Jason Wilson has a spiffy piece up at New Matilda on the rise and rise (and fall?) of the “trollumnist” – the op/ed columnist who provokes for advertising’s sake. He instances Miranda Devine, David Burchell, Planet Janet and Catherine Deveny. Riffing off Devine’s recent rant about cyclists, he writes:
But really, Devine’s column isn’t there to express a view shared by real people, but rather to disagree with a particular group. The column is aimed at cyclists, and those who are prepared to get angry on their behalf. Anyone who — like Devine — uses Twitter will have seen the outrage cranking up as soon as the column was posted. Along with the expressions of anger come links to the online version of the column, where metrics are collected and advertising hosted. In a fragmented media marketplace augmented by real-time social media, networked irritation drives traffic. Devine’s columns look more and more like linkbaiting, pure and simple.
I’ve rarely seen a better analysis of just why exactly all this ranting and raving is the lifeblood of a declining media than Wilson’s. But it does beg the question – what is it, precisely, about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant? One wouldn’t want to credit the “trollumnist” with too much originality. The ground has to be prepared.
Seinfeld: moan, worry, complain
Didn’t someone write a whole book called “The Culture of Complaint”?
Step forward (from 1993) Robert Hughes
Robert Hughes.
But isn’t this a step up from complaint and grumbling? This is outrage, and it’s coming to a media outlet near you.
I had the misfortune to listen to Alan Jones interview Malcolm Turnbull recently, and the level of outrage at the worldwide global warming conspiracy was ratcheted up to 9.5. If you are not used to this stuff it sounds almost insane, but the parrot has the highest rating show on radio, so there are a hell of a lot of people who must think that this level of outrage is normal, and what’s worse must need their daily fix.
God knows why.
“Miranda Devine, David Burchell, Planet Janet and Catherine Deveny”
While all four are provocateurs, they should not be lumped together.
Burchell and Planet Janet take themselves extremely seriously.
Deveny does not. Devine, taking after her father, does not either (I think).
But why people constantly take the bait from any of them is a mystery.
My favourite line: “The pursuit of the Inner Child has taken over just at the moment when Americans ought to be figuring out where their Inner Adult is.
I really like Catherine Deveny and I think a lot of her stuff is written tongue firmly stuck in cheek. She was very entertaining on Q&A last week.
Here’s my complaint for the day: I tire of the incorrect usage of the expression ‘begs the question’. It does not mean: ‘poses the question’. It means that an argument is circular, a petitio principii, assuming the conclusion to what is proved. Sorry for the rant.
“what is it, precisely, about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant?”
There’s only one answer to that around here, isn’t there?
John Howard.
Yes indeed, whitefrankblack … poses or raises would be apt in such cases.
I also tire of sportspeople saying “awesome”, “unbelievable”, “absolutely” and similar, sometimes collocated “absolutely awesome”. Ugh!
And chewing gum … hate it. Mr Wrigley ought to be disinterred and the remains dragged behiund a cart through piles of sticky gum.
not that I’m one to complain of course …
While we’re on the subject, what’s with the misuse of the word ‘redemption’? I lost count of the number of times it was used yesterday in the context of the jockey winning the Melbourne Cup after coming second last year. FFS!!!
The only known antidote to sportspeak is a Roy and HG podcast administered at least three times a week.
“what is it, precisely, about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant?”
This question begs the question (ahem)* of whether it’s ‘our culture’ that’s to blame. I’d be inclined to re-cast this question as ‘What is it, precisely, about the human psyche that fosters the desire to be indignant?’
Even then I think I’d argue that the indignation is a by-product of something else, rather than something actively desired (there’s another begged question, actually), namely the human desire to shore up, reinforce and/or justify one’s already-existing opinions, prejudices, fears and everything else that makes up the self, when those things are perceived as being under attack. The producers of commercial television’s so-called current affairs shows have known this for decades.
