Abstract: In the UK society is more fractured than ever, hate speech, racism and bigoted stereotypes are unfortunatley on the rise. Perhaps, to counteract the harmful effects of hate speech, legislation is not the only way. Perhaps depositing more speech can undo the harmful effects of hate speech. In this article I examine whether counterspeech can effectively undo the harms caused by hate speech. I begin by briefly outlining the concept of counterspeech and hate speech. Then, I turn to an innovative formulation of counterspeech advanced by Maxime Lepoutre. Following, I assess the efficacy of Lepoutre’s formulation, suggesting that its application can be widened and need not rely solely on the state. Next, I note the parameters of the theory, ultimately arguing that Lepoutre's account can alleviate certain harms, such as those affecting a target's social standing, but not all. For instance, psychological harms inflicted by harmful speech.
Counterspeech and Hate Speech.
Before starting, it’s necessary to furnish several key terms. counterspeech, broadly speaking, refers to communication intended to counter the potential harms posed by other speech. As such, counterspeech may arrive in the forms of assertions, statements, questions or platform-mediated acts of communication (Cepollaro, Lepoutre, and Simpson, 2022, p. 2). In contrast, definitions of hate speech vary considerably across the literature, where, for simplicity’s sake, I adopt Lepoutre and McGowan’s conception for present purposes. According to which, hate speech is defined as promoting false representations of other social groups to falsely deny their basic equality (Lepoutre, 2019, p. 155). As well as speech that aims to denigrate or undermine the equal standing of members within society due to their identity (McGowan, 2012, p. 121).
Proceeding, the harms caused by hate speech are diverse. They include but are not limited to: immediate psychological harms (i.e., emotions of fear, humiliation, self-loathing) and status-related harms (i.e., loss of dignity, stigma, social inequalities resulting from expression of negative affection) (Cepollaro, Lepoutre, and Simpson, 2022). Whilst this list is somewhat narrow, the harms delineated here are those most relevant to my subsequent analysis. Where, I am uncertain to what extent certain harms, specifically psychological harms, can be fully undone through Lepoutre’s conception of counterspeech alone.
Lepoutre’s diachronic counterspeech.
Lepoutre advances an innovative formulation of counterspeech. According to which, argues that ‘counterspeech is best understood diachronic[ally]’, that is, over a prolonged period of time, or a ‘continuous process’ (Lepoutre, 2019, p. 180). To preface, Lepoutre’s paper examines counterspeech as a response to ignorant speech. Whilst forms of ignorant speech, understood as speech that promotes falsehoods, can overlap with some forms of hate speech, my discussion here will exclusively concern hate speech and counterspeech as a subsequent remedy for it.
Continuing, the type of counterspeech advanced by Lepoutre is pre-emptive and best understood as speech that inoculates the listener before the hateful speech is ushered. This preventative “inoculation” (Tirrell, 2018, p. 136) functions in two ways: First, it’s deployment in conversational settings to disable subsequent hateful utterances. Second, is the deployment in wider social settings, such as pre-emptive forewarning about unreliable sources of information to teach the wider audience how to identify them (Lepoutre, 2019). Regarding hate speech, this forewarning may include white supremacists, racist hate groups and news outlets that subvert information in a discriminatory light.
To expand on the first function, the basic idea is that, when deployed preemptively within the conversational setting, this form of counterspeech shapes the conversational norm to be inhospitable to hate speech. For Lepoutre, this involves ‘expounding politically relevant facts’, which renders conventional truths salient (Lepoutre, 2019, p. 181). In this way, it familiarises the audience with these truths and, in turn, facilitates the uptake of true beliefs that counter falsehoods such as distorted stereotypes. This may arrive in a positive form, for instance, “All immigrants are welcome!”, reiterating such truths implicates the falsehood of the hateful utterance without repeating it. Thus, positive pre-emptive counterspeech can contradict the hateful utterance without magnifying its salience and exacerbating the issue (Lepoutre, 2019). Consequently, this function prevents discriminatory falsehoods from gaining traction in the conversation, insofar as the listeners are ‘knowledgeable about a subject matters’ (Lepoutre, 2019, p. 181).
