21ST CENTURY WORLD OF OUTRAGE AND OUTRAGE INCORPORATED
Abdul - Kadir O. Etuazim
February 14, 2010
Societies and individuals have used outrage to preserve their ethos and norms from time immemorial. For the purposes of this discourse, two broad definitions of outrage will be put to use – righteous anger or resentment. The former is founded on established standards; these standards mark the proverbial lines. Crossing the lines prompt outrage. The latter is an offshoot of sheer bitterness or hatred; lines are placed arbitrarily.
Narrating the earliest expressions of outrage, from a righteous anger angle, is not part of what this piece is meant to address. Nonetheless, many examples abound. The resistance of the Founding Fathers and the concerted efforts to take on Nazi Germany are very good examples of expressions of outrage as righteous anger. The Civil Rights struggle falls under this category also.
Recently, however, manifestation of outrage as sheer bitterness or hatred is developing to be the rule. Aside the negative connotations, what is more troubling are the flimsiness with which arbitrary lines are drawn. In other words, the high probability that every Tom, Dick and Harry would scream outrage at the drop of a hat has belittled the effectiveness of the mechanism.
It is like back to the advent of witch hunting. No one knows who calls the shots, what the rules are and everyone is a potential offender. With the Internet and 24/7 television, the disciples of wanton expression of outrage, from sheer bitterness perspectives, have increased immensely. For sure, the media and not-for-profit organizations benefit most from this trend. The end product is more revenue for them.
In some extreme cases, for-profit ventures emerge to capitalize on the lucrative aspects of outrage. Cynics impute profitability as the underlying motive for the drawing of lines on what is outrageous or not. They cite endemic hunger and poverty in many countries drawing less outrage than animal abuse. According to them, limited pro-life stance is another example. This is because the movement does not speak against capital punishment.
Since there are no ground rules, the ploy of using outrage as a tool of resentment is flourishing. There are signs to watch out for. Speaking along the lines like " It is inappropriate…" or " This crosses the line…" "John Doe has to apologize for…" "Jane Doe needs to condemn…" are codes for members of a group to rally round a cause. Additionally, it is a scheme to stir passion.
Since many expressions of outrage are more of knee jerk reactions propelled by resentment, instigators often end up with charges of duplicity and double standards. Try as much as they can, it more than often ends up in a mess. Politicians and the morality police squad have been the most susceptible. A fascinating example is Bill Clinton´s impeachment saga. The list of the "outraged" and "incensed" remains legendary. With the passage of time, most on the list have been exposed as hypocrites.
While championing and shouting "holy cow" from rooftops, in the rooms they were engaged in what they were railing against. In the recent weeks and past days, Sarah Palin´s – infamous indignation with Rahm Emanuel and non-plused with a rightwing radio host using "r" word; the Global Warming crowd – back pedaling to Climate Change due to recent climatic events; and Newt Gingrich – on the shoe bomber, exemplify the phenomena.
On the "r" word brouhaha, Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver´s reactions are exemplary. He did not solicit special funds to fight use of the "r" word or book appearances on television shows to express his indignation. There have not been reports of picketing or calls for the firing of anyone. He sent a personal e-mail to the radio talk show host concerned.
Cynics view wanton expression of outrage as form of control for pecuniary or political gain or both. In the battle for ratings and ads proceeds, television news channels fuel the unending outrage over the slightest nonsense. Then, add the quest for "fifteen minutes of fame" and sprinkle hopes of landing the next book deal and the picture is complete.
In the Bible, Jesus the Christ shunned an attempt to spin an industry out of hypocritical outrage. Those who demanded applying the full the weight of the law to a woman accused of adultery were challenged to cast the first stones if they were without sin. Many Christians conveniently forget this aspect of the Bible. Failing to heed this simple injunction has and will always prove catastrophic.
It is more disconcerting when Christians fail to abide by the precepts of Jesus the Christ. Whenever His guidelines are disregarded, exposure of our hypocrisy is guaranteed. Politicians will be best served if they can resist the temptation to scream, "outrage" at the slightest opportunity. Unwitting participants are members of the public. It seems most of us are primed for instant intoxication by the slightest expression of outrage.
Few rarely take a deep breath and dispassionately appraise the issues at hand. The itch to go for the pitchfork seems to be insatiable. It is not only Christianity that teaches against hypocrisy. In the Hadith, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not apply justice – as enshrined in the Sharia – to a man accused of stealing. He insisted on finding out the details. Eventually, the man was forgiven.