*’Begs’ in this context is short for ‘beggars’, I’m told: ‘beggars the question’ as in ‘ignores the issue’ as in ‘takes it as a given and therefore affords it no value’.
I think we should condemn indignation, as well as beggars; nor should redemption get off lightly.
There’s also the desire to vent one’s frustration. It seems people often find that railing against someone or something they don’t know much about, but disapprove of in some vague way, is a useful, risk-free outlet for their frustrations. To some extent, even blogs do this, although LP clearly doesn’t elicit the sort of outrage that ‘Trollumnists’ and some other blogs do.
Pavlov’s Cat, what’s the story with Sarsaparilla
(continuing the pedantry sub-theme)
BTW, PC, your usage of the expression “begging the question” is still incorrect. The question “what is it, precisely, about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant?” may well assume that something about our culture is the cause of this desire for outrage, but that’s not begging the question. It would be begging the question if the question itself assumed the truth of its answer, but it doesn’t do that.
I disagree Tim. this is exactly what ‘begging the question’ entails i.e. it presents something not beyond objection as beyond objection as a premise.
“Why are you so ignorant?” allows the responder to account for the reasons without including the answer, “I’m not so ignorant”.
Indeed. As a rule of thumb, when poised to use the expression ‘begs the question’, be wary of following with a question. For an argument to be circular, it must end in a conclusion. Now, I’m not some kind of prescriptivist usage communist. It’s just that when we have so few sentences in english that are able deftly to flag the presence of a subtle logical fallacy, it seems a shame to put one to death by ambiguity.
To get to the (non-begged) question:
By what metric do we measure whether or not and to what degree “our culture” is more inclined to be indignant than “our culture” at any other time or any other culture at any other time?
Is “our culture” remarkable in this respect?
This is at risk of becoming an unofficial “Condemn” thread.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Katz, I always thought (well sometimes I think) that when one uses a metric to measure something then that produces a measurement, it doesn’t produce a not measurement. To not measure is just that, akin to me taking a wild guess I suppose. As to measuring culture, I’m not sure a metric system applies
So one metric is “a wild guess”, I guess.
While I’d suggest most of those blowhards are using their soapboxes largely out of selfishness – don’t tax me, don’t ride your bicycle where I’m driving, etc. – the responses generated are often a childish need for attention. Talk-radio listeners who call in may or may not have an axe to grind of their own, but they absolutely revel in the status they sense they’ve achieved.
(final bout of pedantry)
Fran @17. Wot whitefrankblack said.
The question ‘why are you so ignorant?’ may be making an unsupported assumption, but that in itself is not begging the question. To beg the question, a statement needs more than just an unwarranted assumption, it needs an argument, i.e. a conclusion, the truth of which is the unwarranted assumption contained in the premise. A question like ‘why are you so ignorant’ or ‘what precisely is it about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant’ is not a complete argument, so it can’t be begging the question.
Both Katz and PC have indicated they would prefer to be asking different questions, but that doesn’t mean there was, or is any begging of the question going on.
BTW – I condemn pedantry!
The level of outrage at the latest rise in interest rates was being fuelled by the front page of The Telecrap this morning with shock! horror! headlines home owners may have to give up the second car and/or private school fees.
At first I thought that the newsagent was stocking a parody of he real thing but sadly no.
As Wilson indicates a large part of the increase in outrage levels is caused by a correspondent decrease in MSM revenue, leading to the need to engage the consumer through ever increasing levels of outrage and anger.
It would be good to think that there is a limit to this kind of thing, but Ameican experience would indicate otherwise.
If the original question:
is unpacked, the following claims appear:
1. “Our” refers to a group sufficiently well defined for most readers to distinguish from others
2. The specified group in (1) engages in practices (a.k.a ‘our culture’) that attach value to being indignant.
3. The desire to be indignant is measurable
4. The desire to be indignant is separable from non-culture-driven responses to frustration over values collisions or needs conflicts with individuals or groups.
