\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Fake kindness, Caring and Symbolic Violence}



\author[1]{Damien Contandriopoulos}%
\author[1]{Natalie Stake-Doucet}%
\author[1]{Joanna Schilling}%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 16, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup








\sloppy


\section*{Abstract}

{\label{introduction}}

The article starts by offering a definition of fake kindness focused on
the dissociation between the behavioural components of kindness and the
intent to sincerely pay some heed to the needs of others. Using the
sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu this definition is then used to
articulate how fake kindness can be conceptualized as a specific form of
symbolic violence. Such a view allows explaining how and why the
prevalence and effectiveness of fake kindness vary according to
microsociological norms and values.

The generic definition and conceptualization of fake kindness as a form
or symbolic violence are then used to discuss how nursing's enthrallment
with the concept of caring and its operationalization as a moral compass
likely fosters the growth of fake kindness within the profession. In
this view, the institutional enforcement of propriety and well-behaved
professionalism is more likely to lead to toxic environments than to
healthy workplaces.~

We hope that being able to understand how professional norms and
institutional rules are often turned into social tools to enforce
obedience and existing hierarchies can empower victims of those
phenomena to resist them more effectively.

\section*{Introduction}

{\label{introduction}}

In 2010, Phillips and Taylor published a short book aptly titled ``On
Kindness'' whose main thesis is that contemporary Western societies
evolved into framing kindness as a moral weakness: ``\emph{Most people,
as they grow up now, secretly believe that kindness is a virtue of
losers.} ''{[}1{]} This view suggests that we live in societies where
people would likely try to hide public displays of kindness.

However, our own understanding differs. What we see around us is a world
where displays of kind-looking behaviours are ubiquitous but largely
disconnected from actual kindness. In this paper we argue that there is
a twin social trend of, on the one hand, overemphasizing the importance
of visible displays of ``kindness'' while, on the other hand,
discounting the value of actually paying heed to the needs of others.

We interpret this disconnection as a weaponizing of external displays of
kindness in symbolic struggles. This weaponization takes multiple forms
-- such as aggressive tone policing -- that have in common to impose a
narrowing down of legitimate forms of expression and an appropriation of
legitimacy for purposes that have nothing kind about them. In other
words, fake kindness is a form of symbolic violence {[}2, 3{]} used by
dominant agents to strengthen their control on others.

We also believe that this weaponizing of fake kindness in social
relations isn't evenly distributed throughout the social space. For
reasons we discuss here, fake kindness is more prevalent in some fields
and contexts. Among those contexts, healthcare and education professions
and institutions are especially propitious. We take the special case of
nursing to explore how seemingly innocuous professional norms and values
can turn out to be a nurturing ground for toxic behaviours.

Overall, we hope to provide a more sophisticated understanding of the
role the strategic use of public displays of kindness play in social
struggles. We also believe that our conceptual clarification and
analysis of fake kindness can eventually help victims of that symbolic
violence to self-defend.

\section*{Defining Fake Kindness}

{\label{defining-fake-kindness}}

The extent and prevalence of an innate human affinity for kindness has
been a religious and philosophical preoccupation for a very long time
{[}1{]}. But despite its importance in day-to-day language and
sense-making, the concept of kindness has remained somewhat peripheral
in academic debates {[}4, 5{]}. At the social and ethnological level,
the focus has instead generally been on somewhat related concepts such
as reciprocity and altruism. At the individual level, some validated
scales and instruments exist {[}5, 6{]} but again, the concept hasn't
been attracting a huge level of attention. Without any ambition to
summarize existing knowledge on the concept, for the purpose of our
argument we propose that kindness can be split into two components. One
is behavioural and the other teleological as it deals with finalities
and intents.

We define behavioural kindness as including all that one can observe
from the outside: Ways of looking at others and listening to them, the
tone and voice used, the language, the overall body posture. From an
ethological point of view, behavioural kindness could be defined as the
sum of all human readable signs of non-aggression. In addition to this
first level, there certainly are also cultural and social components
that go beyond the ethological and relate to social structuring {[}2{]}.
Outside signs of non-aggression will vary throughout time, places, and
culture. However, the main point we want to make regarding this first
component of kindness is that it does not go beyond appearances. In
itself it doesn't achieve whatever outcomes kindness can accomplish.