Addressing the second function, the key strategy is to undermine the authority of such sources. The idea is akin to the silencing effects that philosophers of language attribute to hate speech. That, often, hate speech silences the target by diminishing their authority or credibility (cf. McGowan, 2018, pp. 183-184). In effect, by undermining the felicity conditions (such as authority) of these groups, the subsequent hateful utterances will be silenced. In this way, Lepoutre argues that this silencing effect can be used for good. For example, the state can challenge the authority of prospective promoters of hate speech by affirming that ‘Racist ideologies are unacceptable and not welcome here’. In this vein, the hate speaker who then annunciates deeply racist views thereby marks himself as a minority view, in such a way, he cannot speak for the majority (Lepoutre, 2019). This erosion of authority is precisely how pre-emptive diachronic counterspeech can undermine the felicity conditions needed for hateful speakers to enact harm on targets. Thus, in sum, this inoculation effect can mitigate the harms caused by hateful speech along these two dimensions. As such, Lepoutre argues his account of counterspeech disarms hateful speech before it is uttered and thus ‘wholly eliminates it’s attempted harms, casual and constitutive’ (Lepoutre, 2019, p. 186)
Diachronic counter speech extended.
In some respects, Lepoutre's formulation of counterspeech provides an adequate solution to a common problem. Which, within the contemporary literature, has been termed the ‘Deontic question’ (Cepollaro, Lepoutre, and Simpson, 2022, p. 6). Namely, where does the responsibility of counterspeech lie? For Lepoutre, the answer lies with the state.
However, I suggest this scope can and ought to be widened. To elaborate, a pressing critique of counterspeech is that it can potentially undermine freedom and ‘dominate’ in some respect. In a way, counterspeech can contribute to unchecked social norms that enable others to “interfere arbitrarily with speakers” (Whitten, 2023, p. 555). In a similar vein, this consideration raises an important query regarding Lepoutre’s formulation: Given the nature of pre-emptive counterspeech and its dependence on accurately anticipating the future instances of hate speech, it is inherently vulnerable to arbitrariness. If the state alone assumes responsibility for these anticipatory interventions, what assurances exist that this measure will function as an inoculative safeguard, rather than, say, instruments used to oppress speech?
To address these potential worries, I argue that diachronic counter speech should be extended to social-equality NGO’s, which can share the deontic burden placed on the state. In doing so, NGOs would not only participate in issuing diachronic counter-speech but also help identify emerging instances of potential hate speech, thereby increasing the efficacy and accuracy of this pre-emptive strategy. NGOs are positioned well to fulfil this role: they offer a plurality of voices, an independent source of authority and context-specific expertise. Historical movements such as the suffragettes exemplify how harmonized, multi-source advocacy repeated consistently across time can successfully reshape public attitudes to accept conventional truths. Thus, expanding pre-emptive counterspeech beyond the scope of the state can enhance the effectiveness of this preventative ‘inoculation’, thereby increasing the efficacy in regard to mitigating harms caused by hate speech.
Availability and Assessing Efficacy
Now, how successful is pre-emptive diachronic counterspeech at mitigating the harms generated by hate speech? Although Lepoutre does not specify which harms his counterspeech can undo, he suggests it can ‘wholly eliminate attempted harms, causal and constitutive’, which offers some indication of the scope he envisions. Thus, my aim here is to tighten up Lepoutre’s account by first noting the parameters of his conception, providing instances in which his counterspeech may simply be unavailable. Then, I determine the specific harms his model of counterspeech might plausibly mitigate and evaluate the degrees of effectiveness with which it may do so.
(I)Authority and availability
In response to Lepoutre, a salient line of rebuttal might involve authority. Namely, authority can gain traction in context-dependent ways. For instance, consider the racist bigot on the subway directing hate speech at an immigrant. Now, if no members of the public speak up and offer any retroactive counterspeech, seemingly, the racist gains authority. Maitra characterises this phenomenon as licensing: situations in which the audience’s failure to challenge the speaker effectively grants the authority required to perform certain illocutionary acts (Maitra, 2012, p. 115). Although Lepoutre would argue it’s harder for the subway speaker to gain authority in the first place if we have positive pre-emptive counterspeech. It’s not entirely clear that within the context of the subway rider, his authority is entirely diminished, for one, it relies on every member of the carriage being inoculated, which may not entirely be feasible.