5. One may act/exist outside the culture
Arguably, all of these questions are ‘begged’ though some are nested.
I find references to culture as if it were some sort of free floating object problematic. Beyond being a term simply describes a suite of practices, I can’t imagine what culture is, still less how it could “cause” us to do anything.
We are driven to one-upmanship, competing with each other for vaguely defined/felt status. If you can get away with criticising something, the feeling is that you are in a position to judge, ie are Better. This is why other people’s sex lives so often figure in outrage, sex being a strong driver of human competition. It’s like those athletes who try to have their competitors disqualified from selection on technical legal grounds before the race, see?
Oh FFS, let’s put it this way. Here’s a theory.
Our ‘culture’, ‘society’ or whatever you want to call it is generally a pampered, self indulgent and materialistic one where the cult of the individual is paramount.
This contrasts with many other societies whose values tend to be more communal.
If you accept the above, then you may conclude that people disengaged from the society around them, apart from vicarious media generated and exploitative public expressions of grief (which is actually part of the same process), seek some sort of emotional connection with others. One of the easiest and most satisfying way of establishing that connection is through outrage and anger because it doesn’t oblige you to actually do something – the outrage is an end in itself.
Not sure if I agree with this, but it’s a theory at least.
“This is at risk of becoming an unofficial “Condemn” thread.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
David, since you mention it, one of the most irritating of the advertisements, that run on ABC TV, is the Myf Warhurst blabber where she ends up by saying…”Not that there’s anything wrong with that”. It’s best I have nothing in my hand when I see her, or the CFA fireman, lest we need to go pick up another tele from the op shop.
In fact all those ABC promotions are so pompous, so pretentious, so full of useless blabber that I can’t stand any of them.
On the other hand the SBs ones are great.
Trollumnism is the vice of a younger generation than the crusted on listeners to John Laws and Alan Jones. Everyone has to have a hobby!
The hypothesis that mainstream journalists are engaging in this because of page views is very interesting, but not the entire story.
Afterall, the Sydney Push have had decades of careers built reputationally and on the material rewards of making noise and inspiring pavlovian responding. As they filtered out into other ideologies, and became accepted into bastions of the right, like say The Australian, they borugh that practice with them and made it acceptable. Afterall, it doesn’t matter if you colour your empty vessel maoist red or Liberal blue, it’s still the same inane noise machine.
So the “volume equals debate” practice was there already, changing media just made it easier to undertake.
And god knows noise is easier than thinking.
@8 and 10 – usage trumps pedantry in my opionion.
These “communal” cultures tend to express indignation in different ways. For example, they burned heretics and exiled and ostracised non-conformists.
It would seem to me that “communal” cultures aren’t in any way less indignant than “individualist” cultures. They merely express their indignation in different ways, often with murderous violence.
@33 Your opionions make make Fowler cry.
I have been to many overseas countries where indignation is not a strong cultural attitude, however expressed, and they certainly don’t practise medieval punishment techniques. I was merely wondering if the strong ties to the community and family (in contrast to ours) was a reason for the growth of indignation and outrage in our society.
Maybe my use/misuse of the term ‘communal’ mislead you, but I simply meant societies that had a stronger sense of community as opposed to the individualism that pervades our society. And we have our own ways of ostracising non-conformists as well.
Do these countries have names?
As far as I am aware all countries have names.
So do equivocators.
“@33 Your opionions make make Fowler cry.”
Gold, Jerry!
And not just the complete awesomeness of wrapping your retort to an accusation of pedantry in still more pedantry, in turn wrapped in a pun (the highest form of humour) you are also completely correct.
When we have a phrase like “begs the question”, which carries so neatly such a barrage of meaning, we should be very wary of polluting it with lame misapplications.
Because in the end, Mark is right – usage does trump
pedantrymeaning.Seems obvious to me. Being indignant/self-righteousness/conspicuous complaining releases serotonin – especially for those that don’t many other opportunities to do so.
