We Need a Word for Destructive Group Outrage

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The English language needs a word for what happens when a group of people, outraged by some real or imagined transgression, responds in a way that is disproportionate to the occasion, thus ruining the transgressor’s day, month, year or life.

We might repurpose an old word: lapidation.

Technically, the word is a synonym for stoning, but it sounds much less violent. It is also obscure, which makes it easier to enlist for contemporary purposes.

For a recent example of lapidation, consider the case of Ronald Sullivan, a Harvard law professor who joined the team of lawyers defending Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein against charges of rape and sexual abuse.

Sullivan was lapidated by a group of students. They rallied and protested against him, attacked his character, and called for his removal as faculty dean at Winthrop House, one of Harvard’s undergraduate residences. Their call succeeded. The university declined to renew Sullivan’s deanship.

For another recent example, consider Noah Carl, a young sociologist who was awarded a fellowship at St Edmund’s College at the University of Cambridge. Carl has published research on trust and intelligence in well-regarded journals. He has also written some shorter and less formal papers involving immigration and racial differences that many readers found offensive. (One of his papers is called, “How Stifling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm”; it is mostly an argument for open discussion, emphasizing that while human populations differ from one another with respect to physiological traits, “this does not justify oppression or exploitation.”)

Carl was lapidated – first by students and then by faculty. A Cambridge professor of mathematics acted as a lapidation entrepreneur, writing a letter in protest of Carl’s appointment and demanding a formal investigation. Eventually, hundreds of people signed that letter.

An investigation was duly undertaken, and Carl was asked to leave St Edmund’s. 

In the most extreme and horrible situations, lapidation is based on a lie, a mistake or a misunderstanding. People are lapidated even though they did nothing wrong.

In less extreme cases, the transgression is real, and lapidators have a legitimate concern. Their cause is just. They are right to complain and to emphasize that people have been hurt or wronged.

Even so, they might lose a sense of proportion. Groups of people often react excessively to a mistake, an error in judgment, or an admittedly objectionable statement or action. Even if you have sympathy for Harvard’s decision with respect to Sullivan, or Cambridge’s decision with respect to Carl, it is hard to defend the sheer level of rage and vitriol directed at both men.

Lapidation entrepreneurs often have their own agendas. Intentionally or not, they may unleash something horrific – something like the Two Minutes Hate, memorably depicted in George Orwell’s “1984.”

Whatever one makes of Representative Ilhan Omar’s statements about Israel and its Americans supporters, she does not deserve the numerous death threats that she has received.

Whatever one makes of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s claims about her Native American ancestry, it is preposterous to argue that they deserve a prominent place in evaluation of her candidacy for the presidency.

Reasonable people can differ about some cases. In 2017, Al Franken was lapidated and essentially forced to resign from the U.S. Senate. Franken evidently engaged in sexually aggressive behavior, including unwanted touching. What he was accused of doing was worse than inappropriate. But it’s hardly clear that he should have been forced to resign.

In ancient times, people were lapidated for adultery and idolatry. Like its old namesake, contemporary lapidation typically occurs when a person or institution has violated a taboo. Lapidators operate as a kind of private police force, enforcing some moral commitment that (in their view) is at risk.

That explains why lapidation comes in such diverse forms. Left-wing lapidators typically point to racist, sexist and homophobic behavior. Right-wing lapidators focus on disloyalty, disrespect for authority, a lack of patriotism or hypocrisy (a particular favorite).

Fox News is a lapidation machine. President Donald Trump is the lapidator-in-chief.

What makes lapidation possible? A lot of the answer is provided by the process of “group polarization,” which means that when like-minded people speak with one another, they tend to go to extremes.

Suppose that people begin with the thought that Ronald Sullivan probably should not have agreed to represent Harvey Weinstein, or that Al Franken did something pretty bad. If so, their discussions will probably make them more unified and more confident about those beliefs, and ultimately more extreme.

A key reason involves the dynamics of outrage. Whenever some transgression has occurred, people want to appear at least as appalled as others in their social group. That can transform mere disapproval into lapidation.

When people lapidate, they think that they are achieving something important. Maybe they are; maybe they aren’t. They often succeed in expressing their moral commitments without actually achieving anything.

True, lapidators may succeed in ruining a reputation or forcing a resignation. That may be justified and important, even essential. But if social change is the goal, the immense amount of time and emotional energy expended on lapidation is often better spent elsewhere.

For its victims, lapidation is a horror, a kind of living nightmare. In some cases, they receive death threats. Even when their security is not at risk, they carry a stamp of shame. They may never fully recover. Too often, that is a grievous wrong.

We shouldn’t lapidate lapidators. But we might remind them of the words of a great opponent of lapidation: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.”

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Cass R. Sunstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is the author of “The Cost-Benefit Revolution” and a co-author of “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness.”

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.