Search

Won’t somebody please think of the children? Their agency is ignored in the moral panic around drag storytime

<a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/politics/protesters-clash-over-drag-story-time-event-at-melbourne-council-meeting/news-story/f8671b4047b59f9fc27d8ffee803c9f8">Protesters derailed</a> a Monash City Council meeting on Wednesday, demanding the cancellation of a sold-out drag storytime event at Oakleigh Library in Melbourne’s south-east. This is just the latest in a string of drag performances for children throughout Victoria being cancelled or postponed in response to protest. The central message of these campaigns (accompanied by varying levels of vitriol) is the same: “let our kids be kids”, “protect our children” and “hands off our kids”, while simultaneously labelling performers and supporters of the events “paedophiles”. This is part of a global backlash. Similar protests and cancellations have happened in <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/unhinged-conspiracy-theorists-auckland-drag-queen-targeted-in-avondale-library-protest-speaks-out/TE6BFUOXVJC6VFYMU4VAUAERTQ/">New Zealand</a>, the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64610724">United Kingdom</a> and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/21/anti-drag-show-laws-bans-republican-states">United States</a>. The argument in support of drag emphasises the impact on the performers at the centre of these events and queer community, arguing that the cancellation of these events is a form of <a href="https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/drag-queens-tennessee-law-minors/">discrimination and a contravention of human rights</a>. But the debate so far overlooks the agency and rights of the events’ intended audiences: children and young people. <h2>Children as citizens</h2> Calls to “protect the children” from drag performers and trans people assume children are, in fact, in need of safeguarding. Such messaging is rooted in a tendency for Western societies to reduce childhood to an <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/au/academic/subjects/sociology/sociology-general-interest/importance-being-innocent-why-we-worry-about-children?format=PB&isbn=9780521146975">idyllic innocence</a>, which positions children as “in need of protection” and amplifies their constant vulnerability. Children’s vulnerability played a critical role in motivating the adoption of the United Nations’ <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child">Convention on the Rights of the Child</a> in 1989. Since the adoption of the charter, new laws and policies have been established in Australia to criminalise forced marriage, to remove children from detention and to change the Family Law Act to better protect the rights of children. The charter details children’s need for safeguarding and special care. But it also confirms the evolving capacity of children to assert their rights as cultural citizens and their need for freedom of thought and expression. <h2>The power of drag and imaginative play</h2> Drag as a form of creative, physical and spiritual expression has existed within theatre and cultural performance <a href="https://www.grunge.com/1243587/drag-shows-older-realize-real-history/">for millennia</a>. Drag and queer performance studies have given rise to understandings of gender as an everyday performance: from the clothes we pick out, to the products we gravitate towards in supermarkets, to our repeated physical and vocal gestures. Drag pokes fun at the gender binary and, in doing so, it aims to blur the boundaries and expose the artificiality of gender roles. While the success of television shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race have established drag as something more accessible and relatable for a range of audiences, the visibility of queerness that comes with drag – especially when moving outside designated queer spaces – is an apparent step too far. But the way drag asks us to question the socially constructed nature of gender offers children a vision of self-determination. You can do what you want to do, you can be who you want to be. The potentiality within the play of drag engages the power of children’s imaginations today to conceive better tomorrows. Philosopher David Harvey refers to moments of “<a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/40603">free play</a>” as fertile ways of exploring and expressing a vast range of ideas, of taking on power structures and social practices, and imagining new possibilities for how we structure and support community. <h2>The insights of the child</h2> In post-plebiscite Australia, the success of targeted campaigns against drag-themed events for children exposes certain conditions around what are “acceptable” encounters of queer expression for children. The all-too-familiar campaign messages that swirled around the marriage debate – “protect the sanctity of marriage”, “protect families” – are rearing up again with only a minor rhetorical shift. The more obvious difference now is that the messages have been co-opted by extreme groups who are targeting individuals and threatening violence. The drag storytime event at the centre of the protests at Monash City Council remains scheduled to take place at Oakleigh Library on May 19. At the time of writing, an online petition to cancel the event has 820 supporters, while another in support of the event has over 3,300 signatures. Perhaps, then, the social temperature is not as heated towards drag performers as recent cancellations suggest. Instead, a minority of vocal and visible dissenters are dictating the rights and freedoms of the majority. The image of a drag performer in relation to a child elicits violent responses for some because it is an image of progress and change and of queer acceptance and love set against a long history of homophobia and transphobia in this country. But there are two figures in this image and one has been kept silent. In debating rights and agency, perhaps it’s time to ask and be guided by the insights of the child. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children-their-agency-is-ignored-in-the-moral-panic-around-drag-storytime-204182" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Caring

Roald Dahl rewrites: rather than bowdlerising books on moral grounds we should help children to navigate history