Teleological kindness, on the other hand, includes all the values and
intentions that support and guide kind actions. It concerns itself with
the why and what of kindness. Aristotle's Rhetoric is often quoted for
this definition of kindness mainly framed around selflessness:
``\emph{Kindness -- under the influence of which a man is said to 'be
kind' -- may be defined as helpfulness towards someone in need, not in
return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but
for that of the person helped.} '' {[}7{]} In the same text, Aristotle
then proceeds to specify that selflessness is central to the notion of
kindness as helping others in the context of a reciprocal exchange or
with selfish motivations does not qualify. Similar ideas can be found in
many philosophical and religious perspectives. For example, Maimonides
emphasizes that giving to those in need without knowing to whom one
gives and when the recipient doesn't know who gave belongs to the higher
levels of kindness. In the same way, the centrality of selflessness and
of a generic trust in humankind remains central in contemporary
definitions. ``\emph{Real kindness is an exchange with essentially
unpredictable consequences. It is a risk precisely because it mingles
our needs and desires with the needs and desires of others, in a way
that so-called self-interest never can.} ''{[}1{]}. In our view, how
selfless one needs to be in order to be kind is an open question. One
could argue that the neutral point might be non-maleficence and that
anything on the helpful side of it qualifies as kindness. This question
is especially important when it comes to professional expectations. We
believe that once kindness is defined as selflessness, it probably can't
be part of one's job description. But, for many professionals,
non-malevolence (for example expressed as \emph{primum non nocere} ) is
a central expectation.

The main point we want to make, however, is about the distinction
between the behavioural and teleological components of kindness. For
reasons we will explore, some people adopt the behavioural components of
kindness without having any teleological interest in being kind. As we
will argue in more detail below, in such cases, behavioural kindness
should be understood as a social tool aimed at modifying the behaviour
of others. Interestingly, when Paley {[}8{]} discusses compassion in the
context of nursing, he makes a distinction between two components of the
concept. He suggests that compassion is both a behaviour -- defined here
as actual actions that are compassionate -- and a motivation -- the
intent to be compassionate -- and that one component does not imply the
other. Paley's components of compassion are quite different from ours
when defining kindness, but they connect to the same principle that
behaviours and intents should not be presumed to be easily inferred one
from the other. In the same way, \emph{the dissociation of behavioural
and teleological components of kindness is what we describe here as
``fake kindness''} .

The level of dissociation is also meaningful in itself. Some displays of
fake kindness will push the behavioural signs to lengths that are almost
caricatural. The voice will be oddly unctuous, the tone will be kept to
extreme non-assertiveness, the smile will be rigidly kept on. Overdone
behavioural signs of kindness are, in our experience, correlated with
the extent to which the content or implications of the statements are
actually harmful to others.

In popular culture, one well-known example of a caricatural dissociation
between the behavioural and teleological components of kindness would be
the fictional character of Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter
novels. Under Umbridge's lavish girlishness, unctuous manners and
smiles, lies a mildly sadistic person and one of the book's
most-despised villains. Another fictional character that embodies the
concept of fake kindness with blood-curling realism would be Nurse
Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Ratched is a stern but
soft-spoken character always acting like she is concerned by the
wellbeing of the patients under her care and acting in their best
interests. However, as the movie unfolds, it becomes obvious that this
pretence and her motherly concerns are artifices to impose her ruthless
and tyrannical rule on everyone. In recent public events, many
commenters have also used the term fake kindness to describe the
approach of Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer of British
Columbia during the Covid-19 pandemic. Dr. Henry's trademark ``be kind''
motto, smiles and soft voice were instrumental to her successes in her
role notwithstanding the fact many, like the provincial Human Rights
Commissioner, expressed deep concerns about the ultimate impact of her
decisions.

It might also be worth emphasizing that fake kindness isn't really an
effort at deception. In most situations, the agents involved will
rapidly decode that there is a silent whip cracking behind the unctuous
voice. In that sense, fake kindness is different from hypocrisy -- or
what Beard {[}9{]} describes as performative kindness -- as everyone
involved is likely aware that no sincere efforts at selflessness exist.

\section*{Fake Kindness as Symbolic
Power}

{\label{fake-kindness-as-symbolic-power}}

A core characteristic of fake kindness is that it is mostly used by
dominant agents in social relations that are already asymmetrical. As a
strategy, fake kindness only really makes sense for agents who can rely
on underlying social or organizational structures to grant power to
their words {[}10, 11{]}. Imagine a supervisor meeting an employee to
inform them they will be transferred to a less desirable position, or a
public health officer announcing that efforts at protecting vulnerable
populations will be abandoned. In those examples, the discursive
situation makes the words spoken highly performative in themselves. In
such contexts, the capacity to convince others may not be that important
and, hence, the usual rhetorical tricks might not be favoured by the
speaker. On the other hand, as we will discuss, the speaker's reliance
on external displays of behavioural kindness can prove an effective tool
to deprive hearers from otherwise legitimate responses.

