Sincerely Human
By Norman Araiza, M.A.

Gossip in a small town

Is it news or is it gossip? The difference lies in the intention of the teller and the quality of the information. If the information being told is of a positive nature and the person spoken about would not be offended or embarrassed, then probably it may be considered news. If, however, the information being told would hurt or embarrass the person spoken about, then clearly it is gossip. Webster’s Dictionary describes gossip as idle chatter about the private affairs of others. It goes on to say that gossip is usually the domain of women, but we all know it is in no way gender-exclusive. In fact, a study by a Social Issues Research Center found that gossip accounted for 55% of men’s conversation time and 67% of women’s conversation time. The difference is much smaller than what had been thought.

The truth is that nearly everyone takes part in gossip occasionally, and everyone, except for the most isolated among us, is the victim of gossip. It’s no secret that in our fair city gossip is not just an occasional occurrence—it is a major, negative pastime that leaves our neighbors with no recourse or ability to defend themselves. I’ve heard party guests say, “I go to every party I’m invited to just because if I’m not there I’ll be the subject of the rumor mill.” While this may seem laughable, the truth is that some of us love nothing more than to pass on the latest information about people we refer to as our friends. Sociologists have referred to gossip as a “social weapon.” It is indeed a harmful tool that some use against others.

There are two kinds of gossip. One involves passing on information about another’s private life that is true. The other involves passing on information about another’s private life that may not be true. Usually, gossipers care little about the validity of the information. They are simply too lost in reveling in their informed status as they spread the word around town.

When you look closely, there are also two parts to the gossiping paradigm. The first is the gossiper who is obviously enjoying herself or himself by spreading the information, as if the gossiper is among the select few privy to this information. This is the telling tale (excuse the pun) about the gossiper. First, if the person being spoken about truly considers the gossiper worthy of the disclosure, and then the gossiper, with a sick need to raise his or her own status, spreads the information to those not privy to the information, the gossiper commits a betrayal in the truest sense of the word.

The second part, of course, is the person being spoken about who experiences the effects of the gossip. This individual is truly the victim, and no matter what the person does and regardless of whether the information is true or not, the one being spoken about can do nothing to defend him- or herself. His or her only responsibility for this betrayal is using poor judgment about someone.  Certainly no true friend would spread negative information to others about their friend.

Let’s be clear: I am in no way holding myself above those who gossip. I have been as guilty as any of us. However, through the process of writing this piece, I have become acutely aware of my own foibles. Like so many other character flaws I have addressed throughout my life, I am committed to eliminating this one to the degree my consciousness will permit. It is not my intention in this article to take moral inventory of the residents in the city that I love, but rather to use whatever influence I may have through my column to remind my readers of how we may all improve with greater consciousness.

Tied to the issue of honesty in gossip lies the very human tendency for exaggeration as a story is relayed from one teller to the next. We are all familiar with how a story changes along a chain of communication, even when accuracy is intended. Imagine what happens when the issue is colorful, humorous or perhaps immoral. In examining our own involvement in this shortcoming that affects our neighbors so unfairly, we need to ask ourselves: Is the information something negative about a third party who isn’t there to defend him- or herself? Second, does passing on this information make you feel as though you are better than the person you are talking about? And third, are you using the information you are passing on to better your own appearance in some way?

In large cities many residents enjoy the sense of anonymity. But in small cities such as ours, negative, personal information can spread like wildfire, destroying reputations and in some cases lives, deservedly or not. Who are we to pass judgment?

What I love most about our beautiful city has always been the people it draws from many areas of the world, people I would never have the opportunity to meet in the US. Without a doubt, the foreign community in San Miguel is by and large more creative, adventurous, and sophisticated than that found in most cities anywhere. I like to think that we as a group can rise above this human tendency and in doing so make this city an even better place to live, where a person’s privacy is respected and hearsay is discouraged, even among friends.

In closing, two bits of conventional wisdom come to mind. First, if we can’t think of anything good to say, why say anything? Second. if we are of such a higher mentality, certainly we are capable of better conversation than talking about our neighbors. It’s all about consciousness, catching ourselves just before we slip into that lower level of mediocrity. We will all be better because of it.

Norman Araiza is a US-trained psychotherapist enjoying a limited practice in San Miguel. He can be reached at 152-5449 or nearaiza@hotmail.com  Comments and suggestions regarding the content of future articles are encouraged.