Although several of his best-known children’s books were first published in the 1960s, Roald Dahl is among the most popular authors for young people today. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/feb/18/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-to-remove-language-deemed-offensive">recent decision</a> by publisher Puffin, in conjunction with The Roald Dahl Story Company, to make several hundred revisions to new editions of his novels has been described as censorship by <a href="https://twitter.com/SalmanRushdie/status/1627075835525210113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1627075835525210113%7Ctwgr%5E8d06cef5296fd1a7eaec37f32baa536178ff5510%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbooks%2F2023%2Ffeb%2F20%2Froald-dahl-books-rewrites-criticism-language-altered">Salman Rushdie</a> and attracted widespread criticism. The changes, recommended by sensitivity readers, include removing or replacing words describing the appearance of characters, and adding gender-neutral language in places. For instance, Augustus Gloop in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is no longer “fat” but “enormous”. Mrs Twit, from The Twits, has become “beastly” rather than “ugly and beastly”. In Matilda, the protagonist no longer reads the works of Rudyard Kipling but Jane Austen. While the term “<a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/roald-dahl-childrens-books-rewritten-to-delete-offensive-fat-ugly-character-references/L53YBV5A2JCPLABB7UI5BVEGL4/">cancel culture</a>” has also been used to describe these editorial changes, there is actually a long history of altering books to meet contemporary expectations of what young people should read. Should we consider children’s literature on a par with adult literature, where altering the author’s original words is roundly condemned? Or do we accept that children’s fiction should be treated differently because it has a role in inducting them into the contemporary world? <h2>Bowdlerising literature</h2> Thomas Bowdler’s <a href="https://archive.org/details/familyshakespear00shakuoft">The Family Shakespeare</a> was published in 1807 and contained 20 of the author’s plays. It removed “words and expressions … which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family”, specifically in front of women and children. “Bowdlerising” has since come to refer to the process of altering literary works on moral grounds, and bowdlerised editions of Shakespeare continued to be used in schools throughout the 20th century. While Shakespeare’s works were not intended specifically for children, the fiction of Enid Blyton is a more recent example of bowdlerisation of works regarded as classics of children’s literature. There have been <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-392400/Row-faster-George-The-PC-meddlers-chasing-us.html">several waves of changes</a> made to her books in the past four decades, including to The Faraway Tree and The Famous Five series. While Blyton’s fiction is often regarded as formulaic and devoid of literary value, attempts to modernise names and remove references to corporal punishment, for example, nevertheless upset adults who were nostalgic for the books and wished to share them with children and grandchildren. <h2>How is children’s literature different?</h2> Children’s literature implicitly shapes the minds of child readers by presenting particular social and cultural values as normal and natural. The term we use for this process within the study of children’s literature is “socialisation”. People do not view literature for adults as directly forming how they think in this way, even if certain books might be seen as obscene or morally repugnant. While many people are outraged at the overt censorship of Dahl’s novels, there are several layers of covert censorship that impact on the production of all children’s books. Children’s authors know that certain content and language will prevent their book from being published. Publishers are aware that controversial topics, such as sex and gender identity, may see books excluded from libraries and school curriculums, or targeted for protest. Librarians and teachers may select, or refuse to select, books because of the potential for complaint, or because of their own political beliefs. Several of Dahl’s books have previously been the subject of adult attempts to rewrite or <a href="https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/decade1999">ban them</a>. Most notably, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (1964) was partially rewritten by Dahl in 1973 after <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/roald-dahls-anti-black-racism/">pressure from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People</a> and children’s literature professionals. Dahl’s original Oompa Loompas were “a tribe of tiny miniature pygmies” whom Willy Wonka “discovered” and “brought over from Africa” to work in his factory for no payment other than cacao beans. While Dahl vehemently denied that the novel depicted Black people negatively, he revised the book. The Oompa Loompas then became residents of “Loompaland” with “golden-brown hair” and “rosy-white skin”. <h2>Historical children’s books today</h2> Children’s literature scholar Phil Nel suggests in <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Was_the_Cat_in_the_Hat_Black/WDoqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=was+the+cat+in+the+hat+black&printsec=frontcover">Was the Cat in the Hat Black? The Hidden Racism of Children’s Literature and the Need for Diverse Books</a> that we have three options when deciding how to treat books containing language and ideas that would not appear in titles published today. First, we can consider these books as “cultural artefacts” with historical significance, but which we discourage children from reading. This option works as a covert form of censorship, given the power adults hold over what books children can access. Second, we can permit children only to read bowdlerised versions of these books, like those recently issued by Dahl’s publisher. This undermines the principle that literary works are valuable cultural objects, which must remain unchanged. In addition, revising occasional words will usually not shift the values now regarded as outdated in the text, only make it harder to identify and question them. Third, we can allow children to read any version of a book, original or bowdlerised. This option allows for the possibility of child readers who might resist the book’s intended meaning. It also enables discussion of topics such as racism and sexism with parents and educators, more easily achieved if the original language remains intact. While Nel favours this approach, he also acknowledges that refusing to alter texts may still be troubling for segments of the readership (for example, Black children reading editions of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn in which the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable">N-word has not been removed</a>). Dahl’s novel Matilda emphasises the power of books to enrich and transform the lives of children, while also acknowledging their intelligence as readers. Although many aspects of the fictional past do not accord with the ideal version of the world we might wish to present to children, as adults we can help them to navigate that history, rather than hoping we can rewrite it. Images: Getty <em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/roald-dahl-rewrites-rather-than-bowdlerising-books-on-moral-grounds-we-should-help-children-to-navigate-history-200254" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Books

What are Iran’s morality police?

