ABSTRACT
Complicit silence is the silence of a weaker party in struggle. Yet the stronger, dominant party does not entirely force it on the weaker. Totally imposed silence – such as an obligation under a non-disclosure agreement – is neither complicit nor strategic. There has to be a situation of choice. Silence must be more or less voluntary. It also has to be not one-sided, but mutual. It is not like, ‘I will be talking – not you!’ Both the dominant and the dominated have reasons, however different, to remain silent. In history and culture, they can not only swap positions across the vocal/silent divide, also ‘bunch’ together on one of the sides.
