In the pack mentality of the human animal, speech is valued both as a form of idea exchange as well as a speculation of social status. Who is allowed to speak and under what circumstances is a direct correlation to their perceived value by the pack. For this reason, it is usually a function of authority, which is determined based upon what the particular pack in question values. For instance, in a fairly unacademic and fashion conscious crowd, the one with the best perceived fashion sense will be more highly valued. The group will then be more inclined to listen to that person's opinion, while effectively silencing anyone else who chooses to speak over them. In a more academically inclined crowd that is more preoccupied with science, logic and critical thinking, the one with the best intellect will probably be most highly valued, and their speech will be given more weight.

In the human pack, silencing occurs in several ways. One is the so-called "presence attack", which is most often employed by an icy stare without any reply to the speaker. Another common method is for someone of high status to simply "shush" the person of low status, usually by just telling them to be quiet. In this way the "alpha" (i.e. the current speaker) retains their perceived status by not dealing with the threat directly and allowing underlings to do it.

One thing that is valued in all packs, regardless of what the pack itself values, is the ability to communicate those ideas effectively through whatever medium is required. For instance, no matter what my knowledge of 1980's inner city hip-hop might be, if I were to attempt to communicate my ideas to a group of inner city youths it probably would not go over well because of my methods of communication. On the other hand, an inner city youth would probably not be able to communicate his ideas on acoustic sound physics to my peers in the lab regardless of how much he knows about the subject. These are stereotypes, of course, but they are also most likely true ones. The point is that part of the value of the message is the medium itself (Marhsall McLuhan). Straying from the medium devalues both the message and messenger.

Just some random thoughts off the top of my head. Did you have any specific questions Slade?

Hi Slade,

Interesting topic...

Question, is status hierarchy the only determinant? Or, are context and content also relevant? You can't say "the Seven Words" on radio and TV, but you can on stage. When can I, a lawyer, tell a tyrant judge who interrupts because he has eruptive judgitis that I an my client have a right to be heard?

Just more food for thought.

I don't know a whole lot on the technical side of your question, but if you haven't read it already, check out Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" It deal with just this topic, though mostly I've seen her referenced in analysis of the fallout of Post-Colonialism and extreme cases of fixed social hierarchy (e.g. India's caste system). It's quite interesting.