tend not to feel bad about it. They feel empowered and justified.

10. The chapter on interviews with long-term ostracism is the most gut-wrenching reading. Humans are capable of profound cruelty.

Ostracism is, as Williams say, powerful and ubiquitous. I think after reading this I'm more aware of just how damaging and powerful it is. Williams offers a taxonomy of sorts, to help analyse it, which is quite helpful.¹ I think I'd summarise my thoughts at this though : ostracism as a punishment is a severe one. A community practising ostracism enacts a kind of death, social but often with physical consequences. For Christian communities, ostracism ought to be a last resort. And, I dare say, it ought to have certain controls on it.²

The most hurtful thing about ostracising someone, is that it denies that person's humanity, their dignity and worth as a person made in God's image. That's why as a social punishment, I would say, you cannot practice ostracism and be practising Christian love.

Photo by Adam Thomas on Unsplash

Williams ends with avenues for further research and questions that remain unanswered. This includes what you should do if you’re a source or a target. For a source, Williams suggests that you’re better off physically ostracising rather than socially. That is, you should leave the space the other person is in, you should explain what you’re doing, and indicate that you’ll come back in a specified time and then talk. It’s better to not be there physically, than to be present physically and be ignoring someone socially.

Williams basically has no advice for targets of ostracism. Most coping strategies don’t work, or cede even more power to the source who will then continue to weaponise the silent treatment on you in the future. It may be best, in long-term situations, to exit the group or relationship permanently.

I don’t know that I want to read further in this area. It was fascinating, but also disturbing. I know that I can be prone to silent-treating some people, and I think this has convinced me that I basically need to repent of that and never do it again.

1. The Taxonomy is multidimensional. I’ll give the salient points:

Visibility: Physical (i.e. withdrawing or leaving the situation bodily), Social (emotional withdrawal with physical presence, denial of recognition of the garget), Cyber (being ignored or left out online)
Motive: Not Ostracism (where the target interprets behaviour as not actually ostracism, correctly or not) , role-prescribed (where the source is in a role where they are not expected to acknowledge the other person, like passengers in elevators), punitive (where the source is understood to be actively punishing the target), defensive (where the source is trying to avoid the target in order to avoid being hurt themselves), oblivious (where the target infers their existence is unnoticed or inconsequential to the source).
Quantity: Low to High (ostracism can be partial, occasional, varied, or total)
Clarity: Low to High (ostracism’s cause may be very clear (e.g. stated directly beforehand) through to entirely unknown. The ambiguity of cause, and of whether it’s even intentional, are part of the difficulties of it all.

Then the four needs threatened: belonging, self-esteem, control, meaningful existence

And then too analysis of reactions (immediate, short-term, long-term), mediators and moderators, and differences in sources of ostracism.

2. In particular, I think the few cases where the New Testament points to a form of ostracism or excommunication, it's about reinforcing community boundaries around identity/behaviour, and its framing is essentially "person X is unwilling to live like a Christian and a member of our Christian community, therefore we are going to stop treating them like a Christian and a member of our Christian community". What that doesn't mean, is that you should give them the silent treatment, actively ignore them, positively exclude them. I think that's misunderstanding and misapplying Scripture. What it should look like is treating that person as you would an outsider. That is, with love and respect as a human being, seeking to show them God's love through words and deeds, and bringing the gospel to bear on their lives.