Meme-based communication and algorithms that promote anger are dumbing down discourse on all levels.
The Green New Deal is Socialism in action. The 1619 Project is Marxism for middle schoolers. Black Lives Matter is Antifa violence promotion. Requiring Mark Twain’s novels is racist curriculum oppression. All of these contain emotion-laden conversation stopping “triggers” — invitations to a “so’s your mother” what-about, shouting match rather than a rational examination of the issues under consideration.
What Makes a Usual Suspect an Effective Trigger?
Beyond my despair over the instinct to weaponize rhetoric and demonize anyone who might disagree, — is the choice of the trigger words. A recent letter to the editor about diversity and inclusion in the social studies curriculum ended by labeling the whole initiative Marxist Critical Race Theory as if that powerfully closed the argument against. Marxism bad, therefore, CRT bad, therefore discussing systemic racism bad, therefore diversity, equity and inclusion bad, therefore intellectual discussion of complex issues on which folk of good faith may have differing views bad? Marxism is a favorite trigger word for our latest culture wars. It is used to resonate and shut down any further delving for truth. A recent interaction featuring Mark Milley is an example. It’s fair to say that the plea for a well-read military is less likely to go viral in 280 characters than the accusation of Communist affiliation.
I have probably read Marx with less attention and thoroughness than General Milley. I am not a philosopher, a critical race legal theorist, or a politician. I teach communication. I am interested in the social contexts of messaging and meaning-making. Critical Race Theory and Marxism are complex and complicated concepts. One Googles both only with a great deal of time to spare and awareness of the depth and extent of the rabbit hole. Yet both have become shorthand, shortcuts to diminish the complexity and nuance of the discussion, to raise the temperature in the room, and play “which side are you on- no middle ground” conversational games. In short, to shut down the discussion, and pretend that there is nothing more to be said. Full stop [.] in textspeak. Those who doubt that the deliberate use of cultural triggers can be sophisticated and purposeful message branding are referred to Chris Rufo’s tweets:
Choosing your toxic name wisely
But why specifically Marx — Not Adorno — or reference to Zizek’s insight into ideology’s power over how we see the world?
In considerations of revisions in the American social studies curriculum, why Critical Race Theory and not lost balance between history and geography leading to why no one can read a map anymore?
Why Nazis, brown shirts, and Hitler — not Mussolini and black shirts? Or Franco?
It’s all about the psychology of anger and the audience’s world view
Not all name-calling and allusion are equally effective at full-stopping the argument. Not all headlines become viral click-bait. Thinkers like Tristen Harris and Jaron Lanier got their starts in addiction research deep within Big Tech firms, and numerous studies show that fear and anger are powerful attention-grabbers and motivators.
I believe that effective discussion-ending triggers are highly audience and context-dependent and that they are only effective insofar as they fit within the belief structure and background knowledge of the target. Depending upon the audience and the subject, they are likely to share these characteristics: accessible familiarity, negative emotional vibe/threat, and tribal signaling.
Accessible familiarity
An allusion has no meaning when it goes over the head of the intended audience. If it requires cognitive work, makes me need to “look it up,” or makes me feel not a part of “those in the know,” you’ve lost me. Marx and Hitler are recognized “bad actors” to a majority of Americans. Rush Limbaugh’s “feminazi” is a brilliant example of how this works. Visually, Hitler packs a double impact because he is also generally recognized in photographs whereas Marx, Franco, Mussolini — even Lenin and Stalin — are not — even by those with a basic familiarity with their names. Hitler’s mustache is an instantly recognizable meme. (Want to send a negative message about Anthony Fauci and mandatory vaccination and mask-wearing? Photoshop is there for you.) Similarly, a swastika tattoo communicates widely in a middle-brow, un-elite way.
Threat
Evolution has hard-wired us to stop thinking and run or stop talking and fight in the face of danger. If it came down to a contest between the endorphins of empathy and the adrenalin of vanquishing an “enemy,” I suspect most of us would go with the adrenalin rush. Action adventures usually sell more tickets than rom-coms. Here again, the threat must present a danger to something of value to the audience, and the more powerful threats threaten — but do not specifically define — those valued somethings. Traditional Family Values. Free speech. Equality. Opportunity. Choice. Respect for our Heritage. The Right to Life. The American Dream. Equally, the threats are trigger evils, easily identified as evils but undefined as specific actions in any complicated actual contexts. Racism. Sexism. Intolerance. Homophobia. The trick here is the power of the name-calling, — the labeling, — itself. I shut off the conversation on the nuance of individual rights and free speech with an epithet and act as if the complexity of competing values has been solved.
Tribal signaling
Folk who wander in unfamiliar territory develop recognition signs, symbols, and words to send covert messages to other group members who will understand them. Think handshakes or “hobo” markings on gates, references to sacred texts or ceremonies. If you are one of us, you will perceive the welcome, and if not, the signal can pass unnoticed — or not. Of the three characteristics, this is the most interesting to watch in action. It is also the one most subject to change and danger in an increasingly diverse and polarized world. Not keeping up with shifts can get you fired or worse.
Years ago, a seriously Irish Catholic family member was looking for a sweater in a clear, bright shade of light blue. She asked the clerk for “Blessed Mother Blue.” Since this was New York City in times past, the conversation rapidly devolved into which parish you belonged to and which Catholic High School you attended. Users of various ethnic English vernaculars code switch to signal group cohesiveness and solidarity, as do fans of sports teams, members of sororities and fraternities, and alums from various academic institutions. While much of this is friendly and out-reaching, taken too far, it also serves to build walls of division — to signal that outsiders are not “people like us,” and therefore do not belong here. If you don’t get the reference or laugh at the joke, you likely don’t share our values and had better “Go back where you came from.” As tribes are identified and defined in the signaling process, those feeling themselves disrespected and ignored cluster more tightly together in anger and fear. Ironically, the fear of “outsiders” works equally well for the original “normative” people-like-us-group too. So the end result is not a shifting structure of individuals with footholds and credentials in a variety of tribes, — able to explore areas of commonality, — but an increasingly segregated set of armed camps composed of folk not entirely happy with their camp but unwilling to risk being ostracized if they engage with the other tribes. You’ve got to buy the whole package, repeat all the prescribed talking points, call out the usual tribal suspects, and close the case.
As an esteemed colleague wrote recently, “Don’t do it.”
Travels Through the Arch 