a reflection on the having-cake post

[kaigou]

In the aftermath of my post on digression in online discussions, I followed several suggested links. By a process I can no longer track, I ended up on an essay by Claire Light, Outrage, Pullback, Punishment: The Structure of One Common Antiracist Post. Her description of the dynamics in an Antiracist post really crystallized my understanding of what fundamental conflict lies within the issue of derailment vs digression.

The three concepts -- outrage, pullback, and punishment -- she defines as:

Outrage: something racist happens in the world. A blogger or group of bloggers pick up on it. They note it in their blogs and express outrage at it. The item gets passed on from blog to blog.

Pullback: of the bloggers who post on this topic, less than half will express anything other than outrage. But a subset of these bloggers will spend a little time pulling back from the outrage to contextualize this incident of racism and explain why it's a problem. They will go into the history of these types of incidents, they'll go into academic theories of X, they'll give talking points on why this sort of thing is bad for people of color, bad for justice, and bad for the world in general.

Punishment: of the bloggers who pull back and contextualize, an even smaller subset will propose or initiate action. This action is dual: it proposes advocacy of a particular view, action (usually apology and some sort of remediation), and threatens punishment if this action isn't taken up immediately.

There can be -- and I have seen -- additional conflicts (of an emotional type) [eta] tension even between otherwise agreeing positions [/eta] when some bloggers begin the pullback before the main core have exhausted the outrage. The timing of that second step is crucial lest it come across not as a valid digression and exploration, but as a derailment. Beyond that, though, this is the part in Light's essay that really got me thinking about what might be going on:

If you look back on any effective movement of the 20th century (suffrage, civil rights, Vietnam) their communication structure all had these things in common:

1. A clear, articulated overall goal towards which all participants were willing to work for years.


2. A set, but evolving discourse and vocabulary, which the movement controlled.


3. Media: alternative media organs (papers and magazines) dedicated to promoting this message and discourse; and, over time, allies in the mainstream media dedicated to promoting this message and discourse.


4. The necessity of responding deliberately and thoughtfully, owing to the lack of instantaneous communications technology. Because everything written was printed and had to be edited and proofread, everything broadcast had to be accepted by media corporations and could be heavily controlled, the message and discourse were very polished, thoughtful, respectful, and carefully tailored to appeal to listeners who may have held a differing opinion.

If you think about it, OPP simply cannot exist in a movement in which the above conditions obtain. Chaos and Freedom are the twin faces of the same internet beast. The viral responsiveness and speed of protests like Jena 6 and A&F owes to the Freedom face. The lack of a goal, a message, a discourse, and deliberate or thoughtful response owes to the Chaos face.

Go, read. Well worth it.