Reasons for Staying Silent Despite Knowing It's "Right" ─ The Psychology Behind Why Some Speak Up Against Prejudice While Others Remain Silent

Reasons for Staying Silent Despite Knowing It's "Right" ─ The Psychology Behind Why Some Speak Up Against Prejudice While Others Remain Silent

Before Blaming Yourself for "Not Speaking Up"

When faced with discriminatory remarks or treatment, we don't all react the same way. Some people calmly express that "it's a problem," while others respond with strong words. Some file formal complaints, while others walk away without saying anything.


This difference is often attributed to a person's "courage," "political stance," or "education and knowledge." However, such simplifications overlook the fear and cost-benefit analysis felt on the ground, and more importantly, the different senses of "how to protect oneself (or one's group)."


The article introduced here focuses on "cultural values," particularly the norm of "honor," as a factor that differentiates reactions to discrimination. It's important not to dismiss honor as an "old-fashioned trait" or "individual personality." Honor can be understood as a kind of "cultural safety device" that thrives in environments where social systems don't provide adequate protection.


"Honor" Is Not a Switch for Violence—Three Diverging Points

When we hear "honor," we might first think of "immediate retaliation when insulted" or "hot-bloodedness." However, research shows that honor doesn't simply radicalize people in one direction.
The key point is that the content of honor is divided into multiple elements, each promoting different behaviors. The research mainly deals with the following axes:


1) Collective Honor
The sense of responsibility to protect the dignity of one's ethnic or cultural group. When this is strong, whether through mild or strong protests, people tend to "not remain silent" because silence would mean "allowing" the insult.


2) Family Reputation
Values such as "not tarnishing the family name" and "avoiding shame." People strong in this area are more likely to respond non-aggressively, such as calmly pointing out issues, conveying them logically, or maintaining distance by controlling emotions. Here, "dignity" is maintained through self-restraint and courtesy.


3) Retaliation Norms
The sense that "not reacting is a sign of weakness" and "if you let them walk over you, it's over." The stronger this is, the more likely one is to lean towards aggressive counteractions (strong language, intimidation, and sometimes physical retaliation), making mild responses less likely.


Even within the same "honor," behavior diverges depending on which component is stronger. Therefore, judging from the outside as simply "responded/didn't respond" or "mild/aggressive" can obscure what the person was trying to protect (family, group, self-esteem).


Experience, Not Ideals, Determines Response

Another important factor is the "accumulation" of how frequently one has experienced discrimination. Research shows that the more discrimination one has experienced, the higher the intention to "counteract," and particularly for those strong in retaliation norms, aggressive counteractions tend to increase.
In other words, reactions are not only based on "the event at hand" but also on a series of past events. While one might be able to swallow a first-time experience, repeated occurrences can trigger an automatic bodily response. Conversely, silence might also be a result of "habit" or "resignation."


The article further notes that structural factors like economic insecurity and distrust of the police or authorities were smaller than expected. While trust in institutions is not irrelevant, the implication that "ultimately, how much discrimination one has faced" carries more weight is significant.


The Danger of a Society That Only Praises Those Who Can Protest Politely

Protests against discrimination are often discussed alongside the "model answer" that they should be "calm and rational." While there are many situations where calm pointing out is desirable, and avoiding conflict has its value,


the article raises the issue that such standards of "politeness" can become a "measure of evaluation" that ignores the background and experiences of those involved. If only those who could protest calmly are praised, while those who couldn't are dismissed as "emotional," "immature," or "unsympathetic," it becomes a double punishment.


Furthermore, those who choose silence are not necessarily weak. Silence can be a strategy to protect one's safety, job, family relationships, and position within the community. "The freedom not to speak" can sometimes be a survival technique.


What Becomes Visible When Applied to Japan's "Atmosphere"

This research deals with contexts such as South and West Asian communities in the UK and Turkish immigrants in Germany, so-called immigrant and minority contexts. However, the implications can connect to the sensibilities of life in Japan.


For example, the pressure to "not make waves" in workplaces or schools can easily tie into norms that value family reputation and harmony within the group. Meanwhile, in online spaces, retaliation norms can be reinforced, and the logic of "if you stay silent, you lose" or "if you don't talk back, you'll be looked down upon" tends to accelerate.


Both may just be different forms of "the dignity that person wants to protect." Misreading this can deepen divisions over "why does that person stay silent" or "why do they retaliate so strongly."


Reactions on Social Media (As Far As Can Be Confirmed)

※Here, we introduce only "confirmed information" such as the spread of the article and posts from the sender's side. Comments whose details cannot be confirmed due to viewing restrictions are treated as "trends" rather than definitive statements.

  • On the Phys.org page, there were 0 comments at the time of posting. At least within the visible range on the page, no major discussion threads have formed.

  • The researcher (author) introduced the article on LinkedIn, quoting a passage with the gist that "judging reactions without understanding cultural backgrounds blames those not protected by the system." The post received a certain number of reactions (likes, etc.), indicating awareness and sharing within the research community.

  • On the other hand, since the content is not the type of article that presents a "correct answer for attitude change," it seems more likely to be quietly shared as "material for verbalizing the background of actions" rather than causing instant controversy on social media. Especially the point that challenges the simple schema of "calm protest = good" is likely to be re-referenced in DEI contexts in education and workplaces.

Summary: Change How We Evaluate Before Changing Actions

When we encounter discrimination, we often ask "how should we behave?" But what this research confronts us with is "how are we evaluating others' behavior" beforehand.


It's easy to dismiss those who spoke up as "aggressive" or judge those who stayed silent as "lacking courage." However, these reactions arise from the accumulation of culture, family, group, and experience.


What is needed is not a society where everyone can make the same "elegant protest," but a society where anyone, regardless of the reaction they choose, can access safer and more constructive options next. Not only the etiquette of protest but also reducing the situations where protest becomes necessary—and not leaving the areas unprotected by the system to individual "courage." This article provides a starting point for that.


Source URL

Related Articles