Until recently, most people outside of Iran had never heard of the country’s morality police, let alone followed their wider role in the region. But on Sept. 16, 2022, the death of Jina Mahsa Amini <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/16/iranian-woman-dies-after-moral-polices-detention-reports" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sparked widespread protests</a> in the streets of Iran and elsewhere that have shown no signs of abating. Amini had been in the custody of Gasht-e-Ershad, the Persian name of this notorious police force, for “improper wearing of hijab.” On Dec. 4, reports citing <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/middleeast/iran-morality-police-mime-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Iran’s Attorney General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri</a> suggested that the morality police had been abolished. Montazeri said that the morality police lacked judiciary power and that hijab <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/04/middleeast/iran-hijab-law-under-review-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">laws were under review</a>, which led to widespread speculation about whether the regime was trying to find a way forward. Yet, there were those who doubted the comments and called it a “false flag” on the part of those in power. A <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/06/iran-morality-police-abolished-hijab/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">few noted that even if the morality police</a> were abolished and the mandatory wearing of the hijab repealed, the regime would still need to be held accountable for all of its human rights violations. These sentiments have formed the basis of <a href="https://www.iranintl.com/en/202212052265" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a three-day nationwide strike</a> that began on Dec. 5 and has shuttered thousands of shops, including those in the historic Grand Bazaar in the heart of Tehran, bringing the economy of the country to a grinding halt. But who are the morality police? Where did they come from? And what is their history during and before the Islamic Republic of Iran? <h2>A vice squad in context</h2> The mandate and power of morality police date back to before the Islamic Revolution that shook Iran in 1979, and their reach has extended throughout the Middle East. The Quran says that it is imperative that religious leaders “<a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/09/26/who-are-irans-hated-morality-police?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7bucBhCeARIsAIOwr-9ss672dmAmOubJUK8cfBd-COZDQcHn2oAQSSxpeCm_HDaJkuoiq8caAoDdEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ensure right and forbid wrong</a>.” To carry this out, beginning at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, public morals were overseen by market inspectors referred <a href="https://islamicmarkets.com/dictionary/a/al-muhtasib" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to as muhtasib</a>. As <a href="https://www.pardismahdavi.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a scholar of gender and feminism</a> in the Middle East, I’ve studied the long history of debates about the role of Islam in regulating morality. The earliest evidence of a muhtasib, interestingly, was a woman selected in Medina by the prophet himself. Over the centuries, the mandate of the muhtasib became focused on regulating dress, particularly for women. While these market inspectors were recorded as issuing fines and occasional lashings, they did not have the same <a href="https://newlinesmag.com/argument/the-dubious-roots-of-religious-police-in-islam/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">level of authority as the judiciary</a>. By the early 20th century, however, the muhtasibs had transitioned into the vice squads, patrolling the streets to make sure people were complying with Islamic values. It was mostly in Saudi Arabia under the influence of Wahhabism that morality police forces first gained prominence and momentum. <a href="https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1053195.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The first modern morality police force</a>, an official committee charged with “commanding right and forbidding wrong,” was formed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1926. Comprised mostly of men, the force was charged with enforcing modest dress, regulating heterosocializing – engagement with members of the opposite sex if unmarried or unrelated – and ensuring citizens attended prayer. By 2012, more than one-third of the 56 countries making up The Organization for Islamic Cooperation <a href="https://themedialine.org/news/iran-is-not-the-only-country-with-morality-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">had some form of religiously informed </a> squadrons seeking to uphold right and forbid wrong as interpreted by Islamists in power. <h2>A committee to enact revolution</h2> In Iran, the morality police first appeared in the form of what was called the “<a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100041983" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Islamic Revolution Committee</a>” following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Shiite cleric who led the revolution, wanted to control the behavior of Iranian citizens after too many years of what he and his fellow Islamists called a period of “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/162924" target="_blank" rel="noopener">secular Westoxication</a>.” The Islamic Revolution Committee, called “Komiteh” by many Iranians, was merged in the 1980s with the <a href="https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gendarmerie" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gendarmerie</a>, the first rural police force overseeing modern highways, to form the Law Enforcement Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 1983, when mandatory veiling laws were passed, the Komiteh was tasked with ensuring these laws were upheld in addition to their other duties of ensuring right and forbidding wrong. <h2>A changing time</h2> The current morality police – the Guidance Patrol or Gasht-e-Ershad – were given formal standing as an arm of the police force by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. The group had been steadily growing in size since the 1980s, and by 2005 consisted of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36101150" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more than 7,000 officers</a>. Women make up less than a quarter of the squadron but frequently accompany their male counterparts, who often arrive in unmarked vans and pour out into the streets in green uniforms. The women, meanwhile, wear black cloaks that cover them from head to toe. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Komiteh was comprised of religiously devout followers of the regime who joined the force at the encouragement of <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/who-are-irans-morality-police/a-63200711#:%7E:text=%22Gasht%2De%2DErshad%2C,mandatory%20in%20Iran%20in%201983" target="_blank" rel="noopener">clerics</a>. However, by the early 2000s, Iran’s population was comprised mostly of young people. When Ahmadinejad made the Komiteh an official police force, a number of young men joined to fulfill their <a href="https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/iran/2022/12/05/who-are-irans-morality-police-and-what-do-they-enforce/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mandatory military conscription</a>. This younger generation was more lax than their older counterparts, <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=15943" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leading to inconsistent patrolling</a>. When President Ebrahim Raisi came to power in 2021, he emboldened the morality police to engage in <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/10/iran-protests-hijab-mahsa-amini-morality-police-ebrahim-raisi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">harsh crackdowns on the Iranian populace</a>, particularly in the cities. Raisi, like Khomeini and other clerics, used this vice squad to send a message to Iranian citizens that the regime is watching. This clampdown, particularly when it led to the death of Amini, has been met with outrage by a large number of Iranians. While it is not yet confirmed whether or not the morality police have been disbanded, protesters are continuing to press the regime for change.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196023/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-irans-morality-police-a-scholar-of-the-middle-east-explains-their-history-196023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty

Legal

Moral injury: what happens when exhausted health workers can no longer provide the care they want for their patients