Other religious and spiritual traditions must have forms of similar philosophies. There must be something in human nature, which needs massaging by way of deriding others who are unlucky to be caught in what most are guilty of. The best way to achieve perfection is to start with self. As long as we strive to hold others to standards we fall short of or just for selfish reasons, we would be exposed.
Narrating the earliest expressions of outrage, from a righteous anger angle, is not part of what this piece is meant to address. Nonetheless, many examples abound. The resistance of the Founding Fathers and the concerted efforts to take on Nazi Germany are very good examples of expressions of outrage as righteous anger. The Civil Rights struggle falls under this category also.
Recently, however, manifestation of outrage as sheer bitterness or hatred is developing to be the rule. Aside the negative connotations, what is more troubling are the flimsiness with which arbitrary lines are drawn. In other words, the high probability that every Tom, Dick and Harry would scream outrage at the drop of a hat has belittled the effectiveness of the mechanism.
It is like back to the advent of witch hunting. No one knows who calls the shots, what the rules are and everyone is a potential offender. With the Internet and 24/7 television, the disciples of wanton expression of outrage, from sheer bitterness perspectives, have increased immensely. For sure, the media and not-for-profit organizations benefit most from this trend. The end product is more revenue for them.
In some extreme cases, for-profit ventures emerge to capitalize on the lucrative aspects of outrage. Cynics impute profitability as the underlying motive for the drawing of lines on what is outrageous or not. They cite endemic hunger and poverty in many countries drawing less outrage than animal abuse. According to them, limited pro-life stance is another example. This is because the movement does not speak against capital punishment.
Since there are no ground rules, the ploy of using outrage as a tool of resentment is flourishing. There are signs to watch out for. Speaking along the lines like " It is inappropriate…" or " This crosses the line…" "John Doe has to apologize for…" "Jane Doe needs to condemn…" are codes for members of a group to rally round a cause. Additionally, it is a scheme to stir passion.
Since many expressions of outrage are more of knee jerk reactions propelled by resentment, instigators often end up with charges of duplicity and double standards. Try as much as they can, it more than often ends up in a mess. Politicians and the morality police squad have been the most susceptible. A fascinating example is Bill Clinton´s impeachment saga. The list of the "outraged" and "incensed" remains legendary. With the passage of time, most on the list have been exposed as hypocrites.
While championing and shouting "holy cow" from rooftops, in the rooms they were engaged in what they were railing against. In the recent weeks and past days, Sarah Palin´s – infamous indignation with Rahm Emanuel and non-plused with a rightwing radio host using "r" word; the Global Warming crowd – back pedaling to Climate Change due to recent climatic events; and Newt Gingrich – on the shoe bomber, exemplify the phenomena.
On the "r" word brouhaha, Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver´s reactions are exemplary. He did not solicit special funds to fight use of the "r" word or book appearances on television shows to express his indignation. There have not been reports of picketing or calls for the firing of anyone. He sent a personal e-mail to the radio talk show host concerned.
Cynics view wanton expression of outrage as form of control for pecuniary or political gain or both. In the battle for ratings and ads proceeds, television news channels fuel the unending outrage over the slightest nonsense. Then, add the quest for "fifteen minutes of fame" and sprinkle hopes of landing the next book deal and the picture is complete.
In the Bible, Jesus the Christ shunned an attempt to spin an industry out of hypocritical outrage. Those who demanded applying the full the weight of the law to a woman accused of adultery were challenged to cast the first stones if they were without sin. Many Christians conveniently forget this aspect of the Bible. Failing to heed this simple injunction has and will always prove catastrophic.
It is more disconcerting when Christians fail to abide by the precepts of Jesus the Christ. Whenever His guidelines are disregarded, exposure of our hypocrisy is guaranteed. Politicians will be best served if they can resist the temptation to scream, "outrage" at the slightest opportunity. Unwitting participants are members of the public. It seems most of us are primed for instant intoxication by the slightest expression of outrage.
Few rarely take a deep breath and dispassionately appraise the issues at hand. The itch to go for the pitchfork seems to be insatiable. It is not only Christianity that teaches against hypocrisy. In the Hadith, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not apply justice – as enshrined in the Sharia – to a man accused of stealing. He insisted on finding out the details. Eventually, the man was forgiven.
Other religious and spiritual traditions must have forms of similar philosophies. There must be something in human nature, which needs massaging by way of deriding others who are unlucky to be caught in what most are guilty of. The best way to achieve perfection is to start with self. As long as we strive to hold others to standards we fall short of or just for selfish reasons, we would be exposed.
Print
Email
