On Gossip and Hearsay

Today’s post will focus on themes of gossip and hearsay. I’ve always been fascinated by the origins of “gossip” (which is essentially the storytelling of people who are not present), and its negative (and often gendered) modern-day connotations. Contrary to common belief, sociological studies have shown that most gossip is not negative, nor is it untrue; rather, the majority of gossip is neutral information-sharing. Similar studies have also debunked the idea that women gossip more than men; and anthropologists argue that the act of gossiping is one of few characteristics that differentiate humans from other animal species, making gossip a fundamentally human trait.

To analyze these themes further, today’s post focuses on Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women (“Witches”) by Silvia Federici and You Didn’t Hear This From Me: (Mostly) True Notes on Gossip (“Notes on Gossip”) written by Kelsey McKinney. Witches is a series of non-fiction essays on feminist history and theory. Federici’s essay “On the Meaning of ‘Gossip’” talks specifically about the historical origins of gossip, and the sixteenth century turning point, when “gossip” went from signifying friendship and positive communication among women, to idle women’s talk, and something to be denigrated and punished by society.

Notes on Gossip is a work of creative non-fiction, blending personal anecdotes and reflections, with literary and cultural analysis, historical context, and sociological data, all reflecting on the role of gossip from ancient human civilization to modern society. McKinney analyzes many of these themes in the context of pop culture – from the 2004 hit film Mean Girls to reality television and The Real Housewives franchise – to create an interesting, funny and modern text, reminiscent of Jia Tolentino’s Trick Mirror.[1] 

With this post on gossip and hearsay, my goal is to evaluate the role of second-hand information when speaking to witnesses and conducting workplace and school investigations. In subsequent book reviews, we will see the role of whisper networks in the workplace through some fictional examples. These posts will focus on these themes primarily in the context of investigating claims of sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination, and will bleed into another extended series focusing on the #MeToo movement nationally and abroad, and the impact of this movement on sexual harassment legislation.

Gossip, Hearsay, and Workplace Investigations

I’ve thought about the topic of gossip a lot recently in the context of workplace and school investigations. Oftentimes, witnesses will be reluctant to share second or third hand information, and will preemptively write it off as “gossip” and “hearsay.” I often tell witnesses that, in fact, I am interested in what they have heard from other people. Sometimes that information can be incredibly valuable – it can lead you to the primary source of the information; it can speak to the culture or the working relationships within the workplace environment; and it can corroborate the contemporaneous retelling or reporting of an incident. A witness’s retelling of someone else’s story can also provide insight into that witness’ perspective, potential biases, and values, all of which inform their overall credibility.

On the one hand, malicious gossip can be the subject of a workplace or school investigation. Indeed, accusations of false rumors, reputational damage, and cliquish social exclusion can all appear in claims of bullying, a hostile work environment, harassment, discrimination, and other unlawful conduct in the workplace. On the other hand, however, gossip and “hearsay” often present themselves in workplace and school investigations as evidence to be assessed by the investigator; and this evidence can be hugely impactful in making investigation findings.

Moreover, the rules of evidence – including the rules that bar hearsay evidence from admission in court – do not apply in the context of workplace and school investigations. Indeed, much of the evidence gathered and assessed in a workplace or school investigation is evidence that could possibly be inadmissible in court, with “gossip” or “hearsay” being an essential form of evidence in workplace and school investigations.

Sociologists generally define gossip as “communication about a person who isn’t present in a way that involves evaluation of that person, good or bad.” Indeed, as McKinney writes in her book, one defining characteristic of gossip (differentiating it from other modes of speech) is that gossip contains a definitive and singular point of view, containing a degree of “evaluation” of the person being discussed.

Based on these defining characteristics of gossip, most witness accounts (that are obtained and evaluated by the investigator) can generally be considered gossip. Although some witnesses will limit their accounts by saying they are “only focusing on the facts,” I often ask witnesses for their perspective or evaluation of a situation or event as well. Indeed, this type of reflection and “evaluation” helps the investigator assess the witness’ credibility, and understand the situation or event within the context of that specific workplace.