Healthcare workers in New Zealand already face life-and-death decisions daily. But as multiple winter illnesses add pressure to a system already stretched by COVID, staff now also have to deal with <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-democracy-reporting/300534812/covid19-union-and-frontline-worker-say-staff-at-middlemore-hospital-facing-increasing-abuse" target="_blank" rel="noopener">daily abuse</a>, acute <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/05/christchurch-hospital-cancels-surgeries-as-it-hits-112-pct-capacity.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">staff shortages</a> and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/06/17/dhb-clashes-with-union-over-stretched-palmerston-north-ed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unsafe working conditions</a>. At times, they cannot provide the care they would like for their patients. The impact on health workers is often described as <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily-post/news/great-minds-health-workers-on-covid-19-frontlines-burnt-and-bled-by-two-years-of-virus/T7JXOXGXEKKCICUNOMUJYT4QWM/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stress and burnout</a>. The consequences of this prolonged pressure can be seen in the number of <a href="https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/acem-welcomes-111b-health-nz-budget-urges-fixes-health-workforce-crisis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">doctors</a>, <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nursing-shortage-nurses-broken-while-sector-faces-thousands-of-vacancies/L7NUXOPG4AB472OKXOH5QJSUMU/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nurses</a> and other <a href="https://capsulenz.com/be/therapist-shortage-nz/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">health professionals</a> leaving their jobs for overseas positions and the private sector, or being lost to their professions completely. Many of these healthcare workers may well be suffering from a more serious form of psychological distress than burnout: moral injury. <a href="https://www.phoenixaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Moral-Stress-Healthcare-Workers-COVID-19-Guide-to-Moral-Injury.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Moral injury</a> refers to the psychological, social and spiritual impact of events on a person who holds strong values (such as caring for patients) and operates in high-stakes situations (hospital emergency care), but has to act in a way inconsistent with those values. Examples include having to turn patients away despite them being in pain or discomfort; being unable to provide adequate care due to staff shortages; having to care for a dying patient isolated from their loved ones while wearing full protective gear. Symptoms of moral injury can include strong feelings of guilt and shame (about not being able to uphold healthcare values, for example) as well as high levels of anger and contempt towards the system that prevents proper care. High levels of self-criticism, loss of trust in people and organisations and a weakening of personal relationships are further <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00113-9/fulltext" target="_blank" rel="noopener">symptoms</a> of moral injury. It can be viewed as a <a href="https://www.afta.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Physicians-aren%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98burning-out.%E2%80%99-They%E2%80%99re-suffering-from-moral-injury..pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more severe form of burnout</a>. But while burnout can happen in most workplaces, moral injury requires the three core components listed above. From war to the operating table The term moral injury arose in <a href="https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">military psychology</a> to refer to situations where, for example, soldiers were unable to intervene to save lives in case they risked breaching the rules of engagement. More recently, the term has been adapted to apply to healthcare. Viewing the experiences of health workers through this lens can help us understand why they may experience a seesawing emotional state and the confusing conflict of simultaneously wanting to be at work while wishing they were anywhere but. For healthcare workers, understanding the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6752815/#:%7E:text=Over%20time%2C%20these%20repetitive%20insults,is%20in%20some%20way%20deficient" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concept of moral injury</a> may help reframe it as something that is happening to them rather than because they don’t have the skills to cope. The latter can sometimes be a mistaken implication of the term burnout. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/471254/original/file-20220627-22-u7c2tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Exhausted nurse" /><figcaption>Staff shortages can take health workers beyond exhaustion and burnout. Getty Images</figcaption></figure> While healthcare workers are largely at the mercy of the organisations they work for, there are some steps individuals can take to alleviate moral injury. Firstly, simply recognising they may be suffering from this condition can reduce confusion and validate their experiences. Secondly, reconnecting back to an individual’s values and beliefs can help refocus and re-energise, at least temporarily. Reminding themselves why they got into this job in the first place is a useful place to start. Organisational responses Organisations and businesses must play a lead role in preventing and treating moral injury. Many of the factors leading to it (lack of resources or staff, a pandemic or peak flu season) are outside the control of individuals. Most modern businesses will be aware they have a legal responsibility under the 2015 <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Health and Safety at Work Act</a> to look after their employees’ mental and physical well-being. At a high level, organisations can advocate for systemic change and increases in funding and resourcing, where needed. But these higher-level changes take time to achieve. In the meantime, it is important healthcare workers are protected and supported. Broad steps an organisation can take to prevent or reduce moral injury include removing the burden of difficult ethical decisions from frontline workers and instead adopting evidence-based policies to guide an organisation-wide response. Where possible, rotating staff between high and low-stress environments may help. Providing funding for workers to access professional psychological supervision is another practical step businesses can consider. At a team level, it can be helpful to have leaders who are visible, validating and can help make sense of the moral conflict. Leaders can also play a role in keeping alive professional values and modelling their own struggles with the situation. The general public also has a role to play in supporting healthcare workers. Any steps we can take to protect our own health and thereby reduce pressure on the system can have a cumulative effect on the well-being of doctors, nurses and allied health clinicians. The health of our nation rests with those who work in this field and it is in all our interest that their health is protected and prioritised.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185485/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dougal-sutherland-747623" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dougal Sutherland</a>, Clinical Psychologist, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/te-herenga-waka-victoria-university-of-wellington-1200" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/moral-injury-what-happens-when-exhausted-health-workers-can-no-longer-provide-the-care-they-want-for-their-patients-185485" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Caring

