OpEd: When shaming turns from tool to weapon

By Mary O’Donovan

 

 

 

ONLINE shaming has become prevalent over the last few years to enforce what is deemed as an acceptable form of social behaviour.

In some situations, it was considered as necessary to counteract misogynistic attacks against women in #Gamergate, while in other situations, it is merely fodder utilised by some to garner ‘Likes’ on their social media status.

I recently witnessed the latter on Facebook when a friend, Hafidz Baharom, was publicly outed for being gay as a result of being a proponent of #UndiRosak.

One of the many people who wrote a status publicly shaming Hafidz was a person whom I once admired, but in his need to be deemed as witty, he thought nothing of using the derogatory term “Gayboy”, and even less of the repercussions of outing a gay man in a society which still sees homosexuality as a criminal offence.

Fortunately, Hafidz has a loving and supportive family, but he still wonders about the consequent death threats and the possibility of being raided and charged for being gay. (He has, however, given permission to be mentioned in this article).

Sadly, shaming people online is still seen as a viable form of reinforcing a social construct if a person dares to speak out against the group-think.

Nicolas Suzor, in his PhD thesis Digital constitutionalism and the role of the rule of law in the governance of virtual communities, states that “[s]ocial norms are continuously enforced through participation in the community by the participants themselves reinforcing understandings of acceptable behaviour”.

Hence, if social norms are violated, people can be ostracised for being different or having a difference of an opinion on social media, and the group-think has consequently begun to define who we are and how we act for fear of being shamed.

Sadly, as we have an inherent desire to be accepted within a group and a fear of being socially attacked, we are “socialised into particular ways of thinking about social problems”, which can often leave people feeling restricted and confused.

Shaming as a form of social reproach is not a new theory and has been practiced since biblical times, and it is a subject which remains controversial.

Professor James Whitman in his article What is wrong with inflicting shame sanctions?, describes the practice of shaming in the form of social or criminal sanction as “intuitively barbaric”.

Whitman argues that the stigma of being shamed reduces the person into being socially untouchable as they are now a “member of a low social order”.

It is this social construct that 18^th century revolutionaries desired to dismantle, as reformers believed that shame sanctions promoted public indecency derived from animalistic tendencies.

As noted in Whitman’s article, (early 20th-centry writers) William Graham Sumner and LT Hobhouse, whose views are based from a moral psychological perspective, agree with this stance and believe that the reason public shaming did eventually cease was because animal instincts have now been mastered and therefore, public punishment is no longer required.

They note that humans have become more civilised and decent, and it is not necessary to “reduce the offender to something subhuman”.

Sadly, online shaming has exponentially increased on social media against those who dare to say or do anything outside the social norm. We are effectively being bullied into a submissive construct for fear of being ostracised for thinking or behaving differently.

Plus, it is ironic that the people who once fought for a humane society have now begun to utilise a barbaric form of punishment as a way to ensure that people behave in ways that are deemed as acceptable.

Although Leys claims that shame is “considered more productive than guilt” because the acts which “produce guilty feelings are in principle irreversible”, Keats found that there is a significant correlation between depression and shame and that “repeated shaming can eliminate a person’s perception of positive self-worth” which can lead to suicide.

Therefore, the act of shaming can be problematic as one is never completely aware of who the person is who is being shamed.

Furthermore, in many situations, the shaming is not comparable to the “crime” and one can be globally shamed for a momentary lapse of judgement that would not ordinarily attract any legal ramifications.

In Hafidz’s situation, apart from being publicly shamed for being gay, his freedom may also be compromised for the mere fact that he dared to question the status quo.

Some people thought nothing of publicly shaming him for a few likes on their status or a few comments announcing their brilliance, but the repercussions of those people’s actions could possibly be more.

One must question if online shaming and the repercussions that ensue are comparative to the crime, if any, for speaking out against the norm.

 

• Mary O’Donovan, currently residing in Australia, is a law graduate who got her Master’s from the Queensland University of Technology. She has written papers on censorship in Malaysia and online shaming in general.