Last night I had a conversation with a police officer. We talked about profanity directed at a person and name calling. The question was what a person can do to manage the hostility and stop the offensive speech.
He and his partner are assigned to the safety division of police work. But I look on police officers as universal by virtue of the fact that here in Los Angeles all go through the same basic training. It's only after graduation that they go into their specialty area. So there was going to be reliance on the advice that came from either of these two officers.
Does the race of either of the officers in this situation matter as it relates to the question? To me, it did not. However, there are statistics that show Black women suffer a higher incidence of abuse and battering than do any of their other counterparts. One officer was Black. Hispanic women suffer the second most amount of abuse and battering according to statistics. The other officer was Hispanic.
I energetically pressed these two men to explain how the name calling and swearing could be stopped. The immediate situation related to a residential situation. However, the parties to the actions being discussed could easily be transplanted to a work situation so that co-workers might be seen as causing the disruption and hostility. In which case, Human Resources and Management would need to step in with some rules and enforcement of them. But the officer who responded, chose to see swear words and profane name calling as a form of free speech. He continued his response by saying, "Besides, they're only words and words don't hurt."
Why did he say that? Why would a police officer, one who has been trained on matters of safety and keeping the peace, of discerning where the bright line should be, have this cavalier attitude about something as hideous as swear words and profane use of one's name or profane words instead of one's name? Why would he be supportive of a hostile environment and its right to existence as more healthy than one where physical violence occurs?
"Words do hurt," was my response. "They are a form of emotional and psychological abuse. And those types of abuse do leave scars just as the ones from physical aggression. The difference is that the physical scars of violence fade. But the ones from words don't and last a very long time."
Furthermore, once this type of verbal behavior becomes validated and supported, so has growth of the behavior become encouraged. Not only will bullying take over the environment but also a type of competition to see who can outdo the rest for outrageous behavior.
In the past, the question was raised as to whether there should be "free speech" and "freedom of expression" in the workplace. In a way, the answers to those issues is that there should be no "free speech" or "freedom of expression" in the workplace because if it has nothing to do with framing the company's brand, promoting its product or service, it doesn't make sense to endorse the speech. If however, the business is making fertilizer, why call "the rose" by another name? (Sometimes a little humor helps us take a needed breath and get perspective.)
The pressure of the conversation from last night is still burning within me. These unresearched words were a necessary act for today. However, as professionals, I'm certain you want additional information, research, and statistics. That will be gathered and supplied. If it is not forthcoming in the time frame that you would like, please contact me and I'll re-prioritize the other projects.
Verbal and emotional abuse are not just part of the domestic scene. The abusive boss, the elusive manager, the never-satisfied supervisor, the unsupportive and scene-stealing co-worker are real characters in most workplaces. They do not have the right to perpetrate their sickness in the workplace in order to inflate their needy egos at the cost of valued workers and also valued business in the form of clients, product, and services.
TAGS: verbal abuse, swearing, hostility, aggression, "free speech", violence,
