I always feel bad after gossiping. Recently, I was out to dinner when the topic shifted to the subject of a friend’s life — her newest relationship, her artistic practice, and her complex family dynamics. While I had thoughts on all of the above, it felt wrong to discuss. I suffered through the conversation, contributing here and there, but wanting to cut it off at the end of each sentence. The tone of the discussion wasn’t particularly spiteful or judgmental. More so, it was an inquiry into her motivations and it was being conducted in a small group of those (just 2 of us!) who loved her. But, I’d always been taught that it was morally bankrupt to gossip about others. I even believed that if I didn’t, I’d be able to ward off anyone gossiping about me, too.

“I always feel bad after gossiping.”

After analyzing this moment at the dinner, I realized this censure on my speech extended even further. I tend to cut myself short when speaking about any interpersonal dynamics ranging from those at work to those at the community garden. Even when I’m the main character, it just feels wrong to dwell on these moments. I don’t want to pass judgment — and more importantly, isn’t there something more substantial we should be discussing? Just thinking about it, I can already hear myself saying, “Anyway!” and shifting the subject to more neutral ground.

So, what’s with the self-punishment that rains down during these discussions? I won’t lie, I find the topic of others’ lives quite interesting. In fact, this is one of my favorite subjects. And it can’t be true that discussing the interpersonal dynamics that fill my daily life could all be chalked up to petty grievances. My thoughts and feelings about what happens as I move through the world, the practice of uncovering my own behavior and motivations, and the attempts made to understand the psychology of others — these aren’t just idle talk. They’re the very stuff of life! But somewhere along the line, this gossip — exactly the kind of talk you’re likely to hear at a girls’ night out over spicy skinny margs — became shameful. But why?

“Somewhere along the line, gossip became shameful. But why?”

Thankfully there’s an academic on the case. Silvia Federici, an incisive Marxist feminist scholar whose work has transformed our understanding of women in the public sphere, has traced how the term “gossip” transformed over centuries.

Federici’s research shows that gossip was originally tied to an empowered idea of women, before it shifted to its current association with wayward morality and shame. Federici’s work implies that by understanding the origins of gossip, and taking notice of how it’s shifted to disempower women, we might be able to reclaim it for our own purposes today. If you’ve ever felt bad about gossiping, it’s time to take a quick tour through Federici’s work to uncover the importance of women speaking to other women, and why we might want to make gossip a little less taboo. 🗣️

The original meaning of gossip

“Witches, Witch-hunting, and Women” is a 2018 collection of Federici’s essays that revisits the topic of her seminal work “Caliban and the Witch,” namely how the role of women changed in the transition from the Middle Ages’ feudalism to modern capitalism. In it, there’s a short essay entitled “On the Meaning of ‘Gossip’” where Federici brings us all the way back to early modern England starting around the year 1500.

At that time, “gossip” — which was derived from the Old English term for godparent, combining God and sibb (meaning akin) — had come to refer to female friendships. At first, it indicated women who were “companions in childbirth,” midwives and beyond (a relationship that barely exists in our culture today!). Later, it came to denote women’s friendships which, in the time leading up to the 1500s, were particularly strong and held importance in public life. In both cases, “gossip” referred to the female friend of a woman who would be lovingly called her gossip.

“Gossip came to denote women’s friendships which, in the time leading up to the 1500s, were particularly strong and held importance in public life.”

Earlier in the 1400s when these meanings of gossip were in circulation, there was no derogatory sense attached to them. In fact, Federici explains that at the time, European women “had their own activities and shared much of their lives and work with other women. Women cooperated with each other in every aspect of their life. They sewed, washed their clothes, and gave birth surrounded by other women, with men rigorously excluded from the chamber of the delivering one. Their legal status reflected this greater autonomy. In Italy in the fourteenth century they could still go independently to court to denounce a man if he assaulted or molested them.”

This is in accord with the status of women elsewhere and throughout history where they played an important role in the transmission of culture, and in maintaining the fabric of their communities. At times, this has been a valuable and protected position. In other words, a woman’s gossip was integral to society.

How did gossip become shameful?

With the rise of a patriarchal order (closely tied to the move towards capitalism initiated by the Church and other feudal elite classes), women’s power started to deteriorate. From the 1500s onwards, the meaning of gossip shifted in turn. As the status of women fell, their independence in speech and social formations with other women quickly became a threat. Federici explains that depictions of women became bitter and chastising, and women were often represented as quarrelsome — not surprising when you consider the freedoms that were being taken away from them.

“As the status of women fell, their independence in speech and social formations with other women quickly became a threat.”