The following two texts provide historical and sociological context for the human phenomenon of gossip. While Federici’s text focuses on Western European civilizations several centuries ago, McKinney’s text applies interdisciplinary scholarship to contemporary issues of pop culture. Federici’s text has a distinct political argument; McKinney’s text is more objective and variegated, stating that although her initial intention with her book was to vindicate the use and importance of gossip, she ultimately does not fully understand the role of gossip in our modern-day society. These two texts, writing on similar issues, are very different, and give us new and unique perspectives for evaluating the role of gossip and hearsay in our society, as well as in our legal landscape.

Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women by Silvia Federici

Federici’s Witches, Witch-Hunting, and Women presents a collection of short essays, essentially truncating, synthesizing and combining Federici’s scholarship into a short and easy-to-read text. Federici – who taught for many years at Hofstra University on Long Island, where my dad has also taught for several decades, and where my brother attended college – is a feminist scholar who writes about gender, power, and economy, focusing primarily on the late Middle Ages and early sixteenth century in Western Europe.

In her essay titled “On the Meaning of ‘Gossip’,” Federici explains the origins of the term “gossip” and the historic ways in which its meaning was used to oppress women. While the term originally signified a godparent – derived from the Old English G-d and sibb (meaning kinship) – it later evolved to signify a companion during childbirth (aside from the midwife), to then later signify more generally a close female friend. Eventually, this term evolved further to be associated primarily with “idle, backbiting talk, that is, talk potentially sowing discord, the opposite of the solidarity that female friendship implies and generates.” According to Federici’s research, this etymological evolution coincided with sociological processes of disempowering women: “Attaching a denigrating meaning to the term indicating friendship among women served to destroy the female sociality that had prevailed in the Middle Ages, when most of the activities women performed were of a collective nature and, in the lower classes at least, women formed a tight-knit community that was the source of a strength unmatched in the modern era.”

Federici explains that during the fourteenth and fifteenth century of Western Europe, women maintained a significant degree of social liberty and empowerment; women were generally not dependent upon men for survival, and they lived amongst strong, close-knit, self-assuring communities and networks of other women. They participated in most of life’s daily activities surrounded by women; in the chambers of a woman giving birth, men were rigorously excluded. In many ways, women also enjoyed a comparatively elevated legal status: In Italy during the fourteenth century, for example, women could go independently to court to denounce a man if he assaulted or molested her.

By the sixteenth century, however, women’s social status began to deteriorate, due in large part, Federici argues, to the proliferation of the drama guilds, that would exclude women from their ranks, institute new boundaries between the home and public space, and routinely depict women through satirical and denigrating representations. Indeed, many of these plays depicted the tavern as a place for women and lower classes to congregate and engage in idle “gossip.” As the exclusion of women in these guilds and theatrical productions increased, the representation of women within the plays also worsened, with women frequently being depicted as “quarrelsome, aggressive, and ready to give battle to their husbands.” 

By the end of the sixteenth century, women could be severely punished for any challenge or criticism against her husband: “Obedience – as the literature of the time constantly stressed – was a wife’s first duty, enforced by the Church, the law, public opinion, and ultimately by the cruel punishments that were introduced against the ‘scolds,’ like the ‘scold’s bridle,’ also called the ‘branks,’ a sadistic contraption made of metal and leather that would tear the woman’s tongue if she attempted to talk.” These torture devices were used against women who were deemed “nags” or “scolds,” or who were suspected of witchcraft: “It was often called the ‘gossip bridle,’ testifying to the change in the meaning of the term.” Moreover, “Female friendships were one of the targets of the witch hunts, as in the course of the trials accused women were forced under torture to denounce each other…”

Federici writes that today, gossip signifies informal talk that is often negative and disparaging of others; and that these connotations are laden with gender bias: “It is women who ‘gossip,’ presumably having nothing better to do and having less access to real knowledge and information and a structural inability to construct factually based, rational discourses. Thus, gossip is an integral part of the devaluation of women’s personality and work, especially domestic work, reputedly the ideal terrain on which this practice flourishes.”