Fake kindness is a tool used by dominant agents to force their
counterparts to limit themselves to similar behavioural boundaries:
soft-speaking, well mannered, ``professional'' and courteous. But,
precisely because those exchanges are heavily asymmetric, the social
effectiveness of civility won't be fairly shared. The supervisor firing
an employee in a calm and courteous way can impose their will, but the
employee can't reply in a calm and courteous voice to state that they
will keep their job and expect it to work. In such a hypothetical
exchange, the supervisor is using fake kindness as a social trap to
impose obedience on the employee. Behavioural deviations (shouting,
crying, swearing, etc.) would then be construed as indications that the
employee is conflictual, unprofessional, or dysfunctional and further
prove the appropriateness of the termination. As such, fake kindness
heavily relies on tone-policing {[}12, 13{]} and those using it can
generally also rely on institutional rules and structures that will
enforce tone-policing in disciplinary proceedings.

As such, fake kindness is essentially a way for the speaker to force on
their counterparts a passive acceptance of their subordination by
limiting the behavioural repertoire available to them {[}14{]}. In the
same way, excessive displays of fake kindness -- where the behavioural
component is pushed to quasi-caricatural length while the absence of any
teleological good intentions is also made abundantly clear -- should be
understood as social signalling. They are ethological warnings from the
dominant to the subordinate that any behavioural deviations from passive
obedience will be harshly sanctioned.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu {[}15{]} coined the term symbolic
violence to describe how social norms and institutional rules are
intertwined in a way that implicitly, but forcefully, constrain
individual behaviours within asymmetric social hierarchies. His theory
{[}2, 3, 15{]} conceives human agents as being socialized to -- more or
less consciously -- integrate such social hierarchies and structure
their behaviours accordingly. As such, symbolic violence is both a tool
of social discipline and a manifestation of internalized hierarchies.

It is also important to keep in mind that social spaces -- or maybe more
accurately fields in the Bourdieusian sense {[}11{]} -- will not all
value kindness to the same extent. For example, one expects agents to be
kind in education or healthcare settings but don't have the same
expectation when they are involved in business transactions or political
activities. In the same way, there are multiple social roles in which
the accepted social expectations include a significant level of
behavioural kindness. Primary school teachers or nurses {[}8{]}, for
example, are heavily socialized around such expectations.

As some fields value and emphasize kindness to different levels and
extents, the symbolic value associated with behavioural kindness will
vary accordingly. In Bourdieusian terms, the symbolic capital one can
gain from displaying the attributes of behavioural kindness will be
field-dependent. A nurse is likely to be able to gain a significant
level of symbolic capital by displaying the attributes of behavioural
kindness because the institution they work in, and their colleagues will
often construe those displays as examples of professionalism. The
fictional character of Nurse Ratched, for example, clearly
instrumentalizes behavioural kindness as a source of institutional
support and power. On the other hand, a foreman working in an industrial
setting would likely gain much less symbolic capital using the exact
same behaviours.

The elephant in the room that we skirted around so far is the gendered
component of fake kindness. Whether kindness itself is gendered is a
question we will leave for others to discuss. But we believe that many
characteristic displays of behavioural kindness are clearly gendered as
feminine. We recognize this has resulted in centuries of gender-based
criticism and that at present, certain professions and people who
identify as female in high-profile roles are particularly vulnerable to
gender-based attacks. Further, we reject the idea that characteristics
of behavioural kindness should be viewed as a weakness. However, acting
in bad faith is not bound to an agent's gender. In a society striving
for equality, one's gender or profession should not remove the
possibility of a critical inquiry into their behaviour and motivations.

At the individual level, there are well-documented gendered social
expectations about the ``proper'' balance between assertiveness and
meekness for people who identify as female. On the one hand, these
expectations can result in a significant barrier to achieving gender
equality. But on the other, this might create the opportunity for some
to strategically use fake kindness to advance their own interests. At
the collective level, those gendered norms will, in turn, increase the
effectiveness and prevalence of fake kindness in traditionally feminine
fields and professions. As with all socially structured behaviours, the
interdependence of individual actions and social norms are complex and
probabilistic {[}2, 3, 11{]}. Therefore, describing behavioural kindness
as a gendered expectation says little about the respective way a person
who identifies as male and professionally socialized in a feminine field
such as nursing or childcare or a person who identifies as female and
professionally socialized in a masculine field such as surgery or
carpentry, might act.

