The gay fashion designers Dolce & Gabbana gave an interview to an Italian magazine in which they are quoted as saying that gay adoption was unnatural and that those born through IVF were “synthetic children”. The only reason I have highlighted the fact that they are gay is because of their apparent negativity towards gay adoption which surprises me. Elton John – who has two sons from IVF treatment with his partner David Furnish – has hit out on social media (Instagram, not Twitter apparently) against the comments, saying ““Your archaic thinking is out of step with the times, just like your fashions. I shall never wear Dolce and Gabbana ever again.” He then posted a hashtag #BoycottDolceGabbana. There has been some additional to-ing and fro-ing on the issue with Dolce calling Elton a “fascist” but it’s safe to say that the “boycott” idea seems to have hit fertile ground with other celebs wading in with their support for Elton’s position.
Normally this kind of thing I’d ignore as celebs being morally indignant is kind of part of the territory they occupy these days but my interest with this latest social media spat was triggered because of an interesting piece in The Observer at the weekend about Jon Ronson’s new book ‘So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed’. The book includes a series of case studies in which ordinary members of the public have found their lives ruined as a result of their social media posts (Twitter this time) that have, in general parlance, not showed them up in a particularly good light: the exec. who made a bad taste AIDS joke and was fired, the writer who invented a quote and lost a career, the careworker who lost her job because of a picture that showed her in a cemetery goofing around.
I have noticed that social media has become a powerful shaming tool but it strikes me that the punishment often doesn’t fit the crime. In fact I’d go as far to say that the punishment is often the crime. Being a dickhead and having contrary and contrarian opinions can cause offence but often I note that those who take offence do so with the sole intention of bullying the offender into submission, of making them pay with a slow death of a thousand pointed verbal cuts, preferably with a hash-tag and a tsunami of similarly minded psychological gang-bangers to continue kicking the recipient while they’re down.
Since reading the article I’ve been reading up about james Gilligan, a doctor who’s been studying the effects of shaming. As Ronson’s book appears to confirm the net effect of the public shaming process appears to be to render the recipient cold and dead inside. Their mortification can have terrible consequences either for themselves or for others.
So, I can’t really get with Elton John’s shaming tactics or with the crowd of celebs who’ve backed him up in the process. I can’t really get with those that actively seek offence in whatever people say or with those who appear to have a “one strike and you’re out” approach to those who say the wrong thing. People seem to have lost the ability to challenge the opinions of others in a mature and logical manner, preferring to play the man/woman, not the ball. I just find it all a tedious, self-perpetuating system of intransigence, stalemate and blinkeredness with neither side occupying anything remotely like a high moral ground. It’s even getting to the point where I often find myself more trusting of those who give an opinion I don’t agree with than with those who take it upon themselves to challenge it simply to hear the clamour of applause of those who think as they do. The virtue of honesty seems to have been completely lost; the ability to have a bad opinion but still be a good person is a concept fewer and fewer seem to be able to contend with.
Public shaming and social media is a mug’s game.
I have nothing sensible to add other than I agree entirely and thanks for posting this.
Jon Ronson was on R4 this morning and he was very good indeed, as was his recent Guardian interview, along the lines you describe above.
Can I just say I am boycotting D&G. I am never going to buy their biscuits ever again.
I think the reaction is because they went overboard with their comments. As the philosopher once said “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothin’ at all”. Actually it was Thumper in the film Bambi but is very apt.
My daughter was accepted onto the programme for IVF because of a medical condition. However, before they could start…bingo! A full house (soon).
Great post.
Of course, I’m only saying that because I agree with every word you said. If you had said something else, I would have SHOUTED YOU DOWN, YOU NAZI SCUMBAG!
There really is something horrible going on, though. We seem to have lost the ability to understand that other people are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. There’s far too much groupthink going on, far too many people conforming to received opinions or, even worse, pretending to conform to received opinions.
Fukk aff Ray!
Sorry just trying io start a fight as we’ve been accused of being too nice since we came back.
I have no axe to grind here.
“I often find myself more trusting of those who give an opinion I don’t agree with than with those who take it upon themselves to challenge it simply to hear the clamour of applause of those who think as they do. ”
That’s a very good articulation of something I’ve noticed for a while now, originating from social media I think but increasingly apparent elsewhere. In my work I’m often in public meetings where there are on the face of it two opposing sides, but in reality there are four. There’s the two front benches, if you like, who know their facts and genuinely want to reach a settlement, if one that’s skewed in their favour; and behind each of them there are backbenchers. These are the ones who will stand up at the least appropriate moment and say something like “why are we even TALKING to these people when CHILDREN are STARVING?” and they’ll get a nice big round of applause from those around them.