This gives rise to a related difficulty, one that Lepoutre himself gestures towards in the phrase “insofar as the listener is knowledgeable”. Consider an immigrant who has newly arrived in the UK and is travelling on the subway. This immigrant lacks prior exposure to pre-emptive counterspeech; thus, they are yet to be inoculated. Such an individual may especially be susceptible to the harms of hate speech. Even if the surrounding audience has, in effect, been inoculated, it’s unclear whether the newcomer will be protected from the harms conveyed through a hateful utterance. As the immigrant will perceive this hateful utterance as authoritative, due to lacking the pre-emptive inoculation of conversational salient truths and pre-emptive forewarning that would otherwise disarm the utterance. In this way, the speaker’s authority is not undermined, insofar as it relates to the uninoculated immigrant. This suggests that a pre-emptive counter-speech strategy, whilst valuable when individuals are inoculated and knowledgeable, may at times simply be unavailable, thus ineffective at mitigating the harms generated by hate speech in these instances.
(II) The question of Efficacy.
Now, even if individuals are effectively inoculated, I remain unconvinced that counterspeech can fully remove all the harms brought about by hate speech. As aforementioned, the harms hate speech may induce include status-related harms and psychological harms. Within Lepoutre’s framework, however, pre-emptive counterspeech appears more suited to remedy the former. For instance, by entrenching the conversational norm with positive counterspeech, such as ‘All immigrants are welcome’, it publicly reaffirms the equal civic status of targeted groups. Such affirmations can substantially mitigate the degrading effects of hateful utterances like, ‘x people are parasites and should leave’, thereby counteracting the target's sense of diminished dignity or social exclusion. Moreover, pre-emptive forewarning about such malign speakers diminishes their perceived authority before they proclaim hate speech. In a way, that silences the hateful utterance before it's ushered, which I believe can considerably alleviate status-related harms that hate speech may incur.
However, I am unconvinced that counter speech can fully remove the psychological harms induced by hateful speech. In many ordinary encounters of public hate speech, such as the subway case. The bigoted utterances often take the form of propositional hate speech, which delivers a ‘visceral punch’. To explain, suppose the hate speech denotes that, ‘All Muslims are terrorists, I hate all Muslims’. Even if the speaker does not satisfy the felicity conditions required for successful derogation, the target may nonetheless experience emotions such as fear, anxiety, and intimidation in regard to the stigmatised attitudes embedded within the hate speech from the speaker. These harms are immediate and affective, and it’s doubtful that counterspeech, especially when issued pre-emptively, can erase or substantially mitigate them. In such cases, post hoc ‘antidotes’ (Tirrell, 2018, p. 138). appear more appropriate for addressing the psychological harms produced by everyday hate speech. For instance, when a bystander offers support and explicitly rebuts the bigoted speaker, the target’s distress may be alleviated to some degree. Such retroactive counterspeech can help reduce psychological harms of isolation and fear, signalling solidarity by challenging the validity of hateful stigmatisation in real time.
Conclusion
In sum, I argue that Lepoutre’s account is promising; however, there are instances where his pre-emptive counterspeech may simply be unavailable. This suggests that pre-emptive counterspeech, as Lepoutre conceives it, is not a full explanatory account of how to disarm hate speech. On this basis, I argue a narrower point: Lepoutre's account can alleviate certain harms, such as those affecting a target's social status, but not all. For instance, psychological harms inflicted by harmful speech.
Bibliography.
Cepollaro, B., Lepoutre, M. and Simpson, R.M. (2022). Counterspeech Philosophy Compass 18(1), pp. 1-11.
Lepoutre, M. (2019). Can “more speech” counter ignorant speech? Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 16(3), pp. 155–191.
Maitra, I. (2012). Subordinating speech. In: Maitra I, McGowan MK (eds) Speech and harm: controversies over free speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 94–120.
McGowan, M.K. (2012). “On ‘Whites Only’ Signs and Racist Hate Speech: Verbal Acts of Racial Discrimination,” in Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan (eds.), Speech & Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–47.
McGowan, M.K. (2018). Responding to harmful speech. In Voicing Dissent, edited by Casey Rebecca Johnson, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 182–200.
Tirrell, L. (2018). Toxic Speech: Inoculations and Antidotes. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 56, pp.116–144.
Whitten, S. (2023). A Republican Conception of Counterspeech. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 26(4), pp. 555–575.
