Tone-Policing is one of those terms that I’d experienced well before knowing there was a “word for that.” One definition describes tone-policing as a “conversational tactic that dismisses the ideas being communicated when they are perceived to be delivered in an angry, frustrated, sad, fearful, or otherwise emotionally charged manner.”
In the workplace, tone-policing might sound like:
- Black woman colleague: “I am really tired of going to these women leadership events and it only being about or for white women! Someone needs to call this out—it is ridiculous. And it really makes our diversity efforts seem so one-sided.”
- White woman colleague: “You know, I think you could probably get more buy-in if your approach wasn’t as divisive. You don’t want people thinking you’re upset or being difficult or saying their efforts don’t work. Like, you know I’m all for diversity but your statement kind of made me feel excluded, or if as a white woman, I’m doing something wrong.” > tone-policing
In advocacy or social justice spaces and in the media, tone-policing might sound like:
- Native American/Indigenous Leader sharing: “Our government has turned its back on our community! Our government and policies are racist and have impacted, even taken, the lives of thousands in our community. We want action!”
- Analyst on Media outlet: “The reality is, more would probably get done if they focused on being civil in communicating their issues. You can’t call the government racist and expect a response that is favorable to your efforts.” > tone-policing
Tone-policing is typically used as a tactic in conversations seeking to address oppression and inequity. As shown in the examples above, tone-policing dismisses the “issue” (e.g. the inequity, injustice, oppression, and impact it has) and centers the way in which the issue was communicated (e.g. you sound ‘angry’ or ‘divisive”).
Some have defended the use of “tone-policing” as a way to challenge how “social justice warriors” 😉 might attempt to appeal to emotion when communicating their positions and arguments. Appeal to emotion is generally defined as a fallacy that attempts to address an argument by “playing on emotion” lacking reason or evidence. In other words, critics might say “tone-policing” is justified because people “don’t communicate their perspectives in a civil way.” From my perspective, justifying and perpetuating the act of tone-policing is inaccurate, harmful and does not support the work around equity, justice, and inclusion.
From my perspective, justifying and perpetuating the act of tone-policing is inaccurate, harmful and does not support the work around equity, justice, and inclusion Share on XThere are a few assumptions and agreements we must be aligned on in order to truly understand why tone-policing should not be a behavior perpetuated by those who seek to lead, support, and engage in dialogue around equity, justice, and inclusion.
In conversations and actions that seek to address injustice, inequity, and other –isms, the goal must be to center the experiences of those most marginalized. Inequity and injustice only exist where there is a power imbalance in outcomes, experiences—when there is access, value or judgement ascribed to some groups over others. Sometimes these outcomes, experiences, and ascription of value are more subtle in effect (e.g. micro-aggressions, hiring bias), and others are deadly (disproportionate death by suicide rates among LGBTQIA youth, police brutality in Black communities). Inequities and oppression exist because a power structure exists.
In conversations and actions that seek to address injustice, inequity, and other –isms, we must understand where we exist within that power structure. We inherently hold power and privilege, and (can simultaneously) experience oppression based on who we are and the groups of which we belong. We must know what this means for us. We must ask: When I walk into this conversation, where am I situated in this power structure?
In conversations and actions that seek to address injustice, inequity, and other –isms, we must understand where we exist within that power structure Share on XIn conversations and actions that seek to address injustice, inequity, and other –isms, we must always interrogate our intentions and impact—are we disrupting the power structure (or status quo) in our actions and intentions or are we colluding with the power structure in our actions and intentions? The act of tone-policing does not disrupt the power structure or status quo. It preserves it.
The act of tone-policing does not disrupt the power structure or status quo. It preserves it. Share on XI offer these as contextual framing for understanding why tone-policing is harmful and dangerous, and ultimately, a tactic that impedes progress towards justice, equity, and inclusion. In my experience, without understanding and agreeing on the aforementioned, it is unlikely that one will truly understand how harmful and counterproductive tone-policing can be. Another wonderful resource that depicts the problem with tone-policing artfullycan be found here.
Consider the following points of reflection and behaviors that could’ve taken place instead of the tone-policing depicted in the scenarios above. The white woman colleague and media analyst could’ve instead asked of themselves:
- What power dynamics are at play in this situation?
- Who is most impacted by this situation, issue, injustice?
- Am I part of these groups? Am I impacted by this issue or injustice?
- What power do I have to amplify the experience and narrative of these groups?
- How am I feeling after hearing this, and why am I feeling it?
- How can I model empathy and validate the feelings of this group, person?
- How do I hold myself accountable to continuing to center their experience versus my feelings…in service of equity, justice, and inclusion?
- If I center my feelings over their experiences, who wins… what will be the outcome?
- In what ways might tone-policing distance me and others from the experiences of those most marginalized?
- What else do I need to know (and perhaps, research) in order to better understand the perspective and truth of this person, group?
- Am I colluding with power structures in my intent and actions or am I disrupting in my intent and actions?
I pulled the following from a discussion board thread that explored (and critiqued) this concept—and I think this response is pretty spot on:
“As a white man, there are many issues that you are able to consider and discuss as merely an intellectual exercise, because you are privileged from ever being personally affected by those issues. If you are discussing an issue with a person whose fundamental human dignity is at stake, it would not be appropriate for you to set the terms on how that issue should be discussed.
If you were talking about abortion with a woman, criminal justice with a person of color, gender identity with someone who is queer, or border policy with an immigrant, you would be entering the conversation from a position of privilege. Because you personally are not marginalized by policies relating to these issue[s], your privilege blinds you from being able to see the multitude of ways in which other people are affected by that policy. Presenting your own opinion on the issue as if it has equal weight to the experience of someone who is personally affected only serves to reinforce your relative positions of privilege and marginalization.
If someone accuses you of “tone policing” that would be an appropriate time to consider how you own position of privilege affects your perspective on an issue and an appropriate time to speak less and listen more.”
A point worth emphasizing here: Speak less and listen more.
Speak less and listen more. Share on X