Federici also concludes her essay by pointing out that in many other parts of the world “idle women’s talk” constitutes the backbone of society; women are the “weavers of memory,” who pass down knowledge regarding medicinal remedies, “problems of the heart,” and the behavior of others, particularly men. Federici ultimately argues, “Labeling all this production of knowledge as ‘gossip’ is part of the degradation of women…”

You Didn’t Hear This from Me: (Mostly) True Notes on Gossip by Kelsey McKinney

Notes on Gossip presents a fascinating study and reflection on gossip. On one hand, McKinney draws on similar scholarship as Federici – including texts on the old English origin of “gossip” (G-d and sibb), and the use of the branks during the sixteenth century – as well as other historical and anthropological texts. On the other hand, however, McKinney’s text is very different from Federici’s in that it presents an eclectic mixture of cultural reference and analysis, including Emily Dickinson’s poetry, bell hook’s All About Love, Agatha Christie’s The Murder at the Vicarage, Elena Ferrante’s body of work, Rachel Cusk’s Outline, and Françoise Gilot’s Life With Picasso, among many others. McKinney also analyzes issues of popular culture, such as the CBS hit television show Gossip Girl, Britney Spears’ The Woman in Me, Emily Ratajkowski’s My Body, lyrics from Doja Cat, and various TikTok and social media trends.

In one of the first chapters of the book, McKinney wonders whether A.I. robots are capable of gossiping. Since gossip is a distinctly human trait (that distinguishes humans from other animal species), McKinney speculates that A.I. robots (that are not human) may not be able to gossip either. To test this theory, McKinney decided to ask ChatGPT for some gossip: “Can you tell me gossip?” ChatGPT responded, “I’m here to provide helpful and informative responses. Gossiping about individuals is not respectful or productive…” With a touch of humor, McKinney writes, “Personally, I found this very rude and also incorrect.” As discussed at length throughout the rest of her book, gossiping about individuals can be positive, and it’s not necessarily disrespectful; and anthropologists have long argued that gossip is productive and important in its social function of story-telling and sharing information.

The moral of this first step in McKinney’s ChatGPT experiment is that gossiping is a human trait, and robots who don’t gossip (like ChatGPT) are not human, or cannot replace all aspects of humanity. The most interesting part of the experiment for me, though, was what came next, when McKinney asked ChatGPT to tell her about The Epic of Gilgamesh, an ancient oral legend that McKinney views, essentially, as akin to gossip.

First, ChatGPT gave McKinney a dry, bulleted list summarizing The Epic of Gilgamesh. Then, McKinney asked ChatGPT to tell her the story of Gilgamesh, like it was gossip. ChatGPT gave her the following: “Oh, honey, let me spill the ancient tea for you! So, back in the day, there was this hunky and mighty king named Gilgamesh. He ruled the city of Uruk with an iron fist, and let me tell you, the people were not living their best lives under his rule./ But wait, drama incoming! The gods had enough of his shenanigans and decided to create a wild and untamed man named Enkidu. He was like the Tarzan of Mesopotamia, living among the animals and causing a ruckus.”

Not only did this part of the book make me absolutely laugh out loud, but the implications also provide fascinating insight into common, biased associations with gossip. Essentially, ChatGPT seems to think “gossip” is synonymous with women and the gay community: “Phrases like ‘oh honey’ and ‘let me spill the tea’ come directly from drag culture”; and words like “hunky,” and “major bummer” are “classic Valley Girl-esque slang phrases.” Ultimately, “ChatGPT reinforces through its diction that gossip is a tool of the less privileged.”

