Mishra1

Diptanshu Mishra

Professor Arindam Chakrabarti

Philosophy of Language

6 October 2024

Words That Wound: A Critical Examination of Counterspeech and Structural Harm

Introduction

Hate speech raises questions about the balance between free expression, human dignity
and societal harm. In India, hate speech is regulated by law ( Section 153A of the Indian Penal
Code ( IPC), criminalizing speech that promotes enmity between different groups. In contrast,
hate speech regulations In USA have been historically resisted because of an unprecedented
favoring of free speech. One possible alternative in such a set up would be supported
counterspeech. Instead of censoring or criminalizing hate speech, this approach includes state
empowering the target of hate speech to be able to engage in counterspeech. In theory, this
addresses the harms of hate speech without infringing upon free expression rights.

However it has its limitations, in order to understand them, this paper will begin with J.L.
Austin’s ‘How to do things with words’. His theory explains how speech acts are not just
descriptive but performative. Judith Butler in her work ‘Excitable Speech’(1997), extends this
theory into the realm of politics, arguing that hate speech as a performative act enacts harm by
reinforcing social structure of subordination. In this paper, I will argue that counterspeech, while
offering a valuable tool for empowering targets of hate speech, is rendered insufficient where
hate speech is deeply embedded within systemic social and institutional structures. Drawing on
Austin’s speech act theory and Butler’s theory of performativity, this paper will explore the
limitations of counterspeech and the possibility of using more radical interventions.

a. What is J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and its relation to Performativity of
Hate Speech
 Mishra2

Austin distinguished between different types of speech acts: locutionary acts (the act of
saying something), illocutionary acts (the act performed in saying something), and
perlocutionary acts (the effects produced by saying something). Illocutionary acts are speech acts
that do not just describe reality but bring about a change in the world. For example, when a judge
says, "I sentence you to ten years in prison," the speech act itself performs the sentencing.
Austin also emphasized on the conventional nature of illocutionary acts, that is they rely on a
shared understanding of the rules governing speech in a specific context. For these acts to make
sense, felicity conditions must be met. These include authority of the speaker, appropriateness of
the context and the recognition of the act by the audience. For example, if a random person on
the street says, "I now pronounce you married," the illocutionary act fails because the speaker
lacks the authority and the context is inappropriate.

When applied to hate speech, Austin’s theory suggests that hate speech can function as a
performative act that enacts harm, provided the felicity conditions are met. For instance, when a
racial slur is uttered in a context where the speaker has social power, and the audience recognizes
the subordinating nature of the speech, the illocutionary act of hate speech succeeds in enacting
harm. However, Austin’s theory also emphasizes the immediacy of the speech act. The "total
speech situation," as Austin described it, is bound by the immediate spatio-temporal context.
This focus on the immediate conditions of speech differentiates Austin’s theory from later
adaptations, such as Butler’s.

b. What is Butler’s Extension of Austin and the Concept of Historical Sedimentation

While Austin’s theory focuses on the immediate context of speech acts, Butler argues that
the performative force of hate speech goes beyond the immediate context and moment of
utterance. Drawing on Althusser’s concept of interpellation and Derrida’s notion of citationality,
Butler contends that hate speech is not merely a one-time act but a repetition of past harms,
embedded in historical and social structures. She introduces the idea of condensed historicity,
where each utterance of hate speech is a citation of previous utterances, reinforcing social
hierarchies over time.When a racial slur is uttered, it does not merely insult the target. It invokes
a long history of racial oppression and reinforces the social structures that position certain groups
as inferior. Hate speech therefore becomes performative as it repeats and reinscribes historical
power dynamics.

One possible criticism of such an idea would be that it risks undermining the speaker’s
agency. It binds the speaker in the historical context in which they operate, leaving little room for
agency or a break away from historical patterns. The historical sedimentation of hate speech may
 Mishra3

render counterspeech less effective in dismantling the broader hierarchies of power that give hate
speech its performative force.

c. What are the Limitations of Counterspeech in Addressing Structural Harm

One of the key limitations of supported counterspeech is its focus on the individual or
immediate harms of hate speech, rather than the broader systemic and structural harms that hate
speech enacts. As Butler’s analysis suggests, hate speech functions not only as a personal insult
but also as a tool of social and institutional power. When a slur is uttered, it draws on a long
history of social practices and power relations that position certain groups as inferior.

