The hot response culture (why reason and compassion should prevail)

Today, discussions about race and gender have seen some public figures in the arts and elsewhere being cajoled, disowned and threatened. Why? Because their views don't sync with the norms proposed by self-appointed cultural arbiters.

Ten years ago, academics lay at least part of the blame for our shortening emotional fuse squarely at the feet of reality television.

"People can be seduced into thinking that [overreacting] is the most common way of reacting to life when it's not." So said Rodney Carter, a professor of communication studies and government at the University of Texas.

At the height of reality TV's popularity, he noted that the genre "hyped all the emotions". Exposure to a steady diet of reality TV, he claimed, left people feeling that they couldn't just be happy, they had to be ecstatic. They couldn't just be upset, either - they needed to be "violently angry".

It seems we've learned little about the dangers of over-reaction since then. Dr Carter's comments are just as applicable to today's social media - perhaps even more so.

As with reality TV, even mild exposure to social media can leave us, on a subconscious level at least, feeling that the world is a more coarse and threatening place than it is. As a result, we may react with fight-and-flight, but without judgement or self-awareness.

In the post-COVID age - when it finally arrives - this could represent a major threat to the mental health of children. Traditional teaching methods will give way to blended education, with digital lessons augmenting but not replacing the classroom. Children will spend even more time online than they do now. The coarsening of online public discourse could lead to a rise in anxiety levels among the young - something that's already a concern among mental health experts.

The hot response culture seems to demand that we favour over-reaction over moderated consideration even when it comes to quite simple ethical questions.

A case in point: a British lecturer was recently fired by a university tribunal for expressing views that were considered to be potentially racist. His views, as they were reported in the press, relied heavily on racial stereotypes. His opinions were very clumsily expressed - a fact he acknowledged - and in terms of their substance, reflected that he should seriously re-think. Unwise they certainly were, especially when he made them after being told they could be problematic. Yet the tribunal dismissed him because his words could "potentially" cause damage.

Was there no other avenue open to the tribunal? Let's be clear: his remarks were not adjudged to be definitively racist, only potentially so. This is perhaps a small but important step into Minority Report territory, where we adjudge someone a law-breaker before any crime or misbehaviour has been committed.

My point is not that social media are the root of all evil. Far from it - these platforms have provided great benefit, enabling us to pursue collaborative innovation. If we are now closer to solving pressing global problems than we were a decade ago, it is partly because of social networking. The internet is the major connection point for researchers currently charged with finding COVID-19 vaccines.

My point is that we gain nothing and lose a great deal when we congregate too quickly behind barricades; when we shout before we speak and fail to think before we do either.