We also want to stress that affirming, as we do, that fake kindness is a
gendered expression of symbolic violence does not imply in any way that
symbolic violence in itself is something feminine. The opposite is much
more likely. Symbolic violence is a concept dealing with the ways
existing power imbalances and rules of dominance are expressed, enforced
and maintained. In patriarchal societies like ours, people who identify
as female are overall much likelier to be on the receiving end of
symbolic violence{[}16{]}. The point we are making here is limited to
stating that one specific expression of symbolic violence -- among
others -- is intertwined in gendered social norms.

\section*{Nursing's Problem With Fake
Kindness}

{\label{nursings-problem-with-fake-kindness}}

As we suggested in the previous section, there are field-level
sociological factors which likely affect both the effectiveness and
prevalence of fake kindness and we believe a lot of health and social
professions are particularly propitious to it. Our focus here, however,
will mostly be on nursing as it is a profession with a somewhat
perplexing relation with the concept of caring {[}17{]} as well as
pervasive issues with bullying and horizontal violence {[}18-20{]}.
Those two characteristics of nursing have been extensively discussed but
are generally conceived as unrelated. By contrast -- and in line with
similar arguments proposed by Walker {[}21{]} as ``\emph{the tyranny of
niceness} '' and by Burton {[}22{]} as ``\emph{the caring tax} '' -- we
think that understanding fake kindness as a form of symbolic violence
might provide insights into how the discipline's obsession with the
concept of caring and its extensive problems with bullying actually
connect.

Nursing is a profoundly gendered and hierarchical profession. In
Anglo-Saxon countries, the roots of present-day nursing are linked to
the sexist and racist values of Victorian Britain. Those roots also
connect to the historic -- and gendered -- subordination of nursing to
medicine in ``modern'' hospitals {[}23, 24{]}. Despite the discipline's
rebranding efforts, today's nursing still bears the marks of those
influences {[}24, 25{]}. In academia, propriety and weaponized civility
often continue to take precedence over independent thought and critique:
``\emph{The fiefdoms of the elite are critique-free zones, virtually
devoid of any spirit of inquiry, ethos of debate or culture of
scholarship} '' {[}26{]}. In that context, our understanding is that
``professional propriety'' expectations are often used as tools to
sustain traditional hierarchy and disciplinary power. The same can be
said of the discipline's quasi deification of Florence Nightingale.
Nightingale believed a nurse must develop the proper moral standing to
be considered good, which would imbue her with the power to police and
discipline. Women from the middle and upper classes were hired as a
disciplinary tool for their supposed superior moral influence that was
thought to mould new nurses into the characteristics of the ideal nurse:
quiet, obedient, and nurturing {[}27{]}.

In that context, the discipline's definition of caring has, over decades
of endless debates, evolved into a fully normative concept that
describes everything nursing-related that is good and desirable. The
corollary of this definition being that the notion is also tautological:
criticizing the concept of caring is uncaring and therefore unworthy of
a good nurse {[}28{]}. The overlaps in the concepts of caring and
kindness are also hard to miss. For example, caring is generally framed
around selflessness and sacrifice {[}28, 29{]}. In the same way, caring
often prescribes specific behaviours or even scripts that nurses must
adhere to be considered ''good'' nurses and that overlap to a large
extent with what we described as behavioural kindness.

But, notwithstanding its reincarnation as a moral virtue, to this day
caring remains foundational to nursing as an academic discipline. Some
of nursing's most revered and cited scholars, such as Jean Watson, are
theorists of caring. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to
the topic, like the \emph{International Journal for Human Caring} . And,
at least in North America, caring plays a central role in curriculum
content and structure. It is likely that no other profession is trained
in programs putting such a strong emphasis on moral values and proper
behaviour {[}8, 29{]}. And while we agree that the image and place of
nursing have been deeply shaped by external social forces, the
discipline itself has continued to perpetuate the virtue script: nurses
are good women who are honest, kind, caring, compassionate and
self-sacrificial. For example, recruitment campaigns have attempted to
attract women into the profession by promoting traditional stereotypes
of nurses as 'women born to be good' {[}30{]}. In the same way, in 2021,
the Canadian Nursing Association's national nursing week theme was
''\emph{We answer the call} '' {[}31{]} reinforcing the belief that
nursing is first and foremost a vocation.

