Robin Barrow1 thinks people are taking offense too often and too easily.
In an offensive online situation, what is an appropriate response? What is offensive, for that? How can a host set a policy to avoid offensive behavior on the part of its constituents or offer a procedure for formal proceedings against the offender by the offended?
Thanks to a comment by Mickey, I became aware that these subjects are discussed among moral philosophers. My reaction in the particular context in which she brought up the cited reference was that perhaps therein there could be some guidance both for such an institution as Nature Network and for those who contribute to its bytes and bits. The abstract, in any case, led me to hope so.
I also happen to be interested in these questions of how a diverse, truly global, community can not only interact, but give rise to dominant clades among which some individuals might feel browbeaten or, at the least, silenced and uninclined to contribute to the general discussion for fear of either giving or receiving offense.
Barrow raises the idea that some action or behaviours are inherently offensive, “rationally defensible to all as reprehensible” (p. 268) I disagree with this concept, although I am not a die-hard relativist. However, I’m going to pull out of context the many other remarks with which I do agree, since I had to request a reprint by snail mail and I imagine that most of you are not subscribed to this journal. Next post or so, I will discuss a thoughtful partial rebuttal by Graham Haydon and another paper he was kind enough to send me, both on the same theme of respect.
“Taking offense formally would mean treating the offensive behaviour as actionable; less extreme would be to demand an apology. The distinction is between merely feeling offended* and regarding oneself as a victim deserving recompense.” (p. 268)
*“the emotivist shriek of distaste” (p. 269) [I love that phrase!]
Barrow takes intentionality as a relevant aspect of whether a phrase is inherently offensive. “Somebody simply did not like it [does not mean it was truly offensive]” (p. 271). “Almost any practice or comment… can be objected to, because almost anything will cause offense to someone in the sense of ‘upset’ them” (p. 270)
Intention, though, turns a personally hurtful remark into a moral wrong.
His argument goes on to say that “playing the victim card” is itself morally wrong, when one is “not a victim in the sense of someone who has been morally wronged [and is] merely upset” (p. 273). If someone goes to some convincing measures to explain that they did not mean to hurt or upset you, not going forward from there is as culpable, if not more so, than the original “offensive” statement/action.
“Being offended is one of the supreme self-serving acts” (p. 274), since “taking offense… involves in some sense deciding to be hurt” (p. 268, my emphasis).
“Treating one’s personal hurt as grounds for punitive response, involves a refusal to show tolerance, to allow freedom or to play fair – for why should you be allowed to say what you want, when others are denied that right by you?” (p. 274) In a blogging rather than a perfectly public context, however, the blogger controls the levels of tolerance, freedom and fairness*. Hosted blogs are somewhat more tricky, in that there can be an additional hierarchical diktat as to what the rules for attaining these ideals should be. Hosted fora(/ums) are more like blogs in that respect, as long as the moderators are known and subscribe to a common and explicit ideal, to provide some unity to the forum as a whole.
*As Kristi wrote, “the process of comment moderation in personal blogs can be capricious, which very often means that it is not remotely fair or even-handed.”
Barrow starts off by writing, “It is not self-evident, even when we believe that someone has justifiably taken offense, that the behaviour that causes the offense should be prohibited, punished, etc.” (p. 267) This could be applied to the concept of comment moderation, which is not a black-or-white choice.
“Freedom of speech… means the freedom for people to say precisely what you do not want to hear – however offensive you or anybody else finds it… By definition, (tolerance) means putting up with what you actually do not want to put up with.” Not to mention dangling participles and fragments of sentences.
So, who is really in favor of free speech and tolerance?
\o/
But I suspect that many, like me, will appreciate the distinction made by Haydon, that I hope to describe in another post, that respect is the actual ideal for which we strive online, as well as off, and we may not be so tolerant and supportive of free speech as all that.
Have a philosophical weekend.
—
1 On the duty of not taking offence. R. Barrow, 2005. Journal of Moral Education 34(3)265-275. DOI: 10.1080/03057240500211600
I pretty much with Barrow and you, although I look forward to your fleshing out the respect issue from the Haydon paper, as my initial reaction to ’… respect is the actual ideal for which we strive… ’ is a quizzical frown.
This is certainly something that will need to be discussed more as NN becomes more high profile with the upcoming reboot. PZ Myers at Pharyngula has had to deal with quite a fair number of offensive comments and trolls at his site. He’s instituted a killfile for those trollers who were repeatedly offensive or annoying (and has the code listed there for anyone who would like to use it).
The general policy is to first not engage the troller (since attention and derailing the conversation is their goal). But there is a fine line between someone who is trying to provoke for the sake of dialogue and someone clearly trying to offend. I would have to deal with many of these on the original home of The Primate Diaries. My general policy has always been to let commenters police trollers themselves. I choose not to moderate my comments and will only delete them in extreme cases (if they’re defamatory or offensive).
Very interesting post, Heather. Much food for thought.
Isn’t it sometimes hard to divine intention without all the usual cues you have when you’re talking face to face with someone and is that part of the issue sometimes?
Sarbjit – agreed. But then I think that previous experience could come into play. Personal or second-hand from another trusted commenter. This seems to be a general rule, as per PZ’s killfile or Teresa Nielsen Hayden ’s certificate .
Eric – having been on the wrong end of the stick not long ago, I concur with there is a fine line between someone who is trying to provoke for the sake of dialogue and someone clearly trying to offend. The kind of fine line that may have been more visible face-to-face.
Lee – I’ll do my best to elaborate next round. The idea is that definitions of what constitutes treating other members of a community with respect may be less divergent than definitions of inoffensive free speech or of what consitutes a “tolerant” attitude. (That’s me, not Haydon, who obvious spent lots more time thinking about this.)
Cath – thanks! I try to be nourishing and yet not indigestible. :-)