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Massive protests unfolded in Glasgow outside the United Nations climate summit <a href="https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/11/net-zero-is-not-zero-carbon-offsetting-focus-at-cop26-under-criticism/">last week</a>, with some activists <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cop26/cop26-indigenous-carbon-protests-video-v417423df">denouncing</a> a proposal to expand the use of a controversial climate action measure to meet net-zero targets: carbon offsetting. Offsetting <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">refers to</a> reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere in one place to balance emissions made in another. So far, more than 130 countries have committed to the net zero by 2050 goal, but none is proposing to be completely emissions free by that date – all are relying on forms of offsetting. The use of offsets in meeting climate obligations has been <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/50429/offsets-taskforce-hit-protests-cop26/">rejected by climate activists</a> as a “scam”. Swedish climate campaigner <a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1455904676227002375?s=20">Greta Thunberg</a>, joining the protesters, claimed relying on buying offsets to cut emissions would give polluters “a free pass to keep polluting”. Others, however, argue offsetting has a legitimate role to play in our transition to a low-carbon future. A <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/towards-net-zero-practical-policies-to-offset-carbon-emissions/">recent report</a> by Australia’s Grattan Institute, for example, claimed that done <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">with integrity</a>, carbon offsets will be crucial to reaching net zero in sectors such as agriculture and aviation, for which full elimination of emissions is infeasible. So who’s in the right? We think the answer depends on the kind of offsetting that is being employed. Some forms of offsetting can be a legitimate way of helping to reach net zero, while others are morally dubious. <h2>Climate change as a moral issue</h2> The debate over offsetting is part of a key agenda item for COP26 – establishing the rules for global carbon trading, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-cop26-climate-summit-continues-attention-turns-to-carbon-markets/">known as Article 6</a> of the Paris Agreement. The trading scheme will allow countries to purchase emissions reductions from overseas to count towards their own climate action. To examine carbon offsetting in a moral context, we should first remember what makes our contributions to CO₂ emissions morally problematic. <iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHLVDlb6rCU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> The emissions from human activity increase the risks of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/chapter-1-overview-of-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability-to-climate-change/">climate change-related harms</a> such as dangerous weather events – storms, fires, floods, heatwaves, and droughts – and the prevalence of serious diseases and malnutrition. The more we humans emit, the more we contribute to global warming, and the greater the risks of harm to the most vulnerable people. Climate change is a moral issue because of the question this invites on behalf of those people: <blockquote> Why are you adding to global warming, when it risks harming us severely? </blockquote> Not having a good answer to that question is what makes our contribution to climate change seriously wrong. <h2>The two ways to offset emissions</h2> The moral case in favour of offsetting is it gives us an answer to that question. If we can match our emissions with a corresponding amount of offsetting, then can’t we say we’re making no net addition to global warming, and therefore imposing no risk of harm on anyone? Well, that depends on what kind of offsetting we’re doing. Offsetting comes in two forms, which are morally quite different. The first kind of offsetting involves removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Planting trees or other vegetation is one way of doing this, provided the CO₂ that’s removed does not then re-enter the atmosphere later, for example as a result of deforestation. Another way would be through the development of <a href="https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/net-zero/negative-emissions-why-what-how">negative emissions technologies</a>, which envisage ways to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it permanently. The second form is offsetting by paying for emissions reduction. This involves ensuring someone else puts less CO₂ into the atmosphere than they otherwise would have. For example, one company might pay another company to reduce its emissions, with the first claiming this reduction as an offset against its own emissions. Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator issues <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">Australian Carbon Credit Units</a> for “eligible offsets projects”. These include for projects of offsetting by emissions reduction. The regulator certifies that a company, for example, installing more efficient technology “deliver abatement that is additional to what would occur in the absence of the project”. Another company whose activities send CO₂ into the atmosphere, such as a coal-fired power station, can then buy these credits to offset its emissions. <h2>So what’s the problem?</h2> There is a crucial difference between these <a href="https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/">two forms of offsetting</a>. When you offset in the first way – taking as much CO₂ out of the atmosphere as you put in – you can indeed say you’re not adding to global warming. That’s not to say even this form of offsetting is problem-free. It’s crucial such offsets are properly validated and are part of a transition plan to cleaner energy generation compatible with everyone reaching net zero together. Tree-planting cannot be a complete solution, because we could simply <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-arent-enough-trees-in-the-world-to-offset-societys-carbon-emissions-and-there-never-will-be-158181">run out of places</a> to plant them. But when you offset in the second way, you cannot say you’re not adding to global warming at all. What you’re doing is paying someone else not to add to global warming, while adding to it yourself. The difference between the two forms of offsetting is like the difference between a mining company releasing mercury into the groundwater while simultaneously cleaning the water to restore the mercury concentration to safe levels, and a mining company paying another not to release mercury into the groundwater and then doing so itself. The first can be a legitimate way of negating the risk you impose. The second is a way of imposing risk in someone else’s stead. Let’s use a few simple analogies to illustrate this further. In morality and law, we cannot justify injuring someone by claiming we had previously paid someone who was about to injure that same person not to do so. The same is true when it comes to the imposition of risk. If I take a high speed joyride through a heavily populated area, I cannot claim I pose no risk on people nearby simply because I had earlier paid my neighbour not to take a joyride along the same route. Had I not induced my neighbour not to take the joyride, he would’ve had to answer for the risk he imposed. When I do so in his place, I am the one who must answer for that risk. In our desperate attempt to stop the world warming beyond the internationally agreed limit of 1.5℃, we need to encourage whatever reduces the climate impacts of human activity. If selling carbon credits is an effective way to achieve this, we should do it, creating incentives for emissions reductions as well as emissions removals. What we cannot do is claim that inducing others to reduce emissions gives us a moral license to emit in their place.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171295/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christian-barry-14000">Christian Barry</a>, Professor of Philosophy at the ANU, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/garrett-cullity-1287732">Garrett Cullity</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-business-greenwash-or-a-climate-saviour-carbon-offsets-raise-tricky-moral-questions-171295">original article</a>. Image: EPA/Robert Perry

