Let me begin with a self-evident point, perhaps too often taken for granted. When academics participate in conferences and debates, we find ourselves operating under the rule of law. Protocols exist. We must keep to agreed time limits, disclose our sources, accept criticism and renounce any temptation to use threats, material inducements or force. There is status competition, certainly. But status is determined on an intellectual basis by peer evaluation alone; we compete to demonstrate relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1995 [1986]; Dessalles 1998) in one anothers’ eyes.

What applies in academic life applies wherever language is used. Protocols always exist. Compared with academic discourse, informal gossip may be livelier, more relaxed, less abstract and more intimately bound up with non-linguistic modes of expression. But despite such obvious differences, the same principles apply. Civilised intercourse depends on respect for the law. This has nothing to do with any behavioural dominance of certain individuals over others. Legality is a contractual entity, genuine insofar as it is collectively agreed. Once contractual understandings are in place, then and then only can we ‘do things with words’ (Austin 1978 [1955]; Searle 1996, Bourdieu 1990, Deacon 1997).