The Outrage Paradox?

A few weeks ago, a brand released a couple of ads on TV that raised quite a storm of outrage. One ad showed a young couple in a room when 4 friends of the boy barged in and insinuated to the terrified girl that if the boy had his ‘shot’ (the name of the brand) it was their turn. Another ad similarly used the threat of gang rape as an ostensibly humorous device. While the industry regulatory body ASCI as well the government moved swiftly and forced the company to take the repellent ads off the air, questions remain.

Some of these were debated in an online show which one was part of. A few advertising stalwarts on the show believed that the campaign was deliberately created to provoke noisy outrage with the full knowledge that it would need to be taken off air. The noise created around the event and the fact that so many people recirculated the ad in disgust, would give the brand more mileage than the ads themselves ever could have. Besides, they would save on the considerable cost attached to actually running these ads on national television.?

My own view was that while there was no question about the offensiveness of the ads, it need not have been a deliberate effort. We tend to underestimate how deeply sexism is ingrained in our attitudes- there would be many who would see nothing particularly egregious in these depictions.?

Regardless of whether the communication was deliberately provocative or not, the possibility that a brand, particularly one that wished to get known in a hurry, could deliberately produce inflammatory work and ride on the subsequent exposure it would receive on media is a very real one. Even if the backlash was negative, it would allow a brand to get known quickly and this could easily result in significant commercial gain.?

And this phenomenon that of deliberately stoking the fires of outrage so as get some personal gain out of it has hardly restricted to advertising alone. Many individuals have become social media stars using this strategy. The average troll may be faceless and depend on the strength of numbers but there are many others who have become mini celebrities either by targeting their vitriol on famous people or by rushing headlong into controversial subjects with an opinion designed to arouse passions.??In politics too, the strategy of saying something out of turn or having a relative minion say or do something truly outrageous as a way of distracting people from a more substantive issue has become an increasingly common one.?

The Streisand Effect is the label we give to the unintended consequences that follow from an attempt to suppress information; the very act of trying to do so becomes newsworthy and what was sought to be hidden becomes much better known than would otherwise have been the case. We are seeing version of this everywhere today as the outrage of one side merely ends up creating advantage for the other, whether by way of commercial gain or fame.

It is an inevitable consequence of the times we live in. Attention is its own currency, one which can be minted by every single individual by virtue of being able to broadcast their views to the world. We manufacture attention ceaselessly lavishing it on both the people we love as well as those we despise. In a world so sharply divided that someone’s villain is necessarily someone else’s hero, there often are no net losers. In the balance sheet of outrage there is no debit side.?

Traditionally, we have recognised the power that any form of broadcast carried. The information intermediaries with access to modes of transmission wielded an enormous amount of influence helping shape collective opinion. Today we need to acknowledge the power of reception, which now has the power to multiply, amplify and distort any piece of communication. The ads in question gained not from the power of transmission but from the rebound effect created by the reaction to it.

The fact that we have an insatiable appetite for all that would offend us results in our spreading the very things that we believe should not exist at all. The offending piece of communication is recirculated at the speed of disgust, and even as loathing multiplies so does the attention. The no-name becomes famous even if is only for that outrage cycle and everyone wins.?

What is the option? When something as putrid as this ad is put up on national television should we turn the other eye? Should we mute our anger so that the offender does not get the oxygen that it would give them? It is a no-win situation; we must use our voice and our new-found ability to make ourselves heard to right the wrongs that we see in front of us. And still, the other guy could win.?

Part of the problem is that our outrage is in some measure, performative. If we had the option, say, of communicating our displeasure only to a relevant regulatory body and refrain from expressing our opinion on social media, we would feel cheated. We want to be seen to be outraging, we want the rush of being part of an adrenalised group protesting righteously. We do not only want the outcome- in this case, for the ad to be removed; we want to be identified as having played an active role in its removal. The self today has been externalised- we are not what we experience internally but that which we express outwardly. We are what we tweet.?

And yet, how do we not express our anger when we have a platform as powerful as social media at our disposal? Especially because in so many cases it has helped change things for the better. Perhaps a more selective, and self-aware use of social media might help. The outrage paradox is a sign of the times, and we will need to live with it.

(this is a version of an article that has appeared previously in the Times of India)