Why Are We So Outraged?
On Sunday mornings, I have the opportunity to listen to an NPR program called The Pulse. I find it very interesting in that it discusses spiritual issues in a modern context. This morning, the commentator interviewed Kurt Gray, a social psychologist who has just written a book on
Why We Are So Outraged on Morality and Politics and how to find common ground.
Basically, Mr. Gray, points out we become outraged at real or perceived hurt to ourselves or society. He cites the example of same sex marriage. A secular person may see no harm in to people of the same sex marrying, but an evangelical may perceive harm to society as a whole. He discusses a wide range of issues that create differences in people and gives an evolutionary explanation of how outrage developed over time. Towards the end of the program, he presented his approach to finding common ground. First, find commonality, then inquire the reasoning about how an opponent has reached his/her/their understanding, and then work to validate what they are saying.
Validation, though, is not agreeing with the opposite view as much as it is to show your opponent you understand what they see as harmful.
From there you can begin to work toward common ground through reflective hearing, gentle questioning, and sharing your counterpoint, in a not judgmental way. (He does not day this directly. It is just my take).
I am thinking this is a good program to listen to just so people when they will get together for the holidays can avoid the nasty fights that will likely happen if their is sharp disagreement in the household.
Program here. About a one hour listen.
Why We Are So Outraged on Morality and Politics and how to find common ground.
Basically, Mr. Gray, points out we become outraged at real or perceived hurt to ourselves or society. He cites the example of same sex marriage. A secular person may see no harm in to people of the same sex marrying, but an evangelical may perceive harm to society as a whole. He discusses a wide range of issues that create differences in people and gives an evolutionary explanation of how outrage developed over time. Towards the end of the program, he presented his approach to finding common ground. First, find commonality, then inquire the reasoning about how an opponent has reached his/her/their understanding, and then work to validate what they are saying.
Validation, though, is not agreeing with the opposite view as much as it is to show your opponent you understand what they see as harmful.
From there you can begin to work toward common ground through reflective hearing, gentle questioning, and sharing your counterpoint, in a not judgmental way. (He does not day this directly. It is just my take).
I am thinking this is a good program to listen to just so people when they will get together for the holidays can avoid the nasty fights that will likely happen if their is sharp disagreement in the household.
Program here. About a one hour listen.
Comments
If we take the example of same-sex marriage, I know plenty of people who believe it to be totally unacceptable, but I wouldn't use the term outrage for any of them.
At the other extreme are extreme acts of cruelty where I don't see any purpose in trying to find any rational basis for sympathy with the perpetrators. But I do see a need, in any situation of outrage, to make sure that "anything is now justified as a response".
I think Mr. Gray is offering a strategy to avoid becoming outraged, especially during family gatherings.
https://youtu.be/c0iEScFn8M4?si=7DnyXRTQgmC1YtPb
So I would say the answer is often - don't be judgemental. Accept that the outraged person (maybe oneself) might be hurting or scared and needs some way to challen this.
This does not apply to certain outraged politicians, who are actually just jerks.
Why should politicians be regarded as less human than other humans?
I disagree. I think outrage is an emotional state that blocks rational thought and discourse.
Outrage isn't at all new. Newspapers have been ginning up and encouraging outrage since at least since the 19th century - it's a cliche in newspaper headlines 'outrage as X does Y!' 'Outrage as Z happens!' and goes back long before that - like those 17th century pamphlets which kept recycling the same woodcut of a naked prayer meeting to create outrage about whatever Quakers were doing (no they weren't having naked prayer meetings but pretending they did was good for the outrage - and no doubt increased sales)
Having a moral panic about outrage is quite an amusing concept ' Outrage as people fired up by headlines like this designed to create outrage get outraged!'
The problem though is outrage is quite a subjective/ pejorative concept often used to tone police minorities or the less powerful.
*I* am correctly disapproving of this bad thing just the right amount because I am rational and moderate, you are coming over a bit righteously indignant, those people over there are frothing with outrage you just can't talk to them, so irrational...
If this doesn't take power into account - how institutionally powerful and dangerous groups can harm the less powerful and then label any resistance and objection from them as that bad 'outrage' which makes them the real problem (and not the powerful abusers) then it could be potentially a tool for enabling abuse rather than helping.
Depends on the individual. Some people can put aside their feelings or work through them, some can't.