International Travel

How the moral lessons of To Kill a Mockingbird endure today

Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the classics of American literature. Never out of print, the novel has sold over 40 million copies since it was first published in 1960. It has been a staple of high school syllabuses, including in Australia, for several decades, and is often deemed the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2017/02/21/australian-kill-mockingbird-makes-it-big-screen-indigenous-actor">archetypal race and coming-of-age novel</a>. For many of us, it is a formative read of our youth. The story is set in the sleepy Alabama town of Maycomb in 1936 - 40 years after the Supreme Court’s notorious declaration of the races as being <a href="http://time.com/4326692/plessy-ferguson-history-120/">“separate but equal”</a>, and 28 years before the enactment of the <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act">Civil Rights Act</a>. Our narrator is nine-year-old tomboy, Scout Finch, who relays her observations of her family’s struggle to deal with the class and racial prejudice shown towards the local African American community. At the centre of the family and the novel stands the highly principled lawyer Atticus Finch. A widower, he teaches Scout, her older brother Jem, and their imaginative friend Dill, how to live and behave honourably. In this he is aided by the family’s hardworking and sensible black housekeeper Calpurnia, and their kind and generous neighbour, Miss Maudie. It is Miss Maudie, for example, who explains to Scout why it is a sin to kill a mockingbird: “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s gardens, don’t nest in corncribs, they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us.” Throughout the novel, the children grow more aware of the community’s attitudes. When the book begins they are preoccupied with catching sight of the mysterious and much feared Boo Radley, who in his youth stabbed his father with a pair of scissors and who has never come out of the family house since. And when Atticus agrees to defend Tom Robinson, a black man who is falsely accused of raping a white woman, they too become the target of hatred. A morality tale for modern America One might expect a book that dispatches moral lessons to be dull reading. But To Kill a Mockingbird is no sermon. The lessons are presented in a seemingly effortless style, all the while tackling the complexity of race issues with startling clarity and a strong sense of reality. As the Finches return from Robinson’s trial, Miss Maudie says: “as I waited I thought, Atticus Finch won’t win, he can’t win, but he’s the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like that.” Despite the tragedy of Robinson’s conviction, Atticus succeeds in making the townspeople consider and struggle with their prejudice. <iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOocTXKPVVU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> Atticus Finch delivers his closing statement in the trial of Tom Robinson in the 1962 film. The effortlessness of the writing owes much to the way the story is told. The narrator is a grown Scout, looking back on her childhood. When she begins her story, she seems more interested in telling us about the people and incidents that occupied her six-year-old imagination. Only slowly does she come to the events that changed everything for her and Jem, which were set in motion long before their time. Even then, she tells these events in a way that shows she too young to always grasp their significance. The lessons Lee sets out are encapsulated in episodes that are as funny as they are serious, much like Aesop’s Fables. A case in point is when the children return home from the school concert with Scout still dressed in her outlandish ham costume. In the dark they are chased and attacked by Bob Ewell the father of the woman whom Robinson allegedly raped. Ewell, armed with a knife, attempts to stab Scout, but the shapeless wire cage of the ham causes her to loose balance and the knife to go astray. In the struggle that ensues someone pulls Ewell off the teetering body of Scout and he falls on the knife. It was Boo Radley who saved her. Another lesson about what it means to be truly brave is delivered in an enthralling episode where a local farmer’s dog suddenly becomes rabid and threatens to infect all the townsfolk with his deadly drool. Scout and Jem are surprised when their bespectacled, bookish father turns out to have a “God-given talent” with a rifle; it is he who fires the single shot that will render the townsfolk safe. The children rejoice at what they consider an impressive display of courage. However, he tells them that what he did was not truly brave. The better example of courage, he tells them, is Mrs Dubose (the “mean” old lady who lived down the road), who managed to cure herself of a morphine addiction even as she was dying a horribly painful death from cancer. He also teaches them the importance of behaving in a civilised manner, even when subjected to insults. Most of all Atticus teaches the children the importance of listening to one’s conscience even when everyone else holds a contrary view: “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule”, he says, “is a person’s conscience.” The continuing value in Atticus’ belief in the importance of principled thinking in the world of <a href="https://www.economist.com/prospero/2016/02/22/how-to-kill-a-mockingbird-shaped-race-relations-in-america">Black Lives Matter</a> and the Australian government’s rhetoric of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2018/jan/18/the-african-gang-crisis-has-been-brewing-in-australias-media-for-years">“African gangs”</a>, is clear. Atticus’ spiel on “conscience” and the other ethical principles he insists on living by, are key to the enduring influence of the novel. It conjures an ideal of moral standards and human behaviour that many people still aspire to today, even though the novel’s events and the characters belong to the past. Lee herself was not one to shy away from principled displays: writing to a school that banned her novel, she summed up the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harper-lee-letter-to-a-school-board-trying-to-ban-mockingbird-2016-2?IR=T">source of the morality</a> her book expounds. The novel, she said, “spells out in words of seldom more than two syllables a code of honor and conduct”. Fame and obscurity When first published the novel received <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-harper-lee-to-kill-a-mockingbird-1960-review-20160219-story.html">rave reviews</a>. A year later it won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature, followed by a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/04/19/to-kill-a-mockingbird-film-review/">movie version</a> in 1962 starring <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vouoju4mETc">Gregory Peck</a>. Indeed, the novel was such a success that Lee, unable to cope with all the attention and publicity, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/go-set-a-watchman/why-harper-lee-kept-her-silence-for-55-years/">retired into obscurity</a>. Interviewed late in life, Lee cited two reasons for her continued silence: “I wouldn’t go through the pressure and publicity I went through with To Kill a Mockingbird for any amount of money. Second, I have said what I wanted to say, and I will not say it again.” The latter statement is doubtless a reference to the autobiographical nature of her book. Lee passed her <a href="http://time.com/4234210/harper-lee-childhood/">childhood</a> in the rural town of Monroeville in the deep south, where her attorney father defended two black men accused of killing a shopkeeper. The accused were convicted and hanged. Undoubtedly influenced by these formative events, the biographical fiction Lee drew out of her family history became yet more complex upon the publication of her only other novel, Go Set a Watchman, in 2016. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2016/jun/05/go-set-a-watchman-by-harper-lee-review">Critics panned it</a> it for lacking the light touch and humour of the first novel. They also decried the fact that the character of Atticus Finch was this time around a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/books/review-harper-lees-go-set-a-watchman-gives-atticus-finch-a-dark-side.html">racist bigot</a>, a feature that had the potential to taint the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/19/go-set-a-watchman-harper-lee-legacy-to-kill-a-mockingbird">author’s legacy</a>. Subsequent biographical research revealed that Go Set A Watchman, was not a sequel, but the first draft of To Kill a Mockingbird. Following initial rejection by the publisher Lippincot, Lee reworked it into the superior novel many of us know and still love today. Lee gave us the portrait of one small town in the south during the depression years. But it was so filled with lively detail, and unforgettable characters with unforgettable names like Atticus, Scout, Calpurnia and Boo Radley that a universal story emerged, and with it the novel’s continuing popularity.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100763/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anne-maxwell-179443">Anne Maxwell</a>, Assoc. Professor, School of Culture and Communication, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722">University of Melbourne</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-moral-lessons-of-to-kill-a-mockingbird-endure-today-100763">original article</a>.