According to the framework we developed in the previous sections, the
emphasis nursing puts on caring as a behavioural and moral compass has
implications in the way it shapes the sociological field in which nurses
work. Among other things, this emphasis will increase the symbolic value
associated with behavioural kindness to a level that is somewhat unique.
In other words, nowhere will it pay more to behave in ways that align
with behavioural kindness than it does in nursing. This isn't a bad
thing in itself. It would actually be good if there were no dissociation
between behavioural and teleological kindness. But this characteristic
of nursing also frames the profession as a specific social field in
which both the prevalence and effectiveness of fake kindness as a form
of symbolic violence will be extremely high.

This being said, we see no reason to believe there is more symbolic
violence exerted in nursing than in any other social field. However, we
do think that nursing's professional and disciplinary enthusiasm for
caring will shape the form that symbolic violence, and more generally
power struggles, will take. Instead of transparent displays of
domination and direct confrontation, power struggle will be played in
the register of fake kindness. Burton {[}22{]} aptly summarizes this
when she writes: ``\emph{This sensibility is sanctified in our culture
in the notion that a good woman does not contradict and a nice woman
does what she is told''.} Something that will allow those nurses in
dominant social positions to assert their dominance without having to
fear the pushback that only a ``nasty'', ``bad'' and ``uncaring'' nurse
would offer. In that sense, the discipline's requirements for propriety,
professionalism and civility -- generally all bundled into, and implied
by, the caring ethos -- are the mainstay upon which the effectiveness of
fake kindness rests.

\section*{Conclusion}

{\label{conclusion}}

Our main point here is that fake kindness is a specific form of symbolic
violence through which the dominants assert their power in asymmetric
social relations. The effectiveness of fake kindness doesn't rest on
deception -- fooling victims into believing that they are facing a
well-meaning interlocutor -- but on limiting the social repertoire
victims can use.

The nature of fake kindness also makes it a sneaky expression of
symbolic power whose effectiveness rests for a large part on
institutional complicity to support and sustain it. Professional
organizations and regulators, academic settings and care delivery
institutions that incorporate and enforce strong civility and propriety
requirements will also boost both the prevalence and effectiveness of
fake kindness.

In our view, the conceptualization of fake kindness that we developed is
especially relevant for nursing. The profession's enthrallment for
caring as a behavioural and moral compass constitutes it as a social
field especially propitious to fake kindness. While proponents of the
caring mantra likely believe they are supporting a healthy and
supportive professional and institutional culture, we do not share this
simplistic and optimistic view. The structuring of social expectations
and rules that the caring culture fosters might have more to do with
maintaining existing hierarchies and enforcing obedience than with
anything else. We believe that professions which create the underlying
conditions for fake kindness to be effective and prevalent will also
fosters a context propitious to bullying. In this context, we would
leave the last word to Walker ``\emph{The idea that a `good nurse is a
nice nurse' {[}\ldots{}{]} is no longer viable in the 21st century} ''
{[}21{]}

\section*{References}

{\label{references}}

1. Phillips, A. and B. Taylor, \emph{On Kindness} . 2010, London:
Picador.

2. Bourdieu, P., \emph{Outline of a theory of practice} . 1977,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Bourdieu, P., \selectlanguage{ngerman}\emph{Raisons pratiques sur la théorie de l'action} .
1994, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

4. Brownlie, J. and S. Anderson, \emph{Thinking Sociologically About
Kindness: Puncturing the Blasé in the Ordinary City.} Sociology,
2017.\textbf{51} (6): p. 1222-1238.

5. Comunian, A.L., \emph{The Kindness Scale.} Psychological Reports,
2016. \textbf{83} (3\_suppl): p. 1351-1361.

6. John, O.P. and S. Srivastava, \emph{The Big-Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives.} , in \emph{Handbook
of personality: Theory and research} , L.A. Pervin and O.P. John,
Editors. 1999, Guilford Press: New York. p. 102-138.

7. Aristotle, \emph{Rhetoric (Translated by W. Rhys Roberts)} . 4th
century BCE.

8. Paley, J., \emph{Cognition and the compassion deficit: the social
psychology of helping behaviour in nursing: Cognition and the Compassion
Deficit.} Nursing philosophy, 2014. \textbf{15} (4): p. 274-287.

