Sticks and Stones

Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt me, but the pen is mightier than the sword, and least said soonest mended.
I can’t help but feel my clichés are sending me mixed messages.

The internal lexicon you have the command if is fundamental not only on how you think, but also how you express yourself. George Orwell coined the expression “Newspeak” pitched as fictional language that was supposed to be efficient and economical by reducing the number of words people use. Instead of “Fabulous, wonderful, splendid, fun, amazing, enjoyable, etc ect,” there would just be “good” and so on and so on (If you haven’t read 1984, go read it, it’s a good book!). The sinister idea behind this was that by restricting a person’s ability to express themselves, you restrict their ability to think creatively, and discourage originality of thought.
A fellow named Whorf built on the idea of language being important when he presented the Whorfian Hypotheses, the proposal that the languages we use shape our reality. He suggested that we’re restricted and/or liberated by our command and understanding of linguistics. For example in English, we often resort to saying “It smells like [thing]” as we have very few words to describe actual smells themselves, but other languages are not so hampered, having a broad spectrum of words to describe a range of odours. Poets and writers spend hours finding appropriate metaphor and simile to capture the depth and complexity of human emotion rather than being able to resort to some very specific or appropriate words. This is a very complex theory and I could tangent into all sorts of directions so maybe I will make it the subject of another post. But ultimately, the message is, words are good, reading is sacrament, and the broader your vocabulary the more rich your world will be, not only in how you describe it, but also how you perceive it

Trying to control language to shape reality is something we see in the modern world a lot, with people trying to change, simplify or redefine words to suit their current agenda. The most glaring example I can think of is how much the meaning of “freedom” changes depending on who you are talking to and their political agenda, especially in a post 9/11 world. Change the meaning of a word and you will change the way people perceive the word and how it should be, and how it is, a slightly older example would be we now have “Police Officers” and “Firefighters” not “Policemen” and “Firemen” (not that this is a bad thing, I just think it is a great and positive example.)
A more irritating example is people telling me that “Racism = prejudice + power” or “If you believe in equality then you’re a feminist.” Firstly, racism already has a definition, and secondly if you believe in equality you’re an Egalitarian. But by pushing for the redefinition of words it’s understood that it can shape a personals internal narrative and enforce Orwell’s rigidity of thinking.

As for the “Sticks and stones” argument: Let me put it this way. I show up to work and a colleague looks at me, sneers and tells me I look like I got dressed in the dark and washed my hair with a bucket of lard. This verbal abuse continues every single day. In the real world we call this harassment and bullying in the workplace, and they’d lose their job (if the HR department was any good). But when our kids do it, we somehow believe that young minds still learning how to cope with being in the real world will somehow have the maturity to blow off sustained and persistent verbal abuse that they can’t escape from simply because we quote this tired verse at them. Sure, kids have to learn that people suck, and some will never grow out of their childish attitudes and continue to be shitty people for the rest of their lives. But they also need to learn that they can do something about it! Not just meekly accept that they’re a target for these kinds of people. And trust me, empowering your children to learn that they can stand up for themselves and ask for help and see some kind of justice being done will prevent a lot of school shootings.
Humans have a fundamental need to see the world as Just and Right (The subject of another post in the future perhaps) and by denying them that need, we invite them to make the world right though their own means, for good or for ill.

Slacktivism: All mouth, no trousers.

A combination of “Slacker” and “Activism” with the “Active” part removed because it is effectively doing nothing and likely accomplishes nothing more than you wagging your finger really hard into somebodies face while you bellow slogans at them.

So the question we must ask as psychologists is “Why is this so popular?” Seriously, how many people complain about their newsfeeds being clogged up with (often manufactured) pictures of crying children, or mutilated pets, or clickbait news articles, or “Awareness raising” armageddonist factoids? Yet do not hesitate to repost something that tickles their own particular agenda, (Like a preachy, arrogant blog for example? Shame on me!)

Well the answer is quite simple; Talking about doing something releases the same neurological reaction as actually doing something. Our brains our powerful thinking engines, by talking through a problem, activity, or task, we often must visualise it to such an extent that our minds will assume that we’ve contributed towards it and release that lovely sense of satisfaction we get from a job well done. It’s where the expression “Talkers vs. doers” springs up, those most likely to keep their agenda to themselves are more likely to actively accomplish their goals, whereas those who broadcast their motivations and plans are less likely.

So what does this mean for Slacktivism? Well we combine the above effect with the phenomenon known as Illusory superiority which is a remarkable psychological effect that it prevalent throughout the western world, we all believe that we are “Slightly above average” in terms of our abilities, be it ethical, intellectual, or physical, we all share the belief that compared to the population at large, we fall under the “above average” category. The most amusing thing about this phenomenon is that even when it is pointed out people go “oh yes, people are like that, but I’m not that far gone.” Almost as if you perhaps... consider yourself above the average layperson!?

Thus we have the perfect storm, somebody who considers themselves better than the average person, thus they are in a position of authority to shout loudly about something instead of actually doing anything and getting the same sense of satisfaction as if they had done something. They’ll also likely get super-defensive when confronted with their inaction, because form their point of view, their feelings are telling them they have done something, they are “raising awareness,” right?

Culturally, this is very damaging. Especially in the age of instant communication we live in, a well told lie that fits our prejudiced narrative can get around the world before the truth has even got a chance to brush its teeth and get out of bed. The most common example is people insisting vaccines cause autism, but there are much more subtle moral high-horses to saddle your slacktivism to and clog your friends Facebook feed up with. It feels so good and feels so righteous surely it is doing good too, right? Right?!

So ultimately, If you want to change the world, sadly the only way to do that is good old fashioned hard work. Preferably while keeping your gob shut and not writing about it all over a psychology blog.

Also: if you do feel the need to “raise awareness” be sure to check and re-check your facts, and if there is even a shadow of a doubt that you may be wrong, maybe consider giving it a miss, and instead go volunteer at your local homeless shelter.