These words were recently used to justify the actions of a young man who broke an egg on the head of an elected senator. The senator had made public remarks that at best were ill advised and inflammatory and were almost universally derided. However, the actions of the young man received both condemnation and congratulation.
In the emotionally charged atmosphere following the tragic events in Christchurch, New Zealand many have attempted to make political mileage and have often used words calculated to score points against their opposition. I don’t want to enter that debate, but I was struck by the justification of this young person’s actions. According to author of the remark wounding only occurs if it is physical, public humiliation does not wound.
It seems to me that the intent of humiliating a person is in fact to wound. Indeed, in almost any other context people would be taken to task for doing just this. Humiliation is intended to bring shame and public opprobrium. It is often much easier to recover from a physical wound than one which creates the loss of self-worth. In many cases this bring long lasting consequences to the person and those who care for him or her.
At a time when social media is full of accounts of those who have been offended at often the most trivial remark, on the basis that it might do damage to their mental health, it seems strange to mount such a claim as this. I am not advocating that we encourage the practice of being offended at nearly everything and using that as an excuse for all sorts of strange claims. In fact my children will confirm that probably all 6 of them have been told on more than one occasion to harden up and get over themselves. I tend toward encouraging resilience rather than removing anything that might challenge their equilibrium. However I am conscious that words can and do cause tremendous harm. They threaten our sense of significance and identity and challenge our sense of worth. This is also true of physical acts that are intended to humiliate.
I do not endorse the views of the senator in question, but neither do I applaud the behaviour of the young man, especially as he was armed with a camera, presumably so that a ‘selfie’ could appear on social media. It wasn’t a spontaneous act, but one that was premeditated and intended to harm. To lionise him and his actions endorses behaviour that is harmful and unacceptable.
Richard W.Foster 