9. Beard, M. \emph{The difference between genuine kindness and fake
kindness} . 2019 April 18, 2023{]}; Available from:
https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/the-difference-between-genuine-and-fake-kindness/11737836.

10. Bourdieu, P., \emph{Language and Symbolic Power} . 1991, Cambridge:
Polity Press.

11. Bourdieu, P., \emph{Espace social et genèse des «classes».} Actes de
la recherche en sciences sociales, 1984(52/53): p. 3-14.

12. Bailey, A., \emph{On Anger, Silence, and Epistemic Injustice.} Royal
Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 2018. \textbf{84} : p. 93-115.

13. Biddle, C. and E. Hufnagel, \emph{Navigating the ``Danger Zone'':
Tone Policing and the Bounding of Civility in the Practice of Student
Voice.} American journal of education, 2019. \textbf{125} (4): p.
487-520.

14. Lorde, A. \emph{The Uses of Anger: Women Responding to Racism} .
1981 May 9, 2023{]}; Available from:
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/speeches-african-american-history/1981-audre-lorde-uses-anger-women-responding-racism/\#sthash.IaK5NXKi.dpuf.

15. Bourdieu, P., \emph{Distinction: A social critique of the judgement
of taste.} 1984, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

16. Bourdieu, P., \emph{La domination masculine} . Collection Liber.
1998, Paris: Seuil.

17. Paley, J., \emph{Caring as a slave morality: Nietzschean themes in
nursing ethics.} Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2002. \textbf{40} (1): p.
25-35.

18. Blackstock, S., B. Salami, and G.G. Cummings, \emph{Organisational
antecedents, policy and horizontal violence among nurses: An integrative
review.} Journal of nursing management, 2018. \textbf{26} (8): p.
972-991.

19. Kiprillis, N., et al., \emph{Prevalence of horizontal violence of
nurses in their first year of practice: A systematic review.} Collegian
(Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 2022. \textbf{29} (2): p.
236-244.

20. Vessey, J.A., R. Demarco, and R. DiFazio, \emph{Bullying,
harassment, and horizontal violence in the nursing workforce: the state
of the science.} Annu Rev Nurs Res, 2010. \textbf{28} : p. 133-57.

21. Walker, K., \emph{Whither nursing? Reflections on fate and
futurity.} Contemporary nurse : a journal for the Australian nursing
profession, 2004. \textbf{16} (1-2): p. 3.

22. Burton, C., W., \emph{Paying the Caring Tax: The Detrimental
Influences of Gender Expectations on the Development of Nursing
Education and Science.} Advances in Nursing Science, 2020.\textbf{43}
(3): p. 266-277.

23. Foucault, M., \emph{Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison}
. 1995, New York: Vintage Books.

24. Rosenberg, C.E., \emph{The Care of Strangers: The Rise of America's
Hospital System} . 1987, New York: Basic Books Inc.

25. Reverby, S.M., \emph{Ordered to care : the dilemma of American
nursing, 1850-1945.} 1987, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26. Thompson, D.R. and P. Darbyshire, \emph{Is academic nursing being
sabotaged by its own killer elite?} Journal of Advanced Nursing,
2013.\textbf{69} (1): p. 1-3.

27. Hawkins, S., \emph{Nursing and women's labour in the nineteenth
century: The quest for independence.} 2010, New-York: Taylor \& Francis
Group.

28. Stake-Doucet, N., \emph{Newspeak to Nursespeak: Leadership is
Compliance} , in \selectlanguage{english}\emph{{[}po ka se{]} Un recueil des post publiés sur le
site de la chaire Politiques Connaissances et Santé 2015-2019}\selectlanguage{ngerman} , D.
Contandriopoulos, et al., Editors. 2021, Les Éditions de l'Autruche:
Victoria. p. 144.

29. Dahlke, S. and S. Stahlke Wall, \emph{Does the emphasis on caring
within nursing contribute to nurses' silence about practice
issues?}Nursing philosophy, 2017. \textbf{18} (3): p. e12150-n/a.

30. Gordon, S. and S. Nelson, \emph{An end to angels.} The American
Journal of Nursing, 2005. \textbf{105} (5): p. 62-69.

31. Canadian Nurses Association. \emph{We Answer the Call (Facebook ad)}
. 2021; Available from:
https://m.facebook.com/CNA.AIIC/videos/weanswerthecall/860690731380609/.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