Books

Think twice before shouting your virtues online – moral grandstanding is toxic

In an era of <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/">bitter partisanship</a>, political infighting and ostracization of those with unpopular views, Americans actually agree on one thing: 85% say political discourse has <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/06/19/public-highly-critical-of-state-of-political-discourse-in-the-u-s/">gotten worse</a> over the last several years, according to Pew Research. The polarization plays out everywhere in society, from private <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/1020.abstract?casa_token=Yb133_AzCpMAAAAA:ZMcbATlk9eAcLsb2E9fao5vWNeyHOIk9FrD3lp90VfABSuLotEGksH6dYkof1oG_g8bLbPraifH6bw">holiday gatherings</a>to very public <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0213-3">conversations on social media</a>, where debate is particularly toxic and aggressive. For <a href="https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=gCnmj3kAAAAJ&hl=en">psychologists like myself</a>, who study human behavior, this widespread nastiness is both a social problem and a research opportunity. My colleagues and I have zeroed in on one specific aspect that might help explain America’s dysfunctional discourse: moral grandstanding. Moral grandstanding The term may be unfamiliar, but most people have experienced <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/papa.12075">moral grandstanding</a>. Examples of moral grandstanding include when a friend makes grand and extreme proclamations on Twitter about their deepest held values regarding climate change, for instance, and when a campaigning politician makes bold – but clearly untrue – ideological claims about immigration. Philosophers coined the phrase to describe the <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/grandstanding-9780190900151?cc=us&lang=en&">abuse of so-called “moral talk”</a> – an <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00382019">umbrella term</a> encompassing all conversations humans have about our politics, beliefs, values and morals. Usually, people engage in moral talk to learn from, connect with or <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/grandstanding-9780190900151">persuade</a> someone else. They might say of their decision not to eat any animal products, for example, “I am vegan for environmental and animal rights reasons.” Moral grandstanding occurs when people use moral talk, instead, to promote themselves or seek status. So a moral grandstander might say, “I am vegan because it is the only moral decision. If you care about the planet, you can’t eat animal products.” For moral grandstanders, conversation is a means to an end – not a free exchange of ideas. A desire for respect from our peers is <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2015-11715-001.html">normal in humans</a>, as are the desires for safety, love and belonging. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/1943-03751-001.pdf">Social scientists</a> have traced the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513800000714">evolutionary origins</a> of status seeking to prehistoric times. Moral grandstanding, however, is a special kind of status seeking. It implies that someone is using conversations about important or controversial topics solely to get attention or impress others. Severed ties and broken relationships Just because someone touts their virtues – whether on Twitter or in conversation – does not mean they are morally superior to everyone else. In a <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223749">recently published study</a> conducted with a team of other psychologists and philosophers, we asked 6,000 Americans a series of questions about who and why they share their deepest moral and political beliefs with. People who reported sharing beliefs to gain respect, admiration or status were identified as grandstanders. Almost everyone indicated they had some history of grandstanding, but only a few – 2% to 5% – indicated they primarily used their moral talk to promote themselves. We found that moral grandstanders were more likely to experience discord in their personal lives. People who reported grandstanding more often also reported more experiences arguing with loved ones and severing ties with friends or family members over political or moral disagreements. People who indicated using their deepest held beliefs to boost their own status in real life also reported more toxic social media behaviors, picking fights over politics on Facebook, for example, and berating strangers on Twitter for having the “wrong” opinions. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/grandstanding-9780190900151?cc=us&lang=en&">Philosophical accounts of grandstanding</a> strongly suggest that moral grandstanders behave less morally than other people in other ways, too. They are more likely to rudely call others out for not being virtuous enough, systematically disparage entire groups of people and hijack important conversations to serve their own purposes. When the natural human desire for respect leads people to seek status in situations when they would be better served by listening, it seems, this behavior can drive friends, family and communities apart. Other reasons for discord The rise of moral grandstanding isn’t the only reason discourse in the United States has taken a turn for the worse. Politics have grown extraordinarily <a href="https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/80/S1/272/2223255">polarized</a>, which is both a cause and effect of social polarization. Politically active people feel <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034">more animosity</a> and <a href="https://democracy.psu.edu/research/mood-of-the-nation-poll-1/americans-not-only-divided-but-baffled-by-what-motivates-their-opponents">less trust</a> toward “the other side” than they have in generations. Social media itself seems to <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/pz9g6">accelerate conflict</a>, creating <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-fires-peoples-passions-and-builds-extremist-divisions-86909">echo chambers</a> of likeminded people that are galvanized against others and driving <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0213-3">cycles of outrage</a> that quickly escalate and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661318302638?via%3Dihub">stifle public participation</a> in important conversations. So ending moral grandstanding won’t magically fix the public debate in the United States. But tamping it down would lead the country in a more productive direction. How to handle moral grandstanding Consider assessing your own conversation style, reflecting about what you say to others and why. When you enter into contentious territory with someone who differs in opinion, ask whether you’re doing so because you’re genuinely interested in communicating and connecting with your fellow human – or are you just trying to score points? Thinking honestly about your engagement on social media – ground zero for moral grandstanding – is particularly important. Do you post controversial material just for likes and retweets? Do you share social media posts of people you disagree with just to publicly mock them? Do you find yourself trying to one-up the good deeds of someone else to make yourself look good to people whose respect you crave? If so, then you may be a moral grandstander. If not, you can still fight moral grandstanding by recognizing and dissuading these behaviors in others. Given that moral grandstanders crave status, respect and esteem from others, depriving them of the attention they seek is probably the best deterrent. Written by Joshua B. Grubbs. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-twice-before-shouting-your-virtues-online-moral-grandstanding-is-toxic-128493">The Conversation.</a>