“So do equivocators.”
Hmmm…can I get back to you on that?
Maybe.
@35 – I wish it had been a clever pun. Perhaps it was a slip?
It’s an interesting hypothesis, and I’d argue that Wilson left off the greatest of all, because nominally he’s a sports journalist – Patrick Smith from The Australian.
You’d have to go far to find someone who makes assertions as idiotic, as consistently wrong, and as vehement as this guy. Any normal person with his record would expect to keep their media job for the amount of time it takes an electron to circle a hydrogen nucleus. However, this numpty has been employed in print and other media for decades. That he writes for The Australian’s sport section only underlines the attention-seeking modus operandi.
I’ve thought for a long time that these types of columnists were just court jesters. They seemed to become popular during the Howard regime, perhaps bexause the level of political debate also began to decline at the same time. Let’s not forget though that Devine was sent to Iraq to talk to Gen Petreus(?), a complete waste of an opportunity to ask real questions so there can be a real downside to there clowning.
“Being indignant/self-righteousness/conspicuous complaining releases serotonin”
I agree. It’s an addictive pleasure. Papers / media sell two ways: one, by comforting their readership and two, by outraging them.
To understand what people get out of it you have to ask yourself how the medium is used. Successful newspapers / talkback shows etc. become successful because they’re habit-forming. Rational engagement with a polarising issue isn’t habit-forming – while it may be enjoyable, it’s as difficult and tiring as your day job.
But a side having been chosen, validation or safe confrontation reward time and again with a pleasurable glow.
The joke is that by picking a side, a media outlet gets both its friends and its enemies as customers.
Let’s face it. The MSM is under immense pressure to suck in advertiser-ready eyeballs in a seller’s market for attention. And one where the internet has dropped the price of entry to almost zero.
So “Oderint dum metuant” could now be paraphrased as “I got you mad? Read on!”.
Or as P.T Barnum once said “No one ever went broke underestimating the human need to not feel alone in venting their anger and frustration at their broken past dreams and current quotidian irritants through that gimcrack coconut shy of a coliseum that passes for the MSM these days.”*
* This quote may not be strictly accurate.
Nabakov @41, that reminds me of a comment I read once:
People who habitually yell at their spouses and kids may not necessarily have higher stress levels.
However, their families hiding behind the sofa certainly do.
Not sure if this relates to your comment about opportunities to release serotonin?
The usual suspects in Australia do a pretty lame version of the outrage formula. You know you’re scatching around for something when phonetics is one of your main targets for rage.
What is it about The Australian and phonetics? Does it represent the ’70s and trendiness/radical chic in the Murdoch worldview?
“Not sure if this relates to your comment about opportunities to release serotonin?”
Well, one of the reasons I think William Gibson is a great writer is because of paras like this.
Which is to say, Laney, anything that might be of interest to Slitscan’s audience.”Which is best visualized as a vicious, lazy, profoundly ignorant, perpetually hungry organism craving the warm god-flesh of the anointed. Personally I like to imagine something the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka.
It’s covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting.It has no mouth, Laney, no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote.Or by voting in presidential elections.”
–Idoru, 1996
And guess who feeds ‘em?
Ok Katz, you want names, I’ve got names (not to mention broad generalisations, but hey it’s the stock in trade round here):
Vietnam – Kind of aggressive in a non outrageous way with a sense of humour that softens the aggression. Not a lot of indignation but god knows they’ve got enough reasons to last a lifetime
Laos – Passivity is a national sport leaving indignation or outrage very much on the sidelines.
Cambodia – As for Vietnam but less aggressive and even more reason to be indignant and outraged about life and their country’s history.
Bali – What’s there to be indignant about? Apart from Australian tourists.
Indonesia – As for Bali but sans tourists.
France – Let’s go and get some food and drink.
Britain – There you may well have a point.
New Zealand ??
