In their forthcoming article, Baker introduces the concept of nonverbal marginalization. As opposed to verbal forms of marginalization—such as slurs and hate speech—nonverbal marginalization can take the form of facial expressions, gestures, eye gaze, or body posture.
According to Baker, these nonverbal expressions can be just as communicatively significant as spoken words, yet the philosophical literature has focused almost exclusively on the verbal kind. Recent developments in psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience, however, have underlined the importance of nonverbal communication.
Interestingly, verbal and nonverbal communication often come apart. An agent can be verbally positive—for instance, expressing support for gender equality—while simultaneously behaving in prejudiced ways nonverbally, such as not looking at their female colleagues when they speak. Moreover, nonverbal marginalization is not necessarily conscious or intentional. It may stem from implicit bias: the communicator may sincerely believe in equality, but their automatic, nonverbal cues may still cause significant harm.
This has important social implications. A group may listen eagerly and enthusiastically to a speaker with a lot of social power. Conversely, someone with little social power may receive fewer smiles or nods of encouragement, and therefore tend to perform worse. In other words, because the allocation of nonverbal cues tracks power hierarchies, nonverbal marginalization can reinforce and reproduce such hierarchies. It gives those with a lot of social power an advantage and leaves others at a disadvantage. Since this form of marginalization has largely gone untheorized, such potentially oppressive communication often goes under the radar, too.
The case of Mark and Ann
In the paper, Baker asks us to imagine two employees, Mark and Ann, at a technology company. The two have scheduled a meeting with an outside consultant, David. During the meeting, Ann notices that David appears to be looking mostly at Mark. Feeling overlooked, Ann becomes nervous and stumbles over her words.
The example illustrates how nonverbal signals may influence performance as well as self-perception.
Many, if not most, are familiar with imposter syndrome—that is, having negative attitudes about one's own abilities (when those attitudes are false). But as Baker points out, the feeling of being an imposter is not equally distributed. Subtle behaviors—like failing to smile, make eye contact, or acknowledge someone—can make marginalized people in particular feel like they do not belong.
Baker argues that people who are nonverbally affirmed (think men and white people) tend to perform better, leading to performance gaps. Importantly, such differences in performance are often wrongfully interpreted as ability gaps. In reality, these differences arise from unequal distributions of nonverbal affirmation. Those who are smiled at, nodded at, and looked toward tend to feel more confident and perform better. Those who are overlooked doubt themselves, hesitate, and tend to perform worse.
Researchers at Rutgers University are now conducting experiments to see if they can empirically replicate these effects. Stay tuned!