Caring

Prince William booed and jeered at Westminster Abby: “Morally repugnant”

Prince William has been jeered at while attending an event that marks 50 years since the launch of UK’s nuclear submarines. Alongside the new Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt on Friday, protestors shouted “shame on you and “down with war” outside Westminster Abbey. The 36-year-old royal is the Commodore-in-Chief of the Submarine Service and attended the event to recognise the UK commitment to maintaining Operation Relentless – a feat aimed at making sure British submarines continue to be the best in the world. The operation is the longest mission running in the history of the armed forces. Activists from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) stood across the road from the Abbey, booing the Duke who attended the event. The event was shared by the royal family’s official Instagram account where the caption read: “The Duke of Cambridge attended a Service at @WestminsterAbbeyLondon to recognise fifty years of continuous deterrent at sea, in his capacity as Commodore-in-Chief of the @RoyalNavy Submarine Service. “The service recognised the commitment of the Royal Navy to effective peace-keeping through the deterrent over the past fifty years and to pray for peace throughout the world.” <blockquote style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/BxAVheel6jb/" data-instgrm-version="12"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BxAVheel6jb/" target="_blank">A post shared by Kensington Palace (@kensingtonroyal)</a> on May 3, 2019 at 8:22am PDT </div> </blockquote> The group were pinned back by security as they shouted various chants. Protesters labelled the celebration of these “weapons of mass destruction” as “morally repugnant.” “This sends out a terrible message to the world about our country. It says that here in Britain we celebrate weapons, in a place of worship, that can kill millions of people,” the CND said. <img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7826497/anti-nuclear-activist2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/5f089d1e08e84bb2ab0384fda46a1bcf" /> 29-year-old protestor, Omar Ahmed, shouted alongside other protestors from outside the event. “It’s quite disgraceful that those most senior in society don’t realise the damage of what nuclear weapons can do,” he later told the <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1122701/Royal-news-Prince-wiliam-kate-middleton-westminster-abbey" target="_blank">Express.</a> For over 50 years, since 1969, at least one UK ballistic missile submarine has been on patrol beneath the ocean’s surface. The Dean of Westminster, Reverend Dr John Hall, said he had received a number of phone calls and messages the night before the event urging him to cancel it. However, he stressed the service was to honour peace, not violence. “I have been asked repeatedly whether this service was meant to be a celebration of nuclear weapons, or an act of thanksgiving,” he said. “We can’t celebrate weapons of mass destruction, but we do owe a debt of gratitude and sincere thanks to all those countless men and women, some represented here today, who in the past 50 years have maintained a deterrent, and indeed to their families, who have stood by them. “Those countless men and women played their part, a vital part, in maintaining peace.” Prince William gave a reading during the service and attended wearing a dark suit with the Queen’s Golden Jubilee medal and Diamond Jubilee medal pinned to it.

News

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Won’t somebody please think of the children? Their agency is ignored in the moral panic around drag storytime

Roald Dahl rewrites: rather than bowdlerising books on moral grounds we should help children to navigate history

What are Iran’s morality police?

Moral injury: what happens when exhausted health workers can no longer provide the care they want for their patients

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

How the moral lessons of To Kill a Mockingbird endure today

Think twice before shouting your virtues online – moral grandstanding is toxic

Prince William booed and jeered at Westminster Abby: “Morally repugnant”