Thoughts on Call-Out Culture
Recently, i made a Facebook post trying to seek self-awareness in the Trump supporting community. I tried to keep from personally targeting anyone. I tried to keep from outright judging those who supported Trump’s alt-right tendencies. But i also tried to make sure that my post was pointed and critical of the thought processes that led us to the end of that long four year period.
It didn’t go well. Or to be clear, it went very well for those who saw the harms of Trump and the role his supporters played in his grab for power, but for the few Trump supporters in the comment section, it turned into a mob rush to deconstruct their fallacious arguments while simultaneously deconstructing their value as people. And while i’d love to say that i didn’t say anything directly “mean”, it isn’t true. It isn’t true because through my initial post with its emotional tinge of desire for the Trump supporters that i knew to feel some sort of remorse or guilt for what they had done, i had essentially orchestrated the entire debacle. No new ground was covered or new introspection fostered. All that was created was catharsis and a wider divide.
After the comments had exploded (some of which i egged on) and i had been blocked by one of the Trump supporters without anything expressly mean being written by my account, i had to ask myself what was gained. Like some kind of Mean Girls-styled epiphany, i came to realize that i didn’t feel any better knowing that those people were most likely only feeling more angry and assured in the idea that the left was their enemy and that their echo chambers were the best places to be. And the most chilling revelation was that, should someone like Trump come back in four years, there was zero systemic or personal change to motivate them into a more empathetic direction.
I am by no means someone who shies away from conflict. When i feel like something is wrong i will usually address it. But even then, there is no real use in addressing a problem if change is not the ultimate goal. And if change is the ultimate goal and what i am doing is not helping to initiate it, then i should probably change my approach.
This isn’t me saying that we should be completely avoidant of addressing problematic behaviors, only that when we do, we should be considering which methods to use and weighing the costs and benefits of these different approaches.
I like catharsis just like anyone else, but the the American political and interpersonal climates are almost exclusively motivated by this one desire and little else. People from the left, right, and center all seem to gauge the success of their roles by the reactions they get from people both on and against their sides. The larger the reaction we receive, whether in agreement or vehemence, the more we feel good about the fact that we at least tried. But the truth comes out when we really sit down and examine what it actually means to try. Are we actually trying to make lasting systemic changes when we accept failed results on micro or macroscopic levels? Are we actually trying when we brush these people under the rug and pretend that they are not still there in full force trying to vote and undermine everything that we are hoping to accomplish?
This applies to all political leanings that don’t invest themselves in authoritarian regimes. If we are trying to build a world that is not dominated by a select few individuals, a world that treats all people as equals, then is it beneficial to culturally deem those who still have equal political power as if they’re opinions don’t matter even though their opinions are still just as relevant (if not more so in our unbalanced democracy) when they go to the polls?
If your political leanings do not value democracy and equality for all people (even those with different opinions), then i suppose you can leave the chat, but if your political hopes do include the ultimate goal of fair and equal treatment of all people regardless of where on the political compass they lie, then it’s helpful to keep in mind different ideas and methods for how to make people feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.
As most will note, the US is not a well designed democracy. The electoral college and emotionally charged populist campaign practices prevent true democracy and perpetuate many of the very same ideological schisms that i am trying discuss here. But with that in mind, it’s clear that there are also small ways that we as individuals have power to move us closer to realizing true democracy as well as realizing whatever else our hopes and dreams for humanity might be no matter collectivistically or individualistically motivated.
Personally, i will admit that i fall to the far left of the spectrum, but i have to be aware that i live in a multidimensional politisphere where “cancelling” those who hurt the people i care about only does so in my mind. In the real world, those cancelled individuals still exist and as long as they see me as their enemy will probably just as easily cancel me in their own heads, or to make matters worse will possibly use the political power that their side wields to not only cancel but possibly destroy real human beings.
This leads me to my final point that when we fail to close the divides that keep systemic violence in place, we are unintentionally turning real, tangible, physically and emotionally destructive problems into fuel for political debate. When i post things to the internet or engage in rallies and demonstrations that might spark heated political debate, i have opened up a door; but if i don’t step wisely once that door is open, watching the way i talk and keeping in mind what the goals of opening it were in the first place, the door will close and i will have at very least not taken the chance i had to push my message and (more importantly) my movement forward.
Anger is a necessary emotion to initiate change (maybe even the most important emotion). It motivates us to confront and challenge the institutions, ideas, and systems that created these issues that sparked, and it is necessary to have these difficult conversations that may escalate to conflict. But in order to create change, we need to be able to decipher when that conflict is working in our favor, and when it is moving us away from our goals, and there are a million different factors that could be influencing either of those directions.
Those who are being harmed by our government systems don’t need conflict, they need change. Conflict might help get us there, but it must be used strategically and while keeping the very human thirst for catharsis at bay.
I know that i have only only focused on what not to do here without a game plan for what to do, but for what it’s worth, both of these angles are worth scrutinizing. I wish i had more thoughts on what we can do to better ensure the systematic changes we want, but this is a Medium post, not a manifesto. To be frank, these are just thoughts on self governance. I don’t expect people to agree with everything i’ve written here and welcome different perspectives on the matter. For now, i’m just thinking through my keyboard.