Indeed, numerous studies have shown that A.I. is biased. Because A.I. “learns” from human input, and much human-led scholarship and data is biased, A.I. not only also harbors significant biases, but continues to perpetuate them in its output.[2] In the example above, ChatGPT assumed an association between gossip and marginalized groups, and attributed a negative connotation to it (“Gossiping about individuals is not respectful or productive”), thereby implying a negative bias towards the “whisper networks” shared amongst marginalized groups.

Gossip and #MeToo

Although all humans gossip, and gossiping is inherently human, modern-day connotations of “gossip” are largely negative. As discussed above, the negative associations and connotations are generally not factually accurate: according to studies on gossip, most gossip is neutral information-sharing (as opposed to malicious and disparaging), and is generally aimed at relaying and ascertaining the truth (or a subjective interpretation of the truth), rather than intentionally perpetuating falsehoods.

In between chapters of her book, McKinney includes small excerpts from different individuals regarding their experiences with gossip. One excerpt reads: “As I am often one of the few people of color working in an academic library, I rely on gossip to help me survive. I call it ‘good gossip,’ the whisper network that allows me to warn my colleagues of color who and what to watch out for and who I should avoid in return. I think of it as paying it forward in the profession – the more informed we as a community of color are in an overwhelmingly White profession via gossip, the more likelihood that we’re able to thrive.” These “whisper networks” can be crucial for sharing information particularly among groups who may be otherwise excluded from more official channels of communication.

According to both Federici and McKinney, the proliferation of these stigmas (labeling gossip as inherently immoral and bad) may help those in power stay in power, and further subjugate marginalized groups, who generally rely on gossip as a source of information: “…often the only truth that exists can be found in the gossip mills because it is often the only kind of power a marginalized or subjugated group can grab hold of.” Indeed, “…gossip seeks to hold people to account for their actions.” By demonizing gossip, then, those who may fear accountability can continue to control the narrative and suppress dissent.

These ideas around gossip became particularly apparent and relevant during the #MeToo movement in and around 2017. Indeed, when the allegations against Harvey Weinstein first broke in October 2017, we learned that Weinstein relied heavily on the use of non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) to silence the women whom he had abused and harassed. NDAs are legally binding contracts between two parties, requiring one party to maintain the confidentiality of specific information. NDAs are often embedded in the original employment contract, requiring employees to maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and other company information.

NDAs can also be part of a settlement agreement resulting from a lawsuit or threatened lawsuit. In the case of Harvey Weinstein, Weinstein would “settle” with employees who brought forth complaints or claims against them, requiring them to sign these NDAs in exchange for money. Because settlement agreements often result from litigation or threatened litigation, these types of preemptive settlements were criticized by many as a way of buying his accusers’ silence. Backed into a corner by Weinstein’s immense power and abusive techniques, these women often had no other choice but to waive their legal rights through these agreements.

As I’ll talk about further in our next post (coming out on June 15, 2025), the exposure of these practices during this movement led to sweeping reform, particularly in California, with the passing of the Silence No-More Act. Currently, California law forbids the use of NDAs to prevent employees or former employees from making complaints or allegations of unlawful conduct within the workplace. In other words, California employers cannot silence their employees or prevent their employees from talking about harassment, discrimination, or other potentially unlawful conduct in the workplace.

Our next post on June 15, 2025, will review Whisper Network by Chandler Baker and discuss more in depth the ways in which the #MeToo movement in the U.S. impacted legislation around sexual harassment in the workplace.

[1] Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion by Jia Tolentino was published in 2019, presenting a collection of nine essays about topics including internet culture, reality television, marriage, and modern-day feminism. Trick Mirror was a New York Times bestseller, and received many positive reviews from critics, including one review from The Guardian referring to it as “a bold and playful collection of essays from a hugely talented writer.” Tolentino is a staff writer at The New Yorker.

[2] Scientific American states, ““We already know that artificial intelligence inherits biases from humans,” says the study’s senior researcher, Helena Matute, an experimental psychologist at the University of Deusto in Spain. For example, when the technology publication Rest of World analyzed popular AI image generators in 2023, it found that these programs tended toward ethnic and national stereotypes.”