Outraged: Why Everyone is Shouting and No One is Talking
by Ashley “Dotty” Charles
A few years ago, Charles began looking at how outraged
people were becoming over relatively minor problems then becoming too worn out
to effect deep, systemic change, while the bigger issues raged on. She wrote an
article in the British newspaper, The Guardian, titled, “Currency of
Outrage,” which was published on January 25th of 2018 and it grew
into this book.
“Outrage used to require more than a caption under a
reposted picture. It required action and intent. It was the train that aimed to
move protest towards progress.”
She calls this book, “an outrage intervention for anyone who
has gotten high on indignation.”
As I’ve worked on building my author platform on Facebook
and Twitter, this is an issue I’ve become more and more aware of. Recently, I
saw people expressing outrage in a variety of ways about Melania Trump’s
renovation of the White House Rose Garden. The crab apple trees and most of the
rose bushes were removed. I wondered, how long do crab apple trees last? My
research suggested 40 years seemed to be the average but these were planted
nearly 80 years before. What about roses? Some older varieties might live
indefinitely, but many rose bushes decline after 40 years. Furthermore the crab
apple trees were said to be transplanted somewhere else on the grounds and not
all the roses were removed. So, inept? Perhaps. Maybe just different. Criminal
and worth our energy? I don’t think so. Not when there are true threats to our
environment that need to be combated.
Charles says, “If outrage is currency then think of your
expression of outrage as an investment…. It goes beyond simply ‘taking
offence’. You are outraged because you seek growth, change, evolution; a return
on your investment.”
She provides ample cases with a higher than reasonable
response by the public. Was it a slow news time and they need something to put
out? Are they really so desperate for ratings that media is amping up the hype
surrounding stories? Are they just getting better at creating “clickbait”
headlines? Is it the social media “influencers” looking for something to latch
on to get their likes and shares up?
Charles delves into the Rachel Dolezal case, a white woman
who claimed to be black and how people, rather than being perplexed or mildly
annoyed by the situation, jumped to outrage. She doesn’t let herself off the
hook either. She admits that she added to the noise surrounding it as a radio
personality. “I had deliberately contributed to the noise by reveling in her
vilification. The whole thing was beginning to feel regrettable.”
Charles can be a bit acidic, but she has a wonderful sense
of self-deprecating humor. “I scrolled past the video because online algorithms
aren’t the boss of me, then scrolled back up to it and pressed play, because
who am I kidding?”
“Our digital fits of
rage aren’t necessarily coming from a place of genuine concern; they might just
be manifestations of our own vanity, a prop to boost our performance on the
world’s biggest stage. Of course! Why intervene during a racial attack on a
flight when you can quietly record the footage from three rows away and
broadcast your outrage to the whole matrix?”
People on both sides of the aisle need us to feed their
ratings, so they feed our outrage.
Charles takes on the talking heads of media and how they
sell outrage. She points out that we seem to think that we are morally
obligated to engage and refute the outrageous statements that some of them
make. But, we’re doing what they want, we’re feeding their ratings. It’s like
engaging with trolls online, that’s exactly what they want. If ignored, they
eventually go away.
However, I have to say, that while I appreciate her points,
I’m not completely convinced. People who offer dehumanizing statements about
immigrants or make other suggest statements to poke the public and get them to
engage or click, are always going to have their audience who believes what they
do and are just confirming their own beliefs. But what about our friends and
family who are being swayed by twisting of facts because they are listening to
less than scrupulous sources? Do we have an obligation to engage in order to
help them see the truth? And when and where do we engage?
Charles discusses Twitter boycotts or hashtag activism to
show support but questions how much they really change things? She suggests
that most people do not follow through to see that the politicians follow
through on their promises to “investigate” much less actually make a change.
She believes that if we don’t show up in person, we’re never going to effect real
change. She may be right. Has activisim been appropriated into cheap sound
bites?
She does allow that “Viral activism can have its uses by
mobilizing outrage and making resistance both visible and accessible for a
number of worthwhile causes.”
As a librarian, I am a strong advocate for fact checking. Charles
maintains that by and large, “…we are habitual conformists, willing to follow
the crowd off a cliff. We don’t fact-check or question. We repost and agree.”
In the final chapter, Charles talks about ways she has
reduced her social media presence and footprint on the Internet. She has “retired
from posting hot takes.” I think that’s a wise policy for all. We need to be
more careful and deliberate in our research and responses to issues, decide
where to expend our time and energy.
There are so many issues out there that truly need our time,
care, and attention. Do some research, pick one, or two. Then, Charles says, “…by
all means get angry. Get as angry as you possibly can. But do it with an
ambition that extends beyond social media kudos.”
I think this book presents some truly fantastic advice in a
very readable, and compact, selection. It probably ought to be required reading
in a host of college classes. Hmm, how many college professors do I know?
