If one goes to a coffee shop and the barista asks “What do you need?”, intuitively we recognize that need falls within the contents of what coffees they can provide. There may be many things we need – a shoulder to cry on, a new car, laundry folded, but we know that saying this to the barista would be misplaced (and the barista may likely laugh at you).
Last February, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Boston University Samia Hesni (they/them) discussed their ongoing research about how these scripts work, how they can often be harmful, and how we might find value in resisting them. Doctor Samia Hesni has a PhD from MIT and their research is primarily in the philosophy of language and feminist, social, and political philosophy. The colloquium was held in the Carlson School of Management and many philosophy students and members of the philosophy department attended.
The previous scenario is just one example of a social script. Social scripts were originally discussed in early academic psychology and computer science. The psychologist might notice scripted interactions that the coffee drinker goes through whenever they order. The computer scientist writes scripts or ways of action for a computer. Social scripts are exactly that, general arrangements for how we interact socially.
Social scripts have some utility and can even be beneficial. Social scripts do give us some shorthand ways of interacting with the world. In many ways, it takes away much of the mental legwork that might occur when ordering at a new restaurant or purchasing movie tickets. Likewise, for those learning about new cultures or languages, scripts are common ways of acting that give context to how one might use newly learned words. In child social development, scripts can also lessen the burden of developing social skills.
However, Samia Hesni also notes that problematic behavior often follows a script. Stereotypes and harassment often result as well from implicit social scripts we’ve developed or learned over time. Likewise, scripts have a sort of normativity behind them. That is, when someone breaks these scripts, it can often result in judgments of someone having done something bad or wrong. Someone who breaks from the script of ordering coffee and rambles away about their life story might be considered negative. Samia Hesni notes that breaking problematic scripts often puts individuals in a double bind. On one hand, going along with a harmful script is, by definition, harmful. However, breaking from scripts, as previously mentioned, might have social repercussions as well.
Samia Hesni notes that scripts are artificial. There’s no necessarily right way of ordering coffee. Merely the way coffee might be ordered at a certain cafe. Samia Hesni notes the value of this, that harmful interactions are not intrinsic to individuals or how we ought to act with each other. However, they go further and argue that not only can we appreciate this, but there is value in breaking scripts as a whole, despite the double bind that may often result.
Digressing from the actual colloquium itself, the content spoken on is a small portion of the research Hesni currently works on. This was merely a small look into the work and the colloquium itself was meant to clarify and introduce some of the finer points of their work. To realize the broader context that scripts ultimately serve, one would want to look into the papers and research they’ve published.
Ultimately, Samia Hesni’s work provides a new and interesting perspective. Hopefully, the University of Minnesota’s Department of Philosophy will continue to invite unique and distinguished philosophers to speak on their ongoing research and work.
