I composed an earlier blog entitled The Audacity of Anonymity and have become somewhat obsessed with the thought. Conducting some research, I found a research article entitled "Effects of Anonymity and Arousal on Aggression," which had been published in The Journal of Psychology and was written by R. W. Rogers & C. M. Ketchen. In the article, the authors cite another researcher named Zimbardo who stated, "If others can't identify or single you out, they can't evaluate, criticize, judge, or punish you." The authors went on to say, "...anonymity may make aggression a more dominant response tendency because in our culture anonymity reduces the anticipated risk of detection and the ensuing social censure and/or punishment."
In other words, being anonymous promotes feelings of imperviousness (for lack of a better word). Then, as one feels he can do whatever he chooses without repercussions or consequences, he is, therefore, encouraged to exhibit more aggressive behavior. A state of anonymity inhibits civility, causes us to resort to our baser instincts, makes us less compassionate and more egocentric.
Just today (May 15, 2009) Bob Kravitz, a sports writer for the Indianapolis Star, addressed this very topic, and I have to say that I agree with Mr. Kravitz. Kravitz uses classic jock talk to suggest that anonymity is turning us into a culture of weenies. Note, he does not condemn blogs or email or twitter or text messaging. He does, however, condemn the rude behavior that the anonymity of such technologically interactive programs promote. He states very well that "We hide behind technology that provides us with pseudonyms and takes accountability out of the equation." And that is what I'm talking about. If we are so bold as to say something, then let us be bold enough to accept the consequences of our words and our deeds. Otherwise, shut up!
I'm not finished with this topic.
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anonymity. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Audacity of Anonymity
I recently found myself standing between two large groups of teenage males, hyped up on adrenaline and metaphorically beating their chests and challenging each other to combat. I stepped in between the two groups in an attempt to calm them and to bring an end to the insanity. Although most of the students were from my school, one of the leaders of one group was not. Having the advantage of anonymity, the young man threatened me openly and taunted me, calling me names and ordering me to back away.
The entire incident had escalated through the audacity of anonymity that many students held that evening because they were not from my school. They took pleasure in creating chaos and were bold in being rude and disrespectful. The evening ended without further incident; however and consequently, it has become clearer that there is a trend in our society of affording people the protection of anonymity, which has given people courage to cast insults with impunity. The audacity of anonymity is a blight upon our society, defying reason, responsibility, civility, cooperation, collaboration, and accountability.
Another example where the audacity of anonymity has been disruptive involves what is called "Coffee with the Principal." Originally designed to provide a forum to address concerns that the faculty has regarding the operations of the building, Coffee with the Principal has become mean-spirited and petty. I am convinced that the vulgar nature of many comments is a by-product of the rule that all concerns be submitted anonymously. I doubt that many of the complaints are representative of the whole faculty and are more so the expression of personal vendettas. It was never the intention of the process to become as such. Anonymity has allowed those who otherwise would keep quiet to speak out in rude and disruptive ways and to lower the dignity of the process and the school.
A third place where I see anonymity causing rude boldness is on the Internet. I've visited YouTube sites where people have left vile and offensive remarks, hiding behind pseudonyms and nicknames that make them entirely anonymous.
When I receive a letter at school, I first look to see who signed the letter. If it is anonymous, I throw it away. If a person cannot sign his name to what he has written, then the person knows that it is vile, disgusting, rude, and inappropriate. He does not want to be associated with such behavior, while he engages in the behavior.
One might site examples of people posting anonymous statements that are quite the opposite from being rude and disruptive, statements that are actually respectful and uplifting. Regardless, I still suggest that the cloak of anonymity allows people to be vile and that anonymity should not be encouraged. Instead, people should be encouraged to stand behind what they say. Indeed, people should be proud of their words, whether they are statements of allegiance or cries of protest. And if a person is not proud of his thoughts nor his words, then let him hold his tongue.
The entire incident had escalated through the audacity of anonymity that many students held that evening because they were not from my school. They took pleasure in creating chaos and were bold in being rude and disrespectful. The evening ended without further incident; however and consequently, it has become clearer that there is a trend in our society of affording people the protection of anonymity, which has given people courage to cast insults with impunity. The audacity of anonymity is a blight upon our society, defying reason, responsibility, civility, cooperation, collaboration, and accountability.
Another example where the audacity of anonymity has been disruptive involves what is called "Coffee with the Principal." Originally designed to provide a forum to address concerns that the faculty has regarding the operations of the building, Coffee with the Principal has become mean-spirited and petty. I am convinced that the vulgar nature of many comments is a by-product of the rule that all concerns be submitted anonymously. I doubt that many of the complaints are representative of the whole faculty and are more so the expression of personal vendettas. It was never the intention of the process to become as such. Anonymity has allowed those who otherwise would keep quiet to speak out in rude and disruptive ways and to lower the dignity of the process and the school.
A third place where I see anonymity causing rude boldness is on the Internet. I've visited YouTube sites where people have left vile and offensive remarks, hiding behind pseudonyms and nicknames that make them entirely anonymous.
When I receive a letter at school, I first look to see who signed the letter. If it is anonymous, I throw it away. If a person cannot sign his name to what he has written, then the person knows that it is vile, disgusting, rude, and inappropriate. He does not want to be associated with such behavior, while he engages in the behavior.
One might site examples of people posting anonymous statements that are quite the opposite from being rude and disruptive, statements that are actually respectful and uplifting. Regardless, I still suggest that the cloak of anonymity allows people to be vile and that anonymity should not be encouraged. Instead, people should be encouraged to stand behind what they say. Indeed, people should be proud of their words, whether they are statements of allegiance or cries of protest. And if a person is not proud of his thoughts nor his words, then let him hold his tongue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)