The Talking Cure and the Silent Treatment: Some Limits of “Discourse” as Speech

This manuscript suggests that broad notions of “discourse” have morphed under cultural pressure into injunctions to “talk.” It inquires after the purposes of talk, particularly as remedy and practice in “deliberative democracy.” Since many of us do much of our talking in the classroom, it first asks what the academy teaches administrators about democratic talk and its purposes, what talk accompanies the professorial walk, and to what extent the classroom is a useful allegory for the polis. Next, the article discusses PA ’s prescriptions for talk in light of a (partial) taxonomy of silence, and an economy of listening. It considers whether the prescription for talk is likely to be appreciated, interpreted, and applied evenly across the political body, given historical experience. It also investigates silence as mode and sign of exclusion, withdrawal, and resistance, and suggests there is more to silence than the absence of talk. After asking how well we are listening to either talk or silence, I return to the metaphorical “talking cure” to ask why we should talk, how, and what that has to do with governance. This leads to an appreciation for what silence might add to our understanding of particular conversations, and to consideration of the limits of discourse conceptualized as speech.