“The joke is that by picking a side, a media outlet gets both its friends and its enemies as customers.”
It’s not a joke. It’s a business model.
But not all media outlets do this. Sky News employs the bland and blander approach, and that seems to work for them.
An old saying I heard in ole Indochine.
“The Laotians plant the rice, the Cambodians cultivate it, the Vietnamese harvest it and the Thai sell it.”
While all four countries had to deal with three great, pompous and ruthless empire building nations moving in on their action at different times – China, France and the US.
That’s right, but I heard a slightly different version:
The Cambodians plant the rice, the Laotians watch it grow, the Vietnamese cultivate and harvest it, and the Thais market it.
Though I think recently the Vietnamese would be looking for a bit of the marketing action.
Indignation eh?
Vietnam –
Kind of aggressive in a non outrageous way with a sense of humour that softens the aggression. Not a lot of indignation but god knows they’ve got enough reasons to last a lifetimeHundreds of thousands of boat people became refugees. Thousands rotted in “re-education” camps.Laos – [Don't know anything about them.]
Cambodia –
As for Vietnam but less aggressive and even more reason to be indignant and outraged about life and their country’s history.The Khmer Rouge was indignation armed with millions of hoes.Bali –
What’s there to be indignant about? Apart from Australian tourists.And hundreds of thousands of massacred communists/Chinese.Indonesia –
As for Bali but sans tourists.See Bali above.France –
Let’s go and get some food and drink.France has turned indignation into a national sport. Every second street is named after a German massacre.Britain – There you may well have a point.
New Zealand ?? [See Laos above.]
As I wrote over here about the cycling incident.
Trolling for fun and profit has never been more profitable.
Adrian @28, I define it as the whinge factor.
It seems that outrage is the new black. You can’t just be irritated, annoyed, put out or a bit cross about whatever, you must be incandescent with rage. A spittle-flecked chin is mandatory.
Someone got served at the deli before you-it’s an OUTRAGE! They’ve sold out of your favourite whatever-you’re OUTRAGED! Your meal at a new restaurant doesn’t live up to your expectations-time for some ubiquitous outrage.
There seems to be strong sense of entitlement among the outraged. How dare anyone or anything inconvenience, hinder or disagree with them. They are VIPs, and their wishes and desires will take precedence or there’ll be some outrage.
Indignation is the cowbell of argument.
Oneliners are the Anthony of Anthony.
I also do a reasonably priced range of eyeliners.
Good to see you spilling your economical guts again is all.
More of that sort of thing, says I.
I love listening to commerical talkback. It follows the same script, day in, day out: Murdoch tabloid has some beat-up guaranteed to get any red-blooded Aussie’s back up. The presenter rants about it for half the show, taking calls from right-thinking listeners who second the motion. Finally, almost as an afterthought, the minister/public servant who has been the object of all this ranting is finally contacted and it turns out that, no, Australia is not being run by a bunch of over-educated venal moronic space aliens who need to come back to planet common sense. In fact, there is actually a good reason why the outrage was committed in the first place. Really it’s not much of an outrage at all (which the presenter grudgingly concedes).
Despite this pattern repeating over and over, somehow the audience continues to tune in for evidence of the conspiracy of the moronic space aliens.
FDB Could you elucidate your point more clearly since I’m not sure I get what you mean
Polluting the meaning of some phrase through its misapplication? Are the phrase usage police doing the rounds? Could we wind up with meaningless phrases through simple overuse, leading to the dreaded Phrase Overuse Syndrome. The correct usage shall be adhered to or privileges will be revoked!
At least if that’s what you mean to say you should say what you mean.
Oh, sorry David.
I thought my meaning was clear.
Perhaps I should have used words less appropriate for my intended meaning – would that have helped?
