“Anger culture” is rampant in the digital age. It refers to our collective tendency to react, often very negatively, to developments around us.
Typically, this anger is directed toward perceived transgressions. The Internet wasted no time in getting angry at Taylor Swift when she took home the Album of the Year award at the Grammy Awards, and was apparently disappointed by the lack of recognition given to Celine Dion, who presented the award.
Whether or not Swift's behavior could be considered rude is beside the point. The point is that the violent reaction was disproportionate to the crime. So the so-called “disrespect” incident is a good example of how quickly and easily people can jump on the online hate train.
Modern outrage culture, also known as call-out culture and associated with cancel culture, often spirals into a toxic spiral. People who want influence compete to produce the meanest and most exaggerated comments, stifling open dialogue and demonizing those who make mistakes.
A tale as old as time
Collective anger is not a new phenomenon – nor is it necessarily bad. Humans have adapted to become highly sensitive to the threat of social exclusion. Calling out hurts our feelings, which motivates us to change. We learn how this feels to us and we learn how to use it to influence others.
In pre-digital societies, expressing anger in order to shame someone as a group served crucial social functions. It reinforced group norms, deterred potential rule violators, and promoted a sense of order and accountability within communities.
Expressing anger can also challenge norms in a way that leads to positive societal change. The women's liberation movement in the latter part of the nineteenth century is a good example of this.
The technological innovations of the Internet, smartphones and social media have now enabled societal anger to be unleashed on a global scale. Multiple communities can be affected simultaneously, as we have seen with the #MeToo movement.
When anger escalates
We've all seen it happen. Someone says or does something “controversial,” a few posts draw attention to it and soon a whirlwind of comments emerges, which are echoed over and over again to essentially the person in question. bad. The libel trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is an example that, no matter how you feel about the case, it's hard to deny that rhetoric has become toxic. The collective moral outrage that drives such negative spirals is similar to people brandishing pitchforks during the Salem witch trials in the 1690s. Sharing similar beliefs helps us feel part of the group.
Beyond this, the conviction we witness in others' comments and behavior on an issue can trigger our own emotions, in what is called “emotional contagion.” As our emotions intensify and our convictions strengthen, we may feel compelled to join the chorus of negative rhetoric.
The general tone and style of language used by others can also affect the way we act and feel. Social models dictate that if many others are heaping negative comments, it may make it seem acceptable for us to do so as well. The more we are exposed to one-sided rhetoric, the more likely we are to resist alternative viewpoints. This is called “groupthink.”
Social media algorithms in general are also set up to feed us more of what we previously clicked on, which also contributes to the monolithicity of our online experience. The researchers suggested that algorithms could prioritize certain posts in a way that shapes the overall nature of comments, essentially fanning the flames of negativity.
Two sides of the conversation
In contrast to Salem in the late 1690s, today's culture of outrage is multiplied in intensity and scope by changing cultural norms around “speaking up.” Combined with the anonymity and global reach that the Internet provides, the culture of speaking has likely fueled the type of pronunciation we see online.
For example, in the past two decades there has been increasing societal recognition that it is okay to speak out against bullying. This could be linked to more education about bullying in schools. There is also a growing trend to encourage a culture of speaking up in the workplace. So it's no surprise that many people now feel confident expressing their opinions online.
It's also easier to express negative opinions online where we can remain anonymous. We do not directly experience the emotional pain inflicted on our target. And we don't have to worry about the potential threat to our personal safety that might be associated with saying the same terrible thing to a person's face. As Taylor Swift herself summed up in her book You Need to Calm Down: “You say that in the street, that's a knockout. But you say that in a tweet, that's a takedown.”
How can we fight negativity?
Overcoming the dangers of a culture of anger requires us to adopt a more reflective approach before engaging in public condemnation. Also keep in mind that anger culture conflicts with the moral ideals that most of us admire, such as:
- Everyone makes mistakes
- People deserve more than their worst actions
- People are capable of growth and change, and they deserve second chances
- It's okay to have different opinions for others
- The punishment must fit the crime.
Research suggests that positive feedback can have a productive counterproductive effect on negative spirals. So, it's helpful to speak up if you witness things getting out of control online. Before you hit the submit button, consider asking yourself:
- Do I really believe what I'm about to say or do I agree with the group?
- How might this comment affect the person receiving it, and am I okay with that?
- Would I communicate this way if it were a face-to-face situation?
By encouraging reflection, empathy, and open dialogue, we can avoid the toxic culture of anger – and instead use our collective anger as a force for positive change.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
