This is the final installment of a three-part conversation about outrage. Previously, we talked about the letter that UChicago sent to freshmen in August of last year, in which it stated its position against trigger warnings and safe spaces; and we discussed Lionel Shriver’s comments about cultural appropriation. Here we take a look at Disney’s representation of Maui, the demi-god, which has been accused by some of perpetuating negative stereotypes of Polynesian bodies.

December 2016: Moana and our emerging framework for thinking about outrage

Nicole: I went to see Moana recently and it was awesome. It’s clear from the story itself and the setting that Disney did some homework.

However, there has been a lot of backlash already about Maui and him being fat. A quick Google search will show several articles, so pick your platform poison. One look at him in the context of the movie demonstrates, though, that this perception of him being a fat stereotype isn’t even remotely what happened. Trailers have certainly gotten terrible over the last few years, but I do find it telling that we live in a such a society of immediate gratification sort of way that we are able to find such outrage without any sort of context. I think some of us just like to be outraged, and we equate it with being social justice oriented.

Joy: I think your point about outrage and needing to be upset about something is awesome. This is something I think about a lot, haven’t quite settled on, and about which I would love to have a more complex and nuanced convo with you all.

James Baldwin said: “To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time.”

That is a lived experience that I do not have and cannot–and should not–map myself onto. I will add, though, that to try and pay attention to what actually goes on in this country and to work towards being relatively woke, also means to be in a rage almost all the time if you’re going to be honest with yourself (that last bit’s the kicker).

Jia Jia: But what exactly did Baldwin mean by rage? Is that the same as what we’re seeing on our social media feeds and clickbait articles?

Outrage without context

Joy: I heard a couple of things from Nicole. The first is context. You need it to be justifiably outraged or appropriately not outraged.

Anyone play Cards Against Humanity? It is a horribly un-PC game that, as someone who is a terrible person with a terrible sense of humor, I kinda love. But I’ve found that it’s best played in the context of knowing the group. If you play with strangers there’s a weird tension between knowing if it’s a joke or not, knowing if the humor is playing into people’s actual stereotypes, and knowing if you should be outraged.

I love to play this game with a particular close group of friends who have known each other for years and been through a lot together. We know each other well enough to know where the line is with jokes about abortion, white supremacy, religion, death, whatever. This is because we know a lot about where we all are in terms of our life experiences, sociopolitical standings, and the work that we do in the world to actually deal with some of these systems of oppression that we’re joking about. We also know each other well enough to feel comfortable checking each other and being checked if a line is crossed, which does happen from time to time. Either way, we don’t have to be outraged.

Outrage as Proxy for Social Justice and actually Doing Things:

Joy: I also heard from Nicole the idea that outrage can be a proxy for doing shit. This is the impulse that gets people so annoyed at Facebook advocacy when there’s nothing behind it.

In my mind, the real problem is not that people are only outraged on social media. For a lot of people, small stuff like that can be a starting point down a path of learning how to be more active in shaping their real social world to be less oppressive. The problem is when people are outraged on social media instead of doing other work. When they think being loud online means that their job is done, they get some “good ally” badge of support, and they’re now magically non-complicit in systems of oppression.

Nicole: I agree that that is the problem.

People think that being a Good White Person^TM comes down to being “mad” about things on social media.

You can see it in the Tumblr culture, where it’s an echo chamber of outrage about really minor things, but no one ever does anything. And, if you suggest that they do, they get on you for microaggression towards their self-diagnosed anxiety disorder, because it’s cool to be “broken” on the website. But, reblogging things that show outrage means that you’re a Good White Person^TM.

Outrage as performance

Jia Jia: If you’re going to be outraged, I’d save it for something worth being outraged about. Because the power of an emotion as strong as outrage comes from it being expressed only when truly necessary—to expose something extreme and rally people against it.

With the Internet and social media, it’s too easy to perform outrage: you can comment, tweet and share outrage without thinking much about context, action or nuance. That creates noise, which makes it harder for real outrage-worthy issues to stand out.

Joy: That point about the performance of outrage is great! Like a lot of things, it helps to look at the purpose and consequences of the outrage. If it comes from a genuine place of emotion boiling over, I dig that. If it comes from a strategic place of saying something pointed in order to push towards a more awesome world, sweet. If it comes from a manipulative place of wanting to broadcast indignation as your own brand of progressive self-marketing, NOPE.