So from my point of view the worst enemy is not the clever frontbenchers on the other side, or the nutters (sorry – passionate activists) behind them. It’s the nutters on your own side. Because you either have to defend them or distance yourself from them and both weaken your case. They are driven, as you say, by this belief that people with bad opinions must be bad people, but it’s also that demonstrating how passionate you are, how offended you are, and how determined you are to make things better, is much more important than actually making things better.
Excellent post Bisto. And some wise words from Chiz too.
Political correctness has become public correction.
The frankly wrongheaded idea that if we don’t hear or read opinions that a self appointed lynch mob find offensive means that magically some members of society will cease to have those opinions is just sweeping reality under the carpet.
Good post Bisto.
Well I’m fucked, ta Chiz.
Excellent post Bisto; bullying and a failure to challenge opinions in a logical reasonable manner is absolutely spot on. We see this more and more and you have pinpointed the issues very well. Is the book worth reading ?
Excellent post. The current climate that was fostered in the Blair years is almost McCarthyesque.
Hmmm. I’m not a big fan of public witchhunts, and some of the really sanctimonious self aggrandising stuff on Twitter bores me to death* (what’s that, @twinkle89? You’re against racism and homophobia? Well done, you’ve reached the minimum requirement for being civilised. Now make sure you carry those opinions with you when you leave the keyboard and try talking about something else for a change), but in this case it doesn’t seem to me like Elton is whipping up some faux outrage. D&G have said something that hits pretty square at the centre of his domestic life, and he’s perfectly within his rights to take them to task on it. I’ve no idea how much it has or hasn’t snowballed past that (this is the first I’ve heard of it), but from the synopsis in the OP, I don’t think he’s done much wong.
*literally TO DEATH. I am typing this from BEYOND THE GRAVE.
I’d agree with this.
I think the main point in the OP about social media witch hunts is spot on, but I’m not sure the Elton John thing is really in line with the sorts of examples cited in the Ronson book.
If someone said something that I found massively offensive about my kids, I’d almost certainly stop buying their crap and encourage others to do likewise. Isn’t that all that’s really happening here?
I think there’s a happy medium here, where people are able to take legitimate offence (and I do think that’s important – every single one of us has a button somewhere that we wouldn’t want pushed, and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise), but also understand that the taking of offence doesn’t automatically imbue them with the moral high ground or a right to actively persecute the “guilty” party.
If Elton John is offended, then I can see that he doesn’t want to wear their clothes. But I’ve never understood the idea in general of boycotting a business on the basis of the personal opinions of its owner or employees. I know it’s very theoretical, but if a boycott succeeded, it would put a lot of people out of work, and probably wouldn’t change the opinions of Dolce or Gabanna. If a company treated its employees badly, on the other hand, a boycott could change that.
(I have to admit I didn’t know these two men existed until now – I thought it was simply a brand name meaning sweet and, er, something to do with clothes, like garb, in Italian. )
nor indeed the right to bear arms against journalists and cartoonists who might have ‘offended’ you.
I’ve read extracts of Ronson’s book and it’s thought provoking stuff. It strikes me maybe there’s a difference between the individuals that he writes about – people who pay an enormous price for a moment of stupidity – and people like D&G who are using their public persona to pontificate on issues.
D&G are entitled to their opinions but I can’t help but think that using your celeb status to broadcast them invites exactly the reaction it’s had.
Exactly this.
The really scary stuff is when a private individual uses their twitter account, or similar, to broadcast an ill-thought out joke and suddenly finds hundreds of individuals effectively rifling through their virtual dustbins, trying to get them sacked and essentially attempting to ruin their life.
After a morning spent ruminating on this, I have decided, for reasons of personal safety and clarity, to pop down the town and have a t-shirt printed. ” I Am A Pro LGBTG Feminist Who Is Not In The KKK “.
That should do it.
What have you got against the disabled, you bastard..?
Bollox. I’ve used an indelible marker to amend this oversight in regard to my new t-shirt. It now reads ‘I Am A Pro LGBTG Disability Friendly Feminist Who Is Not In The KKK ‘. I’ve also stapled a picture of Miranda Hart from TV Choice on the back for extra good vibeage.
That will be helpful in distinguishing you from the Pro LGBTG Disability Friendly Feminists in the KKK.
I’m finding this one really easy to work out. I’m boycotting D&G because of their mean spirited views and Elton John because of his cyber bullies. It’s just like me giving up caviar for Lent.
Wait…Joe Dolce is a fashion designer?
Shaddap You Face!
Don’t worry, I kept my coat on…..
IVF reproduction has been attacked by a pair of fashion designers who have created a mountain of overpriced rubbish.
