I have recently come to re-evaluate my
opinion on those often described as ‘professionally offended’. I think there is
an assumption – or, at least, I
assumed – that this group of individuals who seem to always care to the point
of outrage were a new, online phenomenon. However, I now believe this is
unkind.
There is a news segment on the BBC
called Newswatch, a feature where the
editors of BBC News can be challenged to answer questions about the quality of
the service fielded by members of the public (almost always referred to as
License Fee payers, as if to add legitimacy to their concerns, but more on that
later). I think the show is a good idea, and I think there is often cause for
some discussion. I have also come to realise that there exist a great many
people who seem outraged to the point of inconveniencing themselves over the
most trivial of things.
Of course, what I consider trivial is
subjective and possibly miscategorised, but still my opinion holds. There
simply are, and always will be, people who revel in being offended. This is my
re-evaluation; that the concept of the professionally offended is not a new
thing, but merely a human condition. This, I believe, is very interesting.
Why do people so regularly place so
much importance on trivial mishaps? By trivial I include the occasional shitty
day at work, missing the bus by a few seconds, delayed service in a restaurant,
buying the wrong sized garment in a store – what might be considered, ‘first
world problems’. My thesis is this; people place importance on minor mishaps
because when you’re sailing on a quiet ocean you notice and acknowledge the
most minor of ripples. Mishaps – which oft turn into storied compliant in the
appropriate company – embellish an otherwise uninteresting set of events. They
make our lives more interesting not only by increasing variety but by adding,
or at least suggesting, strife that we must overcome. Ultimately, this makes
the banal feel more valuable.
I have three ideas about the rise of
the professionally offended in the more contemporary sense, the third of which
I add only for the purposes of showing an objective viewpoint, without which I
feel my thesis would suffer.
Firstly, I suggest the emergence might
be due to that previously discussed; that we use outrage or offense as a way of
embellishing otherwise forgettable events. The changing medium – from newspaper
articles and news segments to online forums and comment sections – merely
reflects the changing structure of a person’s life and reflects their access to
media. Though this argument is not without some
merit, I would suggest that these people, no matter how technologically
cosmopolitan they claim to be, would still encounter the events I have
previously discussed, and should still, therefore, respond accordingly with
coffee table debates and plastic cup politics. If anything, their wider
exposure to technology should lead to more
compliant and outrage.
This leads me onto my second proposal;
that in a world of regular compliant and outrage, the social norm has changed so
much that it is now banal to be outraged, and as such one must be even more
offended to punch through this paradigm and into the realm of noteworthy. This
is an argument that should offend some people, because it is essentially
implying some sort of superiority complex, or, I guess – as some might say –
that those who get offended are merely ‘special snowflakes’.
As an aside, I think calling someone a snowflake is unfair,
because framing the debate in that way implies it is the person at fault, and
not the new social norm. After all, outrage and offense is built upon some
perceived violation of a social covenant, implying the offended occupies some
sort of moral high ground. In that sense – at least in terms of elevation –
they are superior.
My third reason; that there is simply
more to be upset about, and that the rise of the professionally offended is due
to the greater access of information that the Internet has enabled.
Furthermore, the apparent rise in the number of people offended can also be
attributed to greater access to virtual soapboxes that the Internet has
provided. The problem with this argument is one I have previously mentioned; that
some people will think something is very important, whilst others will think
it’s trivial.
It is here a distinction should be
made, because a difference of opinion both in how to deal with a problem but
also whether a problem is a problem is what makes us all individuals. The issue
many people have, in my opinion, is that the professionally offended do not
care about the issue, they care about the outrage. This is a whole different
type of debating style, and one that reinforces the concept of ‘special
snowflake’. It also introduces the aforementioned idea of legitimacy.
Think about it; ‘professionally
offended,’ does not specify any cause or set of beliefs about the person the
term is being applied, merely that they are offended. Furthermore, the word
professional evokes parallels with work, suggesting the purpose of the offense
is not in response, but by requirement, and interestingly for the benefit of
the offended. Ultimately, they care not for the issue, but for themselves, and
this means they lack legitimacy.