In this new era, “[w]omen were […] brought to court and fined for ‘scolding,’ while priests in their sermons thundered against their tongues. Wives especially were expected to be quiet, ‘obey their husband without question’ and ‘stand in awe of them.’

Above all they were instructed to make their husbands and their homes the centers of their attentions and not spend time at the window or at the door. They were even discouraged from paying too many visits to their families after marriage, and above all from spending time with their female friends. Then, in England in 1547, ‘a proclamation was issued forbidding women to meet together to babble and talk’ and ordering husbands to ‘keep their wives in their houses.’”

It was at this point that “gossip” began to mean “a woman engaging in idle talk.” And horrifyingly, there were even new contraptions invented to punish women for being indiscreet gossips — some involving direct violence to their mouths and specifically their tongues.

Reclaiming gossip today

Fast forward to today when this understanding of gossip still looms large over the conversations of women. I’ll rely on Federici again who offers a helpful definition of what gossip means for us in our contemporary society: “Gossip today designates informal talk, often damaging to those that are its object. It is mostly talk that draws its satisfaction from an irresponsible disparaging of others; it is circulation of information not intended for the public ear but capable of ruining people’s reputations, and it is unequivocally ‘women’s talk.’”

This is a far cry from how intimate conversations between women (i.e., gossips) were understood originally, and it diverges equally from what we know “women’s talk” to actually be. Recalling that conversation about a friend’s life that made me cringe, I can identify that it was conducted with a genuine curiosity and protective spirit. We wanted the best for her (seriously! — and not just in the way that people say that to dismiss their damaging whispers). Why shouldn’t we discuss our concerns, with the aim of making sure she’s happy? In retrospect, it’s clear the pit in my stomach during the discussion had more to do with the moralizing view of gossip initiated to weaken the standing of women in society.

“In retrospect, it’s clear the pit in my stomach during the discussion had more to do with the moralizing view of gossip initiated to weaken the standing of women in society.”

Federici’s work makes it clear why, from the point of view of a masculinized upper class, the speech of women very well might be damaging. When women are kept from speaking to each other, when their speech isn’t taken seriously, the power they can find through solidarity falters. And when they do speak? As Emily Janakiram reading Federici notes, this very gossip is what is at the core of the #MeToo movement and it strengthens feminine resistance around the world as seen in the powerful Ni Una Menos movement in Argentina. Conversations between women have the power to identify systematic abuses and stage resistance movements, too.

And gossip isn’t only seen as damaging — it’s often seen as frivolous. Today’s widely accepted view of gossip as damaging and inane at the same time does double duty, both silencing women and reinforcing the idea that their speech is meaningless. In Federici’s words, “It is women who ‘gossip,’ presumably having nothing better to do and having less access to real knowledge and information and a structural inability to construct factually based, rational discourses. Thus, gossip is an integral part of the devaluation of women’s personality and work, especially domestic work, reputedly the ideal terrain on which this practice flourishes.”

“The widely accepted view of gossip as damaging and inane at the same time does double duty, both silencing women and reinforcing the idea that their speech is meaningless.”

I agree with Janakiram when she writes that “this connotation of ‘gossip’ is no more and no less than a maneuver to silence women, particularly in a world where it is primarily men who make decisions about women’s lives, whether it be in the home, the court, the school, or the workplace.” This is often the case even when women preside over the same systems, with rules and regulations still entrenched in upholding the patriarchal society that ushered them in. But the practice of women speaking to each other and forming strong bonds (recall the original meaning of the term gossip!) has the power to disrupt the very systems that seek to limit their speech. And it can start with gossip.

When and where women’s speech has been valued, they’ve historically been keepers of wisdom concerning “medical remedies, the problems of the heart, and the understanding of human behavior, starting with that of men,” according to Federici. When we use the term gossip to devalue these discourses, not only do we silence women — but we pave the way to a society that is depleted of the rich wisdom that women have carried.

After reading Federici, I’ve tried to allow myself more free-flowing contact with the women in my life, curious about what might emerge. Being less quick to judge topics as gossip could be the key to empowerment, and it’s likely to enrich our lives, too.

Ashley D’Arcy is Senior Editor at The Good Trade. She holds an MA in philosophy from The New School for Social Research and a BA in English & American literature from New York University. Her writing has been featured by The Nation, 032c, and sold by Printed Matter. In 2017, she was featured on Apple’s first original series “Planet of the Apps” where she was mentored by Gwyneth Paltrow. She is currently a psychoanalyst-in-training at Pulsion Institute in New York City.