The limitation of supported counterspeech lies in its focus on immediacy. It ignores

broader systemic and structural harms. When a slur is uttered, it draws on a long history of social
practices and power relations that position certain groups as inferior. In India, caste-based slurs
such as "chamar" (used derogatorily against Dalits) arise from historical structures that have
positioned them as inferior, rooted in the historical and social structures of caste-based
discrimination that continue to shape Indian society. These slurs are not just linguistic tools but
symbols of systemic oppression.

Supported counterspeech, even when backed by state resources, may fail to address this
deeper structural harm. While providing platforms for counterspeech can help individuals
respond to hate speech and reclaim their dignity, it does not necessarily challenge the broader
social and institutional frameworks that give hate speech its power. For example, even if Dalits
in India are empowered to respond to caste-based hate speech, the broader caste system that has
marginalized them for centuries remains largely intact.

d. Can Counterspeech Be Reimagined to Address Structural Harm?

Can supported counterspeech be reimagined to address the structural and systemic

dimensions of hate speech, or is a more radical intervention required? One possible response is to
argue that supported counterspeech could be expanded to include not only individual responses
to hate speech but also collective efforts to challenge the institutional and structural frameworks
that give hate speech its performative power.This could involve collective action and solidarity
among marginalized groups. Institutional reforms that address casteism or racism, and promoting
public education programs challenging social hierarchies reinforced by hate speech.

However, even this expanded vision of counter speech has limitations. Hate speech
derives its power from racial, caste-based, gender or religious hierarchies and are deeply
embedded in legal, educational, media and political institutions and organizations. These
 Mishra4

institutions often reflect and perpetuate discriminatory norms and hierarchies, consciously or
unconsciously.These institutions are often slow to change and are resistant to challenges from
marginalized communities. Even when collective action succeeds in applying pressure on these
institutions, the changes may be superficial or symbolic rather than transformative.

For example:

Policing and criminal justice reform: In the U.S., even after widespread protests and calls
for reform, the institutional structures of law enforcement remain largely unchanged. Hate
speech directed at marginalized communities continues to be reinforced by these systems
through practices like racial profiling and mass incarceration.

Caste-based discrimination in education and employment: In India, while collective

action and legal reforms have made some progress in addressing caste-based discrimination (e.g.,
affirmative action policies), the underlying social structures that sustain the caste system remain
largely intact. Hate speech targeting Dalits and lower castes remains pervasive.

Objection and Response

A possible objection to my critique of counterspeech could be that it underestimates the

potential of counterspeech to affect social change. But I argue that while it can play a role in
fostering public dialogue, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to dismantle the deeper
structural and institutional frameworks that give hate speech its performative power.

Moreover, counterspeech is not always effective when the broader society is unwilling or
unable to engage with the voices of marginalized communities. In some cases, counterspeech
may even reinforce the power imbalances that hate speech enacts by positioning marginalized
communities as always on the defensive. They could be viewed as constantly responding to harm
rather than finding means of reshaping the terms of public discourse.

E. What are some radical interventions that could be a substitute for

counterspeech?

A political possibility for Butler lies in misappropriating or reworking the force of

harmful speech from its initial contexts. She argues for speech acts to be “reclaimed or
redirected”. Hate speech could be subverted, by which terms which were initially harmful, their
meanings could be transformed.

Relevant example: Reclamation of the term “Queer” by the LGBTQ+ community. Once a
derogatory slur, "queer" has been re-signified by activists as a term of empowerment and
 Mishra5

identity. This act of misappropriation shows how language even while being in a state of
historical sedimentation can be reworked to challenge those very structures

Even though a racial slur like the N-word carries a long history of harm, it could be and
has been re-appropriated in certain contexts by African Americans as a term of solidarity. The
ambivalence of language allows for this kind of re-signification, even though the slur retains its
harmful force in other contexts. This demonstrates that language is never fully determined by its
prior uses—it is always open to new meanings.

Works Cited:

1. Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford Univ. Press, 2009.
2. Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge, 2021.