It’s awful isn’t it? I can’t believe anyone would do or say such a thing, and in public! Disgusting. Despicable. How can they live with themselves? It makes you want to just pull the plug on humanity and start again. Maybe give the cuttlefish a chance this time?
For the record, the previous paragraph doesn’t actually refer to anything specific, but it will undoubtedly make you think of something no matter when you’re reading this. Expressing outrage about something is essentially a modern pastime, like binge-watching a box set. Suffice to say, if public outrage were energy, we could give up fossil fuels overnight. Maybe that’s what UKIP were thinking of? They’re expert producers of it, in fairness.
Where does it all come from? Undoubtedly, many things are genuinely deserving of widespread outrage, at the very least. Unchecked police brutality leading to deaths and the current Baltimore riots? The government of Indonesia executing people for drug-related offences? Yes, these are awful things that people should, at a bare minimum, be bloody well be angry about.
But often the widespread outrage is directed at things that aren’t quite so blatant. In this past week alone, there’s been Katie Hopkins’ appalling migrant-hating column, the Telegraph’s ridiculously partisan “5000 small businesses” letter, the Proteinworld poster backlash, Jeremy Renner and Chris Evan’s making ill-advised jokes, and probably dozens more. You could argue that things are (relatively) innocuous. Someone expressing an offensive opinion for attention, saying a tasteless joke, making a questionable decision in a sensitive context; these, on paper, don’t sound like much, but have all lead to widespread outrage. Repeatedly. As many people inevitably comment, surely there are more important things to worry about?
Often, the actual reasons for the outrage are perfectly valid. Pressuring people into achieving some physical ideal for profit, making misogynistic jokes when you’re a superhero with millions of fans (many of which are children), these are things that can cause genuine harm to vulnerable people.
But there’s always something to be outraged over. When a society is as media-saturated and interconnected as this one and everyone can have their own public platform if they wish, you’re going to have countless opportunities for someone to see people doing or saying terrible things. Hence, it’s not just high-profile people who end up on the receiving end of mass outrage, it’s “ordinary” people too, as covered in Jon Ronson’s new book.
Outrage is very easy to come by and incredibly common. But why? Being outraged is meant to be a negative experience, so why are so many so quick to embrace it, to the extent that some people can make a living from causing offence?
There are many psychological factors that may contribute to the quick and repeated sense of outrage and a willingness, even a desire, to express and share it. Such as...
Anger begets anger
People can be very quick to anger. And anger is a complex psychological occurrence with many knock-on effects. Frustration is a typical trigger for anger, with something you want or need being thwarted. In our technologically sophisticated society, there are countless ways you can have your plans thwarted, and almost nothing you can do about it. This causes anger, but the anger doesn’t necessarily just dissipate, the feelings of arousal can linger for days, and even build up.
But a good bit of unacceptable behaviour from a celebrity, company or total stranger can provide a useful excuse to vent, or maybe even cause displacement, where anger about some unworkable situation is redirected elsewhere. And with a lot of frustration floating around in society, this is bound to happen often.
Moral superiority
Many psychologists agree that offence occurs when a moral boundary is crossed. People have certain values and beliefs that are essentially integral to their worldview and sense of self. But other people do not necessarily share these views, and will say and do things that flat-out contradict them. You may fundamentally believe that all humans have the right to life and liberty regardless of their origin, so seeing someone proudly state the immigrants should be gunned down on principle is going to morally outrage you. Similarly, you may believe that life begins at conception and is sacred, so people campaigning for wider access to state-funded abortions is going to morally outrage you.
We’re bombarded with things that’ll challenge our moral positions on a constant basis. And if you don’t challenge or loudly object to this, can you really be said to hold the beliefs you consider so important? Humans need to preserve their self-esteem, and publicly condemning those who violate their moral codes is one effective way of doing this. However, this can have worrying implications for the justice system.
There’s also the classic social status consideration. Humans seem prone to boosting their social status at any given opportunity, and an effective way to do that is to focus on those who have “inferior” morals to you, and publicly criticise them for it.
One big angry gang
The social status concern also links to another seemingly-fundamental facet of human behaviour; the need to be accepted by others. This actually affects our behaviour and thinking in many ways. People join groups, organisations, political parties, societies, all manner of stuff like that. As a result, they like to be seen to be demonstrating the qualities and traits prized by that group. So if you’re, for example, part of a community that loves Batman, you’re going to be upset if anything threatens to make Batman look bad in public. And immediately and passionately condemning this will potentially increase your standing in the community.
This can also explain why many fandom communities are resistant to change. Change is uncertainty, and means the new development to the beloved character/franchise etc. has the potential to worsen it. This is why all true Batman fans think it’s been downhill since the days of Adam West.
But if people feel sufficiently connected to a large group (the extent to which this applies to online communities is uncertain, in fairness), and that group is in a state of high-arousal (e.g. all furious about something that violates their shared values) then that can have direct psychological effects on individual members, who become less rational and more impulsive, giving rise to “mob mentality”. And this highly-aroused less-rational state has other effects…
Passion over precision
A person who is outraged has clearly been offended/upset by something. They are clearly angry, and are seen to be less in control of their cognitive faculties. Emotions are often assumed to be something that interferes with rational thought, and while outrage can often motivate people to take action against an unacceptable scenario, it can also be a way to manipulate people. Studies have shown that state control over media can often divert outrage onto less significant or less deserving targets. And politicians are now experts at expressing outrage over something as a means to deflect any rational and potentially revealing discussion of their record or policies in this area. It’s difficult to debate logically when you’ve got thousands of people loudly condemning you.
All of the above are likely factors in why outrage is so common, why many seem to actively seek it out, and why nobody is really invested in putting a stop to it.
Dean Burnett hopes this piece causes some sort of widespread outrage, purely for the irony. He’s on Twitter, @garwboy