Dolce and Gabbana said IVF babies were ‘synthetic and chemical’ before unveiling a pair of idiotic looking plastic sunglasses that cost £350
My Personal view is that Elton’s reaction is over the top and quite childish. He doesn’t like their comments and encourages people to stop buying their clothes. How very mature. I can see both sides of the argument and am ambivalent about the subject. The whole point is it is down to choice or should be. There should also be a choice to voice the comments that were made by D&G. It was their viewpoint. Elton must be extremely thin skinned to get upset by comments made by someone who doesn’t figure in his life. Does he think they are the only people with that view?
Here’s Jon Ronson in action here. These three guys make me want to return to my home planet.
I watched about 6 mins of that and exclaimed* ‘you fucking wankers’ at the screen. I’d read the transcript of the interview before, so I knew what to expect, but it needs to be seen to be believed.
*(Symptomatic of our outrage culture no doubt, but at least I didn’t tweet about it. Or at them.)
We used to have a thing in Ireland called Section 31 which was basically a ban on particular organisations being represented in the media (not giving them what Mrs Thatcher called “the oxygen of publicity”).
Most of the journalists were against this as they felt if the public could see these people for what they really are it would be a good thing.
The guys on the couch are doing a great job of making the case against themselves..
I watched 3 mins 30s of that video, and wanted to smack each of those 3 guys repeatedly across the face. I’m not normally a violent person, but these smug idiots deserve it.
I’m not a violent man and I’d consider myself to be reasonably articulate, but five minutes into that video I couldn’t help thinking: “those cunts want sorting out”.
I think Elton John’s response does bear scrutiny in relation to Ronson’s book and his case studies. It is about using social media to shame individuals. The main difference is that the original comments by D&G weren’t made on social media, they were made in an interview with a magazine. In my mind this makes the context of John’s response on Instagram even more suspect. D&G were answering questions in an interview that actively solicited their opinions on an issue. Whilst that doesn’t absolve them of giving an opinion that some might be offended by it does put their comments in a specific context and within a specific frame of reference. Their comments were not directed at individuals nor were they promoted by them via their own web channels. Their comments, no matter how wrong- headed they may seem, did appear to be based on a genuine belief that children should only be born to a mother and a father by natural means. So, yes, challenge them for saying what they said but why did John choose to take offence when the comments were not said with malice or with the intent to question John’s own choice/opinion? What seems to me to be the more insightful and legitimate response is to challenge D&G’s comments publicly but not to shame them and then start a boycott of their business because as an individual you have chosen to interpret their opinions as an attack on your own way of life. It’s an escalation that is disproportionate and unnecessary, particularly because it creates a conscious and damaging schism when there was still plenty of options available to find a consensus or a valid basis upon which to agree to disagree.
I agree with your reasoning Ah Bisto. What is also puzzling to me is that if Elton had a problem with their comments why did he not address them directly to them instead of through the media.?So let’s get this straight – because of the offence to him he has suggested people stop buying their clothes? Next step is that they suggest people should stop listening to his music which lets be honest has not had any merit for nigh on last 15 or 20 years. This whole thing is a media-conducted charade which makes him look strangely pathetic in my eyes. I thought he was better than that but then I guess he has form when it comes to tantrums.
Elton John’s response (and, dear lord, am I really defending Elton John here?) may not be the most insightful and legitimate, but that’s his look out. I don’t understand why the onus is on him to build a platform for consensus/polite disagreement, but not on D&G? They could certainly have couched their own views in more thoughtful terms. Do their views on IVF babies not “shame” Elton John and his kids?
“IVF babies are synthetic” is an opinion. “People should boycott D&G because of what they’ve said about IVF babies” is also an opinion. “Those people boycotting D&G” are really overreacting – that’s an opinion too.
We’re all free to speak our minds, within certain limits, and then live with the fact that those around us will react to what we’ve said, sometimes negatively. It’s irrelevant that nobody was named specifically – sometimes people react negatively when a cohort to which they belong is criticised or attacked.
I would object if Elton John was encouraging people to attack D&G, or ruin their lives, but he’s well within his rights to say “I think this is bullshit and I’m not going to buy their clothes, who else is with me?” It’s probably not the healthiest response, but it’s a very human one. I know that I would never buy an Elton John record, and part (but not all) of the reason is that I think he comes across as a really unpleasant human being.
I disagree. I don’t consider that their comments shame him or anyone’s kids because their comments – even if crass and ill-considered – weren’t aimed at anyone in particular. Intent is, I think, a factor. Shaming is, to my mind, a conscious act directed at a person; I don’t get any sense that D&G were consciously trying to do that. I still think context is important so to list each opinion as you have means that context has been removed. That’s why I think Ronson’s book is relevant because he is looking at shaming in the context of social media, a very specific tool with which to undertake a conscious act like Elton John’s. He may well be within his “rights” to do what he did and, for some, his reaction may appear “human”. For me though the use of Twitter dehumanises his response, makes the act seem more contrived.
