"Total Indignation"
by Laurent De Sutter
Hello Delphine Chaume.
- Hello Olivier.
Pursuing this semester's theme
on emotions,
today we'll be talking about a book
by Laurent De Sutter,
entitled "Total Indignation.
He is a philosopher,
and director of
a very interesting collection
at the publishers PUF,
called "Critical Perspective".
He authored the book "Total Indignation",
which has a very interesting subheading:
modern society's addiction
to scandal and controversy.
He puts himself in the witness position.
Everyone is a witness to what happens
in the world today
via social networks,
radio, television, etc.
Every day, there are reasons
to be indignant and outraged.
This constant indignation
has a tiring effect on us,
and De Sutter wanted
to explore this effect further,
not focusing on the reasons why
we are outraged or indignant,
but on the mechanisms
used to incite outrage.
Yes, indeed.
He in the same position as you,
as me, as many of us:
when we get up in the morning,
we go on social networks,
and we see a new subject
that sparks indignation,
which momentarily offers relief
from the somewhat depressing
monotony of life,
a monotony we very quickly return to
after reacting to the subject of outrage.
De Sutter decided to explore
the topic from a specific angle,
not focusing on WHY
we feel outrage,
but on HOW,
i.e. the mechanisms behind indignation.
At the same time,
it occurred to him
that he had immediately
asked the question 'why?',
and that such questioning
was itself at the heart of the issue.
That is, we constantly look for
reasons for this and for that
without being able to stop ourselves,
and ultimately, isn't indignation
reasoning taken to its logical extreme?
We may have the impression
that indignation
is the exact opposite of reason,
that it's based on pure emotion.
But it may actually be
an extreme form of reasoning.
Of course, the rise of
the indignation phenomenon
cannot solely be attributed
to social networks,
but the latter have certainly
given it a bigger sounding board.
What has changed, according
to De Sutter, is that
while indignation
used to be a primal outcry,
it is now dressed up to appear
to be founded on reason,
on rational argumentation,
on pseudo-academic theory
and it uses particularly powerful
and fierce language,
we could even call it,
the language of indignation.
To see this at work, you need only
observe individuals on social networks,
outraged individuals
who verbalise their indignation,
often backing it up with articles
or other publications, etc.,
be they serious publications or not.
It doesn't really matter.
All the examples of very intense
indignation that De Sutter cites
have the same pattern:
they always focus on something
of utmost importance,
which is somehow fuelled
by the transgression of an individual.
And while some try to argue
the validity of the transgression
by means of reasoning,
there are also the critics
of the transgression,
who use the same methods and tools,
i.e. those of rationality.
So we end up with two opposing
sides of the argument,
who battle it out until
one of them is seen to be right,
and consequently wins.
Yes. Indeed. He writes that outrage isn't
a gut response, as one might think,
but it is actually built on reason
and through logical reasoning.
He doesn't rule out
the emotional element.
What is interesting about the situation
you have just mentioned
with respect to someone who transgresses
is that there's currently almost
an archetypal case, i.e. Trump.
It's a figure who certainly has a place
in a society addicted to scandal.
He often transgresses,
speaks without superego,
and says whatever he likes,
how he likes.
He has devoted fans and supporters
behind him who form a block,
while other people,
of course, are offended
by his policies, his rudeness
and his vulgarity.
His critics are united
in connivance with each other
through laughter and derision.
Laughter is another aspect of outrage.
Yes. Indeed.
De Sutter cites the example
of the American Late Show,
especially with Stephen Colbert.
In 2015, Colbert invited
Donald Trump on the show,
clearly with the intention
of making fun of him,
given that Donald Trump is practically
the embodiment
of scandal and controversy.
So he invited him on the show,
where Colbert won twofold:
Colbert got the better of Trump
by getting all the viewers
of the show behind him.
And Colbert also won
thanks to Trump himself
because Trump insulted Colbert
after the show on social networks,
and the video was viewed
billions of times,
and therefore enjoyed
an exceptionally large audience.