-Concerned for the Comprehension of the Reader,
Carlton North.
good list, Katz
Laos is apparently dirt-poor
misused by its Vietnamese “allies” in their battles with France/USA
not sure if they’re indignant, but
New Zealand: spurned by its big uncle Australia, when it rejected the US nuclear alliance; indignant about being patronised and ridiculed by Australians; under-arm bowling (need I say more?); see “Canada and the US”
loc cit.
Ambigulous @64: “Laos…New Zealand:..indignant about being patronised and ridiculed by Australians…Canada…”
Also Scotland versus England?
Apparently Norway used to feel the same way about Sweden. Norwegians were the poor fishing/farming cousins, looked down upon by their larger more prosperous neighbour.
Until they found oil in the 70′s. Like the cat that found the cream, since then…
FDB indubitably so and your concerns are kindly received complete with your generous intentions. Clearly the trout have improved one’s outlook on life
I do miss Kenny and Angry of Mayfair:
Tell me Katz, oh wise one, have you been to any of the countries on my list apart from NZ of course?
Oh Kenny.
Angry of Mayfair to David Bowie:
“I fought in the war for people like you……………and I never got one”
I haven’t been to either Cambodia or Laos.
(Bali is a part of Indonesia.)
Bali part of Indonesia? Really? Thanks for letting me know. It takes a wise one to discover such things. Probably a bit like countries that have names.
Happy to oblige.
Sometimes folks get indignant when it is pointed out that they are providing redundant information. I really appreciate your courtesy.
All part of the service OWO.
So, do you still assert that “communal” cultures are noticeably less indignant than “individualist” cultures, or are you more inclined to agree with me that different cultures merely express indignance in different ways?
Katz – “merely express indignance in different ways” – but it could be a culture where you are encouraged to not express it. In Indonesia, where people live very close to each other, the culture discourages any inflammatory expressions of outrage by branding it a form of immaturity. The government used to enforce the same idea, but with with censorship – you don’t want people expressing their outrage with the Chinese community for example. You’re never very far from a crowd in most places in Indonesia – freely expressed outrage could be dangerous.
We’ve done that Russell.
You may well be correct about personal indignation.
But personal indignation isn’t the only kind of indignation. One can feel indignation on behalf of a raft of collectivities — race, religion, ethnicity, age, etc.
My modest point is that societies like Indonesia’s may seem to be paragons of self-control, until the folks get together to assist in the massacre of 600,000 neighbours who happen to be Chinese and/or communists.
I imagine that some sort of indignation was bubbling to the surface when some Indonesian dad macheted to death his third neighbour for the afternoon.
Who can forget scenes like this in the break-down of Indonesian control of East Timor not so long ago. Pro-Indonesian “militias” (mostly local civilians) went on a murderous rampage in plain view of video cameras.
Katz – yes, but you’re referring to very rare events. I’m talking about everyday culture. In Indonesia you’re encouraged to not be demonstrative, and it’s generally quite a subdued, controlled society. Compared to, say, the Greeks – Lord, talk about outrage, indignation – what troublesome people. I offer as proof that chapter on Manolis in Tsiolkas’ The Slap.
Maybe outrage and alcohol just go together well. Indonesians generally don’t drink. The Greeks ……
“My modest point is that societies like Indonesia’s may seem to be paragons of self-control, until the folks get together to assist in the massacre of 600,000 neighbours who happen to be Chinese and/or communists.”
You’re too kind Katz. Your ‘modest point’ is really no point at all since any society is capable of gross acts of mass violence on rare occasions, and this has little or nothing to do with the point that I was making about about how a society normally functions. So your modest point has missed my modest point by a country mile.
Unless of course you think that some societies and peoples are more prone to brutality than others.
Remember, Adrian, that I’m the sceptic in this conversation.
I’m simply raising the possibility that there may be some sort of inverse relationship between the amount of personal indignation and the amount of communal indignation expressed by members of a culture. In other words, I am raising the possibility (hence my scepticism) that these two elements in a society are correlated in an inverse way.
Whereas you made a positive assertion about the lack of indignation (not specifically personal indigantion) in some cultures.
