Call-Out Culture and a Politics of the Mean

Et tu?

Linda Greenhouse is a Contributing Opinion Writer for The New York Times. Her usual subject is the Supreme Court and whatever cases they’re reviewing, or not reviewing, as the case may be. Her essay this morning was called, “The Mean Season Nears Its End.” 

Of course, she, uh, means definition 2.2 in the OED: Unkind, spiteful, or unfair. She’s writing about various Trump appointees. Her definition of mean is spite and heartlessness. She mentions federal court cases concerning ICE and Betsy DeVos. 

Ms. Greenhouse is an apologist for mean as her word of choice. She doesn’t come right out and say this, but she implies that it’s a little too playground to touch the immoralities and prejudices really at play.  

But mean definitely covers it all. All the shenanigans. All the posturing. All the lies. All the contempt. All the grievance. All the hate. All the victimhood of the privileged. 

The thing is, though, mean is one of those annoying English words that connotes different things depending upon how it’s used. For mean context is king. Also, for call-out culture. 

You’ll note that I cited definition 2.2 in the OED for Ms. Greenhouse’s, uh, meaning. That’s the adjectival mean. What’s the OED’s go-to for definition number one? It’s the verb mean: Intend to convey or refer to (a particular thing); signify. Their example is ‘I don't know what you mean.’ 

What does it mean when a person is mean? 

It really depends wholly on context. Wholly. 

Professor Loretta J. Ross is combating cancel culture with a popular class at Smith College. An article in this morning’s Times features her course and her lifelong activist work, “What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In?” 

Professor Ross “is challenging [her students] to identify the characteristics, and limits, of call-out culture: the act of publicly shaming another person for behavior deemed unacceptable.” She said in a recent Zoom lecture, “I am challenging the call-out culture. I think you can understand how calling out is toxic. It really does alienate people, and makes them fearful of speaking up.”

 Certainly, that’s a way to name what’s going on with key Republicans at both federal and state levels who refuse to acknowledge that Joe Biden is President-Elect. They’re fearful of speaking up. Some of us might call that cowardice. Others might call that the only sensible option. It depends upon the context. 

Professor Ross was herself called out for signing the infamous Harper’s letter that called out call-out culture. She found it ironic. 

She says, warning students not to take her class if they’re worried they’ll be triggered or need a safe space, “I think we overuse that word ‘trigger’ when really we mean discomfort. And we should be able to have uncomfortable conversations.” 

And what constitute uncomfortable conversations, Beloved, if not those in which persons disagree? Further, let’s face it, we can get mean when we disagree strongly. 

“Professor Ross thinks call-out culture has taken conversations that could have once been learning opportunities and turned them into mud wrestling on message boards, YouTube comments, Twitter and at colleges like Smith, where proving one’s commitment to social justice has become something of a varsity sport.” … 

“‘I think we actually sabotage our own happiness with this unrestrained anger. And I have to honestly ask: Why are you making choices to make the world crueler than it needs to be and calling that being ‘woke’?’ 

“The antidote to that outrage cycle, Professor Ross believes, is ‘calling in.’ Calling in is like calling out but done privately and with respect. ‘It’s a call out done with love,’ she said. That may mean simply sending someone a private message, or even ringing them up [on] the telephone (!) to discuss the matter, or simply taking a breath before commenting, screen-shotting or demanding one ‘do better’ without explaining how. 

“Calling out assumes the worst. Calling in involves conversation, compassion, and context. It doesn’t mean a person should ignore harm, slight or damage, but nor should she, he or they exaggerate it. ‘Every time somebody disagrees with me it’s not “verbal violence.”’ Professor Ross said. ‘I’m not getting “re-raped.” Overstatement of harm is not helpful when you’re trying to create a culture of compassion.’” 

A culture of compassion. Just snuggle with those words for a minute, Beloved.  

What would our world be like if we were to establish a culture of compassion? 

Professor Ross can sure tell us what it isn’t like. She cites the work of Natalie Wynn, a prominent YouTuber, who has been cancelled multiple times. She created a taxonomy of cancel culture.  

“Its characteristics include presumption of guilt (without facts or nuance getting in the way); essentialism (when criticism of bad behavior becomes criticism of a bad person); pseudo-intellectualism (proclaiming one’s moral high ground); unforgivability (no apology is good enough); and, of course, contamination, or guilt by association.” 

“As it turns out, all of that shaming may be counterproductive. Multiple studies … have found that shaming can make people more resistant to change.” 

This is not new information, Beloved. Oh no. Just think for a moment of a time you felt ashamed. Did it motivate you? 

Wajahat Ali is a playwright, a lawyer, and a Contributing Opinion Writer at The New York Times. His essay this morning was about having spent four years fruitlessly reaching out to Trump supporters in an attempt to understand them, find common ground, and bridge the glaring gap which is the political divide in the United States. 

He concludes, “Just as in 2016, I don’t need Trump supporters to be humiliated to feel great again. I want them to have health insurance, decent paying jobs, and security for their family. I do not want them to suffer, but I also refuse to spend any more time trying to understand and help the architects of my oppression.” Boundaries, anyone?  

Professor Ross has a compassionate answer to this. “You can’t be responsible for someone else’s inability [I’d add, refusal] to grow. So take comfort in the fact that you offered a new perspective of information and you did so with love and respect, and then you walk away. 

“We have a saying in the movement: Some people you can work with and some people you can work around. But the thing that I want to emphasize is that the calling-in practice means you always keep a seat at the table for them if they come back.” 

There’s an open seat at the table, Beloved. Who would you like to call in and welcome back into a valued place in our culture? Creating a culture of compassion starts now. 

Dr. Susan Corso is a spiritual teacher, the founder of iAmpersand, and the author of The Mex Mysteries, the Boots & Boas Books, and spiritual nonfiction. Her website is susancorso.com.