So what can we deduce from this?
It's important to note that
the audience profile
of the Late Show is pretty consistent:
18 to 34 year-old, white
liberal-minded men...
The 'always bigger and better'.
- Yes, exactly.
...Men who ultimately embody
a kind of intellectual supremacy.
The viewers experience
enjoyment on two levels:
firstly, by being able
to have a good laugh
alongside Colbert,
in a triumph over the stupidity
and vulgarity,
of Trump, as you said.
Secondly, by being part of a community
that understands the world
to such an extent that they can
make fun of it, and laugh about it.
This helped to increase the social divide
between the Trump electorate and
the image of the 21st century liberal,
who enjoys mocking
those who are different,
i.e. those who do not share
the same view of the world,
and who can be qualified
as condescending.
Moreover, the Late Show was accused
of helping to create
the Trump electorate.
The philosopher Slovoj Zizek
even blamed the Late Show
for Trump's winning the election,
because when you make fun of Trump,
you also belittle
those who support Trump:
the rednecks, racists, homophobes, etc.,
who, in turn, formed a community
of their own, but in support of Trump.
So, the Late Show enables its viewers
to identify with a community
that is well-off and conservative,
you might say,
who are given the opportunity
to make fun of
and look down upon
an entire section of the population.
In response, that scorned section
of the population
formed the other community, which
made up the majority of Trump's voters.
So according to Laurent De Sutter,
the conniving laughter and fun,
which is the hallmark of indignation
- in this case, a sense of outrage
at stupidity and monstrosity -
incites the rage of the opposing side.
And this is apparent
in the recent movie "Joker".
Although the movie obviously has nothing
to do with the book we are talking about,
it does focus on the subject of laughter.
The Joker is after all a clown,
so his job is to make people laugh.
Joaquin Phoenix clearly did
a lot of work on the subject:
the Joker has to find his laughter,
he suffocates when he laughs.
You clearly see
the painful side of laughter.
The movie is also related to the Late Show
since the Joker appears on the show,
where the audience, and the host,
played by Robert De Niro,
make fun of him.
We see how the conniving laugher
is directed at a character
who's a deviant
and socially marginalized,
who thinks he's funny,
but who isn't.
We see the violent side of laughter
that stigmatises and rejects the other.
Yes, indeed.
Moreover, you see in the movie
how the Joker responds
to this conniving laughter
with a scowling laughter
replete with rage,
and ultimately, it leads to
the uprising at the end.
According to Laurent De Sutter,
the rationality of scandal
and controversy
is a rationality based on power.
It's not so much about
influencing the course of the world,
rather it aims to influence discussion
about the course of the world,
that is, it aims to distinguish
between good discussion,
i.e. distinguished and intelligent
discussion, from that of others,
i.e. it aims to split the population
into two distinct opposing communities,
where the side with the most
justified vision of the world wins,
that is, the side that
was right to be outraged.
Behind the scandal,
there's always a rationality of power.
The expression may seem
a little abstruse to some students,
but basically, it's the desire
to always be right.
Reason seeks to be right,
to have the last word.
This can be achieved through mockery.
Another example of a scandal that
provoked indignation was "#MeToo".
Of course, most would say
that it was justifiable,
but we're going to explore
the mechanisms at work.
We are again dealing
with a public scandal,
the exposure of allegations
followed by public outrage,
initially about the behaviour
of one man, Weinstein,
then you see all the ramifications
and the rising tide of indignation
on social networks.
Yes. Indeed.
According to Laurent De Sutter,
as far as "#MeToo" is concerned,
the real scandal is not necessarily
the one you might think.
As we said before, a scandal
gives rise to the formation
of a community.
But in order for the identity
of that community to gain solidity,
there needs to be other
subsequent scandals that serve
to support and bolster that community.
In the "#MeToo" movement,
there were all these women
who identified themselves as
victims of sexual harassment
with the hashtag "MeToo".