Moreover, you appear to be a little confused about what might be described as “indignation”. Gross acts of mass violence, whether rare or not, might well be motivated by indignation. You seem to see indignation as an outcome, rather than as a motive.
And then this:
Well really, Adrian. You assert that there are definitely cultural differences in the propensity to express indignation. Why is it inconsistent to assert that “some societies (I’m not so sure about “peoples”. That smacks a little of social darwinism) are more prone to brutality than others”?
I note and reject your implication that I may be thinking along social darwinist or genetic lines. Please don’t do that again.
However, there is nothing objectionable, from my point of view, with the notion that members of certain societies or cultures may be educated/indoctrinated/socialised to be more ready to resurt to extreme violence.
And while we’re doing pedantry did anyone here our fearless leader use “myself” as if it were the nominative first person singular pronoun on Fran Kelly’s Breakfast this morning?
oops … just proved Skitt’s Rule … again
Did anyone hear? … ugh … [slaps self on side of head] …
That’s terrible Fran@83. If the man had one ounze of union blood in his pansy heart he would have made that “meself ya les”
“My modest point is that societies like Indonesia’s may seem to be paragons of self-control …”
Any old intemperate rabble can rustle up a lynching but massacres take discipline.
“massacres take discipline” – Anthony the English word amuck comes from the Malay/Indonesian ‘amok’ – ‘a murderous frenzy … in a jumbled or confused state’
Fran, fearless leader? Now I am afraid…
So, is indignation always undisciplined?
I wouldn’t have thought the history of modern Indonesia shows “rare” massacres/riots… here’s a brief list
* independence struggle, guerilla actions
* murderous actions by groups within that struggle
* after independence, separatist groups using violence, 1950s
* the incident of 30th Sept 1965 (“coup attempt”, Generals murdered)
* the subsequent massacre of communists, sympathisers and/or Chinese Indonesians [see Katz above]
* anti-Chinese riots in Jakarta circa 1973
* riots in Jakarta around the time of massive street protests against Pres Suharto; some of these directed against Chinese women
* violence by occupying troops in East Timor; then militia groups in 1999
Compared with other societies, this doesn’t seem to evidence general social stoicism and calm.
Why was 1965 called “The Year of Living Dangerously” [by the revered Bung Karno, I think]? How does a society find itself with one of its wildest hotheads occupying the Presidential Palace? Why did he threaten to set off the powder keg? Why had the nation become a powder keg in the first place?
Ambigulous – I always avoid talking about Indonesia with anyone on the left because it seems to me that the left has some sort of hatred for Indonesia …
But re your list. Well, you know it’s a very big, poor and diverse country which had to fight for its recent independence. Its political institutions aren’t as developed as ours, and it’s had some outside interference. Given the circumstances, and compared to its Asian neighbours, I wouldn’t say it’s a particularly violent country.
I was using it as an example of a country/culture where expressions of outrage are not encouraged. To do so would be ‘kasar’ (“vulgar, curt, crude, crass, brutish, brutal”). That compares with the recent vulgarisation of Australia, which I think got quite a shove along from that whole Paul Hogan proud-to-be-a-bogan thing.
Well said, Russell.
You do know that the commonly cited figure for the 1965 coup is 500,000 dead? You do know that the figure for East Timor is about 250,000 dead?
Even the backwash from the 1999 referendum was about 3000 dead.
Ok, that’s not Pol Pot standard but even so, you can’t blink your eyes and miss that, surely.
I detest the massacres and inhuman brutality of the Pol Pot regime, yet I don’t believe I “hate” Cambodia. Terimah kaseh.
Fran – I’m aware of that period of Indonesian history. Yes, one can point to Pol Pot, and Rwanda, to how many died after the Communists took over in China, in the U.S. civil war, etc.
So many countries, including European ones, have had a period of cataclysmic violence, resulting from various historical forces, that you really can’t say that 1965 proves Indonesians have some particular propensity to violence.
