Speaking silence: The social construction of silence in autobiographical and cultural narratives Robyn Fivush Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA Voice and silence are socially constructed in conversational interactions between speakers and listeners that are influenced by canonical cultural narratives which define lives and selves. Arguing from feminist and sociocultural theories, I make a distinction between being silenced and being silent; when being silenced is contrasted with voice, it is conceptualised as imposed, and it signifies a loss of power and self. But silence can also be conceptualised as being silent, a shared understanding that need not be voiced. More specifically, culturally dominant narratives provide for shared understandings that can remain silent; deviations from the norm call for voice, and thus in this case silence is power and voice expresses loss of power. At both the cultural and the individual level, there are tensions between culturally dominant and prescriptive narratives and narratives of resistance and deviation, leading to an ongoing dialectic between voice and silence. I end with a discussion of why, ultimately, it matters what is voiced and what is silenced for memory, identity and well-being. Keywords: Memory; Autobiography; Voice and Silence. To a large extent, we are the stories we tell about ourselves (Bruner, 1990; McAdams, 2001). As we narrate experienced events to ourselves and to others, we simultaneously create structure and meaning in our lives (Fivush, 2008; McLean, Pasupathi, & Pals, 2007). Through autobiographi- cal narratives rich with explanatory and evalua- tive frameworks that weave together people, places, and events imbued with psychological states, intentions, and motivations, we create stories that define who we are in time and place and in relation to others. But what about what is not said? Narrating our experiences by very definition implies a process of editing and select- ing, voicing some aspects of what occurred and therefore silencing other aspects. How does voice inform silence and, just as important, how does silence inform voice? As Jean Braham (1995, p. 45) states, ‘‘We see the past ... in something of the same way we see a Henry Moore sculpture. The ‘holes’ define the ‘shape.’ What is left repressed, or what cannot be uttered, is often as significant to the whole shape of the life as what is said.’’ In this paper I provide a framework for a more nuanced understanding of voice and silence. More specifically, I make a distinction between being silenced and being silent; when being silenced is contrasted with voice, it is conceptua- lised as imposed, and it signifies a loss of power # 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business Address correspondence to: Robyn Fivush, Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. E-mail: psyrf@emory.edu Parts of this paper were presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition in July 2007, and many people have helped me think through the ideas expressed here, including David Pillemer, William Hirst, Monisha Pasupathi, Kate McLean, Tillman Habermas, and the members of my ongoing research reading group, especially Regina Pyke, Widaad Zaman, Theo Waters, Joanne Deocampo, and Marina Larkina*although, of course, any errors or inconsistencies are entirely my own. This paper was written in part as a contribution to an interdisciplinary project on The Pursuit of Happiness established by the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. MEMORY, 2010, 18 (2), 8898 http://www.psypress.com/memory DOI:10.1080/09658210903029404