I’m often perplexed by the kind of commentary and conversation that proliferates online social spaces and mainstream media in general. There seems to be such a disconnect between people and ideas; vitriol abounds around just about any topic you can think of – politics, celebrity, religion, adolescence, feminism, civil rights. Society by definition creates parameters around interactions, yet there is a gaping chasm where they should be in online spaces. It begs the question: what are they and who is accountable for the kind of interaction that takes place there?
We all know Monica Lewinsky’s story, or at least the one we got from everyone but Monica Lewinsky. She’s recently come back into the public sphere to tell her story, calling for us all to stand up and speak up for victims of bullying and shaming. Her message is one we should all be able to rally around: nobody wants their kids or friends or family to be exposed to psychologically damaging and vicious attacks. Correct me now if you think I’m wrong there.
Yet, unfortunately for Lewinsky, the general response has had nothing to do with her message, but is as if word had just come about about her relationship with President Clinton. When her March 2015 TED talk, The Price of Shame, was posted online, she received such a barrage of attacks, that TED’s social media editor, Nadia Goodman, wrote in her recent post,
“I usually have a pretty thick skin for nasty comments… But nothing prepared me for this. Such an outpouring of negativity wore down my defenses, exposing a side of humanity that felt so vicious, unfeeling and unrelenting that my sense of existential aloneness was brought into high definition.”
These comments weren’t even about Goodman, but they were so brutal, they brought her to tears. She went on to explain that “some said [Lewinsky] deserves the shaming because ‘shaming is an important part of how we shape our culture.’
We see this tactic used not just against impressionable adolescents and people who share their personal stories, it’s also used in the way many of the issues that we face today are addressed: inequality, climate change, civil rights. It may not look exactly the same, but the conversation and tone is one of bullying and shame where there is no room for open dialogue that could lead to understanding.
Is shaming really how we shape our culture? And if it is, is it the most constructive, productive, or effective way to socialize and compel people adhere to social norms?
Goodman went on to explain TED’s response and the results,
“After hours spent boosting the positive comments and purging most of the brutish ones, the tide started to turn. People started to write things like, ‘Brave woman. My first reaction was negative before I even clicked the link — then I realized that was the whole point and why she was the perfect person to give this talk.’ Or, ‘Politics aside, I respect the fact that Ms. Lewinsky is now demanding to write her own story. Too often we allow shame to silence our stories.’ The flood of vitriolic comments dried up to a trickle.”
It’s evident that leading by example is a significant factor in setting the culture. (And I would argue that it says more about the person than the culture who says shaming is how we set our culture.)
That’s why it’s essential to think critically of how we interact online and what kind of exchanges we allow online and, as a result, who helps to shape this environment. Clearly, there is certainly a culture of shaming out there, and those creating it are often the first to respond. Many of the deleterious comments, as Goodman noted, came in well before they could have even had the time to watch the full talk. People should be free to express themselves in considered, relevant ways, but ‘expression’ in the form of hatred and vitriol is often not a constructive or even relevant contribution to the conversation. It only puts the power of shaping our collective culture into the hands of people whose suitability to do that should be questioned.
It’s time to realize that online spaces can continue to be free and open and still expect people to be responsible for their digital actions. Indeed, only then will their potential for open discourse and learning be taken to the next level.
Not only should people consider the repercussions of bullying a sensitive young boy or girl going through hard times, but individuals in the media should be thinking about the chain reaction they’re creating when they prioritize hyperbole for clicks or ratings or revenue over context and culture and integrity. If leading by example is a significant culture shaper, then it’s imperative they lead by constructive example. People in the media are by default in a position of elevated responsibility, and they’re not acting accordingly.
Unfortunately for Ms. Lewinsky, this vitriol she’s fielding by telling her story is only a taste of what she has experienced in her life. And she knew what she was getting herself into – not to profit at the expense of the Clinton’s reputation and privacy, but to personally claim the immense shame she experienced to address one of the most significant social topics in our increasingly digital social lives. Why is it that those who contribute to public discourse coming from a place of integrity and authentic vulnerability, the very qualities that make someone apt to be in that position of responsibility, they are met with the harshest of critics? What incredible courage that must take, more than anything most people know.
A few thoughts to take away: how do we ensure that the right intention is driving media, one of our most important cultural shapers? Furthermore, could this approach that Goodman used for bullying be applied to encourage more constructive dialogue – and perhaps even understanding – in less emotional topics like politics or the environment?
Recent Comments