It seems like outrage is, at its heart, an intent to not engage with someone and instead go on the attack. That can be useful, especially in the arena of public discourse. But it’s usually antithetical to conversation and mutual learning.

Outrage without nuance

Joy: The final idea I want to pull from Nicole’s initial words is this idea of nuance. Feeling outraged does not mean you cannot dance and live and love and enjoy a damn movie. They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s not like your outrage will get you to the point at which you get to live in some pure non-problematic bubble—we all have to go through the world and live our lives, and try to halfway enjoy them.

But we also have to try and take a clear, complex view at the composition of this enjoyment, because there are consequences to trying to switch off this critical lens. Yeah, this might mean that you don’t get to have as much straightforward fun with some things.

I re-watch some things I loved as a kid (Aladdin anyone? Pocahontas?), and I can’t just lose myself in the story because I know too much about the history and consequences of those stories. It’s a good trade-off, it’s a trade-off I’m grateful for, but it does mean that I’m upset a lot more of the time.

Jumping to conclusions, vs. actually listening

Nicole: Good points. I think that it is important, though, to accept some things as they are meant to be consumed, like Aladdin. Well, perhaps, not Pocahontas since it is pretty far gone. Aladdin, though, mentions Allah, twice, and while there is definitely a long way to go there–in the movie, they call the landscape and everything about the Middle East as “barbaric”– it’s at least a step in the right direction. Especially given the steps that Disney, I’d argue, has taken in the last 20 years.

At the same time, though, it’s important to listen to the voices that may be more upset about some of these things. And I mean voices, because we can’t oversimplify. One Native Hawaiian cannot speak for all of them, no matter which side of the issue that one person takes.

I think white people, in our attempt to alleviate some of the white guilt and privilege, tend to find people of color to be outraged about things that we think we should be outraged by instead of listening.

It’s another way that we want to be Good White People^TM but completely miss the mark, even if we’re well intentioned. For example, every time a black celebrity–Lil Wayne comes to mind most recently and perhaps Kanye (thought maybe not him because he needs help that hopefully he’s getting)–says something against Black Lives Matter, a bunch of white people praise said black celebrity for “getting it” and “not buying into the narrative.” But does Lil Wayne speak for every black person? No, and it’s absurd to be holding up the one person of color, or maybe even a fairly sizable group, as “right” because we agree with that person. This is where white people need to listen, again. Are we offended because we feel like we ought to be, and we have found a Good Minority Person^TM to validate? Or are we offended because we’re listening to X group as they scream at us: HEY! THIS ISN’T OK!?

Keeping things in perspective

Jia Jia: On the one hand, outrage at social injustice is critical to progress. On the other hand, there’s a lot more to life than social injustice and outrage. For the Baldwins out there, life might be an incessant rage and fight. But I don’t think it’s fair to expect that of everyone. If it’s easier for people to get on with life without constantly thinking about the systems of injustice they’re trapped or complicit in, they can do that. The only things that I think are fair to expect are honesty—with oneself above all—and openness. The acknowledgment that social injustice is there even if it’s not your focus; the knowledge of your limitations and ignorance; the readiness to listen (to what people are telling you vs. what you want to validate) and the willingness to change or evolve your opinion.

Besides, everything that we create is rooted in the cultural and social context of our moment in history. Human values shift; our values today are different from fifty years ago, and what people will value in fifty years time will be different from now.

I think it’s possible to find something—a film, a song, an art form, a philosophy—problematic on the one hand, and really enjoy/appreciate it on the other, barring extremes of course. I still find fairytales wondrous even though I dismiss the gender dynamics in them. I still love Tolkien even though his Middle Earth is white—except for the Haradrim who are implied as having darker skin. What I won’t tolerate are ideas that openly denigrate other people (“Mein Kampf” is not something I’d ever appreciate nor alt-right “reasoning” about the victimization of their superior race).

Overall, I expect people to behave as decent people, but people still—not social justice warriors or saints.

There are times when outrage is the extreme response required to mobilize against extreme bad behavior, but in general I prefer conversation and broadening my experience as a way to get a better handle on complex issues.

—

By: Jia Jia, Joy, Nicole