This was followed, some time later,
by an opinion column
in Le Monde newspaper
written by French women,
e.g. Sarah Chiche and Catherine Deneuve,
who, broadly speaking, wrote that
behind desire there often lies violence,
i.e. that sexual desire
is inherently violent,
or at least, it is the case
in French culture.
Yes, they opposed a kind of
widespread American puritanism
with the French culture of seduction,
which they don't really try to justify.
But they talk about the roots of violence
inherent in human desire
- especially male desire.
Yes, exactly.
And therein lies the real scandal.
There were many in the "MeToo" community
who could not adhere to what
these French women were saying.
These women were saying:
Careful! Such behaviour can also
be analysed from a local perspective.
We may be able to address
the issue differently
depending on where
the sexual harassment case occurs,
both geographically and
culturally speaking, etc.
However, the novelty and the power
of the "#MeToo" movement
lay precisely in its universality.
This meant that these women were
actually endangering the movement itself
because they were questioning
its universality,
and this was not acceptable
to the community.
So it became necessary
to sacrifice these women.
The women writing the column.
- Yes, the women writing
the column in Le Monde.
So to strengthen the "#MeToo" community,
and to ensure full identification
with the movement,
these women had to be sacrificed.
So here we can see a rationality at work
which involves
disqualification, as it were,
where there had to be
a sin-offering, a sacrifice
to protect the integrity
of the community.
Yes. Indeed. So not only
is there a community
that comes together, builds consensus,
and forms a whole,
but there needs to be a third party
that can be disqualified
in order to further strengthen
that community.
De Sutter says that this operates
according to a Western-style logic:
there are two sides:
the bad guys, and the good guys,
there can be no position in between.
That's right. Scandals are
intrinsically absolutely radical.
What's more,
scandals are always intense,
and almost inherently violent.
For example, with "#MeToo",
these women had to be sacrificed,
even if it was in the name
of denunciation,
i.e. the denunciation
of the violence of a certain man.
So for there to be identification,
there has to be scandal.
In this instance, there were two sides:
one side being the victims,
who identified with the hashtag "MeToo",
and the other side being
all the other women,
who by default refused
to be a part of the movement.
So here we have the good guys
and the bad guys,
two very distinct sides,
following a very dichotomous logic.
This is why he describes it
as a Western-style rationality.
We see that a 'higher law'
is used to dismiss
these women who wanted
to send a different message
with respect to
the sexual harassment scandal.
This higher law consisted in saying:
the scandal is universal, period!
We're not going to make it local,
it's something universal!
We also see the same higher law at work
in another scandal,
i.e. the death of Aylan Kurdi.
It involved a photograph,
now an iconic image,
which immediately went viral
on social networks across the world.
It was the image of
a small child lying face down
on the sand on a Turkish beach.
So it immediately evokes
the issue of migrants,
and it profoundly changed public opinion.
Some reacted rationally,
wondering whether
migratory flows should be
contained or welcomed.
And there was a tidal wave
of outrage saying:
we have to take in
these migrating children,
these people who have no refuge.
Here, the 'higher law'
was in the message:
we can't just let these people die!
Yes. The photograph actually
had a real impact
in the real world and
not only on social networks
since it changed, at least temporarily,
how people saw refugees,
and sparked a debate on whether
to take in refugees in Europe.
This photograph represents
the unimaginable on multiple levels:
there is death,
there is childhood,
and there is war.
It's all the absolutes.
Ultimately, the whole of humanity
is capsulized by this photo
in a kind of self-portrait.
In this instance, the scandal
is "never again".
The photo highlights a double obscenity.
Firstly, there is the obscenity
of what's going on in Syria,
the refugee crisis
and the Syrian reality.
And secondly, the obscenity of those
who show indifference, disinterest
or even disdain towards the photo
and who may even laugh at the photo.
At that time, there was a cartoon drawing
by Riss, which caused a scandal...
In Charlie Hebdo.
