The thing is, shaming is a mechanism to enforce societal rules. It serves to help solidify the lines between who is in the group and who is out, between who has a high social standing and who doesn't. Because if you weren't higher than the other person in status, you wouldn't be able to freely punish them, would you?
And so punishing someone for a transgression, even if it weren't strictly criminal, confers status on the one doing the punishing - they are gatekeepers of what is "right," they have a role in the group, and they are willing to enforce the duty that comes with their role. For the good of the group. Not the welfare of the members, just the good of some abstract concept of "the group."
Shaming shares similarities with physical assault - in both cases perpetrators target the victim who won't track them down and butcher their families in retaliation. Both are done for gain - whether it's to fit in more or gain status or, as in the case of companies who got involved in the circus that was described in the talk above, get money. But most importantly, shaming is done by people who can't do anything else - the elites don't bother to get into these petty squabbles. In fact, doing so is all downside for them. Criminals don't have any other avenue to get their fix or get to tomorrow; in this then we see that shaming is a tool of the mediocre.
Here's another article about online shaming. Sadly, all that vitriol won't bring Cecil back. Nor does it stop the continued poaching of these endangered animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment