Some see gossip as trivial, hurtful and socially and/or intellectually unproductive.

Some people view

gossip as a lighthearted way of spreading information. A feminist definition of gossip presents it as "a
way of talking between women, intimate in style, personal and domestic in scope and setting, a
female cultural event which springs from and perpetuates the restrictions of the female role, but also
gives the comfort of validation." (Jones, 1990:243)

In early modern England[ edit]

In Early Modern England the word "gossip" referred to companions in childbirth, not limited to the
midwife. It also became a term for women-friends generally, with no necessary derogatory
connotations. (OED n. definition 2. a. "A familiar acquaintance, friend, chum", supported by
references from 1361 to 1873). It commonly referred to an informal local sorority or social group,
who could enforce socially acceptable behaviour through private censure or through public rituals,
such as "rough music", the cucking stool and the skimmington ride.
In Thomas Harmans Caveat for Common

Cursitors 1566 a walking mort relates how she was

forced to agree to meet a man in his barn, but informed his wife. The wife arrived with her five
furious, sturdy, muffled gossips who catch the errant husband with his hosen about his legs and
give him a sound beating. The story clearly functions as a morality tale in which the gossips uphold
the social order.[15]

In Sir Herbert Maxwell,Bart's The Chevalier of the Splendid Crest [1900] at the end of chapter three
the king is noted as referring to his loyal knight "Sir Thomas de Roos" in kindly terms as "my old
gossip". Whilst a historical novel of that time the reference implies a continued use of the term
"Gossip" as childhood friend as late as 1900.

In Judaism[edit]

Main article: Lashon hara

Judaism considers gossip spoken without a constructive purpose (known in Hebrew as an evil
tongue, lashon hara) as a sin. Speaking negatively about people, even if retelling true facts, counts
as sinful, as it demeans the dignity of man both the speaker and the subject of the gossip.
According to Proverbs 18:8: "The words of a gossip are like choice morsels: they go down to a man's
innermost parts."

In Islam[edit]
Islam considers backbiting the equivalent of eating the flesh of one's dead brother. According to
Muslims, backbiting harms its victims without offering them any chance of defense, just as dead
people cannot defend against their flesh being eaten. Muslims are expected to treat each other like
brothers, deriving from Islam's concept of brotherhood amongst its believers.

In Christianity[edit]
The Christian perspective on gossip is typically based on modern cultural assumptions of the
phenomenon, especially the assumption that generally speaking, gossip is negative

speech.[16][17][18] However, due to the complexity of the phenomenon, biblical scholars have more
precisely identified the form and function of gossip, even identifying a socially positive role for the
social process as it is described in the New Testament.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Of course, this does
not mean that there are not numerous texts in the New Testament that see gossip as dangerous
negative speech.
Thus, for example, the Epistle to the Romans associates gossips ("backbiters") with a list of sins
including sexual immorality and with murder:
28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness;
full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents,
31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:28-32)
According to Matthew 18, Jesus also taught that conflict resolution among church members ought to
begin with the aggrieved party attempting to resolve their dispute with the offending party alone.
Only if this did not work would the process escalate to the next step, in which another church
member would become involved. After that if the person at fault still would not "hear", the matter was
to be fully investigated by the church elders, and if not resolved to be then exposed publicly.
Based on texts like these portraying gossip negatively, many Christian authors generalize on the
phenomenon. So, in order to gossip, writes Phil Fox Rose, we "must harden our heart towards the
'out' person. We draw a line between ourselves and them; define them as being outside the rules of
Christian charity... We create a gap between ourselves and God's Love." As we harden our heart
towards more people and groups, he continues, "this negativity and feeling of separateness will grow
and permeate our world, and we'll find it more difficult to access Gods love in any aspect of our
lives."[27]
Alternatively, and ironically, biblical scholars have noticed that many of the heroes of the Christian
bible engage in gossip about those who are portrayed as "opponents" in some way. In Matthew
21-23, Jesus engages in peculiarly vitriolic gossip about the Pharisees and Scribes: "Scribes,
Pharisees. Hypocrites!" Another example of gossip by a biblical hero is Paul's attack on Peter in a
letter he wrote to the churches in Galatia (Galatians 2:11-14) where Paul describes Peter to the
Galatians as a fearful hypocrite. Opponents of biblical heroes gossip, too. So, in John's gospel, for

example, the Judeans gossip "among themselves" negatively about Jesus by asking "how can this
man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).
Thus, it should be recognized that although the Bible is, generally speaking, against Gossip
(Proverbs 18:8; Romans 1:29; 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Tim 5:13; 3 John 1:10, et al.), it also describes the
social process being utilized effectively by some of its main characters, including Jesus and Paul.[28]
The New Testament is also in favor of group accountability (Ephesians 5:11; 1st Tim 5:20; James
5:16; Gal 6:1-2; 1 Cor 12:26), which may be associated with gossip.

In psychology[edit]
Evolutionary view[edit]
From Dunbar's evolutionary theories, gossip originated to help bond the groups that were constantly
growing in size. To survive, individuals need alliances; but as these alliances grew larger, it was
difficult if not impossible to physically connect with everyone. Conversation and language were able
to bridge this gap. Gossip became a social interaction that helped the group gain information about
other individuals without personally speaking to them. It enabled people to keep up with what was
going on in their social network. It also creates a bond between the teller and the hearer, as they
share information of mutual interest and spend time together. It also helps the hearer learn about
another individuals behavior and helps them have a more effective approach to their relationship.
Dunbar (2004) found that 65% of conversations consist of social topics.[29]
Dunbar (1994) argues that gossip is the equivalent of social grooming often observed in other
primate species.[30] Anthropological investigations indicate that gossip is a cross-cultural

phenomenon, providing evidence for evolutionary accounts of gossip.[31][32][33] There is very little
evidence to suggest meaningful sex differences in the proportion of conversational time spent
gossiping, and when there is a difference, women are only very slightly more likely to gossip
compared with men.[30][33][34] Further support for the evolutionary significance of gossip comes from
a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal, Science. Anderson and colleagues (2011)
found that faces paired with negative social information dominate visual consciousness to a greater
extent than positive and neutral social information during a binocular rivalry task. Binocular rivalry
occurs when two different stimuli are presented to each eye simultaneously and the two percepts
compete for dominance in visual consciousness. While this occurs, an individual will consciously
perceive one of the percepts while the other is suppressed. After a time, the other percept will
become dominant and an individual will become aware of the second percept. Finally, the two
percepts will alternate back and forth in terms of visual awareness. The study by Anderson and
colleagues (2011) indicates that higher order cognitive processes, like evaluative information
processing, can influence early visual processing. That only negative social information differentially
affected the dominance of the faces during the task alludes to the unique importance of knowing
information about an individual that should be avoided. Since the positive social information did not

produce greater perceptual dominance of the matched face indicates that negative information about
an individual may be more salient to our behavior than positive.[35]
Gossip also gives information about social norms and guidelines for behavior. Gossip usually
comments on how appropriate a behavior was, and the mere act of repeating it signifies its
importance. In this sense, gossip is effective regardless of whether it is positive or negative[36] Some
theorists have proposed that gossip is actually a pro-social behavior intended to allow an individual
to correct their socially prohibitive behavior without direct confrontation of the individual. By
gossiping about an individuals acts, other individuals can subtly indicate that said acts are
inappropriate and allow the individual to correct their behavior (Schoeman 1994).