In the UK, though I suspect other
places around the world have similar set-ups, there are regular
Saturday-and-Sunday-morning debate shows. For the purposes of objectivity, the
panel will almost certainly be made up of people from all different sides of
the argument, all, in a kind of cringe-inducing way, forced to sit intermingled
amongst each other.
This, as an aside, is clearly an attempt to show the person making
the argument can be transcended so that only the argument, not the person, is
being scrutinised and criticised, but anyway…
In the TV graphic that will appear
maybe 2-3 seconds after the individual enters the frame (primarily as a none
auditory way of introducing this person) will be a small detail or subtitle
area which provides context to the person in question. The relevance of this to
this piece as a whole is the following; regularly, and by regularly I mean
weekly, there will be an individual whose detail box has fantastic word economy
by only referring to them as, ‘activist’.
Now, there is some logic to why a
person might be a professional activist. Firstly, they may care passionately
for a cause that is ongoing (causes that come to mind are minority rights, but
I’m sure there are other equally valid campaigns) and thus it becomes justified
that they – the activist - become defined by that subject matter. If this is
the case, why not dispense with the word economy somewhat and call them, for
example, ‘civil rights activist’?
Secondly, they may work as part of a group that provides logistical and/or
other services to would be campaigns. I assume many protests require a number
of professional skills, and that groups would form to meet these needs. If this
is the case, why not say that? Both solutions would add context to the view and
better represent the speaker. Therefore, I must conclude the only purpose for
the vague description is by some unknown (at least to the viewer) design and as
such intentional.
I acknowledge this is possibly tangential, and potentially more of
a reflection of the production company behind the TV show and less a reflection
of those who would be branded, ‘activists’. I also acknowledge I am now
embodying that license fee payer previously discussed by communicating my
grievance with what I see on television, which perhaps adds, unintentionally,
credence to my point. However, I do believe the perpetuation of this
classification – calling someone an ‘activist’ – implies that many of those
classified are OK with it, which does add to the thesis of this piece.
Skin in the game matters. There is a
non-discussed but totally required need to caveat some debate with reference to
the devil; the purpose of this is to acknowledge that you have no skin in the
game, and that the debate exists for its own sake. Lack of skin in the game –
as might be suggested by calling yourself merely an activist – has the same
effect as playing the Devil’s advocate. However, the difference is without the
caveat of, ‘I agree, but I’m now going to disagree,’ the argument becomes at
best muddled and at worst lost. Again, it becomes about the person, the
snowflake, rather than the matter at hand.
This is the same issue that those
described as professionally offended face, however those who occupy online
forums and comment sections and blogs (I acknowledge the irony, now may we move
on?) lack even more legitimacy, for at least the ambiguously named, ‘activist,’ is still being named as something, by someone. Behind the scenes, whatever that means, they – the
activist – have done something to warrant their presence on the show. Whether
validation from a TV network is good becomes irrelevant here – though many will
believe this is all that matters – because at least this validation is not open
to everyone. There is an expectation of exception, and that’s a powerful thing.
Platform, rightly or wrongly, provides
legitimacy. The grace that the Internet has given is that everyone has a
platform; the issue that has evolved from this is now economic, that of excess
supply, with relatively unchanging demand. Further complicate this situation
with the ripple on the ocean adage – the desire to embellish and escape the
banal – and it becomes obvious how online forums can quickly reach a critical
mass of outrage. This is a problem, not because people are talking and debating
and (maybe) caring, but because no one is listening. Commentary without
legitimacy is like screaming at a brick wall; mass commentary without
legitimacy is just more screaming.
Of course some people are listening,
but often they’re listening to their own words coming out of another person’s
mouth. Sonically, the screaming becomes similar, and thus audibly
understandable. So yes, I have re-evaluated by opinion of the professionally
offended. They are not a new phenomenon. The Internet is not to blame for their
emergence. But they raise an interesting idea in the context of the online
world nevertheless, namely, how to we listen to each other when everyone is
talking?