Many, many Australians have by now had some experience of Indonesian culture and society and all of them that I know have been impressed with Indonesians’ civility and the way they seek harmony within their community. Considering the face huge problems they’ve faced, I think they’ve done quite well.
Well said, Ambi.
Yet another reasons why trolls should not be fed
I just noticed this after spending a couple of days at a conference – thanks for the link and the discussion. FWIW, I think this is a strategy that’s evolved over time rather than being well thought out in advance – trollumnists have received a definite boost from the uptake of social media like Twitter, I’d wager.
Russell — I wasn’t claiming that Indonesians had a particular propensity to violence. I was responding rather more to the ostenisbly perplexed tone you adopted when noting the attitudes of leftists to Indonesia.
Fran – I was responding to your statistics and “you can’t blink your eyes and miss that, surely.” which is the common position of the left: “here is a statistic, 500,000 dead, hence Indonesians/Suharto = bloodthirsty, fascist monsters.”
My reading of Indonesian history, and experience of living there, is that it is much more complex than that – the statistics don’t explain what happened. Strangely, the people I know who do think that Suharto was a monster were also big fans of Paul Keating, who seemed pretty enamoured of the old dictator.
Surely the point is that any country is capable of the kind of evil brutality referred to above, given the ‘right’ combination of circumstances. We are kidding ourselves if we think that any country is immune from this kind of barbarity. Which is why it is irrelevant to the discussion about indignation and outrage, which is a beast of an entirely different nature.
Well said, Adrian,
So back to Mark’s question ” what is it, precisely, about our culture that fosters the desire to be indignant?”
It’s ego, let off the leash of good manners.
The key phrase is “fosters the desire”.
That is, sometimes, it is conceded, there is no choice but to be indignant.
Sometimes, however, folks go out of their way to express indignation even though they have no legitimate reason to be indignant. They are touchy and/or they express their identity (Russell’s egotists) through their indignation.
Mark’s implication is that this second group is unusually large and/or it is a growing part of Australia’s population.
To return to my original question, how do we know whether these touchy and/or egotistical folks comprise a large and/or growing part of Australian culture
(Note, I’m not denying that this may be the case.)
Isn’t the ‘fosters the desire’ part related to those advertisements that tell us we should have it/anything, ‘because you deserve it’?
Do your own thing has changed from growing your hair long, or nudity or other liberating gestures, to always do whatever you like because you should and you can. A bit like sport has become win at all costs – well that’s how you should live your life: winners are grinners and nobody else matters.
But living like this means we’re all constantly bumping up against each other’s selfish desire to have everything for our own personal convenience. Hence road rage, hence indignant outbursts when I don’t get what I want.
Maybe it also relates to the way children tend to be raised these days – to think that they are the centre of the universe whose every desire must be satisfied and every need met.
Earlier in the thread I posted a bit of Wilde, but it has a ‘your comment is in moderation” tag on it, so here it is again: indignation as social marker:
Lady Bracknell. Me, sir! What has it to do with me? You can hardly imagine that I and Lord Bracknell would dream of allowing our only daughter—a girl brought up with the utmost care—to marry into a cloak-room, and form an alliance with a parcel? Good morning, Mr. Worthing!
[Lady Bracknell sweeps out in majestic indignation.]
Just speculatin’….
The painfully big egoed prat was mostly chastised as “a wanker” in the earlier Australian scene. Now that sort is much more tolerated; probably because it is an American thing to do and we love to emulate – just like our cocky co-inhabitants. (You should not bring that sod down to size because blind confidence is an attractive characteristic in a ‘free for all economy’. Where to show doubt is seen as a definite sign of weakness.)
Skyhooks started the rot?
Alan Jones and co. are an absolute joke! They are holding us to ransom and the political parties that promote the free-market lie will face very testing times. They will be rebranding themselves soon I bet! Possibly already doing it!