- Yes, in Charlie Hebdo,
and it bore the caption:
"Well, Europe is Christian!
Christians can walk on water
but Muslim children just sink",
which, of course, was
absolutely unacceptable
because those who refused or who failed
to feel 'total indignation',
as we just described,
were in fact divorcing themselves
from any sense of humanity
saying: "Well, it's not my problem".
But such an issue cannot
not be their problem.
In this respect, Laurent De Sutter
points out
that such strong moral justifications
are also a feature of scandals,
i.e. they rely on a rationality
based on duty,
on a rationality based on
social duty and obligation.
It's something that goes beyond politics
as it concerns the absolute of humanity.
We don't get indignant
because of our opinions,
our personal beliefs
or our political stance.
We feel outrage, because there's nothing
we can do about it, but feel outrage.
Because the truth of humanity
lies behind our indignation.
Laurent De Sutter says that
one of the strengths of indignation
lies in the fact that,
in the vast majority of cases,
it relates to a matter of life or death.
Yes. Indeed. It relates to
the insurmountable question of death,
which we have to deal with in life.
We've seen how outrage
and indignation enable us
to share something, and have something
in common with others.
While we're on the subject of cartoons,
there have been other cartoons
that have created intense tension
in a particular community,
for example,
the Muhammad cartoons controversy.
Yes. Indeed.
This is a good example that highlights
the means used to help scandal spread,
i.e. reason and logical reasoning.
In this particular instance, the Muhammad
cartoons were published in the press,
so it became a debate
on the freedom of the press.
The cartoons were published
in the name of freedom of the press.
Absolutely, that's right.
In reality, behind the façade
of defending the freedom of the press,
we were actually witnessing
a soft form of religious warfare,
where reason,
and the instruments of reason
were used exclusively
to defend freedom of the press.
So, the means used in the debate
are themselves debatable.
This is what Schopenhauer says:
on the one side, there is reason,
which uses the tools of reason,
and on the other,
there is emotion and passion,
which pervert the tools of reason
in order to spread lies, etc.
Laurent De Sutter says:
well, behind any debate,
there will always be passion and emotion.
In this particular case,
what was unbearable
for the Muslim community,
was that Muslims were stigmatised
by the press article,
and consequently forced to be
on the side of emotion,
because they actually had
no other choice, insofar as:
either they reacted,
in which case, they were considered
hysterical or extremist,
or they didn't react,
in which case, it was tantamount
to their abjuring their faith,
so they were trapped in a no-win
situation, and cut out of the debate,
since they were considered
to be solely motivated
by their emotions and without dispassion.
So, in actual fact,
what was so terrible for Muslims
was not so much the distrust
that was being fostered
by the newspaper
vis-à-vis the Muslim community,
it was the fact that
that mistrust, even hatred,
was dressed up to appear
to be founded on reason,
and used the instruments
of rational argumentation, etc.
This is also something that lies
at the heart of the scandal phenomenon,
at the heart of indignation,
as we said at the outset:
far from being absent
of all reason and rationality,
indignation works precisely
because it is reasonable and plausible.
Indignation is based on reason.
The propagation of indignation
also seeks to be right,
that is, the indignation
will continue to spread
until it is proven
to be justified and right.
So, this is a perfect example
of how reasonable arguments escalate
adding fuel to the fire
on both sides in the process,
in an attempt to be seen
to be right at any cost.
When we see a scandal,
- and this is also related
to the word's etymology -
we become trapped.
So is it possible to become 'untrapped'?
We have seen, through four examples,
how we can become trapped
by our own indignation
even if, at first,
it offers a sort of relief,
it makes us feel good and alive:
so should we try to prevent this?
And how?
Laurent De Sutter says that
indignation is based
on a principle or pattern,
which can be summarised as:
"I am indignant
because I feel indignation,
and because I feel indignation,
I must be right!"
Ok. So how do we break free
from this pattern?
Well, the first thing to do,
would be to accept that we are wrong.
Thank you Dephine.
- Thank you.
