A few years back, I read So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson and The Perils of Privilege by Phoebe Maltz Bovy, but each at separate times. Since I bought myself copies of each book, I thought it would be interesting to read them one after another and think about how their ideas might or might not intersect. In other words, it’s one review (approximately) about two books, split into two parts.
In Part 1: I’m writing a not-really-a-book-review-review of So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson. There are quite a lot of things I could talk about, such as the active presence of the author in a non-fiction book (compared to, say, The Orchid Thief, where Susan Orlean is present but not as active), but here are some thoughts that came to mind:
Firstly, Ronson chose subjects that were pretty easy to sympathise with. The book ends up feeling like an argument against public shaming (does it really work?) but I wonder if it’s because he chose to talk with subjects whose mistakes feel… more like bad decisions rather than malicious ones. The guy who murdered Cecil the lion is mentioned, but as an example of someone who should be called out and not much time is spent on him. Instead, we get to learn how Justine Sacco isn’t as privileged as we thought she is (and that her tweet was a bad joke about her trying to sarcastic about her own privilege), and how Lindsey Stone had a habit of making stupid pictures and happened to not think about how bad her infamous picture was.
For me, the most morally ambiguous case in the book was that of Hank and Adria. I could see the point of view of both of them, such as how Adria felt like an outsider in her field and offended by the joke, but also Hank’s view, which is that he misinterpreted the joke. Personally, I had a bit more sympathy for Hank, given that Adria didn’t even try to clarify if the joke (which wasn’t even said to her) was meant the way she thought it was meant, but I felt that it might be the way that the book was written – Adria isn’t shown having much sympathy for Hank, while Hank properly apologises.
Secondly, I wish the book differentiated between public shaming and public criticism. While I think that the last, new chapter was a good addition because it helped to tie up the book, some of the feedback on his book felt like criticism, while others felt like shaming. The book is advocating for us to treat the people who aren’t complete monsters but are being shamed with a bit more sympathy, but who are these people? For example, I don’t think that Kathleen Hale was shamed – I think she got rightly called out for stalking a reviewer and bragging about it.
That said, I think the last chapter made a good point about the hardening in our positions. When the Internet shames someone, they only punch harder and harder, they rarely reverse position even if things are shown to be false (e.g. criticisms of Blood Heir). Instead, what you get is an opposing side coming in to “defend” someone and ending up trying to shame the other side. It just gets more and more extreme, and that begs the question: what are public callouts/shaming for? Do we actually want people to rethink their positions or do we just want them to be humiliated?
Finally, one more thing I wish the book explored more was the question of privilege and public shaming. It does touch on the subject, such as the fact that Justine Sacco’s shaming was brought on by the fact that she’s a white woman who was thought to be rich (and thus very privileged) but it’s not really explored. So I guess that’s where The Perils of Privilege comes in. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post!
A great post, and though I admittedly haven‘t read the book, I agree with your points about every example you‘re mentioning.
Thank you! I thought this was a thought-provoking book – definitely one I recommend if you plan to spend a lot of time on the internet!
I think a life completely without the internet is impossible these days, but the fact that there is so much nastiness on social media (especially Twitter and Goodreads) is actually one of the reasons why I spend very little time there. Almost all of my time on GR goes into private / secret groups of people I‘ve known for a long time, plus 2 public groups where the same people make up a large part of the membership, too — and my presence on Twitter is essentially passive, not active. Other than that, basically, now that my former online home, BookLikes, is no longer available, my online presence comes down my WP blog … period.
That said, I do agree that there is a difference between shaming and calling out, and people like Halle and the trophy hunter who killed Cecil were definitely called out legitimately.
This looks like an interesting, if incomplete, look at the rise of public shaming on the internet. Interestingly, it does seem to be suggesting that we mark a difference between those who “deserve” to be shamed and those who don’t, but I think it would need to clarify more on who the “deserving” are. I think most would probably agree, for instance, that Hale’s celebration (and attempts to monetize) her stalking a reviewer who holds less power than she is wrong and dangerous, and she (and her publisher) deserved to be called out on it. On the other hand, it seems increasingly like the internet believes EVERYONE deserves to be shamed (and fired) for EVERYTHING they do, even if it was misinterpreted or shown to be false, as you mention in the case of Blood Heir. So who gets to decide?
I think another interesting angle for the book to explore would be the idea of privilege. The problem with the internet is that we often don’t know who is on the other side of a Twitter handle, so people make all sorts of assumptions about their privilege with no basis.
I’d also think it would be interesting to explore the implications of public shaming. Does it deter people from speaking out? Who does the most shaming and why? Who gets shamed the most and how does it affect them? Does public shaming actually work to change behavior or beliefs?
I’m not sure if any book can fully explore the idea of public shaming but this one definitely gave it a good go!
Re: who gets to decide – I think this is the crux of the matter! Not everyone is innocent but I’m also seeing vindictiveness in some recent shamings that makes me question whether we’ve reached the stage of shaming for the sake of shaming (there was a girl who recently lost her scholarship because a boy had been keeping a video of her saying racist things for YEARS. But in this case, who is to say she has not learnt? Are we supposed to behave perfectly since a young age?).
I suspect that while the person being shamed may go away, the people who support her position are just going to be hardened in their position because the online mob is so over the top it’s easy to dismiss any valid criticism.
This makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend. I think maybe he was listening to a podcast? But he said the argument was something along the lines of this idea of call-out culture or public shaming is like a replacement for religion in a post-religious society. It’s the new way of moderating others’ behavior. The difference, though, is that there is no longer any forgiveness or hope of redemption.
So, in the case of the girl you mention, she gets judged for something she did years ago, and punished for it. She doesn’t get the opportunity to say that she’s learned and changed. She doesn’t get a second chance.
I wish he could remember what he was listening to because it sounds like an interesting theory. I do think a lot of about all the people who gave apologies on Twitter, and so forth. Usually their apology is rejected along the lines of, “It wasn’t apologetic enough” or, “Well, she didn’t actually mean it because we forced her to apologize.” So there is also no forgiveness even if you ask for it.
The idea that shaming/calling out is working as the new religion is a very intriguing idea. And yes, you’re right that this “new religion” doesn’t have a lot of room for forgiveness – apologies aren’t accepted, and you don’t even get the space to grow. I’ve never understood why people would drag up things from years ago in someone’s past without considering if they have changed since then, but it has happened a few time.
There are a lot of academic buzzwords on the internet “privilege”, “intersectionality”, etc and I feel that these words are being taken out of their original setting (where they would be useful as a tool of critique and analysis) and misapplied as a cugel to censor people.
I think it’s quite frightening to think that someone could find something you did/said ten years ago and use it to get you fired, etc. Kids are growing up today with the internet and they’re not always aware of the impact of what they’re saying or doing, or that if it appears online, now it’s forever. It doesn’t seem quite fair for them to have to live in a world where they aren’t allowed to change and learn from their mistakes.
I really enjoyed when I read this book and definitely felt as though the aim was to simply open peoples minds into researching mroe about an individual before condemning them completely. Trying to make people think through actions rather than just go with the crowd. Hence his use of more sympathetic cases, but otherwise yeah I agree with you
That’s a good point re: why he would choose more sympathetic cases! Didn’t think of that so thank you for pointing it out!