I suspect I’m falling into the trap of applying my legal training into this and trying to set some kind of a “test of shame” threshold!
Heh!
What I took from Ronson was less that we should avoid “shaming” (and, really – where does “criticism” end and “shaming” begin?), and more that we should avoid forming angry mobs and attempting to use the security and anonymity afforded by such mobs to actively attempt to ruin the lives of others.
To whit: Bingo Little strolls onto the blog and proclaims “Everyone who likes prog is a total wanker and the Beatles aren’t half the band you lot all think them to be”.
“RegDwyer58” immediately responds: “I’ve had enough of this – I won’t be speaking to you from here on in, Bingo, you unpleasant man, and I would encourage others to take the same approach.”
“Jon Ronson’s Internet Hate mob” then adds to the discussion: “He deserves worse than that. I reckon we should go back through Bingo’s posts, work out where he works and try to get him sacked. Then I’ll send him some death threats in the mail and we can spam his email account for the next six weeks. Who’s with me?!”
I suppose what I’m getting at, beyond the immediate story, is that I think that it’s just as important to defend freedom of reaction as to defend freedom of speech. I see a lot of references to “offence” these days, in inverted commas, as if to suggest that no one really gets offended and it’s all just people pretending to be hurt. The truth is more complex: sometimes people feign offence for strategic benefit, but other times people are genuinely offended, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, or that they should be required to pretend otherwise.
The difficulty I have with this story is that if tomorrow, the Chief Exec of, say, Penguin, pronounced in an interview that “Black people are genetically more likely to be criminals” I’m fairly sure I would cease buying their product and encourage others to do likewise. I wouldn’t be looking for reconciliation, I’d be looking to avoid putting money into the pockets of a person I really didn’t like. I’m not saying that the D&G comments are on that level of obnoxiousness, but then I don’t have an IVF kid. Like I said earlier: we all have our buttons we don’t like being pushed.
Anyway, none of it matters really. Elton John boycotting D&G has to be just about the most fatuous conflict in living memory.
Of course if the average fashion designers’ knowledge of science and scientific development was well-informed and worth listening to then they may well have a point. But they are not, so they don’t. D+G should stick to the rag trade, something I’m sure they know a bit more about than science.
Ahh Bisto. Bisto, bisto. French?
I once bought a D&G shirt and oddly enough it made me look very gay. Very gay indeed. There’s a lesson there for all of us. And it’s this: don’t trust my ex-wife’s fashion advice. Not in House of Fraser when there’s a sale on.
I think she left me for a straighter looking man, ironically.
I’m finding it hard to care about this internet spat between the mega-rich. However, I don’t see a big bullying issue here – it really isn’t anything like the examples Ronson talks about, at all. If D&G cared what people thought of them, presumably they wouldn’t have set themselves up as purveyors of over-priced tat.
There is a significant cross-section of society that hang on the words of celebrity, that take their words and deeds as modes of expression they can adopt for their own devices and then claim that the celebrity precedent has legitimised their own social media missives no matter how f**k-witted they are. That’s the point about public shaming; it’s an action that is based upon a self-belief that your “right” will trump the other person’s “wrong” and you’ll get kudos and affirmation for doing so if you use social media. On that level the actions of D&G and Elton John are the grievances of Joe and Jo Bloggs writ large and the subject matter is irrelevant to the power play that results.
I went to hear Jon Ronson give a talk promoting his new book as part of Essex Book Festival tonight, and someone did ask him about Elton and D+G during the Q+A. He said that he’d been so busy with his book tour that he hadn’t kept up with the story.
When I bought his book later (he signed it ‘Lots of love, Jon xxx’, which is unconventional, if affectionate) I asked about the potential for social media campaigns to be artificially created. Jon said he thought they were by their nature unpredictable, and that we are aware of it when we are being manipulated. I know what he meant, but had I had longer to chat I would have pointed out that you only know you’re being manipulated when it is clear to you. If you are successfully manipulated then you won’t even know it’s happening, that’s definition of its success.
When I spoke to Jon what I had in mind was governments and other big agencies, on the grounds that they must have thought about how this powerful new weapon could be used to their advantage. But on a lower level that’s what Elton has done for years. He always manages to slip a dig at someone current, or an extreme opinion, into any interaction with the media because he knew, years and years before Twitter and so on, that this is the best way to generate maximum headlines.
It works. That’s why I’ve just spent ten minutes typing this here, the manipulative little so-and-so.